Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/21/2003MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, July 21, 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. July 7, 2003 5. Public Headngs 6. New Business a. Zoning Map Change (F to BC-M) - Maplewood Office Park (east of 2035 County Road D) b. Proposed R-I(R) (Rural Residential) Zoning Distdct 7. Unfinished Business 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations a. July 14 Council Meeting: Mr. Pearson b. July 22 (Tuesday) Council Meeting: Ms. Monahan-Junek c. August 11 Council Meeting: Mr. Tdppler 10. Staff Presentations a. Annual Tour- Followup 11. Adjoumment MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, JULY 21, 2003 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. I1. ROLL CALL Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Present Commissioner Tushar Desai Absent Commissioner Mary Dierich Present Commissioner Jackie Monahan-Junek Present Commissioner Paul Mueller Absent Commissioner Gary Pearson Present Commissioner William Rossbach Present Commissioner Dale Trippler Present Staff Present: Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary II1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Dierich seconded. Ayes- Dierich, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the planning commission minutes for July 7, 2003. Chairperson Fischer had a correction on page 23 there was an error in the numbering, please correct the numbering changing number 10 to number 12. Commissioner Monahan-Junek had corrections on page 32, second paragraph; second sentence should read long time. Another correction in the second paragraph, 7th sentence. The wording should read which means you may have property '-'~*~'w,,,, thinq.c that may ..... ~' ..... ,~,,..,.~,,.,~'-'~'*"' ~,hi~h....._.. may seem to look untidy. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the planning commission minutes for July 7, 2003, with the proposed changes. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes- Dierich, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler Planning Commission Minutes of 07-21-03 -2- Prior to the planning commission meeting Commissioner Trippler submitted to the recording secretary the following corrections: On page 3, second paragraph, in the third line it should read property ef in residential areas. On page 9, in paragraph number 1., in the 4th line, it should read of his house. In paragraph 2., 8th line, it should read if tt~:~their workers. On page 12, in the ~"~tt~' p~raph, 5th sentence, it should read isn't a protection. On page 24, in paragraph number 1., in the last sentence, it should read along the south side of County Road D. On page 26, third paragraph, in the 2nd sentence, it should read and if the fee. On page 28, in the first sentence, it should read said and approving. V. PUBLIC HEARING None. VI. NEW BUSINESS a. Zoning Map Change (F to BC-M) - Maplewood Office Park (east of 2035 County Road D) Mr. Roberts said Mark Gossman is proposing to build a 9 building, 45,000-square-foot, office building complex east of the First Financial office building at 2035 County Road D. The city has zoned the applicant's site F (farm residence) and guided it BC (business commercial) in the comprehensive plan. The F zoning was in place for the single dwellings that are now on the site. Commissioner Rossbach said it appears there is more parking on the site plan than what the city normally requires. He asked what the reason for the additional parking was? Mr. Roberts said on page 2 of the staff report there is a paragraph regarding parking. Mr. Roberts said it was his understanding from the applicant that from past building experiences the tenants require that many parking spaces. Commissioner Trippler said the staff report stated the applicant is removing more trees then they would be replacing. He said it states in the staff report that to meet the code the applicant should add 13 more large trees to the site. He said he does not see anything in the staff report other than what is stated in condition B. d. (1). Mr. Roberts said staff would have to clarify that. Commissioner Trippler said when he went out to the site he noticed a large area of trees to be removed for additional parking. He asked if the city could require the applicant to eliminate the additional parking in order to save the trees along the side of the property? Mr. Roberts said the applicant could address that issue. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Mark Gossman, Vice President of St. Croix Development Group, LLC, 1825 Curve Crest Boulevard, Stillwater, addressed the commission. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-21-03 -3- Commissioner Trippler said it appears the applicant is planning to have 43 more parking spaces than what the city requires for code. He said if the parking was eliminated on the west side of the plan that would save a lot of trees. Mr. Gossman said the trees have to be removed because of the topography of the land and the grading of the site not because of the proposed parking. He said they are in favor of saving trees and in fact they own a tree transplanting company. He would approve of adding more trees to the project. He said they wanted to make sure they met the city code requirements for parking because in the past it has been an issue in other cities. He said they are open to adding more green space if the additional parking spaces were not necessary. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant if his experience has been that the tenants have run out of parking spaces in the past and that is they reason they are requesting additional parking spaces? Mr. Gossman said the last project they did in Little Canada had adequate parking but not any additional room for parking. Commissioner Rossbach asked if the applicant could relate the square footage and parking spaces from the Little Canada development to this development in Maplewood? Mr. Gossman said the square footage of the buildings is similar and the parking spaces averaged 7.5 parking spaces per unit, which seemed to be on the light side. He said 10 parking spaces per unit would be ideal. Mr. Roberts said the planning commission could recommend that the CDRB require proof of parking if it turns out that more parking spaces would be needed. Chairperson Fischer asked if the applicant is comfortable with that request? Mr. Gossman said yes. Commissioner Pearson said the staff report states there would be a rainwater garden on the west side but it does not appear on the plans, he asked where the rainwater would go? Mr. Cavett, Maplewood Assistant City Engineer, said a rainwater garden was constructed as part of the reconstruction of County Road D. Mr. Cavett showed the commission where the rainwater garden would be located on the map. Chairperson Fischer asked if there was anybody else in the audience that wanted to speak regarding this proposal? There were no other audience members to come forward. Commissioner Rossbach said it was the consensus amongst the planning commission members to request that the applicant reduce the number of parking spaces and reserve the right to provide additional parking later if the applicant should need additional parking. His preference would be to reduce the parking and have more green space. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-21-03 -4- Chairperson Fischer asked if Commissioner Rossbach would consider making two motions, one for the resolution for the zoning map change and a second motion to make the recommendation to the CDRB for proof of parking. Commissioner Rossbach agreed. Chairperson Fischer asked if the planning commission agreed to that? The planning commission members agreed. Commissioner Rossbach moved to adopt the resolution on page 24 in the staff report. This resolution approves a zoning map change from F (farm residence) to BC-M (business commercial modified) for the proposed office-building project east of the property at 2035 County Road D East. The city is approving this change because: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of 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. 5. The proposed zoning change would be consistent with the existing land use designation. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes- Dierich, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler The motion passed. Commissioner Rossbach moved to recommend to the Community Design Review Board to work with the applicant to reduce the number of parking spaces on the site with having proof of parking if the parking proves to be inadequate. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Dierich, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on August 11,2003. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-21-03 -5- b. Proposed R-I(R) (Rural Residential) Zoning District Mr. Roberts said on December 9, 2002, the city enacted a one-year moratorium on development in Maplewood from Linwood Avenue to the southern border of the city. The moratorium was a result of concerns about the land use and development of the remaining undeveloped or underdeveloped property in south Maplewood. The previous sewer system plan for this area showed urbanized municipal sewer between Linwood Avenue and Carver Avenue, and undefined sewer systems south of Carver Avenue. Without a municipal sanitary sewer system, large lots with a minimum size requirement would be necessary to accommodate houses or properties with individual sewage treatment systems (ISTS). Commissioner Trippler said he has seen two people with acreage who build almost side by side. Because of that situation he is concerned that two people could put their septic systems side by side. However, he did not see anything in the report regarding that possible situation. He wonders if putting septic systems side by side could cause the systems to fail by overloading the soils. Mr. Roberts reviewed the setbacks in the ISTS ordinance and he did not see a setback requirement for sewage tank to sewage tank, it only states the tanks shall be 10 feet from the property line. He said if the planning commission thinks this is an issue, that the city could change the ISTS ordinance. That change would apply citywide and not just as part of the rural residential code, unless the planning commission were to increase the building setbacks. He said with a large side yard you could place a drainfield, tank or both. He said if the commission were concerned about the sewage facilities being too close to each other then the setbacks in the ISTS ordinance should be changed. Commissioner Trippler said it is extremely expensive to put in a sewage treatment system and he would hate to see two families put a lot of money into the installation of the systems and then find out the septic system is failing because of the soils being overloading. Mr. Cavett said addressing this issue in the ISTS ordinance makes sense. Trying to look at each one of these septic systems on an individual basis is difficult. If a house gets built and the other house didn't get built for 5 or 10 years later it is very difficult for the city to account for things. He said he is not sure that particular problem would be very common but it would be good to address the situation in some type of setback condition. Commissioner Rossbach said he would suggest that the city ask for help from an expert. His understanding is that the drainfield is sized for the size of the structure and the number of restrooms. The drainfields could be one after another and because the drainfields are sized to accommodate their own system they should not affect each other. He said in Lake Elmo 8 houses share the same drainfield. It is just a larger drainfield that has been built to accommodate the homeowners. Commission Trippler said he spoke with Mark Westerphal, who is the ISTS person at the MPCA, and he had suggested that the city allow builders to put in community systems. Commissioner Monahan-Junek asked if it is necessary for a person to consult with the Minnesota Department of Health before building on a 2-acre lot to help ensure the soils can handle it? Planning Commission Minutes of 07-21-03 -6- Mr. Roberts said the city requires the applicant to submit a percolation test before issuing a permit so the ground is tested relative to the site plan, driveway, and foundation area to show where those drainfields will work. Mr. Roberts said he had the Environmental Health Officer, DuWayne Konewko, review the setbacks in the ISTS ordinance. He is very experienced with these systems and he said these are common setbacks used throughout the state. Commissioner Dierich said the language is not clear to her in the staff report on page 12, number 2. She asked what the statement meant, "if it doesn't apply and there is a predominant setback". Mr. Roberts said if you are the first house in the subdivision, and there has been no predominant setback established, then you have to meet the code or be within five feet of the code. He said when there is a cul-de-sac it is very difficult to determine the predominant setback because of the way things are laid out. Commissioner Dierich said in sec. 44-119, on page 11 of the staff report she asked if staff could add some language regarding what is being measured? She asked if the measuring was from the chimney, the basement, the grade, or what was exposed? Mr. Roberts said there is a separate definition for building height in the code already so he did not include that because staff was not proposing to change it. The code states "the vertical distance between a buildings highest adjoining ground level or 10 feet above the buildings lowest ground level, which ever is lower, and the highest point of a flat roof, or the average height of the highest gable of a pitched or hip roof, the height of buildings shall not include chimneys, stairs, towers, roof top mechanical equipment or other similar building projections". Commissioner Dierich asked if the city can specify how wide driveways need to be and how far to be setback because a driveway is not an accessory structure and would not fall under that. Mr. Roberts said there is a section in the code for driveways, setbacks and design standards, which is used and monitored by the engineering department. Commissioner Dierich asked if a person was building a home and they came into the city to apply for a permit would they pick up several different sets of rules in order to know what was required to meet the code to build a new home? Mr. Roberts said yes. Commissioner Dierich said she doesn't think it's very helpful to have so many handouts. She said it would be easier if there was a packet of information for people so everything is in one spot. Mr. Roberts said some of the handouts have references in them stating what department they should speak to for more information. Commissioner Dierich said on page 11, in sec. 44-120, item (d) she knows the width was 100 feet for a corner lot but it was not mentioned in the code this time so she asked staff if it should be listed? Planning Commission Minutes of 07-21-03 -7- Mr. Roberts said yes. In some of the other districts the city requires larger corner lots. For example, in the R-1 district it is 75 feet of width for an interior lot and 100 feet wide on a corner, which also applies in a farm zone. He said if Commissioner Dierich thinks it's necessary to add that, staff could do that. He asked what the planning commission thought a good minimum width would be? Commissioner Dierich said the corner lot has been an issue in the past. She said a good minimum width should be 100 feet. If it was a corner lot with the street platted it should be 100 feet wide and 75 feet wide if it was a corner without the street platted. Mr. Roberts said the city is requiring the lot to be 120 feet wide regardless. Commissioner Dierich said the setbacks for side and rear yards are too small for that size of a lot and she would like to see more than a 10-foot setback. Commissioner Rossbach said he would agree with Commissioner Dierich's comments regarding the setbacks. It has been his experience that when larger lots are involved the setbacks are larger and 10 feet seems too minimal. Commissioner Dierich said on the south end of Maplewood there are many long narrow lots and it would seem that people could build right behind a person. Commissioner Trippler asked if someone decides to develop a lot in south Maplewood and if there was a 30 foot setback for an accessory building for the side and rear yard and it was a lot where something could not be built, couldn't the homeowner ask for a variance? Mr. Roberts said the city could do an administrative variance for an accessory structure. Commissioner Dierich said on page 13, sec. 44-127, for building width requirements, she asked if the 21 feet includes such things as a bump out? Mr. Roberts said the 21 feet standard was intended for anyone that wanted to bring in a manufactured home. The code would require the home to be a doublewide manufactured home. Chairperson Fischer said because not everyone moving into south Maplewood would be aware of how to properly maintain their septic system she asked if the city has a handout letting people know where to go with questions? Mr. Cavett said since the passing of the ISTS ordinance the city has initiated a program to notify all persons with septic systems. The city is currently mailing a letter to all residents with septic systems. The letter informs the homeowner that they need to have their septic system pumped once every three years by a certified septic contractor or provider and when it is complete they should return the inspection/comment card to the city. Mr. Roberts asked if planning commission members had agreed to a different number other then 10 feet for the side and rear yard setbacks for accessory structures? Commissioner Rossbach said 30 feet sounds sufficient for a side and rear setback for accessory building. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-21-03 -8- Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the zoning code amendment starting on page 10 through page 12 of the staff report with the amended changes. This code amendment adds a rural residential (R-1 (R)) zoning district (with a two-acre minimum lot size) to the city code. Commissioner Rossbach seconded. The motion passed. Ayes- Dierich, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler This item goes to the city council on August 11,2003, for the first reading. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Commissioner Pearson was the planning commission representative at the July 14, 2003, city council meeting. Items discussed included the zoning change for St. Paul Realtors Association on McMenemy Street, Mendota Townhomes for the Woodlynn Twin homes, and the Legacy Village proposal all were approved. b. Commissioner Monahan-Junek will be the planning commission representative at the July 22, 2003, city council meeting. The only item to be discussed will be the conditional use permit for Liberty Classical Academy. c. Commissioner Trippler will be the planning commission representative at the August 11, 2003, city council meeting. Items to be discussed will be the Maplewood Office Park zoning map change, and the Proposed R-1 zoning district. Chairperson Fischer asked if a date had been established for the meeting with Vadnais Heights regarding the County Road D realignment? Mr. Roberts said a date has not been established yet. Commissioner Rossbach said when a date is established he would like to be contacted with that information. Chairperson Fischer said maybe city staff could let all planning commission members know the date when it becomes available. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-21-03 -9- X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Mr. Roberts discussed the handouts that were presented to the planning commission members prior to the meeting. One was a follow up from Chuck Ahl regarding his meeting with the property owners on Hazelwood Street regarding the city purchasing their properties for the future building of Legacy Village. Another handout was the letter of resignation from Planning Commission member Matt Ledvina. Annual Tour - Follow Up Mr. Roberts was looking for any information regarding the annual tour for changes to make for next year. Chairperson Fischer said she would've liked to have spent more time in the Hillcrest area to see the businesses there and how those businesses would fit into the overall plan for the Hillcrest Redevelopment Plan. Commissioner Rossbach said because there were less people invited to the annual tour this year the bus was emptier and seemed too large. For that reason people sat farther apart, which made for less conversation. He also said the box lunch from Panera Bread was the best yet. Mr. Roberts said the reason the bus seemed emptier was because he had anticipated more people coming based on their response. If everyone who said they were coming on the tour actually came, the bus would'ye been close to full capacity. Xl. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:06 p.m.