Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/19/2003MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 19, 2003, 8:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. May 5, 2003 5. Public Headngs None 6. New Business a. Street right-of-way and alley vacations (South of County Road D, east of Hazelwood) 7. Unfinished Business a. Hillcrest Village Mixed Use Standards - Subdivision Requirements 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations a. May 12 Council Meeting: Mr. Rossbach b. May 27 Council Meeting: Ms. Dierich c. June 9 Council Meeting: Mr. Rossbach 10. Staff Presentations 11. Adjoumment MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, MAY 19, 2003 I. CALLTO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 8:00 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 Mueller Gary Pearson William Rossbach Dale Trippler Present Present Present Absent Present Present Present Present Present Staff Present: Melinda Coleman, Assistant City Manager Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary II1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Desai asked chairperson Fischer if there would be an opportunity to discuss the Manager's Report, written by Richard Fursman, City Manager? Chairperson Fischer asked the planning commission if they would approve adding that item after the approval of the minutes? The planning commission approved. Commissioner Desai moved to approve the agenda with the change. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes- Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the planning commission minutes for May 5, 2003. Commissioner Trippler had corrections to the minutes on pages 9, 12, 14, 15,16, 21, and 22. Chairperson Fischer had a correction on page 23 of the minutes. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-19-03 -2- On page 9, in the first paragraph, it should read: Commissioner Ledvina asked how the wetland mitigation 19~ejeet and storm water pond project would be constructed and h~ will everything be concurrent with the road construction? On page 12, in the first paragraph, the spelling of the man that council member Juenemann was referring to should be spelled Gernes Gumees. On page 14, in the second paragraph, in the second sentence, it should read: He thinks ~ the staff did a good job on this. In the fourth sentence it should read but the they residents. On page 15, in the sixth paragraph, it should read Commissioner Rossbach made a motion ........................ y ................. ~ 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. On page 16, in the third paragraph, delete the Ayes vote. On page 21, in the third paragraph, change the word sit.tls to strata. In the fifth paragraph, in the fifth sentence, it should read: but if you have a water supply in *'-,, ,~ .... ..,.,, ,,.,*'-'--~-"-*'--~, ,,, ,,..,~., that comes from a contaminated ground water supply, then you have problems. On page 22, in the bottom paragraph, after the words districts 10, 57, and 70 (delete the strike through to the words) in the city, including the study area. On page 23, it should read: Chairperson Fischer said sanitary sewer systems selg{-ie-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 a~y way of breaking off additional lots at that point. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the planning commission minutes for May 5, 2003, with changes. Commissioner Dierich seconded. Ayes - Dierich, Fischer, Mueller, Rossbach, Trippler Abstention- Desai, Monahan-Junek, Pearson V. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT Mr. Richard Fursman, City Manager of Maplewood, addressed the planning commission about his manager's report dated May 6, 2003. City staff sent copies of the report to the planning commission. Mr. Fursman said he received telephone calls, E-Mail, and a letter responding to his report. He believes, along with staff, that good discussion is essential to the process of the planning commission and the city council. Mr. Fursman said he does not believe that the professional staff should be embarrassed and second-guessed by the planning commission because the proposed city council action is in conflict with the ideas of the planning commission. He said he would be attending some future planning commission meetings in order to stress the importance of keeping civil and at the task at hand. He shares his manager's report with the city staff, the planning commission, the CDRB, and the city council. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-19-03 -3- Mr. Fursman said he doesn't feel there is a wide spread problem with the planning commission but feels it was an important issue to address. The intent of his message wasn't meant for it to sound as if nothing good was coming out of the planning commission meetings. He meant that the planning commission and the city council are not on the same page that staff is. Mr. Fursman said that he thinks the planning commission is having difficulty in conveying disappointment and different ideas and it's being taken as an attack on staff's professional capabilities. There are competing issues on the same plan. The comments and recommendations brought forward by the planning commission and the recommendations given by the staff are often competing or different. When this happens, it gets extremely hard to return with a plan that everybody will be happy with. If there is frustration or the need to voice your opinion, it should be discussed with a high degree of respect and with the idea that we are all in this together. Mr. Fursman said he knows the comments in the manager's report touched a nerve with people and the feelings and the disgust were clear to him. Mr. Fursman said that this is a good opportunity to explain his comments and to hear the planning commission's questions and comments about the manager's report. Commissioner Desai said when engaging in discussions in various situations with staff it is not his intent to criticize staff for what is being brought to the planning commission. The intent is to ask the questions and to clarify what is brought forward and not to shoot the messenger. He knows over the last few months with the Hajicek property and the County Road D alignment project a lot of information was sent through the city council and brought back to the planning commission after the fact. Commissioner Desai said this created a lot of frustration amongst planning commission members because they felt like they were getting information second hand and were asked to vote on something when the decision had already been made by the city council. They felt what was the point of commenting when the decision had already been made. This raised a lot of discussion and voices were heard. Unfortunately, the staff gets to be the bearer of the bad news. Commissioner Desai said staff presents the information to the planning commission and then the planning commission asks for more answers to their questions. He doesn't feel there are ill feelings towards staff. Commissioner Dierich said her letter to Mr. Fursman was sent to him by coincidence. She wrote her letter after the last planning commission meeting, it wasn't written because of the manager's report. Her letter expressed her frustration, which was similar to the frustration commissioner Desai expressed. She said she has a real desire to be able to work upfront with the planning staff and be able to assist them in anyway in order to get the proper information on projects early on. This way when the project is first proposed the proper information can be collected for the planning commission ahead of time so the project doesn't get delayed. Commissioner Dierich said maybe the process gets slowed down anyway but at least staff knows ahead of time what information the planning commission wanted answered prior to hearing about the project at the meeting. She feels this would be helpful. When she saw the manager's report she felt if there was an issue with individuals she feels that those parties should be pulled together and get the issues settled before it is presented as a public forum and she was disappointed in that. She can understand the city manager's frustration. Commissioner Dierich said that she found it odd that the manager's report arrived the same day that she E-mailed her letter to the city manager. The planning commission members got their letters sent to them earlier then when she actually E- mailed staff. She sent the letter to everyone so they would be on the same page. Commissioner Dierich said it was an important issue to her and she wanted to see some cohesiveness in how everybody looks at things. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-19-03 -4- Commissioner Monahan-Junek said she wanted to convey to the public and to her peers that she respects Mr. Fursman's judgment and his assessment of the situation. His role as the city manager is to convey how he responds to the situations that go on between the commission, staff city council, and the citizens. Commissioner Monahan-Junek said she accepts his analogy and assessment of the situation and she did not take the report personally. She sees the manager's report as an assessment of the situation and not as finger pointing. She believes Melinda Coleman, the Assistant City Manager, and Richard Fursman, the City Manager, are here to share those assessments as a courtesy to the commission and the council and to read them in the context that they were written. Commissioner Mueller asked if it is in the rules and regulations that everything that gets planned in the City of Maplewood must go through the planning commission before it goes to the city council or can the city council make decisions without any input from the planning commission? Mr. Fursman said the city's relationship with the planning commission and the rules that govern the planning commission are that the commission is there to review plans and make recommendations to the city council. The city council has the privilege and responsibility to make final decisions on items. Most items do go through the planning commission and then onto the city council, which is the way it should work. The County Road D alignment project has been moving along quickly. Mr. Fursman said this is the project that the planning commission members have been referring to regarding the feeling that they had no voice in the decision making process. Commissioner Mueller said his question isn't getting answered directly. Mr. Fursman said basically the planning commission does not always have to make decisions on items prior to the item going to the city council for the final decision. Ms. Coleman said there are two times that the planning commission holds a public hearing on issues. These would be for the Capital Improvement Plan and any proposed Comprehensive Land Use Plan changes. Other than those two public hearings, the city council holds the public hearings. The planning commission is an advisory committee. Ms. Coleman said policy directives and decisions on things are done by the city council. Commissioner Mueller said when he became part of this planning commission his assumption was things do not happen until the planning commission gets their two cents in first and then it goes to the city council to make the final decision on the issues. The feeling has been that the city council should not make any decisions until the planning commission has given a recommendation. Some of the things such as the County Road D project seemed as though when the planning commission received the information the decision was already decided by the city council. Commissioner Mueller said even though there were options available, it was pretty obvious that was the way the city council had decided. He thinks if the planning commission understands that fact better the better off they are. The planning commission is a volunteer committee and a recommendation board and that fact helps him to be on this planning commission. Sometimes the city council wants decisions made yesterday and that the staff should get it done and that kind of communication is helpful. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-19-03 -5- Ms. Coleman said the planning commission saw the preferred alignment of the County Road D project before the city council made any decisions. If there is a perception that the planning commission is not getting enough information or information in a timely manner, then it should be brought to staff's attention. Ms. Coleman said currently the staff will state in the staff report what the responsibility is of the planning commission, and what the planning commission is making a recommendation on. In addition, staff can tie that to the city council goals in the reports for everybody's benefit. Commissioner Mueller said he thinks the planning commission should stay away from voicing phrases like "we hate this plan" or "this plan stinks". He said it's really not fair for the planning commission to say things like that. City council member Kathleen Juenemann has said the city council does not like everything they see or hear, but once it has been voted on you can either jump on the boat, or go swimming, so to speak. Commissioner Mueller said the goal should be to see what everyone involved can do to make it a better plan. Commissioner Pearson said this is the third time the planning commission has dealt with this issue over the last eight to nine months. When something like this occurs everybody on the planning commission feels accused. At some point if someone has been offending another person's sensibilities, maybe it is time for some one-on-one discussion to ask about the offensive statements and clarify what was meant. In his opinion civility is a two way street. There have been times when he felt the meetings were not entirely civil. Commissioner Pearson said he would like to know if someone on the planning commission has offended someone or have an issue with him personally he would like to know about it. Commissioner Dierich said she thinks she was probably one of the planning commission members Mr. Fursman was referring to in his manager's report. She said she disagrees with commissioner Monahan-Junek and Mueller. She thinks that as a planning commission member you have the right to disagree. At times the planning commission could disagree in a more civil manner than they do. The reason for having a planning commission is to put plans under a critical eye not the planners under a critical eye. Even if the planning commission does not agree with staff it is a compromise. Commissioner Dierich said she thinks the planning commission is doing a disservice to the city and to the members of the community if they don't raise the questions and don't occasionally disagree. There may be community members that disagree and are afraid to say anything. The planning commission may be the only voice that the community has and they represent the community and their questions. Commissioner Dierich said she enjoyed the earlier joint city council and planning commission meeting about Legacy Village. In laying everything out on the table, they came up with a great plan. It was the process that allowed that great plan to go forward. She is fairly certain that all the planning commission members appreciated the work that staff did to get to this point. Commissioner Trippler said he thinks the manager's report was written with him in mind as well. The article upset him and he called Mr. Fursman to discuss his comments. He appreciates Mr. Fursman's attempt to resolve these issues and to help the city staff. He agrees with the comments that have been said. He thinks if there is a personal problem between people that those individuals should get together and try to resolve those issues rather than including the whole planning commission as a group. Commissioner Trippler said he is a person that likes to speak his mind and maybe he says the wrong things at the wrong times but that is how he operates and he apologizes if offended anyone. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-19-03 -6- Commissioner Trippler said he was frustrated with the County Road D alignment project and how the whole thing was handled. He has always thought of staff as the being the intermediary between the planning commission and the city council. When he expresses his opinions to the staff he thinks staff is going to be the messenger and take those thoughts and comments to the city council. Commissioner Trippler said if he feels there are issues that need to be discussed, maybe he should make a motion to have a joint meeting between the planning commission and the city council. That way the planning commission can talk directly to the city council and voice their frustration. He feels the city council should know what their expertise is on the planning commission. He only hopes that another situation like the County Road D alignment project doesn't happen again. Commissioner Trippler said it should be more of an integral part of the process instead of the planning commission being handed the solution and asked to approve something that has already been decided. Mr. Fursman said he takes these comments and criticisms to heart and that he takes criticism to heart whether he feels it is deserved or not. He said he is open to meeting publicly or privately to discuss issues. He also said that he is more paternal when it comes to the city staff. Staff does most of the research and reporting and if he feels that when staff is under fire he has a tendency to be more emotional about it then pragmatic. Mr. Fursman said he uses his manager's report as a message to the city council as a means of sharing information with them. He said members should use the staff as a resource and a team and understand that comments and remarks can touch a nerve. Mr. Fursman said he wants to thank the planning commission for their comments and he urges members to continue the debates in the future. VI. PUBLIC HEARING None. VII. NEW BUSINESS a. Street right-of-way and alley vacations (South of County Road D, east of Hazelwood) Mr. Roberts said Mr. George Supan, the owner of the property at 3050 Hazelwood Street, is asking the city council to approve two right-of-way vacations. These vacations are for the unused Alice Street right-of-way south of County Road D and for an unused alley that is between Hazelwood Street and the Alice Street right-of-way. Mr. Supan is requesting these vacations because the city and the neighbors have no use for the Alice Street right-of-way for a public street or for the alley. Maplewood and the property owners have no plans to develop or use the street right-of-way or the alley for a public street. Commissioner Rossbach asked staff if there are other streets that are sub-plotted on the Hajicek property? Mr. Roberts said after these vacations are approved there are no more alleys or streets that need to be vacated in this area. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-19-03 -7- Mr. George Supan, residing at 3050 Hazelwood Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He said referring to commissioner Rossbach's question that vacating was done years ago when the area was originally plotted. In 1911 the east half of this area was vacated, including the plots and the street as well as half of Alice Street. Mr. Supan said it wasn't until recently that the landowners discovered that they did not have as much property as the property owners thought they had. Mr. Supan said recently the property owners found out the land was technically not theirs even though they purchased the property it years ago. Through checking the records, they found out in 1911 the request was put in for the vacation of the plots to the east side of Alice Street, and at that time only half of Alice Street was vacated. Mr. Supan said this request is from the five residents so it can be done all at once instead of having five different requests. Commissioner Rossbach moved to adopt the resolution on page seven of the staff report. This resolution vacates the unused Alice Street right-of-way south of County Road D. The city should vacate this right-of-way because: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The city and the adjacent property owners have no plans to build a street in this location. 3. The adjacent properties have street access. Commissioner Rossbach moved to adopt the resolution on page eight of the staff report. This resolution vacates the unused alley that is between Hazelwood Street and the Alice Street right- of-way, south of County Road D. The city should vacate this alley because: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The city and the adjacent property owners have no plans to build an alley in this location. 3. The adjacent properties have adequate street access. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes-Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on June 9, 2003. VII. PUBLIC HEARING VIII. None. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Hillcrest Village Mixed Use Standards - Subdivision Requirements Mr. Roberts said city staff is receiving comments and guidance from the planning commission and community design review board on the drafting of a new zoning district called the mixed-use zoning district. The city will consider implementing the new zoning district in the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area and other areas of the city, such as the Gladstone neighborhood, where there is a need for redevelopment to create a revitalized, urban village setting. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-19-03 -8- Mr. Roberts said this meeting's discussion will focus on subdivision requirements such as blocks, streets, alleys, on street parking, and sidewalks. These requirements are discussed in the city's subdivision and street design ordinances. Staff recommends that the planning commission offer comments and guidance on subdivision requirements proposed within the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area. Staff will use this feedback to draft a new mixed-use zoning district for the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area, as well as other redevelopment sites within the city. Commissioner Rossbach said looking at the Hillcrest Village design standards he thinks the city may need to develop a few scenarios for different areas in the city. The same design standards can't really be used for Legacy Village, Hillcrest Village, and the Gladstone Park area. The City of Maplewood is trying to conform with the City of St. Paul is doing for the Hillcrest Village. In all these scenarios, the city is trying to make a pedestrian friendly development. He wonders if the city is concerned about street location because it doesn't seem necessary to put streets every 600 feet. Commissioner Rossbach said it would be a good idea to have pedestrian boulevards close together so if you want to go shopping or be out walking around you can cut over to the next block such as on Hennepin Avenue in Minneapolis and not have to worry about vehicle traffic. His concern is how the development area will interact with the surrounding neighborhood. The city should set it up so the existing neighborhood would access this area and not just the new residential areas. Commissioner Rossbach said he wonders if the city needs to make many connections with streets or would the city be better served if it were trying to create a pedestrian friendly development verses places for automobiles. Chairperson Fischer asked staff if on page 3 in the paragraph about blocks does the last line that states staff recommends a maximum block length of 600 feet mean it is permissive or restrictive? Mr. Roberts said he believes it is restrictive so that there shall be no block longer than 600 feet. Commissioner Mueller asked how feasible staff thinks these Hillcrest Village standards will fit with other areas of the city? Can the standards be written generic enough or is the Hillcrest Village such a different area that the city would have to make alterations to the standards to make it work? Mr. Roberts said he thinks the ordinance will be written to be flexible enough for it to be used in other areas of the city. He said the city does not want to write an ordinance so that it can only be used for one area. Ms. Coleman said when the city started this process it was tailored to Hillcrest Village. Maplewood was trying to be compatible with the City of St. Paul but now the city is trying to be better than the City of St. Paul. Whether this will apply to Gladstone or not, the city will have to wait and see. In her estimation these standards relate more to the Hillcrest Village. One of the things that will be very enlightening will be the Maxfield Research study. The study indicates that generally there is no need for additional retail and the study is recommending more housing be built. Ms. Coleman said to a certain extent the city is trying to drive what this area is going to look like. The market always has a way of fighting back and it will determine what should be done in the area. These standards would not apply to the Legacy Village. The principles may fit such as having buildings up to the street and parking in the back but this ordinance is not meant to apply to Legacy Village. Ms. Coleman said when the planning commission hears the Maxfield Research study, this should be very helpful in understanding what the future holds. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-19-03 -9- Commissioner Dierich asked Mr. Ahl to address the photos on page 8 and 9 in the staff report, specifically she is thinking about alleys and trying to get a feel for having a 30-foot right-of-way. Mr. Ahl said typically the right of way as the city is developed is very expansive. There is a lot of room and 50% of the space is paved and 50% is green area. The city is only using 50% of the right of way. He said this is literally half the size of the proposed right of way in the area and more reflective of the old downtown areas where the buildings are very close along with sidewalks. Mr. Ahl said this would be a huge change compared to the way the area is now. There are now no alleys maintained as alleys in Maplewood. From a maintenance standpoint, the trees, the flower baskets, and the removal of the snow will be an entirely new concept for the city's maintenance department. With the large equipment they have clearing snow will be harder with the obstructions and the narrowness of the area. The city will have to look at how to properly care for those things, which will be something new for the city. Mr. Ahl said the city sweeps the streets twice a year and with these new development changes sweeping will have to be done once a week. His experience with working in the City of Burnsville is they chose to build streetscapes, which encouraged private development to come back into the area. Because the development companies saw that the city was interested in redeveloping that community they took an interest in it as well. Mr. Ahl said the landscape, trees, boulevard, paved blocks, and the colored concrete, are very important and at this point that would be the plan he would select. Commissioner Trippler said he would not recommend the on street parking of no more than 2 hours parking between the hours of 2 and 6. When the rule was eliminated, his neighborhood thought it was a good option. There was a lot of concern expressed by his neighbors. He knows the reason the 2-hour parking was eliminated was because it was difficult for the police department to enforce the 2-hour parking rule and the other reason was the city did not want people parking on the street for safety issues. Commissioner Trippler said there also is a fairness issue, people feel why can certain parts of Maplewood have on street parking and others areas can't. There may be a problem for people who are not familiar with the areas of the city that allow parking on the street and other areas that don't allow parking and may get ticketed and will not be happy. Commissioner Trippler said it would be a poor policy to have one parking ordinance in one area of the city and another parking ordinance in a different area of the city. Commissioner Rossbach said the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul have nothing but trouble with on street parking, especially in the winter months. It causes problems with snowplows trying to get snow removed and confusion regarding the parking rules and cars get towed. Why would the City of Maplewood want to deal with that headache? Commissioner Rossbach said he thought an alternative could be to have parking ramps or underground parking. Chairperson Fischer said she agrees with the two previous commissioner's comments. Commissioner Dierich nodded her head in agreement as well. Commissioner Rossbach had a question about the requirements on page 3 of the staff report. It states in the bottom paragraph about the street pavement widths that this shall be subject to the approval of the director of public works. He asked staff if this was correct or should it be something the city council decides? Commissioner Rossbach said it seems odd to him that the city would take part of the process and allow the public works director to make that decision and not have it left to the discretion of the city council. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-19-03 -10- Mr. Roberts said typically a recommendation that staff would have in any other subdivision or proposal would say something to the effect that the proposed streets or alleys would be subject to review by the city engineer or public works director and subject to approval by the city council along with the final plan. Commissioner Rossbach said it seemed a bit out of the ordinary not to have the city council make the final decision. Mr. Roberts said that is true but this would be a different situation. Chairperson Fischer asked what the city's experience has been with narrower streets and no parking signs posted on one side of the street? She also asked what the history of compliance or enforcement is in that situation? Mr. Ahl said the city has had a pretty good experience with allowing parking on one side of the street when there is a lack of parking. This situation occurs in the city around areas such as churches. Parking enforcement is done on a complaint basis from the neighbors. The problem lies where there is no parking on both sides of the street then the city tries to move vehicles off the roadway and into another area. Mr. Ahl said the most recent example of this type of parking problem is in the area of County Road C and TH 61 on the west side of the road around the transit hub. There are many no parking signs there and the problem of cars parking in a no parking zone remains and so they are being ticketed on a regular basis. Chairperson Fischer asked if there is a narrow street in a neighborhood and the neighbors choose to disregard the no parking signs and park on the street, how often does the city patrol the area to enforce that no parking rule? Mr. Ahl said the police department would like residents to believe that every street in the city is visited on a regular basis. In those types of situations the city lets the neighborhood govern itself. The city tries not to over sign the community, but if there is a problem the city could go out and post no parking signs based on complaints received. Mr. Ahl said if there are reasons to have no parking signs such as for safety reasons, the city would do that. Commissioner Rossbach said if the city is going to make changes to the Hillcrest area, the city should get neighborhood input and ask what they would like to see or what they would to see as useful. Mr. Roberts asked if the commission wanted to make recommendations on any of the items discussed or did they chose to pass their comments along to staff? Chairperson Fischer asked if planning commission members wanted to vote on the no parking rule or did they approve the on street parking from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m.? It was the consensus to have no parking on the streets. Commissioner Dierich said the city might have to post no parking signs for proper snow removal. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-19-03 -11- IX. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. X. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS Commissioner Rossbach was the planning commission representative at the May 12, 2003, city council meeting. Mr. Roberts gave a report for commissioner Rossbach. Items discussed were the street right- of-way vacations for the Maplewood Middle School, which were approved ayes all. Frontline Church CUP, which was approved ayes all, and the final alignment of County Road D was approved. b. Commissioner Dierich will be the planning commission representative at the May 27, 2003, city council meeting. Items to be discussed will be the revised Dearborn Meadow townhome proposal and the update on the South Maplewood Sanitary Sewer Study. c. Commissioner Rossbach will be the planning commission representative at the June 9, 2003, city council meeting. Xl. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Ms. Coleman had three items to discuss: The city and staff are touring the Ryland Townhomes in Apple Valley and will be leaving the city hall at 12:45 p.m. for a 1:30 p.m. tour. If you are interested in coming, contact Melinda. The tour will be taking place because this is a potential builder of townhomes in the Legacy Village Project. Planning commissioners had complained that they were not getting the planning packets on time when they are sent via the mail system. For this reason, the packets will be hand delivered by staff to planning commissioner's homes. The city now has the technology to put the packets on the City of Maplewood Internet site. The maps may not be available on the Internet but the rest of the packet will be. This shall allow planning commissioners to telephone staff with any questions or comments in advance of the planning commission meeting. Once the packets are on the Internet, staff will send out the protocol of how to access the information. o At a previous meeting a planning commissioner made a statement about the lack of planning staff does and asked when the city is going to start planning. Ms. Coleman handed out a memo regarding recent planning studies done in the city. If there are any other comments or questions, telephone Melinda directly, she would like to hear from you. Commissioner Rossbach said at some time in the future he would like to discuss the issues that were in commissioner Dierich's letter. Planning Commission Minutes of 05-19-03 -12- XlI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:48 p.m.