Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/05/20031. Call to Order MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 5, 2003, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. April21,2003 5. Public Hearings None New Business a. Dearborn Meadow East (Castle Avenue) 1. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Revision 2. Preliminary Plat Revision Unfinished Business a. County Road D Extension Right-of-Way Study (Hazelwood to Highway 61) 1. Alignment Study and Options 2. Storm Water and Wetland Study b. South Maplewood Sanitary Sewer Study c. Hillcrest Village Mixed Use Standards - Subdivision Requirements 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations a. Apd128 Council Meeting: Mr. Mueller b. May 12 Council Meeting: Mr. Ledvina c. May 27 Council Meeting: Ms. Diedch 10. Staff Presentations a. Annual Tour - June 30, 2003? 11. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, MAY 5, 2003 I. CALLTO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. I1. ROLL CALL Commissioner Tushar Desai Absent Commissioner Mary Dierich Present Commissioner Lorraine Fischer Present Commissioner Matt Ledvina Present until 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Jackie Monahan-Junek Absent Commissioner Paul Mueller Present Commissioner Gary Pearson Absent Commissioner William Rossbach Present Commissioner Dale Trippler Present Staff Present: Melinda Coleman, Assistant City Manager Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary II1. APPROVAL OFAGENDA Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Dierich seconded. Ayes- Dierich, Fischer, Ledvina, Mueller, Rossbach, Trippler The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the planning commission minutes for April 21,2003. Commissioner Rossbach moved to approve the planning commission minutes for April 21,2003. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes- Dierich, Fischer, Ledvina, Mueller, Rossbach, Trippler V. PUBLIC HEARING None. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-05-03 -2- VI. NEW BUSINESS a. Dearborn Meadow East (Castle Avenue) Mr. Roberts said Mr. Pat Kinney is proposing revisions to the approved Dearborn Meadow town house development. In 2002, the city approved plans for Dearborn Meadows with nine town houses (in four twin homes and one single unit). The approval for the nine units was for a 2.11- acre site. The revised plan now has a total of 15 town houses (in seven twin homes and one single unit) on a 3.58-acre site on the south side of Castle Avenue, north of Cope Avenue. The applicant has applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for the 15-unit housing development. They are requesting the CUP revision for the PUD because of expanded project size and for the proposed lot widths and lot sizes. The developer is proposing a small lot around each dwelling unit. A homeowners' association would own and maintain the rest of the land, including the private driveway. Exchanging the common land for larger lot sizes would not change the location, design or number of units in this development. In this case, the proposal would have 15 town house units in eight buildings. 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 city requirements would normally allow. The developer intends to sell each of the townhomes and expects that each unit will sell for at least $249,000. Commissioner Ledvina said on the front page of the staff report in the bottom paragraph, it states the CDRB denied the 10-unit proposal on May 23, 2003. He said the planning commission must have denied the proposal because the CDRB did not act on the 10-unit proposal. Mr. Roberts said he did not think that was an error but he would verify that information. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Pat Finney, residing at 4108 Oakmeade Lane, White Bear Lake, addressed the commission. Mr. Finney said he did not have any questions for the commission and he was agreeable to the staff recommendations. There were no questions by the planning commission for the applicant and there were no audience members that wanted to speak regarding this issue. Commissioner Rossbach moved to approve the resolution starting on page 28 of the staff report. This resolution approves a revision to the conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the 15-unit Dearborn Meadow and Dearborn Meadow East development on the south side of Castle Avenue. The city bases this approval 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 approved by the city. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes to the plans. Such changes shall include: a. Revising the grading and site plans to show: Planning Commission Minutes of 05-05-03 (1) (2) (3) (4) -3- The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation including keeping and protecting as many of the trees as possible. All driveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking on one side of the main drive (Castle Place), then it must be at least 28 feet wide. All parking stalls with a width of at least 9.5 feet and a length of at least 18 feet. Revised storm water pond locations and designs as suggested or required by the watershed district or city engineer. The ponds shall meet the city's design standards. The proposed construction (of Dearborn Meadow East) must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall meet all the conditions and changes noted in the engineer's memo dated April 28. 2003. 4. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in the Dearborn Meadow shall be: Front-yard setback (from a public street or a private driveway): minimum - 20 feet, maximum - 35 feet Front-yard setback (public side street): minimum - 30 feet, maximum - none c. Rear-yard setback: 30 feet form any adjacent residential property line d. Side-yard setback (town houses): minimum - 20 feet from a property 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. 6. The developer or contractor shall: Complete all grading for the site drainage and the ponds, complete improvements and meet all city requirements. Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. all public c. Remove any debris or junk from the site. 7. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Commissioner Rossbach moved to approve the Dearborn Meadow East preliminary plat (received by the city on April 7, 2003). The developer shall complete the following before the city council approves the final plat: 1. Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: Planning Commission Minutes of 05-05-03 -4- a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b. *Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Pay the city for the cost of traffic-control, street identification and no-parking signs. d. Provide all required and necessary easements (including all utility easements and ten- foot drainage and utility easements along the front and rear lot lines of each lot and five- foot drainage and utility easements along the side lot lines of each lot). e. Cap and seal any wells on site. f. Have Xcel Energy install a streetlight at the intersection of Castle Avenue and the proposed private driveway (Castle Place). The exact location and type of light shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. g. Install permanent signs around the edge of the wetland buffer easement. These signs shall mark the edge of the easements and shall state that there shall be no mowing, vegetation cutting, filling, grading or dumping beyond this point. City staff shall approve the sign design and location before the contractor installs them. The developer or contractor shall install these signs before the city issues building permits in this plat. h. Install survey monuments along the wetland boundaries. *Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, and street plans. The plans shall meet all the conditions and changes listed in the memo dated April 28, 2003, and shall meet the following conditions: a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code. b. The grading plan shall: (1) Include proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each home site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat. (2) Include contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. (3) Show housing pads that reduce the grading on sites where the developer can save large trees. (4) Show the proposed street and driveway grades as allowed by the city engineer. (5) Include the tree plan that: · Shows where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-05-03 -5- · Shows no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (6) Show drainage areas and the developer's engineer shall provide the city engineer with the drainage calculations. The drainage design shall accommodate the runoff from the surrounding areas. The undeveloped parcel to the east of this site shall have unrestricted access to the storm sewer with a capacity to accommodate post development runoff. c. The street and utility plans shall show the: (1) Water service to each lot and unit. (2) Repair of Castle Avenue (street and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the private driveways. 3. Paying for costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. 4. Change the plat as follows: Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer. This shall include a 30-foot-wide easement for the existing 16-inch water main and easements for any other existing utilities on the site. The Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) shall approve the description and location of the easement for the water main. Show drainage and utility easements along all property lines on the final plat. These easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet wide along the side property lines. Label the north/south part of the private driveway as Castle Place, label Castle Street as Castle Avenue and label the east/west part of the private driveway as Castle Court on all plans. d. Label the common area as Outlot A. 5. Secure and provide all required easements for the development including any off-site drainage and utility easements. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site drainage. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. 7. If necessary, obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for grading. 8. If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the director of community development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-05-03 -6- *Submitting the homeowners' association bylaws and rules to the director of community development. These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the maintenance of the private utilities, driveways and common areas. *The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or approves the final plat. Commissioner Mueller seconded. Ayes- Dierich, Fischer, Ledvina, Mueller, Rossbach, Trippler The motion passed. Mr. Roberts said this goes to the CDRB on May 13, 2003, and to the city council on Tuesday, May 27, 2003. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. County Road D Extension Right-of-Way Study (Hazelwood to Highway 61) Mr. Ahl said on April 28, 2003, the city council confirmed that they do not wish to study other alignment options for the extension of County Road D. The engineering team has presented a number of the refinements of the alignment and the storm water/wetland planning issues for consideration and discussion at the April 21,2003, planning commission meeting. The planning commission's role is to review any land use issues that may be impacted by the final refined alignment and provide a recommendation to the city council on a recommended alternative. Additionally, the planning commission should consider the storm water and wetland plan and provide the city council a recommendation on that document. Mr. Karl Keel of URS in Minneapolis, gave a presentation to the planning commission on the County Road D alignment and the pros and cons of the different alignment options. He said they are recommending E-5 and W-1 as the final alignment for County Road D along with Intersection Option 2. Commissioner Mueller asked regarding the W-1 option, what happens to the backyards of the townhomes? He said he heard it could be put back to a wetland or it could be developed as single-family dwellings. He remembered hearing the neighbor's request to keep it natural rather than building on it. Mr. Keel said a few weeks ago, at the neighborhood meeting, there was a discussion about how the area to the east of the townhomes would be treated. He said as part of the overall storm water plan, there is a need for storm water ponding in the area. They originally proposed the storm water ponding to be on the east side of the new roadway. After the discussion with the neighborhood, a decision was made to try to provide the ponding on the west side of the new roadway, which is very close to where the existing wetland was. He said while it will not be designed as a wetland replacement, it would be designed as a storm water pond to look like a wetland. They will work with the neighbors to decide the size of the storm water pond to minimize impacts to the trees. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-05-03 -7- Chairperson Fischer said in past reports it showed County Road D having a cul-de-sac just west of Highway 61. In this report, it did not show that as a feature and she wondered why that was eliminated? Mr. Keel said having the cul-de-sac of County Road D was shown in the beginning reports because of discussions with MnDot. He said MnDot would like to see a cul-de-sac on County Road D because they would like to build an acceleration lane from the eastbound off ramp from 1-694 to TH 61 that would go through to County Road D. He said from the cities point of view, to connect the closure of County Road D at TH61and the realignment of County Road D to the south is not connected. He said you can construct this project without removing the right in and right out at the existing County Road D. He said they have had discussions with the businesses in the area and the businesses would like to keep the right in and right out at TH61 County Road D. He said if MnDot wanted to pursue that closure that closure would have to be MnDot's initiative. Mr. Ahl said the northbound left turn lane from TH 61 to County Road D would likely close because it creates a traffic backup on TH 61. Commissioner Dierich said she went to the MnDot website and looked at the ten-year plan for construction during 2003 and 2013 and saw nothing listed for construction in this area. She wondered what kind of a commitment the city has with MnDot for road Construction in this area, is it verbal, in writing, is it in negotiations? She asked what the backup plan was for the traffic failure in the next ten years if MnDot does not come through? Mr. Ahl said the MnDot ten-year construction funding plan is called a cost restrictive plan based upon the current funding MnDot has. He said currently, the legislation is considering a $1 billion transportation-funding package. The projects in that plan will be accelerated if the MnDot has extra funding for roads. The city anticipates there will be additional funds for transportation. The transportation improvement plan is a 20-year plan. Between the years 2011 to 2015 the intersection work is planned but it's not in the fiscally constrained ten-year financing plan. There is a lot of work the city has to do to make sure these projects get into this funding plan. The best way to get projects into the fiscally constrained funding plan is to do the preliminary work and get things ready to go. His experience with MnDot is that projects that are ready to go get funded. There are five to ten years of work to do to get ready for that plan. He believes the city will have acceptable operating intersections through 2010. By that time the city will have a funding plan for work done by MnDot it will be sometime between the year 2011 and 2013 before those improvements will be done. Mr. Ahl said this is the long-range goal of the city. Commissioner Trippler said at the last planning commission meeting there was a representative from Cardinal Pointe who asked that the city try to keep the noise level down for the residents that live there and keep the impacts to a minimum. He asked if anyone has looked at the noise impact for the residents that live in the upper floors of Cardinal Pointe if the County Road D alignment gets built through that area? Mr. Keel said as part of the EAW they did an analysis of what the noise level would be for the extension of County Road D and how that would impact the area. What was found was the freeway noise level is such that it overrides any significant change in the noise level created by the new road. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-05-03 -8- Mr. Ahl said the city is looking at berming as part of the screening process and the noise level. Mr. Keel said they met with about 100 residents from Cardinal Pointe. They presented the residents with the preferred road alignment of County Road D and showed them cross sections of what the elevation of this roadway would be with the Cardinal Pointe building. The preferred road alignment maintains the railroad berm to the north side of the Cardinal Pointe building itself so there will still be a significant berm there. Mr. Keel said the berm would screen the noise from the first and second floor but not the third floor. Commissioner Trippler asked if there was not enough noise level screening provided, who is responsible to come back and fix the screening for the noise level? Mr. Ahl said that would be a city requirement. Mr. Ron Leaf of Short EIliott Hendrickson, Inc., in Vadnais Heights, gave a presentation to the planning commission on the storm and wetland water management study for the project area. Commissioner Rossbach asked Mr. Leaf if the minimum buffers, which are required by the city, protect the new and existing wetlands and streams? Mr. Leaf said yes, the plan is to have the minimum buffer requirements maintained throughout the existing wetlands and.also have the restored mitigated wetland site with the required wetland buffer areas. Commissioner Rossbach asked if that restoration is at two to one like the wetland restoration is? Mr. Leaf said the way the restoration or mitigation site works as far as the wetland buffers is to not have a net loss. The city does not have a two to one replacement of wetland buffers but there is for storm water ponding itself. There is some overlap in the public value credits that are available for wetland mitigation areas and what the city has in their buffer ordinance is available for buffer credits. There will be no net loss and there will actually be some improvement in the wetland buffers throughout the project area. Commissioner Rossbach asked if they are replacing buffers that exist are you saying that there is no net loss even if the existing buffer is not the full buffer that is required for that area? Mr. Ahl said because they are creating much larger areas of wetland the city would end up with more of a buffer area then when the project started. They are not going to change a wetland into a buffer area because they want to minimize the amount of impact. They are not going to fill a wetland in order to create a buffer. The wetlands that are being impacted by both the development and the roadway are a much lesser quality. In the wetland requirement ordinance the buffer is much smaller. The city is creating a 100-foot buffer around the new wetland because the wetland is a much higher quality. Commissioner Rossbach asked which wetlands have a 100-foot buffer? Mr. Leaf said the 100-foot buffer relates to the stream corridor and the higher quality classification of wetlands from the watershed district. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-05-03 -9- Commissioner Ledvina asked how the wetland mitigation and storm water pond project would be constructed and will everything be concurrent with the road construction? Mr. Leaf said the permitting requirements say that the wetland mitigation area has to be in place prior to completion of the project. The best time to start wetland construction is in the spring so the intent is to start working on this in the spring of 2004. Mr. Ahl said they have a project team working on that and are working to combine what is going to be a requirement of the "development" verses the requirement of the "road project". Upon approval from the city council the city intends to proceed with this project immediately. Commissioner Trippler said the resident that lives in the townhomes on Highridge Court said he bought his property because of the location of the wetland. He asked now that this road alignment may go through that area and take away from the wetland, will the wetland be replaced with another wetland or something of a better quality? Mr. Leaf said the wetland you are referring to is listed with the watershed district as a wooded wetland. Because of the road realignment the road may take many of the trees in that area. Replacing that wetland with a wooded wetland would be difficult because of the excavation that is needed to create the water feature in that area. They would do whatever they could so it would have the aesthetic features of the open water and vegetation. Commissioner Trippler asked how close the W-1 option would be and how many feet it would come from the end townhome unit on the cul-de-sac? Mr. Keel said from the end townhome unit to the roadway is about 300 feet. Commissioner Dierich asked about the noise for the three residential homes if County Road D gets aligned through that area? She wondered what the city is planning on doing for screening the noise in that area. She doesn't expect the property values to hold having a busy road going through their neighborhood. Mr. Keel said the road alignment of County Road D will be approximately 100 to 125 feet from their homes. You can't pretend there won't be an impact to the homes in that area. They will try to provide landscaping and berming to try to protect those residential homes. Commissioner Trippler asked if the city provides those three residents with a monetary contribution for the degrading of their property with County Road D realigned through their neighborhood? Mr. Ahl said yes, it's the city's responsibility as a public agency to deal fairly with the property owners. The city will hire an independent appraiser to try to establish what the value is of those homes and will pay the residents to hire their own appraiser to see if they can come to an agreement. If the residents, the city, and the appraiser, cannot come to an agreement, then the courts will have to come to a final agreement. Commissioner Rossbach said it sounded like Mr. Ahl said if the city puts a busy street within 100 feet of a resident's property and their property looses value like the Prokosch's home will, then the city should reimburse those residents for their property. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-05-03 -10- Mr. Ahl said what he said was, that the city would have an independent appraiser look at the noise impact that having a road alignment going through that neighborhood would have on those homes. The appraiser would determine if having the road come through that area would lower the value of the property or not. If a road should be put in past a home where they are not acquiring property, his experience has been that the city doesn't compensate residents for noise impacts. However, in this case, the city is acquiring part of Mr. Prokosch's property, and therefore, the city has the option of acquiring the land and his home or part of the land because the three homeowners have chosen to stay in their homes. The independent appraiser will give an estimated dollar amount of how much the property would be lowered because of the noise impact from the road. Mr. Ahl said it is recommended that the planning commission recommend to the city council alignment option E-5 and W-1 as the final alignment, along with Intersection Option 2, as the final alignment for the County Road D Realignment Project (City Projects 02-07 and 02-08) and recommend that the city council adopt the Storm Water Management and Wetland Mitigation Plan. Chairperson Fischer asked if the planning commission members had any other questions they wanted to ask after hearing the presentation? Commissioner Trippler said on the bottom page of the staff report for the County Road D extension alignment report, it states Legacy Village will help pay the $6.0 million cost of realigning County Road D. He asked if staff could elaborate on that fact as far as what percentage the developer would pay? Mr. Ahl said the developer is being asked to pick up 45% of the $6 million cost for the realignment of County Road D. The developer does not agree with this estimated cost and they are currently in negotiations with the city. Commissioner Dierich asked what the alternative is if the developer doesn't agree with paying the 45% of the $6 million and there is no agreement? Mr. Ahl said the roadway extension project is a requirement of the mitigation plan of the AUAR. The city council has the authority to say they are going to build the roadway under a financing plan that would be secured by the developer at 45% or a negotiated percentage. If the city council chose not to construct the extension of County Road D, the development cannot proceed. Commissioner Dierich asked what the benefit was for the developers of Legacy Village to invest 45%of $6 million when the road realignment does not benefit them as far as access to and from the area? Mr. Ahl said that is one method that the statute allows the city to assess property owners. Another method is based upon traffic contribution to new roadways. It is that 45% that the city is using in saying the developer must contribute to the cost of this improvement project. Through that, the city would have to go through a development project and development contract, should they want development approval with different proposed densities and changes in the platting process. The city is negotiating with the developer and they are not that far apart on an agreement. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-05-03 -11- Commissioner Dierich said when she was on the Internet she read about a hazard elimination safety program. She asked if the city had applied for that funding? Mr. Ahl said the hazard elimination safety program is one of many funding programs that the Department of Transportation and the Metropolitan Council administers. Mr. Ahl said he sits on the board that advises the distribution of those funds. These types of projects don't qualify for those funds because they are new or expansion projects. He said those funding programs are typically for existing intersections. The city will be acquiring information and applications for White Bear Avenue for those types of funds as they are distributed. Those funds are from the distribution of both local and federal gas tax dollars. Chairperson Fischer asked if anyone in the audience wanted to address the commission. Mr. Bob Krantz, 1264 Highridge Court, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He lives in the townhomes off County Road D and spoke at the last planning commission meeting. He and his wife have attended several meetings since last December regarding this project and have come away impressed. There are many issues and there is great difficulty in coming to a final decision on this issue. He appreciates the consideration that has been given to them and the neighbors regarding this project. He inquired about the one access onto County Road D from his townhome neighborhood and after this project is constructed how the road will be much busier then it is currently. It is a blind intersection to the west and the AUAR report states some consideration will be given to addressing the concerns of the blind intersection. He also asked about the ponding alternative near wetland H and if it is going to be a protected ponding area. He said when they moved in to their townhome on Highridge Court they were told the wetland was protected and now he finds out it wasn't protected. He also asked if staff could explain how the ponding process works. Mr. Ahl said the city has noted the access to County Road D from Highridge Court as part of the EAW process and part of the final design as they work with Ramsey County. They will see what the impacts will be of lowering the hill down. It's a limited visibility area there and the city will be working with that issue through the final design process. The pond will be protected by the easement, which is a public easement, and therefore, developers will have the right to put flow in there. However, the pond is not something that could be built upon. The current wetland H does not have any easements over it so the only protection is through the wetland protection law. This will be a legal easement so it will be protected more than wetland H was. It may not meet all the criteria for permitting of wetland mitigation, but it will look very close to being a wetland. As far as an overflow for wetland H, it has an overflow underneath County Road D and it goes north to the 1-694 area. If a large rain were to come the city intends to have an overflow for that pond. Commissioner Mueller asked if this ponding area would draw wildlife? Mr. Ahl said yes, it would much more than the current wetland H. Wetland H is shaped more like a bowl because it has very steep side slopes. The new ponding area won't have as deep side slopes and will have more wildlife. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-05-03 -12- Ms. Kathleen Juenemann, 721 Mount Vernon Avenue, Maplewood, addressed the commission. Kathleen is a city council member and a Maplewood resident. As a city council member she has many concerns of her own. She said she understood wetland H is not very valuable because of the silt. She said they plan on improving the wetland. She said wetland restoration is the only other thing they could do, which is very expensive and in many cases impossible. Ms. Juenemann has requested Mr. Mark Gernes, a Maplewood resident and referred to as Mr. Wetland for the PCA. He travels all over the Midwest region to do presentations. He has agreed to be her voice regarding the voting responsibility for the wetland and storm water plan. She said he is an extreme expert on this subject and knows the city and the watershed regulations. She said people think that a wetland is only a good wetland if it looks pretty. Mr. Robert Katz, General Manager of Lexus of Maplewood, addressed the commission. He asked what the timeframe was for this project and for the intersection. This will have a big impact on the entrance to Lexus of Maplewood and he wonders how that will affect his customers traveling along TH61? He said Lexus of Maplewood has only one entrance/exit and he wants to make sure that cars will not be funneled away or unable to access the Lexus of Maplewood dealership. Mr. Ahl said as they do construction in the area there will be impacts. He said it is the city's responsibility to maintain access to the businesses in the area and the city will spend extra time meeting with the businesses that are affected by this when they get closer to the start of the project. It may not be the most desired access as business owners would like, but the businesses will have access for their customers. Mr. Katz asked Mr. Ahl if there would be the same right in and right out access onto TH61 for Lexus of Maplewood customers because he did not see that shown on the plans. Mr. Ahl said it is not shown on the plans yet because it will take place in the next design phase. However, the city is planning on having access right in and right out of the dealership onto TH61, they have not determined in the design phase where that access will be yet, but the city will be working with Lexus on that entrance/exit. Commissioner Rossbach asked with the developers of Legacy Village sharing the cost of the realignment of County Road D, why is the city building the west side verses letting the people that have the property develop the road? Mr. Ahl said the west side of the roadway doesn't work towards solving the Legacy Village/Maplewood Mall traffic problems like the eastern side. However, the city has a major traffic issue with the additional vehicle traffic on Walter Street. There is a very interested developer in the audience who is interested in developing the Frattalone property. The city has an intersection issue at County Road D at TH 61 that needs to be realigned and there are willing partners. There will be a need for a four way stop light at the intersection at the new Venburg Tire and Guldens Restaurant. Due to the development pressures, this project has been moved up at their request for the ability to construct the road alignment and make for a comprehensive traffic plan for the area. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-05-03 -13- Commissioner Dierich commented that staff has done an outstanding job presenting the issues. She has been resistant to the five alignments that the planning commission has looked at. She came into the meeting thinking the planning commission was going to discuss the options that the planning commission was presented with. The whole process has bothered her because she feels like she is being funneled a certain direction rather than being able to discuss whether the road should be moved 50 foot one way or the other. The planning commission has not been presented with the option to say yes you like the option, or no you don't like the option. This is the only option the planning commission can vote on. For the record, as a planning commission member she finds that very irritating. Mr. Ahl said it's not the city's intent to railroad through and force the options. The staff felt that at the last planning commission meeting a fair amount of time was spent presenting all the options. The staff was prepared to present the options to the planning commission all over again if they preferred. But staff felt it their responsibility to provide a recommendation to the planning commission, which they did, and are willing to present all the options again if needed. Chairperson Fischer asked if commissioner Dierich's concern was with the limitations on her ability for option E-5 and W-1 or is it with the realignment of County Road D itself? Commissioner Dierich said she doesn't want to be a spoilsport but she doesn't like the road alignment plans for County Road D. She is prepared to vote on it either way. She doesn't feel as a planning commission they have had the chance to sit down and talk about if they liked any of the five options. She feels like the planning commission has been presented with what the staff recommends but as a planning commission they have not had the chance to discus that and she is very frustrated by this. Commissioner Trippler said he hears what commissioner Dierich is saying and understands her frustrations as well. He said the city knew 20 years ago that the County Road D intersection was a problem and yet the city allowed and approved the development of Lexus of Maplewood, Volvo and now the Kline Nissan dealership. It seemed the logical way to get the County Road D extension to work if it was required to move it south and bend it down just past the Xcel substation. He believes that would have been a much cheaper way to put the extension through. After the city has allowed all the development to take place on TH61 the city is backed into a corner and left with a bad alignment. He agrees with commissioner Dierich and thinks this is a waste of taxpayer's money to put this extension in. He hears what the staff is saying about all the studies that have been done and how this will improve the intersection. However, he sees it as 10 to 20 years from now it is going to be a failed intersection anyway. He agrees that this is a bad option but the planning commission was not given the opportunity to do long range planning on this intersection. The planning commission should have been talking about this 20 years ago trying to figure out how to resolve the issue of County Road D and TH61. Everyone knew the Hajicek property was going to be developed sooner or later. It seems to him that the city kept putting if off and putting it off now they are not left with any other option. Commissioner Dierich said right now it doesn't make any difference what people feel personally about the County Road D extension, she is talking about the five options. She wondered if anybody else felt the same way about this option? Chairperson Fischer asked commissioner Dierich to state what her preferred option was and the rational for it. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-05-03 -14- Commissioner Dierich said she would like to see the city obtain Venburg Tire and leave the Lexus of Maplewood dealership alone. She would have liked to see the city obtain the three homes on County Road D even though she hates to put people out of their homes. She doesn't think the alignment the city plans on doing is a helpful alignment and it will cause more trouble for those three residential homes in the long run. She would rather obtain the homes and pay those three residents so they can find a new home or lot to build on. She agrees with commissioner Trippler that in the long run, the city should have either not allowed those dealerships to be built, or obtain the dealerships and have County Road D align the road through that area, rather than take wetlands and make people live with a road on-top of them. She said unfortunately, the city never discussed those options. Commissioner Mueller said you could have a conversation about all the different options. He thinks the staff did a good job on this. The city asked those three residents if they wanted to move so the road could be put in and those residents said they didn't want to move. He said people may think the residents should move anyway but they residents are choosing to live with the hardship of the road noise and traffic. The townhome residents are concerned about the wetland and the residents that live in those homes have made a decision that they would rather stay and live through the construction and noise rather then move. He said he agrees with commissioner Trippler that maybe the city shouldn't have allowed the dealerships to be built and the road should have gone past the Xcel substation. However, that is not an option anymore. The one thing he likes about the current plan, is that it puts County Road D father away from 1-694 and that will hopefully eliminate traffic backups. At least with this plan, County Road D will finally go across TH 61 and through to the mall area. He agrees with the other planning commissioner that the intersections and these roads will fail, but if we don't do anything, then the Hajicek property cannot be developed and that doesn't help the traffic. Commissioner Ledvina said he would agree with those comments. It is a tremendous balancing act to make this road alignment happen. The city values their wetlands and even though it is a small wetland the city does not like to see the wetland be lost. We have heard that wetland H is degraded and it could be mitigated on a two to one basis and enhanced. The alternative is an excellent one, essentially replacing the wetland with a pond. It is really a matter of laying the road out and reducing the impact. He would support the layout and the staff recommendation. Commissioner Rossbach said now that it has been determined that this is what the city council is going to do, he does not have a particular problem with the road alignment. But, he considers this only part of a plan. Staff has mentioned their concern regarding the traffic problems on Walter Street. He bets that County Road C carries more traffic then on Walter Street and he has not heard any plans regarding what the city plans on doing regarding the traffic going to and from the mall that cut through on County Road C and Hazelwood Avenue to eliminate the traffic on surrounding streets. The entire area starting with the Maplewood Mall traffic study, is being impacted by the mall and the development area around it. The city has existing residential homes that are around that area and no thought has been given to what the city is going to do about the traffic impacts in that area. He suggested at the city council meeting that perhaps the council should look at putting a moratorium on the area and take a look at the remaining land that is left. He said it seems there is a notion that the traffic is going to get worse no matter what the city does with development. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-05-03 -15- Commissioner Rossbach said there are three or four things the city could do. One way is the city could put in the best possible road to get people out of the area quicker, second the city could do some regulating of density and intensity of use, third the city could look for businesses that bring in their customers in non-peak hours, and fourth the city could look at changing the remaining uses in the area. The city could also do traffic calming techniques or different road realignments like the west side of County Road D to get traffic off of Walter Street. He wonders where a road can be put in to get traffic off of County Road C and Hazelwood Avenue but he doesn't see many options for that. There are other parts of the package that he doesn't think the city is addressing and this road alignment is only one piece of the puzzle, where are the rest of the solutions? Commissioner Mueller recommended to the city council alignment option E-5 and W-1 as the final alignment, along with Intersection Option 2, as the final alignment for the County Road D Realignment Project (City Projects 02-07 and 02-08) and recommended that the City Council adopt the Storm Water Management and Wetland Mitigation Plan. Commissioner Ledvina Seconded. Ayes - Fischer, Ledvina, Mueller, Rossbach, Trippler Abstention - Dierich The motion passed. This goes to the city council, on May 12, 2003, which is also a public hearing. Commissioner Rossbach made a motion to have the city council initiate a study of their choosing of other ways to mitigate the traffic on the residential streets that surround the Maplewood Mall and commercial areas. Ms. Melinda Coleman asked commissioner Rossbach to clarify his recommendation because she said the city has already spent three years looking at traffic around the Maplewood Mall area. Commissioner Rossbach said he is not talking about planning traffic around Maplewood Mall. He is talking about finding other ways for the traffic that occurs around the Maplewood Mall and its commercial areas to get through other streets rather then using the residential neighborhood streets that surround the mall area such as County Road C and Hazelwood Avenue. Mr. Ahl said commissioner Rossbach has referenced traffic on County Road C and Hazelwood Avenue but there are other streets that are being used as traffic alternatives such as Radatz Avenue. If he is not mistaken commissioner Rossbach's focus is to look at traffic patterns on those roadways. Commissioner Rossbach said besides the roads that were mentioned there are also streets such as Woodlyn Avenue, Lydia Avenue and County Road D. He thinks the city is concentrating too much on the traffic. It is not just how the city controls traffic with turn lanes and stoplights. It is the other things the city can do to reduce traffic flow into other areas. He said it could be as simple as putting up a sign that says no thru traffic. He said it could be that maybe Hazelwood Avenue shouldn't carry thru traffic. There is an emergency traffic problem in that location and that would have to be considered. What he is saying is, the city is not looking at all the options relating to the traffic flow problems. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-05-03 -16- Commissioner Rossbach said thinking that the traffic is going to get worse and there is nothing the city can do, is just not true. Looking at developments that come into Maplewood that bring customers at off-peak hours would help one aspect of the traffic flow problems. One example of that is, the Sibley Cove Apartments that was recently passed by the city council. The reason he voted for that development was that it was projected to bring less traffic to the area compared to a commercial use that was supposed to be put in that area. Mr. Ahl said in 2000 the planning commission and the city council adopted the comprehensive plan, which included the transportation section within the plan. The city is not reporting that their work is done. They are concentrating on the major roadways because that is the crisis the city is focused on. The secondary result of solving the major roadways is that some traffic will return to those major roadways because of the lack of congestion. The question is, what are the tendencies long term for the local roadways and does the city need to change that. That is a component of the transportation section of the comprehensive plan. The city is not ignoring that particular issue. He would say that the task over the past two years has been to look at the major roadways because of the crisis. Commissioner Dierich seconded. Commissioner Dierich said commissioner Rossbach made a valid point regarding the traffic. However, the traffic is not only an issue for this part of Maplewood, it also happens in southern Maplewood like Linwood Avenue and Highwood Avenue and in the 3M area as well. Commissioner Ledvina said he has not seen any specific evidence that there are problems beyond this area verses other areas in the city. He asked if the entire city should be looked at regarding traffic, or should this area be the only area the city focuses on? Should it be done in the framework of the comprehensive plan or a special study? Chairperson Fischer said the study would have to start somewhere and maybe commissioner Rossbach is saying the study should be started in this area. Commissioner Mueller said eventually the staff could be loaded down with so many studies that nobody gets done with anything. To say you would like a study done it may not be possible to get the study done as soon as the commission would like it to get done because of all the other projects the staff has on their plate. He is not sure what the staffing is or what the budget allows in order to get things done. But he agrees that the traffic flow needs to be looked at. Commissioner Rossbach said he does not want traffic "studied" he wants to study what "generates" the traffic and how to keep the traffic out of areas. This is a precise problem area and for 20 years there has been a traffic problem brewing. Some time in the future they are going to fix the intersection at 1-694 and soon fix the County Road D extension. He said the city is working on the problem, now it would be a good time to keep working at the same problem instead of becoming unfocused. Staff has said they have studied traffic for three years, he only wants to help control how much traffic is generated and have some control over where it is going. Specifically, with the traffic that is shortcutting through neighborhoods such as Walter Street, Hazelwood Avenue, and County Road C to eliminate driving down busy roads like TH61 and White Bear Avenue to get to the Maplewood Mall and the surrounding area. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-05-03 -17- Commissioner Trippler said on pages 118, 129 and 130, there are specific points made in the comprehensive plan. He said if he understood what commissioner Rossbach is asking is he would like the city to do some real planning as far as the control and the manipulation of the city so they can control the generation or the degeneration of traffic in specific areas. It seems like the comprehensive plan has already addressed a lot of that in the policies, guidance and purposes. Maybe what the planning commission needs to do is to sit down with the comprehensive plan and see if what the city needs is in the plan or not and if the city is following it or not following it. He recommends either change the comprehensive plan or get the city to follow the comprehensive plan. Commissioner Dierich said perhaps it would be Wise as a planning group to look at the comprehensive plan and start mitigation. It has already been done with the wetlands but what is the city going to do with neighborhoods and the traffic going into these neighborhoods where people are trying to live, not where there are businesses. She thinks the planning commission should be doing this at a workshop and start presenting the issues at a public forum. Chairperson Fischer called to question the vote for the motion made by commissioner Rossbach and seconded by commissioner Dierich. Ayes- Dierich, Fischer, Ledvina, Rossbach Nays - Mueller, Trippler The motion passed. b. South Maplewood Sanitary Sewer Study Mr. Roberts said at the April 21, 2003, planning commission meeting, city staff presented an overview of the Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan update. Part of the Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan update includes the South Maplewood Sewer Study, which focuses on the area south of Linwood Avenue to the city's southern border. Mr. David Simons, of Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc., in Vadnais Heights, gave a presentation to the planning commission. Commissioner Dierich asked if Bailey's Nursery is developed as light industrial as they are platted to, rather then residential, how much of a sewage difference will that make? Mr. Simons said the sewage flow for non-residential verses the flow for residential are very similar. Commissioner Dierich said across section 70 in the sanitary sewer study, there is an easement for the sanitary sewer. She asked if the city is pulling the drainage for Bailey's Nursery and it goes into the easement area, is that easement large enough to carry the capacity, or is a larger easement necessary? Mr. Simons said the 30-foot easement is probably adequate to construct a sanitary sewer on. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-05-03 -18- Commissioner Dierich asked if they are accounting for the runoff that is currently going down Carver Avenue or down Century Avenue? She said the sewers don't start until the bridge area of Highway 494. She asked if that included the street runoff sewage? Mr. Simons said the purpose of this study was for sanitary sewage from properties verses storm water runoff. They did include a typical allowance for a minor leakage into the line. They want to make sure when they design a facility that they have an allowance for that. But in terms of storm water runoff from the properties, that is a separate conveyance system and design exercise. Mr. Ahl said the separation of storm water and sanitary sewer is required and the city is not allowed to combine them in the same pipe. Commissioner Dierich asked who is inspecting the septic systems and who is keeping the records so that the city knows if the septic systems are failing or not? Mr. Ahl said the city has a licensed septic inspector name DuWayne Konewko, he is also the Environmental Health Officer. The city is sending out a notice to 135 Maplewood properties and those residents are required to do a septic pumping and/or septic inspection once every three years. Commissioner Ledvina said he has some questions regarding the conclusions on the first page of the report. He read "It is indicated that septic systems are a safe and effective soil system to treat household wastewater, etc. Septic systems treat sewage as well or better, than when they are properly installed and maintained". He wondered if Mr. Simons could expand on that statement. He knows Mr. Simons provided a reference from the University of Minnesota Extension Service. He said that's a pretty strong statement in terms of performance of these systems in comparison to a sanitary sewer. Mr. Simons said that statement was a quote that they obtained from a publication put out by the University of Minnesota Extension Service, but they also spoke with some septic system installers and designers. They also spoke with both Washington and Ramsey County and talked to their people that get involved with the inspection and the paper work documentation of septic system failures. Washington County is just starting to see some failures happening from septic systems that were installed in the early 70's. They started their documentation program in 1972 and thirty years later they are reaching their full life expectancy. When speaking with the septic system installers they had some information indicating that some septic systems they have seen have been in place for fifty years and are still operating. Commissioner Ledvina said Mr. Simons stated that an individual septic system life expectancy is 25 to 30 years. He asked if that is acceptable? Mr. Ahl said from a standpoint from good public policy 25 to 30 years expectancy is good. Should you have an ordinance requiring the proper installation, maintenance and a plan for 25 to 30 year life expectancy at the end of the timeframe you should have a plan for either providing a municipal treatment system or a requirement that the homeowner have additional land to install another septic system someplace else on the property. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-05-03 -19- Commissioner Rossbach asked if once an area is used for a septic system does it eventually become capable of supporting another septic system or is it once it is used it is no longer any good? Mr. Simons said he has heard that some sites will put in two septic systems and the homeowner will alternate and let the other site rest and then go back to the remaining system. If a septic system were to fail you would probably have to do some restoration work to make it work again. He knows that some people stop using their septic system and then use it again at a later point and it still works. Commissioner Dierich asked once the system is degraded and you want to develop it as residential, does that mean you have to remove the hazardous waste tank from the site? Mr. Ahl said yes you do. Tanks have to be properly filled and abandoned which is a requirement in the ordinance. Commissioner Dierich asked if the ordinance included the two-field requirement, how big should those fields be, and what is the minimum distance from the wells? Mr. Ahl said he did not believe that the requirement for two fields was in the ordinance. It was a debated issue that was looked at. He said the state health code requires the minimum distance from the wells but he is not sure what the number was. Commissioner Rossbach said the distance is 75 feet from the well. Commissioner Trippler said when he read through the report he was not sure whether or not the homes in this area have city or well water. The concern he has with individual sewage treatment systems has to do with people having a well or city water. If people have their own wells then he is more concerned with people having individual systems. His concern is that most people don't comply with the five criteria needed. People put their drainfield next to their well. Planning for a minimum lot size you need to consider the installation of wells and septic systems. Commissioner Dierich asked if it was the city's intent to put in ghost platting for these lots if the city did put in sewer and water? Ms. Coleman said the city has done some ghost platting and could do that in this case, but she has not given that much thought. Commissioner Dierich said if the city is thinking they are going to put in sewer and water in ten years, she thinks that is something the city should be thinking. Commissioner Rossbach said looking at the suggested recommendations from staff, and looking at the minimum lot size of 2 to 3 acres and Ms. Coleman said it doesn't make any difference how big your lot is if your soils and slopes are that you can't put it in. He wondered why the city wouldn't be more concerned about showing areas to have the drainfields put in. You would want to have at least one backup area. It seems the city would be better off to go that route and make sure the tanks can fit in the systems then to tell the homeowner they have to have 2 to 3 acres which might not be adequate. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-05-03 -20- Commissioner Mueller said he does not think the city should make the recommendation to have 2 to 3 acres for the tank installation. The site also needs to be able to show that it is safe and has room for expansion. Commissioner Ledvina said to have a 2 to 3 acre minimum it is important to be able to show the areas that could have the tanks. The 2 to 3 acre minimum also tends to reduce the overall loading to the groundwater for failing systems. Systems will fail so if you have a reduced density, which this essentially does, it is not taxing in providing greater impacts overall in an aggregate to the groundwater resource. The acreage is an important factor. Commissioner Mueller said the city should require the minimum acreage to be 2 to 3 acres plus they need to prove that it has good soils, not just one or the other. Mr. Ahl said it is the staff's recommendation that the planning commission does not recommend anything under 2 acres because the minimum lot size is 2 acres. Even though the homeowner may be able to say a one-acre site could have an ISTS system put in, it should be a minimum lot size of 2 to 3 acres. Mr. Roberts said if a homeowner came in now and wanted to do a lot split to create a second lot in the subdivision, the city requires the homeowner to show documentation that it can support two drainfields, the house and the driveway, in addition to the minimum lOt size. Commissioner Mueller asked Mr. Roberts if that included a minimum lot size of 2 acres or is that being able to show just that it can support it? Mr. Roberts said just showing that it can support it may take 5 acres or 1 acre. In Hailers Woods the lots range from one acre to five acres and they are all on well and septic. Commissioner Ledvina said regarding the minimum lot size for the residential areas that would not be developed with sanitary sewer. Table 6 shows the various districts and what it would take, the cost benefit and ratio, and the majority of them could be served by sanitary sewer. Wouldn't the city say those areas should be developed with sanitary sewer and those others with medium and high cost of benefit ratio be areas where the city would rezone? Mr. Roberts said that is a good idea, but the city doesn't want to set a 2 to 3 acre minimum in an area and then put sanitary sewer past those properties. Commissioner Ledvina said a lot of those districts are fully developed with sewered areas. Mr. Roberts said it was the city's intention to have the larger minimum lot size in the areas that are least likely to get sanitary sewer. Commissioner Dierich said it should be recommended that the homeowners that have wells should have them tested as well because many of the wells in that area are really old. They haven't failed like the sewage system but they may be 90 to 110 feet deep and they may have contaminated water and not know that because they don't test on a regular basis. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-05-03 -21- Mr. Ahl said that is a policy issue as to the direction the city wants to go. There are certain extension services that can test wells for contaminants. Nitrate is typically the first indication of a localized contaminant of either a runoff or sewage leak that cost $11, so the city does provide that information to residents, but it is not a requirement at this point. Chairperson Fischer asked if there is any rule of thumb regarding how far down you are so you are out of danger? Mr. Ahl said there have been contaminants in municipal wells that have gone down to 800 to 900 feet, so there are no assurances at all. If you have a sand point that is only 50 feet down, the potential for contamination is a lot higher then something that is 200 feet, but it is dependent on the strata that is under the materials. Commissioner Rossbach said there have been comments made regarding loading and septic systems and he did not see any information in the report regarding loading. He wondered if there was established information regarding loading or where did that discussion come from? Commissioner Ledvina said he was referring to the pollutant loading from septic systems that are improperly operated or failing systems. He was referring to the fact that if you have more septic systems within an area and a certain percentage failing, you will have a higher loading or more pollutants getting into the water for that area and degrading the groundwater resource. He doesn't know if it relates to the water supply, but if you have a water supply that comes from a contaminated groundwater supply, then you have problems. He said it's possible to have contaminants from one septic system impacting a well from another lot that is 200 feet away. Commissioner Rossbach said he would like to have more background information from the University of Minnesota. Mr. Simons said Ramsey and Washington counties have some very extensive information on loading from different square footages of homes into the soil and that is used when they design the size of the septic system. Many times that is based on the number of bedrooms. There isn't necessarily a relationship between a failing septic system and contamination. When a septic system fails, many times it is because it stops percolating. The sandy soil treats the sewage well. If the septic system would fail, it is the fact that the soils have reached their ultimate capacity and it stops percolating, it doesn't necessary mean you are going to pollute the groundwater. Commissioner Mueller asked staff if there are any areas in South Maplewood that are platted for residential less than 2 acres? Mr. Roberts said it would primarily be a concern if someone wanted to subdivide a property and have each lot with at least 2 acres. There are some lots in district 10 and 57, some are more than 4 acres and some with almost 10 acres. So there is some development subdivision potential there. If they could meet the performance standards they could have 1 acre or less. There may be some lots that are less then 2 acres, but they are already built on. Chairperson Fischer said on page 3 of the staff report, in staff recommendation D., it states that districts with a lower cost-to-benefit ratio would be put in first before the others. She asked if that meant the city is intending to put the sewer system through that area or does it mean that if the city gets a petition from those districts and they will be given priority over the other two districts? Planning Commission Minutes of 05-05-03 -22- Mr. Ahl said it has been the city's policy over the years not to install a sanitary sewer system into areas unless there is owner interest. At this point, as long as the city has operating septic systems that meet the standards and are inspected, he doesn't think the city would initiate those sewer extensions. If there are septic failures then the city refers back to that item. Commissioner Rossbach asked if the city were to decide that they needed 2-acres and you had to show that you could put in 2 systems on that acreage, would apply to every place in the city in the study? Mr. Roberts said the way recommendation b. on page 3 of the staff recommendations was written originally would apply citywide. Upon discussion this evening, he does not think the city wants to set the larger minimum lot size in areas where it is most likely there will be sanitary sewer in the foreseeable future. It is his reading that the city should change the recommendation to apply to sewer districts 10 and 57. Commissioner Rossbach said staff said they would not put in sanitary sewer systems unless somebody asks the city to. The city must be assuming that people will have individual sewer treatment areas and he does not follow how that comes together. Mr. Roberts said there is the question of which is coming first. Does the city feel it mandatory to have a larger lot size to help prevent problems or not. He hasn't seen an outcry of failing septic systems in that area, it could happen and maybe it will happen in 20 to 30 years or less. The policy question for the city is, does the city want to get into the sewer building business. If not, does the city feel it necessary to mandate a larger minimum lot size? He is not convinced that is necessary at this point. Commissioner Rossbach asked if the reason the city would want a larger minimum lot size in those areas because of the topography? Mr. Roberts said topography. The least likelihood would be the resident would get municipal sewer. Commissioner Mueller asked if there are any other areas that are not sewered? Mr. Roberts said there are small pockets of properties on County Road D that are not sewered. Commissioner Rossbach moved to: (changes to the staff recommendation are stricken through and additions are in bold.) A. Adopt the South Maplewood Sewer Study, Project 03-03, as part of the 2003 Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan Amendment. The city should establish a minimum lot size requirement of 2.0 to 3.0 acres for non- sewere~ residential areas in districts 10, 57, and 70 in the City, including the study area. -r~,;o ~.,,~..1~1 I~,-~ .-,r;m.'~rih, ;r~ ~r~c. ~,;fh c,+,...,,.~ r.l,-~.-,,-,,-..-~r~l ~,;+h r~,-~,-,b,~, ,-,~ m~rnin~l , ,,,,., ,,v,.,,,.~ ,.,,., i.,,,,,,,..,,,,j~ ,,, ,.~,,~,., .,,,,, ,.,~v~.,i., ,.,,,.,I.,v,., ,.~, ,,., ..,,,, h,v,.,,~v~,., v, ,,,,.~,~,,,,.~, Planning Commission Minutes of 05-05-03 -23- Co The city should change (if necessary) the future land use plan and zoning designations of properties to reflect the minimum lot size requirement (if changed) for non-sewered areas. The city should first consider those districts with a lower cost-to-benefit ratio for municipal sanitary sewer service before the districts that have a higher cost-to-benefit ratio. Commissioner Ledvina seconded. Ms. Coleman asked for some direction to be given by the commission regarding the minimum lot size requirement being 2.0 or 3.0 acres. Chairperson Fischer called to question the vote on item A., C., and D. Ayes - Dierich, Fischer, Ledvina, Mueller, Rossbach, Trippler Commissioner Dierich said she thinks recommendation B. shouldn't have the words Districts 10, 57, and 70 in the recommendation. If residents are having an individual well or septic system they should be bound by the same rules that everybody else is bound by. The city does not know enough about contamination. One study to her is not enough knowledge about contamination of wells. Commissioner Rossbach said he would be comfortable changing his recommendation to 2.0 acres rather then 2.0 to 3.0 acres. He also said what he heard from the staff is if you set it up so there are 2.0 acres and then you put in sewer, who will pay for that cost? Because there are not enough people living along that line that need sewers. Commissioner Dierich said this is true but she heard staff say they are not in the business of putting in sewers. The city is either making a decision on 2.0 or 3.0 acres, which ever is a safe amount of land to have around the lot. Is it indeed a safety issue or is this a zoning issue? You are looking at two different things but she said she is voting on the side of safety. Commissioner Rossbach said he is also voting on the side of safety. If it wasn't for the 20-year lag time his recommendation would have been for the city to have no minimum lot size. It doesn't accomplish what the city wants to do. You can have five acres and it can be crummy land and you can't put a septic system on it anyway, so it has no bearing. As Mr. Roberts said regarding Hailers Woods, there is a system in place that has no requirement and it all worked out fine. The only reason he would go for the acreage portion is because the city doesn't plan on getting to South Maplewood for 20 years. Chairperson Fischer said sanitary sewer systems are on a per front foot basis and that could get costly especially if the home were put in the middle and they did not have a way of breaking off additional lots at that point. Mr. Roberts said his concern on the minimum lot size is, does that imply that if they have a minimum lot size of 2.0 acres and they can show that they meet that, is there an implication there that overrides the necessity to show the city should have two septic systems? Chairperson Fischer said that is her concern. Planning Commission -24- Minutes of 05-05-03 Commissioner Rossbach said he would think the city would have that all together as a package. Ms. Coleman said the city wants performance standards and some sort of minimum acreage to protect the overall environment that relates to the feasibility of supplying sewer, which in those three areas is a long way out. Chairperson Fischer said she would be comfortable with anything that met the standards. She said if somebody had 13,4 acres and somebody else might need 6 acres she would not be uncomfortable with that. Ms. Coleman said one way around that would be to have an exception clause. Commissioner Mueller seconded. Ayes -Dierich, Ledvina, Mueller, Rossbach, Trippler Nay- Fischer Chairperson Fischer said the reason she voted nay is she would have gone with performance standards all the way across. The motion passed. This goes to the city council on May 27, 2003. c, Hillcrest Village Mixed Use Standards - Subdivision Requirements Commissioner Trippler moved to table this item until the next planning commission meeting. Ayes-Dierich, Fischer, Mueller, Rossbach, Trippler Commissioner Mueller seconded. The motion passed. VIII.VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Mr. Mueller was the planning commission representative at the April 28, 2003, city council meeting. The following items were discussed: the utility easement vacation for Schroeder Milk, which was approved, Sibley Cove Apartments for 100 units was reheard and approved, Van Dyke Village townhomes was approved with a reduction of units from 24 to 20 units. b. Mr. Ledvina will be the planning commission representative at the May 12, 2003, city council meeting. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-05-03 -25- c. Ms. Dierich will be the planning commission representative at the Tuesday, May 27, 2003, city council meeting. Commissioner Rossbach asked staff about the new notification policy for mailings. He heard the distance for notifying residents for future development or redevelopment will change from 350 feet to 500 feet. The application form states the minimum resident notification is 500 feet but at staff's discretion, they may go beyond the minimum requirement. He said, during the city council meeting city council member Collins said he would vote to extend the meeting until they are done with the agenda only two more times. After that he would not vote to continue the meeting until they are finished with the agenda. He said the meetings are going too late. Mr. Roberts clarified that what city council member Collins was saying was, the current policy is that the city council requires a motion and a vote to extend the city council meeting past 10:30 p.m. If they end the city council meeting at 10:30 p.m. and the city council did not finish the agenda, they will continue the city council meeting on a Thursday night. Council member Collins was saying he was tired of the meetings going so late and he would not vote to extend the agenda until they are done anymore. The other council members could vote to extend the meeting until the meeting is done, otherwise, the city council would continue their meeting on a Thursday evening. Chairperson Fischer asked staff when the meeting would be to discuss the issues of Emma's Place? Commissioner Rossbach said the neighborhood meeting would be at the Maplewood Community Center. Staff added the time is 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS XI. Annual Tour on June 30, 2003 Mr. Roberts said he would move forward with the annual tour planned for June 30, 2003. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:22 p.m.