Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/16/2003MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, June 16, 2003, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. June 2, 2003 5. Public Headngs 6. New Business a. Zoning Map Change - R-1 to LBC (1955 McMenemy Street) b. Mendota Homes Town houses (County Road D) 1. Wetland Buffer Variance 2. Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development 3. Preliminary Plat c. Hillcrest Village Mixed-Use Zoning District Discussion - Parking Standards 7. Unfinished Business 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations a. June 9 Council Meeting: Mr. Rossbach b. June 23 Council Meeting: Ms. Fischer c. July 14 Council Meeting: Mr. Pearson 10. Staff Presentations a. Annual Tour- June 30, 2003 (5:15 - 9:00) 11. Adjoumment MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, JUNE 16, 2003 I. CALLTO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. I1. ROLL CALL Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Comm,ss~oner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Tushar Desai Mary Dierich Matt Ledvina Jackie Monahan-Junek Paul Mueller Gary Pearson William Rossbach Dale Trippler Present Present Present Present Present Present Absent Present Present Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary II1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Desai moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Dierich seconded. The motion passed. Ayes- Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Ledvina, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the planning commission minutes for June 2, 2003. Commissioner Trippler had changes to the minutes on page 4, second paragraph in the first sentence. It should read: Commissioner Rossbach said it seems the city continues to ~ ~ incur more and more debt when they are already in debt. Another change was in paragraph 3 in the second line. Change the word ebjeetie~to objective. The fourth line in the same paragraph should read doesn't issue issues debt beyond the city's means. Commissioner Rossbach moved to approve the planning commission minutes for June 2, 2003, with the proposed changes. Commissioner Rossbach seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler Abstention - Ledvina Planning Commission Minutes of 06-16-03 -2- V. PUBLIC HEARING None. VI. NEW BUSINESS a. Zoning Map Change - R-1 to LBC (1955 McMenemy Street) Mr. Ekstrand said the St. Paul Area Association of Realtors (SPAAR) has purchased the property at 1955 McMenemy Street for a future expansion to their office building, which is located directly to the south at 325 Roselawn Avenue. In order to expand their commercial office building, the property must be rezoned from single-dwelling (R-l) to limited business commercial (LBC). Mr. Ekstrand said some property owners have expressed concerns over the future expansion of the parking lot and office building including lighting, fencing and the impacts of a parking lot next to their residential home. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Commissioner Ledvina asked staff if this item would require a conditional use permit (CUP) if it is rezoned? Mr. Ekstrand said if it is rezoned, the zoning will be correct for office use and a CUP would not be required. Commissioner Ledvina asked staff if the three additional residential properties between Sloan Street and McMenemy Street are guided for limited business commercial (LBC) as well? Mr. Ekstrand said yes. Commissioner Rossbach asked staff if this goes through when they have their proposal would this come back to the planning commission for review? Mr. Ekstrand said no, it would only go to the community design review board for review. Commissioner Rossbach said it makes it very difficult to properly read the black and white map in the staff report with the different shades of gray and black and he would prefer it if staff could go back to labeling the maps if they are copied in black and white. He said he realizes it is expensive to provide color copies of the maps but the colored maps are easier to distinguish the differences in the reports. Mr. Ekstrand said staff would make note to do that from now on. Commissioner Rossbach commented, that he knows the CDRB will do a good job reviewing this proposal but due to the neighbors concern he would like to make sure the proper berming and protection against light glare are required when the CDRB reviews this item. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-16-03 -3- Commissioner Dierich said on page 4 of the staff report she noticed the opposed comments in number 3. from Hubert and Herbert Toenjes. She read that they wanted to pursue developing that area as R-I. She asked if staff thought the area will change from residential (R-l) to light business commercial (LBC)? Mr. Ekstrand said the Toenjes' have property on the east side, which they need to get the property platted. This will involve some other property owners and a small amount of park/open space land. This matter was recently reviewed by the city council to get direction whether they wanted to be involved with this situation or not and the city council felt the Toenjes' should go forward with their proposal. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicants to come forward and address the commission. Mr. Rob Rafferty, of Rafferty, Rafferty, Tollefson Architects, 253 East 4th Street, St. Paul, addressed the commission. Mr. Brian Strub of the St. Paul Area Association of Realtors (SPAAR), 325 East Roselawn Avenue, Maplewood, addressed the commission. Mr. Strub said within the last year the realtors association has grown to over 3,000 members. He said the plan is to meet their current need for parking at this location so that they can adequately meet the needs of their growing membership. He said they have been in Maplewood for 20 years and it is their intention to remain in this area for another 20 years. Commissioner Ledvina asked what the proposed timeline was for initial improvements for the site. Mr. Rafferty said he does not have an exact timeline but the intent is to request the zoning change and the additional parking and then move forward with the addition of the building. He said their existing building could be donated to a non-profit organization with the condition that the organization would be responsible for moving the building to another site. Commissioner Trippler asked how many parking spaces would be available for the first stage of their plans and if the proposed parking would be enough to meet their needs? Mr. Strub said the building is a drop-by facility for people to get forms and other things that they may need. It's not a normal 9-to-5 office where people park for eight hours or more. Currently, they have 26 parking spots and he said the first expansion of parking would include 55 parking spots and the second expansion would be around 65 parking spots. He said occasionally they rent their conference rooms out for seminars so that increases the amount of cars in the parking lot and also adds to the traffic. Mr. Strub said they are willing to be good neighbors and they fully intend to work with the city and the neighbors to make this fit into the neighborhood. He said they would be addressing the landscaping and lighting issues. Commissioner Rossbach moved to adopt the zoning map change resolution on page 14 of the staff report. This resolution changes the zoning map for 1955 McMenemy Street from single- dwelling residential (R-l) to limited business commercial (LBC). The city is making this change because: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-16-03 -4- The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character or the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. Commissioner Ledvina seconded. Ayes-Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Ledvina, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on July 14, 2003. b. Mendota Homes Town houses (County Road D) Mr. Ekstrand said Ms. Erin Mathern, of Mendota Homes, Inc., is proposing to build a 26-unit twin- home development on a 5.2-acre parcel between County Road D and Woodlyn Avenue. The proposed development would have 10 buildings fronting on a private roadway running south from County Road D to the Xcel power line easement. There would also be three twin homes fronting on Woodlyn Avenue south of the Xcel easement. Mr. Ekstrand said there are three depressions on the site that the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District has classified as Class 4 wetlands. He said the applicant proposes to mitigate these by grading over them and creating a much larger wetland, which would be surrounded by an equivalent 25-foot wide Class 4 wetland buffer. Commissioner Rossbach asked what class the new wetland would be? Mr. Ekstrand said the proposed wetland would be at least a Class 4. He said the applicant has worked with the Watershed District and could address that issue. Mr. Cavett, Assistant City Engineer, said in terms of the revegetation requirements that the city has outlined, he would expect to see something better than a Class 4 wetland. He said it would be a man-made wetland so it may not be reasonable to expect it to be a Class 1 wetland. Commissioner Rossbach said in reading the staff report it made it sound as if a Class 4 wetland is not worth having. He would think that the city would want an upgraded wetland. If the city is going to allow the applicant to consolidate wetlands they should end up with a wetland that is classified as one that is worth having. Commissioner Rossbach asked Mr. Cavett if it's true that if a wetland is man-made it cannot be a Class 1 wetland? Mr. Cavett said he has not seen the mitigation report on these wetlands and defers the wetland interpretation to the Watershed District, who has the authority on this subject. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-16-03 -5- Commissioner Rossbach said in looking at the plan it appears there is a water sedimentation basin that feeds into the wetland area. He said it appeared the sedimentation was piped to a wetland off site and he asked how that all worked. Mr. Cavett said the majority of the site is draining to the south to a sedimentation treatment pond. Then from there is an overflow into what will become the new created wetland. Then there is a natural overland overflow which goes into a wetland area that was enlarged and is now part of the Birch Glen Apartment development and then it outlets into the city sewer system. Commissioner Rossbach said on page 18 of the staff report the area that the new wetland in this development is outletting to is listed as a wetland. He asked if that is a wetland or a holding pond that it's going into? Mr. Cavett said the wetland on the Birch Glen Apartment site was classified as a Class 5 wetland and one of the recommendations from the Watershed District was that they enlarge and enhance the wetland in a way to improve what was there. So, essentially it's part of the storm sewer system. Commissioner Rossbach asked if this wetland was going to look like the pond in front of Pier 1 Imports on White Bear Avenue where the old Bruentrup farm site was? Mr. Cavett said that has a controlled outlet also. He cannot comment on that pond without more information. The storm water facility on the Birch Glen Apartment site has a controlled outlet. The only bounce that will occur is to bring it back up to the natural overflow elevation because it is flowing into the storm water system. There shouldn't be a lot of bounce in the wetland/pond areas except during dry periods when they experience a lot of infiltration without added storm runoff. Because of the soils in this area they anticipate that there will be a lot of infiltration and these basins will function like natural facilities and not like typical storm water ponds. Mr. Cavett said they aren't collecting such large drainage areas that the pond and wetland are going to get a lot of impact by repetitive filling and draining. Commissioner Rossbach said because there is a difference between a holding pond and a wetland he would appreciate it if people would clarify which they are referring to. Chairperson Fischer said she noticed the plans from the engineering company were not signed and dated and she thought that was a requirement. Mr. Cavett said with the preliminary plans sometimes the city receives the plans unsigned but before any permits can be issued the final plans would need to be signed and dated. Chairperson Fischer asked if the city has an expert on staff specializing in wetland delineation? Mr. Cavett said DuWayne Konewko, the Environmental Health Officer, is certified to do wetland delineations but he only does the wetland delineations for city work and not for private development. Applicants would have to hire their own consultant for wetland delineation. Chairperson Fischer asked if the Environmental Health Officer who is certified in wetland delineation has the capacity to agree or disagree with the wetland delineation plan proposals the city receives? Planning Commission Minutes of 06-16-03 -6- Mr. Cavett said the city defers the wetland issues to the Watershed District because they are the authority on the wetlands within the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. He said the exception would be the small areas outside the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. At that point, the city has to bring the watershed district in as consultants or use the city's own consultant. Commissioner Ledvina had a question regarding the grading plan. He said along the east side of the property the developer is showing retaining walls along the entire length of the east property boundary, which appears the retaining wall is necessary to build a walkout. He asked if that was an acceptable procedure for a development? Mr. Cavett said that was a concern of the engineering department as well. He wondered how the retaining wall would be constructed without extending construction limits beyond the property line. There have been homes that have been created where the walkout areas are below the retaining walls. He doesn't see it being an issue as long as it can be constructed without disturbing the east property line. Commissioner Desai said he noticed the applicant is going to be doing a substantial amount of tree replacement. He asked if it is the developer or homeowner's responsibility to replace the trees? Mr. Ekstrand said it is the developer's responsibility to replace the trees. He said it would be part of the developer's clearing, grading, and landscaping plan. Commissioner Dierich asked how long of a timeframe the developers are responsible to replace trees that died as a result from grading? Mr. Ekstrand said the trees that are required as part of the landscape plan would need to remain. In cases with a planned unit development (PUD), the planning department will look at the plan annually and would make sure the trees that died get replaced. Mr. Ekstrand said it gets harder when it's a plan that does not have to be reviewed annually, and then it would be up to the planners to check on the landscaping plan. Commissioner Dierich wondered what the city's policy was when a developer states in their proposal they would be using earth tones on their buildings and then they end up using colors that are not earth tones? Mr. Ekstrand said he is not aware of a developer that has done that but if there were, the city would have a hard time requiring the developer to change anything. He said sometimes developers refer to the color scheme as pleasing to the eye, non-offensive, neutral colors, and earth tones. Commissioner Dierich said on page 32 of the staff report, in number 1. of the engineering report, it's stated that the engineering department strongly questioned the sheeting of the water over the vegetated slopes. She asked if the engineering department received the information they were looking for yet? Planning Commission Minutes of 06-16-03 -7- Mr. Cavett said the only grading plan the engineering department has received is the original plan that was submitted. He said there are some areas where water is designed to sheet drain to slopes and there is nothing to protect the area from erosion. He said something will have to be done to revise the plans to accommodate the erosion, but nothing has been changed at this point. Commissioner Dierich said she assumed the applicant would not get a permit until they make some changes to the design. Mr. Cavett said that is correct. Commissioner Dierich stated she was not comfortable with the applicant only having seven parking spaces for visitors. Mr. Ekstrand said he is not very comfortable with that either. However, the visitor parking spaces meet the city ordinance. The applicant is required to have two parking spaces, which include one parking space in the garage and one in the driveway. He said this proposal for twin homes have two-car garages so there is room for four cars, and that certainly meets the city's ordinance. Mr. Ekstrand said the city is always pushing for additional visitor parking and he applauds the applicant for having the additional seven parking spots. It may not be very appealing, but the applicant could provide additional parking in some front-yard areas. Commissioner Dierich said she thought with a planned unit development (PUD) that allows the city to request more parking for the development? Mr. Ekstrand said yes, as long as there is space to add additional parking spaces. Commissioner Dierich asked Mr. Ledvina if the CDRB would approve of the architectural design of this proposal with the garages that overwhelm the front elevation? Commissioner Ledvina said the CDRB has had quite a bit of discussion regarding the layout of townhomes such as this and it's the board's opinion that this is not pedestrian friendly nor is it a very attractive type of architecture and they would like to see alternatives. The board has made it clear to staff that when applicants bring in plans like this that the staff voices the board's opinion to the applicant regarding this style of architecture. Commissioner Ledvina said there are things that can be done to improve the appearance of these types of dwellings but it's not the favorite style of the community design review board. Commissioner Trippler asked if the city has a policy or can the city request applicants to have their plans work around the wetlands rather than eradicate the wetlands and move or create the wetland to another location just so the applicant can put their development in the way they want to? Mr. Ekstrand said the city tries to accomplish that but in this instance the city didn't really stress to the applicant that they had to save the wetland. Staff stated that the applicant should submit their plans to the Watershed District for approval. The applicant did, and they have already received their permit. In many cases he and Mr. Cavett have strongly guided applicants to build their development around the wetlands. Mr. Ekstrand said many times the applicant returns and staff guides the applicant back to the drawing board until they can return with a plan where they do not disturb the wetland. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-16-03 -8- Commissioner Monahan-Junek asked what the setback would be if the wetland ends up being a Class 3? Mr. Ekstrand said the setback for a Class 3 wetland is 50 feet, but he is not sure the wetland has been given a classification yet. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Ms. Erin Mathern, of Mendota Homes, Inc., 2345 Rice Street, Roseville, addressed the commission. She said they have worked very hard to formulate a plan that makes use of the site in the best way possible while still giving credence to the wetlands and working around the utility easement. When that came together, they were able to use the area in the utility easement, which otherwise wouldn't be a buildable portion of the site, to create a much better wetland than what currently exists on the property. Ms. Mathern said to provide a 25-foot buffer requires a few modifications to their plan but it's something they can do. They can abide by the additional requirements with regard to plantings and posting signs of that buffer zone. She said they were happy to get their permit from the Watershed District today. Ms. Mathern said regarding the tree replacement, they would plant all the trees in the landscape plan. There is a one-year warranty on the trees, so if the trees would die for some reason, the trees would be replaced. The homeowner's association would maintain the trees and the grounds, and if any trees died after the one-year time period, the association would come to them as the developer requesting a tree replacement. Ms. Mathern said regarding the grading and the drainage, specifically the flow into the treatment pond and into the wetland area, they are willing to work with the engineer to be more specific about what he is proposing regarding the drainage out of the wetland area. Ms. Mathern said regarding the parking, there are seven parking spaces. It has been their experience that those parking spots will get used for holidays and when people have company over. However, on a day-to-day basis they do not anticipate that the clientele that they attract would find a need to use those additional seven visitor parking spaces. They feel those seven parking spaces are enough to accommodate this development but will take direction from the city staff. Ms. Mathern said regarding the aesthetics of the building design, she'll withhold her comments until the community design review board meeting on June 24, 2003, since they deal with the design elements. She said it's hard to build a rambler-style townhome with a narrow rectangular site without a garage door on the front expansion. She said it isn't the most architecturally beautiful design to look at. They were trying to balance the use of the site for its highest and best use along with the fact that much of the site is not buildable because of the easement and the new wetland. Ms. Mathern said single-level housing with a walkout basement is in high demand. They tried to propose several different front elevations although the garage doors are all on the front elevations. She said the garage doors point out onto the new street, so from the public space outside the development, people are seeing something other than just the garage door. She said as far as the color scheme, the colors will be gray, taupe and cream, and Mendota Homes will take direction from the CDRB when it comes to adding design details. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-16-03 -9- Commissioner Ledvina said one of the concerns that he had heard that Birch Glen Apartments was concerned about is the setback of the buildings on the west property line. He asked if there is an opportunity to increase that setback and push everything to the east to provide a little more space between Birch Glen Apartments and these twin homes? Ms. Mathern said it is possible, but she would say the current setbacks are fairly ideal for townhouses. She said if you pushed the entire development 10 feet to the east you would end up with a pretty small backyard for the twin homes on the east side. Ms. Mathern said they are not in favor of this request. People want to have a backyard, and reducing the size of the yard makes for a smaller yard for the homeowners to enjoy. Chairperson Fischer asked staff if the applicant would need a variance for the setback. Ms. Mathern said correct. Mr. Ekstrand said Mr. Ledvina spoke to him about this subject on the telephone this afternoon. Mr. Ekstrand said he spoke with Mr. Bruce Anderson with the Park and Recreation Department about what impact this would have on the open space. He had concerns about it, and they both thought with a shortened back yard on those eastern homes the city would not want to see that impacting the open space property. Commissioner Dierich asked if the applicant had thought of turning the garages so they would face each other? Ms. Mathern said they entertained just about every option. She said that would make for significantly less units on the site and more impervious surface. Commissioner Dierich asked how many bedrooms would be in these units? Ms. Mathern said the units would be 28-feet wide, 30-feet wide, and 40-feet wide. The 40-feet- wide units are 1,800 square feet on the main level, and would have 2 bedrooms and a den. With the 28 or 30-feet-wide units you would have one bedroom plus a few living spaces. She said with two bedrooms the living space could get a little more crowded. With having the walkout basement, the homeowner could have an additional bedroom built. Ms. Mathern said their experience with the clientele that purchase these types of homes would be people that are retired or couples without children. Commissioner Ledvina asked the applicant if it was possible to eliminate the retaining walls on the east elevations and just grade those areas out? Ms. Mathern said at most there is a four-foot drop from the east property to the backyard. The retaining walls are not exclusively there to provide a walkout basement. She said perhaps it was to provide a clear delineation between the property to the east, which is seeded, and growing, and this property, which would be maintained by the homeowners' association. She said the retaining walls would go from a few feet in height to four feet high. Ms. Mathern said eliminating the retaining wall is something they could check into but she would have to discuss it with the engineer. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-16-03 -10- Commissioner Rossbach said he does not mean to offend Ms. Mathern, but he does not like this proposal. He doesn't like the fact that the applicant is going with twin homes because there is almost no green space available. He doesn't feel that creating a pond is an amenity, it's just a pond and nobody can use it. In the past, the commission has requested the applicant to build buildings with more units in them, that way you can compress the area with buildings and have more green space, which he would have liked to see done here. He said on page 27 in the staff report the applicant responded to the nine criteria regarding the conditional use permit. He is specifically referring to number 8, which states "the use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design". Commissioner Rossbach said the applicant's response doesn't really address anything in that statement. This is a site that has rolling topography, and in the grading plan it ends up a neat set of twin homes that pitch off at the back so there can be walkouts. He wonders how the commission can think the applicant is maximizing the preservation and incorporates the site's natural and scenic features into the site. Ms. Mathern said in order to maximize the natural and scenic features, which include the rolling topography, the relatively small wetland areas, and the existing vegetation, you would either not develop the property or develop the property in such a way that it would be outside how the city has guided the site for use. She said you could put one large building on the property, but she doesn't think that is consistent with how the city sees the property being used. Ms. Mathern said it's a buffer area between the apartments to the west and the city open space to the east, so putting up an apartment building does not help them out. So the choice would be to not develop the property or develop it in such a way that you can deal with the gigantic easement and the wetlands on the site. She said for development it's virtually impossible to incorporate the rolling topography that works for the site. Ms. Mathern said regarding the building and site design they have tried to balance creating the finest architecture they can or absolutely keeping the aesthetic features of the site such as the terrain and green space with trying to provide housing that is in demand and is appropriate with how the city has guided the site. She doesn't think she will convince Mr. Rossbach to like the plan, but they have spent a lot of time working with the planning staff on this development to make it the best possible site use. Commissioner Rossbach said he didn't like the Birch Glen Apartments development because it was a huge building that would create problems for the development of this property. He finds it amazing that the Birch Glen Apartments has stated they don't like the idea that a developer is going to develop these twin homes next to their huge apartment building and have requested the developer to move the buildings over away from their apartment building. He doesn't feel this whole area was developed properly. Dearborn Meadow townhomes is a development being built on Castle Avenue and Cope Avenue. Commissioner Rossbach said the developer brought plans to the commission that had too many buildings and not a lot of green space. The developer came back with a more consolidated plan and added more green space, which made for a much better development. He would like to see this developer do the same thing. In his opinion, it is not attractive architecturally to see a large garage door and only five feet of house sticking out from each end of the twin homes. Commissioner Dierich said in south Maplewood the planning commission had a similar proposal with the rolling hills and narrow lot and the commission made that developer return with a better plan. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-16-03 -11- Commissioner Dierich moved to table this and requested to ask the developer to come back with a better plan to incorporate more of the ideas the commission has discussed. Chairperson Fischer asked staff what the timeline was for this proposal? Mr. Ekstrand said this would go to the city council meeting on July 14, 2003, so staff would need an extension if the commission chooses to table this item. Commissioner Dierich said she proposes the commission ask the developer to allow the commission to table this proposal. Commissioner Mueller said he is not in favor of tabling this proposal but he is in favor of seeing new plans and ideas. He thinks the developer has worked hard to do the best they could with what they had to work with. He said maybe the developer has already done the best they can or maybe the developer could make the plans better. Commissioner Dierich again moved to table this proposal. Commissioner Rossbach seconded. Chairperson Fischer called to question tabling this proposal until the next planning commission meeting. Ayes- Dierich, Ledvina, Rossbach Nays - Desai, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Trippler The motion to table failed. Commissioner Mueller moved to adopt the resolution on page 24 of the staff report approving a wetland buffer variance for the Woodlyn Ponds Twin Homes. Approval is based on the following findings: 1. The variance will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance since the applicant will replace three small, poorer-quality wetlands with a larger, better-quality wetland. 2. Strict enforcement of the code, by requiring the preservation of the existing wetlands, would not result in the best use and layout of the property and would, therefore, cause undue hardship. The three subject wetlands are not of a nature that they would be an asset to the site for either water retention or wildlife habitat. In this instance, it is an advantage to the developer, as well as the city, to create a useable and aesthetic wetland in lieu of the existing ones. Approval is conditioned upon the applicant doing the following: a. Revise the site plan to provide a wetland-protection buffer around the proposed wetland. This buffer must be an average of 25 feet with a minimum width of 20 feet. bo Dedicate a wetland buffer easement to the City of Maplewood prior to obtaining a grading permit for the project. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-16-03 -12- Install wetland-protection buffer signs around the buffer before the first unit is occupied which states, "WETLAND BUFFER AREA-DO NOT MOW, CUT, DUMP, DISTURB BEYOND THIS POINT-CITY OF MAPLEWOOD." These signs shall be installed not more than 100 feet apart. Provide a planting plan for the wetland buffer to be approved by the watershed district. This plan shall consist of a proposal to plant the buffer with native wetland vegetation. Commissioner Mueller moved to adopt the resolution starting on page 36 of the staff report approving a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the Woodlyn Ponds Twin Homes. This approval is based on the findings for approval listed in the ordinance and subject to the following conditions: All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped May 20, 2003. The city council may approve major changes. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The applicant shall provide a noise evaluation for this site to determine if freeway noise would impact their proposed units above the maximum noise levels required by the MnPCA. If freeway noise does exceed these levels, the applicant shall reduce the outside noise within the units. 5. The homeowners' association documents shall state that the visitor parking lot shall be kept open for visitor parking and shall not be a storage area for RVs, trailers, campers and the like. 6. The applicant shall post the north-south private roadway for no parking on both sides. Commissioner Mueller moved to approve the Woodlyn Ponds Twin Homes preliminary plat date- stamped May 20, 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: Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b. Pay the city for the cost of traffic-control, street identification and no-parking signs. Provide all required and necessary easements, including ten-foot drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of the property, the wetland buffer easement and the 10-foot pedestrian easement along the north of the property. d. Cap and seal any wells on site. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-16-03 -13- Have Xcel Energy install streetlights. The exact location and type of light shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. 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. g. 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 Engineering Plan Review memo dated June 6, 2003. 3. Paying for costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. This escrow amount is $1,000. 4. Label the common areas as "lots" instead of "outlot." 5. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for grading. Also obtain MPCA and NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permits. 6. 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. 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 applicant shall submit these prior to obtaining a building permit. *The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or approves the final plat. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Commissioner Rossbach requested that either commissioner Trippler or commissioner Mueller give an explanation of how they justify their vote for the conditional use permit (CUP). Commissioner Rossbach is referring to the letter from the developer on page 27, number 8. Commissioner Trippler said based on the ordinances that the developer has to work with and what the city provides, the developer has maximized the use of the property. He said in fact they haven't even maximized the use of the property, the developer could have proposed more units. He would'ye liked to have seen something different. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-16-03 -14- Commissioner Trippler said he doesn't like the way the units are packed in and he doesn't like the garages forward. Commissioner Trippler said there is a development in his neighborhood that the city developed and those units were packed in and the garage is forward and nobody was concerned about that. So, in his opinion, if the development in his neighborhood was approved it should be okay for this development to be built in this neighborhood. Commissioner Dierich asked if the chair could call each condition to question? Chairperson Fischer called to question all those in favor of condition A. for the wetland buffer variance? Ayes- Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Ledvina, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Rossbach, Trippler Chairperson Fischer called to question all those in favor of condition B. for the conditional use permit?. Ayes- Desai, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Trippler Nays- Dierich, Ledvina, Rossbach Chairperson Fischer called to question all those in favor of condition C. for the preliminary plat? Ayes-Desai, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Trippler Nays- Dierich, Ledvina, Rossbach The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on July 14, 2003. c. Hillcrest Village Mixed-Use Zoning District Discussion - Parking Standards Mr. Ekstrand said city staff is receiving comments and guidance from the planning commission and community design review board (CDRB) on the drafting of a new zoning district called the mixed-use zoning district. The mixed-use zoning district will allow for a mixture of land uses and will promote the redevelopment of an area into an urban center with compact, pedestrian-oriented commercial and residential developments. Mr. Ekstrand said 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. Mr. Ekstrand said staff recommends that the planning commission offer comments and guidance on the parking requirements proposed within the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area. He said staff would 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 Dierich asked whether or not the city has considered having underground parking for the residential area and leaving the parking for retail the way it is currently? Planning Commission -15- Minutes of 06-16-03 Mr. Ekstrand said that was the proposal by Calthorpe Associates when they did the Hillcrest proposal and city staff would strongly push towards underground parking for the dwelling units. There might be an opportunity for underground parking for commercial use but they are trying to draft guidelines at this point. Commissioner Ledvina asked if the requirements would prohibit the construction of an above- ground parking garage? Mr. Ekstrand said there could be an above-ground parking garage but he is not sure if it would happen realistically based on the needs of the area businesses. Commissioner Desai said on Grand Avenue there is parking above the shops and that could be a possibility for the Hillcrest Area. Commissioner Trippler asked if the city staff is still pushing the concept of allowing overnight parking in this area? Mr. Ekstrand said he did not believe the police chief was in favor of overnight parking but it may be desirable from the mixed-use concept provision of parking. Commissioner Trippler said he did not see a need for overnight parking because he does not see any businesses that would use overnight parking between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. Mr. Ekstrand said good point. Commissioner Dierich said she was in favor of having 24-hour on-street parking during the last planning commission discussion. Commissioner Rossbach asked for clarification of the requirement for number 3. on page 4 of the Hillcrest Parking Standards. Mr. Ekstrand said he did not clearly understand that requirement either. He said that came from the standards for the City of St. Paul. Commissioner Desai said he interpreted it as you can't reduce more than five spaces so that you won't drastically reduce the amount of parking spaces. Commissioner Rossbach said it seemed to him there should be some tie into the number of spaces that are actually required to start with? Commissioner Desai said that is a good start but that had not been suggested in that particular requirement. Commissioner Rossbach said he would suggest that there be some tie into the number of spaces that are actually required included in the requirement. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-16-03 -16- Commissioner Trippler said he had difficulty understanding what staff wanted from the commission based on what was presented in this report. He said he was getting mixed signals after reading through the report. He said it seems like the city staff is trying to push the pedestrian-friendly concept but then when he reads the parking requirements it seems like it is targeted to benefit the cars. Commissioner Rossbach said parking is slanted towards cars and there will be two things going on at once. On one hand you want to create a pedestrian-friendly environment and on the other hand people are going to be driving cars. Therefore, the city staff needs to decide what to do with the vehicles that will need to be there. Commissioner Rossbach said the city should figure out how they can least impact the pedestrians with the cars while they are there. Commissioner Desai said when he reads the parking ordinance he thinks the city is putting the cart in front of the horse so to speak. He said because the city does not know the exact type of a development that would be going in the area, how are you going to figure out what kind of parking is going to be needed? He said if the business doesn't support the theory of parking spaces, how can the city know how many parking spaces would be needed? Mr. Ekstrand said even if you know what is gong to be in that space the business turnover is what is scary from the staff's point of view. You can have one type of business in the space and five years down the road another type of business could move in the space and their parking needs could be totally different. He said the businesses generally know how many parking spaces they will need based on how many employees they have and what their clientele parking needs would be. Chairperson Fischer said she would be in favor of not putting more impervious surface than what is necessary on a site to meet the needs of a business to remain viable, a) if the ordinance allows the city the flexibility to state they will allow the business to pave one half of what is normally required, and if it then appears more parking is necessary, the city can require the business to add more parking, b) or does the business have to pave the whole parking lot at once? Mr. Ekstrand said the city has a condition for that. However, it is easier to do that with a planned unit development (PUD) because the city staff can go back annually and review the parking needs. Chairperson Fischer asked if every business commercial (BC) property has to meet the same number of parking spaces for the same square footage? Mr. Ekstrand said yes, it does. Sometimes when the city staff requires the business to have a certain amount of parking spaces the applicant has come back requesting a waiver to decrease the parking spaces, and the city council generally grants it. Commissioner Rossbach commented that North St. Paul has some additional city-owned lots that are used for people to park in located behind the business area. Those lots get used frequently, especially for events such as the car show. People park and then walk four or five blocks to get to their destination. Commissioner Rossbach said, in his opinion, the Hillcrest area could have some smaller overflow lots built or even a parking ramp rather than an expansive parking lot. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-16-03 -17- Commissioner Monahan-Junek said she would agree with commissioner Rossbach's comments, and she thinks that having the additional overflow parking lots, such as North St. Paul makes for a friendlier community. Commissioner Trippler said he likes Victoria Crossing in St. Paul because they have a parking ramp on Grand Avenue. He said having a parking ramp on top of the shops and office buildings eliminates the problem of having several surface parking lots making it more pedestrian friendly. Commissioner Rossbach said he thinks that is a good idea to have the parking ramp above the shops and the office buildings. Commissioner Mueller said he likes that idea as well except that it requires new construction of a building in order to do that since the buildings have to look the same from the outside and the structure has to be strong enough to hold a parking ramp on top of the facility. He wondered how it was determined how many parking spaces would be needed in order to accommodate the businesses, restaurants, shops and customers and what each business would be charged. Commissioner Dierich wondered how the snow removal would be handled. She said because of snow removal problem it would make more sense to have the parking ramp underground rather than above-ground. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None, VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Mr. Rossbach was the planning commission representative at the June 9, 2003, city council meeting. Items that were discussed were the street and alley right of way vacations on County Road D and Hazelwood Street and was approved ayes all. The Capital Improvement Plan for 2004- 2008 was approved ayes all. b. Ms. Fischer will be the planning commission representative at the June 23, 2003, city council meeting. Mr. Ekstrand said he would have to telephone Ms. Fischer with the agenda items. There will also be a city council workshop at 6:00 p.m. to discuss the Maxfield Research Study Report that he would hand out at the end of the meeting. c. Mr. Pearson will be the planning commission representative at the July 14, 2003, city council meeting. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-16-03 -18- X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Annual Tour - June 30, 2003 (5:15 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.) Mr. Ekstrand asked which planning commission members would be attending the annual tour. All planning commission members other than Paul Mueller and Dale Trippler said they would attend. Because Gary Pearson was not present at the meeting, he was unable to respond whether he would be attending or not. Mr. Ekstrand handed out the Maxfield Research Study Report. Commissioner Ledvina requested a discussion regarding the wetland ordinance. He thinks the wetland ordinance should have a basic requirement which states wetlands should not be filled. He said you can say the Watershed District or the Core of Engineers is going to look at it, but there are areas in the City of Maplewood that the Watershed District does not cover. He is not sure of the criteria, but there are certain size wetlands that can be filled in without a permit. Commissioner Ledvina said he believes that the planning commission is the last defense for some of the very small wetlands that are not protected by other jurisdictions. He thinks the ordinance should state the planning commission requires a variance for filling a wetland. Commissioner Ledvina made a motion to look at changing the language to require a variance for filling a wetland. Commissioner Rossbach seconded. Ayes-Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Ledvina, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Rossbach, Trippler The motion passed. Commissioner Trippler said he would like to see an effort to establish some criteria that would have to be fulfilled before a variance could or couldn't be granted, such as would a good reason for a wetland to be moved be because it meets the economic needs of a developer? He would think there could be five or six criteria put together that would guide the issuance of a variance or not. Commissioner Monahan-Junek said the issue could be larger than what is a wetland. It could be the difference with water and if it is a stream or not. Commissioner Rossbach said in the city's ordinance it states a stream is a wetland. Mr. Ekstrand said many times the commission discusses wetlands and wetland buffers. He said it may be as easy as changing the language by adding the word "wetland" to the language wherever it is appropriate. Mr. Ekstrand said city staff would begin drafting new language for the planning commission to review. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:27 p.m.