Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/18/2000BOOK MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 18, 2000, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda Approval of Minutes a. September 7, 2000 New Business a. Pineview Estates Preliminary Plat (County Road D) 6. Visitor Presentations Commission Presentations a. September 11 Council Meeting: Ms. Coleman b. September 25 Council Meeting: Mr. Rossbach c. October 9 Council Meeting: Mr, Mueller? 8. Staff Presentations 9. Adjournment WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION This outline has been prepared to help you understand the public meeting process. The review of an item usually takes the following form: The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed and ask for the staff report on the subject. Staff presents their report on the matter. The Commission will then ask City staff questions about the proposal. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. This is the time for the public to make comments or ask questions about the 'proposal. Please step up to the podium, speak clearly, first giving your name and address and then your comments. After everyone in the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting. The Commission will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. The Commission will then make its recommendation or decision. All decisions by the Planning Commission are recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes the final decision. jw/pc~pcagd Revised: 01195 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2000 I. CALL TO ORDER Acting Chairperson Frost called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. I1. ROLL CALL Commissioner Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Jack Frost Commissioner Matt Ledvina Commissioner Paul Mueller Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner William Rossbach Commissioner Milo Thompson Commissioner Dale Trippler Staff Present: Absent Present Present Absent Present Present Present (arrived at 7:14 p.m.) Present Melinda Coleman, Community Development Director Ken Haider, Acting City Manager (left meeting at 7:45 p.m.) Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Recording Secretary: JoAnn Morin Melinda Coleman made a presentation to the Commission regarding staffing changes. She introduced JoAnn Morin as the temporary Recording Secretary. The Community Development Department has created a new part-time clerk/typist position that will be responsible to record minutes for the Planning Commission and the Design Review Board. The new clerk/typist will begin recording minutes beginning at the September 18th meeting. Ms. Coleman also explained staffing changes that have occurred in the department. Two members of the staff have taken positions in the City Clerk's office. Their positions in the Community Development Department have been filled, and the new employees will begin within the next few weeks. She requested if the Commissioners have any comments on the content, or how the minutes are done, please let her know. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Rossbach moved approval of the agenda, as submitted. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes -All The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 6, 2000 Commission Pearson moved approval of the minutes of July 6, 2000. Commissioner Trippler seconded the motion. Ayes - 4 Abstention-1 (Rossbach) The motion passed. V. PUBLIC HEARING Planning Commission Minutes of 07-09-00 -2- Birch Glen Apartment Complex (Ariel Street between Woodlynn Avenue and County Road D) Land Use Plan Change (BC to R-3(H)) and Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development. Ken Roberts, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. The project is proposed by Specialty Development Corporation to build a 60-unit apartment building on a vacant property along Ariel Street. The project would be a three-story apartment building with underground parking for approximately 66 vehicles. There would also be a detached garage with nine parking stalls and an additional 64 surface parking spaces on the site. There would be a mix of approximately 48 two- bedroom units and 12 three-bedroom units. There would also be a storm shelter in the garage area of the building. To build this development, the applicant asks the City for three approvals, two for which require the Planning Commission to act upon. First is the change to the land use plan. The site is currently planned BC (Business Commercial). The proposal is to change the site to R-3(H) (Residential High Density). The adjacent property is currently zoned R2 (Single/Double Dwellings) and will remain in that zoning district. The R-3(H) area is intended for a variety of housing types including townhouses, double dwellings, and apartments of up to 16.3 units per acre. The current BC zone is general commercial areas that are intended for offices, clinics, restaurants, daycare centers and retail businesses. There were several things in the Plan that both Staff and the Commission and ultimately the Council should consider. These include our general land use plan goals and our residential development policies that are in the Plan as well as our housing policies that are in the Plan. It is staff's opinion that this would be a good site for this apartment style housing. It is near a major collective street (County Road D) and between two artedal streets (White Bear Avenue and McKnight Road), near open space and the shopping area and services area along White Bear Avenue. An advantage of this proposal is that it changes this stdp of land from commercial to residential. It is staff's opinion the site does not look like a good site for commercial or retail business, which tends to want to be right along White Bear Avenue or much closer to White Bear Avenue. This site is really too hidden, or too far from the main strip of activity along White Bear Avenue to make it desirable for retail type businesses. Mr. Roberts explained the density credits that are allowed by the City Code for open space and underground parking in the building. This project calculates to about 15.7 units per acre, slightly under the 16.3 that is allowed for apartment buildings with 50 units in our high density area. , The applicant is also asking for approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a 60-unit development. The proposed plan has two areas that deviate from code standards. The city may allow deviations for planned unit developments provided it meets the following cdteda: (1) Certain regulations contained in this chapter should not apply to the proposed development because of its unique nature. (2) The PUD would be consistent with the purposes of this chapter. (3) The planned unit development would produce a development of equal or superior quality to that which would result from stdct adherence to the provisions of this chapter. (4) The deviations would not constitute a significant threat to the property values, safety, health or general welfare of the owners or occupants of nearby land. (5) The deviations are required for reasonable and practicable physical development and are not required solely for financial reasons. Mr. Roberts pointed out that the building as proposed would be 50-feet from the east property line. A large building such as this next to residential would normally have a 100-foot setback. The Planning Commission Minutes of 07-09-00 -3- second area of deviation is for the parking lot in front of the building. The west edge of the parking lot is right up to the right-of-way line. Normal setback requirement would be 15-feet. ' The site is quite long and not very wide. Itis 830-feet long from north to south, and 165-feet wide. With the power lines and easements through the middle area, there is a large area that cannot be built on. The buildable part of the site is the north area where the proposed apartment building has been placed. Because of those factors, the shape, the power lines and pipelines, and the wetlands, Mr. Roberts feels that there is not much else that could be done with this site for putting on an apartment building on. Because of these factors, and the quality of the project before the Commission, Staff recommends approval of the PUD with the two deviations. Staff also recommends approval of the CUP for the Planned Unit Development. Mr. Roberts stated there are two recommendations to take action on. The first is for the Land Use Plan change, from BC (Business Commercial) to R3(H) (Residential High Density) for this project and the site. The second item is approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the PUD for the Birch Glen apartment development subject to nine conditions that are outlined on page 6 of the staff report. Mr. Roberts also stated that staff is recommending that the developer install a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk along Arial to serve both the people coming and going from the building to connect to the sidewalks along Woodland. Commissioner Trippler stated concerns regarding planting Birch trees in the area. The developer is proposing to plant 84 trees, using three different varieties. He questioned the prospect of having a larger variety of trees to avoid having some type of tree disease wipe them out. He also was concerned whether Birch trees would do very well and would it be problematic to keep that species of tree growing in that particular area. He also stated he was concerned about the residential structure that is within 150-feet of the proposed development, which is a three-story structure. He asked if it would be possible to develop lighting that will light the east side of the structure that would not be problematic for the people that live on that side of it. Commission Trippler understands that the applicant is proposing to plant trees to provide a barrier between the apartment complex and the house. Over a long period of time this would probably be an effective solution, but in the short run he questioned whether that would be effective or not. Mr. Haider stated that Commissioner Trippler's concerns are a Design Review Board consideration and Commission Ledvina would forward these concerns to the Design Review Board. Commission Ledvina agreed. Commission Rossbach stated that in a lot of cases Commissioner Tdppler's comments would be Design Review Board considerations, but this is a Planned Unit Development and the Planning Commission is looking at the specific plan, so he feels that the Commission is not limited to dealing with land use issues. Commission Pearson asked Mr. Haider what the depth of the Williams petroleum lines running across the property was. He also asked if when a parking lot is placed above a pipeline, what typically is done to be sure the frost does not go down into the lines. Mr. Haider replied that he was not sure how deep the pipelines lie. Williams would come out and locate them both horizontally and vertically before there was construction on the site. He indicated that these pipelines would not typically freeze, therefore, the depth is not necessarily a big issue. In fact, they create a significant amount of heat when product is going through them because there is a lot of friction from the line. He stated that he understands that there are three lines going through this site. One line is not being used, one is dedicated for fiber optics, and one is actively trensporting petroleum product. Commission Trippler questioned the Land Use Plan resolution, on page 25 of the staff report. He questioned that since there is a 50-foot setback variance, should that be stated in the resolution. Mr. Roberts stated that if it is not an item for the Land Use Plan change, it is covered in the text of the report under the PUD conditional use permit resolution starting on page 26. He also stated that Planning Commission Minutes of 07-09-00 -4- on the top of page 27 it is stated that construction has to follow the plans dated August 15, 2000. Those plans show the two setback variances. If the Commission wishes to add language into that section, pointing out those two deviations or variances to the Code, it could be done. However, Mr. Roberts felt that it would not be necessary. Commissioner Frost commented that he would be interested in staff's knowledge regarding what could be done to County Road D to make it a more driveable road. Mr. Haider stated that there was an attempt to upgrade the road a number of years ago. The residence at that time felt that upgrading was necessary and the Council agreed. Mr. Haider stated that it may be time to ask that question again. It is currently not on the Capital Improvement Plan at this point. The applicant, Bob Bankers of Specialty Development Corporation addressed the Commission. He stated that the pipeline company has located the pipeline. It is between five and twelve feet below the existing grade. He stated that the parking lot was designed so that no pavement would be over that pipeline. There is approximately ten unpaved feet on each side of the pipeline. Mr. Bankers stated that he agreed upon all of the conditions set forth by the staff report. He stated that he feels that there is a need for this type of housing in Maplewood. Surveys show that there is less than 1% vacancy in that area for comparable apartment buildings. He stated that this project was not specifically targeted to the elderly, but a prime market target is the empty nester. He also stated that this is not a subsidized project. Commission Rossbach questioned Mr. Bankers as to what the return to the City of Maplewood will be in exchange for granting the PUD variances. Mr. Bankers stated that the City will get an apartment building that they do not currently have. The project is also allowing 54% of the land to remain green, which is a high percentage in comparison to other projects in the area. The wetland will be largely undisturbed, except for digging it deeper at staff's request to hold drainage for the property to the east when that is developed. Commission Rossbach question Mr. Bankers as to why the garage in the proposed project is L- shaped. Mr. Bankers stated that it was designed in this shape to achieve additional space in the back part of the garage for apartment maintenance equipment. He stated that there is actually space for 82 underground parking spaces. However, t~e plan is to have 66 designated spaces and there will also be storage rooms. Commission Frost invited any other members of the audience to make any comments regarding the Birch Glen proposal. Mr. Housey, whom lives on the east side of the proposed project addressed the Commission. He questioned what the setback variance would do to future building on the east side. Mr. Roberts stated that the proposal is to have the building 50-feet off the property line instead of 100-feet, which would normally be required by the size of the building. He stated he felt that it will not affect the lot to the east at all as far as building. He stated the setbacks for that property would be a minimum of 50-feet or for a large building it could be 100-feet. Commissioner Rossbach commented that he feels that there is nothing appealing to this particular proposal. Granted the lot is a long narrow lot, but it does not appear to him that any effort has been made in design to accommodate that. He stated that the proposed project has some attractive features, however it is a tremendously long building and he feels that the project may demise the property values of the adjacent property. He also stated concern as to if the adjacent property owner decided to also make their property R3 and put in an equally large building, how could the Commission deny them that request based upon granting this proposal. He agreed with the applicant that we probably have a shortage of market rate apartments, and agrees that this is a good area for high density residential, but feels that this proposed building is not a large asset to the City of Maplewood. By granting the PUD request, the Commission is basically saying that they agree that this is a good plan and that it is a asset to the City of Maplewood. Commissioner Rossbach stated that he strongly suggests that the Commission vote against this application. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-09-00 -5- commissioner Rossbach moved to recommend to the City Council denial for the Resolution to change the Land Use Plan frem BC to R3(H) and further moved that the same action be taken in regards to the Conditional Use Permit for Birch Glen Apartment Building. He included in his motion that he does not feel that this is an appealing enough plan to offset the variances that would be needed to be granted for the construction of the building. There was no second. The motion did not carry. Commissioner Pearson stated that he felt that the chance of commercial development in that area would probably not be seen for that site based upon the reasons staff pointed out. He also added that there is a distinct shortage of apartments in the Maplewood area and rents in the Maplewood area are starting to escalate considerably. He feels that the best way to maintain some equilibrium on rents is to have enough of a supply. He stated that he feels that the area is terrific for the people who will settle there, traffic would not be a problem, and he supports the project. Commission Pearson moved the Planning Commission appreve the Land Use Plan Change Resolution changing the city's land use plan frem BC (Business Commercial) to R3(H) (Residential High Density) for the 3.2 acre site of the Birch Glen housing development. The city bases these changes on the following findings. 1. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's goals, objectives and policies for high-density residential land use in the comprehensive plan. This includes: a. Creating a transitional land use between the existing residential and commercial land uses. b. It is near a collector street, open space and shopping and is between two arterial streets. 2. This development will minimize any adverse effects on surreunding properties because: ao The on-site pond and large setback from Woodlynn Avenue will separate the apartment building frem the residences to the south. There should be no significant traffic increase from this development on existing local residential streets. The existing street pattern keeps the apartment traffic separate from the existing single dwellings and other residences. 3. This change would eliminate a planned commercial area that would have been next to residential areas. Commission Pearson also recommend to appreve the resolution to appreve the conditional use permit for a Planned Unit Development for the Birch Glen apartment development on Ariel Street. The city bases this appreval on the findings required by code. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped August 15, 2000. 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.* Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, streets, sidewalks, tree and ddveway and parking lot plans. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-09-00 -6- 4. The design of the pond shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. The developer shall provide the city an easement for this pond that shall cover at least all the area within the 942 contour. The developer also shall provide the city a 20-foot-wide drainage and utility easement over the storm sewer pipe between the pond and the Woodlynn Avenue right-of-way. 5. The developer or contractor shall: a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the pond, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Remove any debris, junk and garbage from the site. d. Install a 5-foot-wide concrete sidewalk along the east side of ^riel Street between County Road D and Woodlynn Avenue. 6. There shall be no outdoor storage of recreational vehicles, boats or trailers. Residents shall not park trailers and vehicles that they do not need for day-to-day transportation on site. If the city decides there are excess parking spaces available on site, then the city may allow the parking of these on site. o The developer shall provide an on-site storm shelter in the apartment building. This shelter shall be subject to the approval of the director of emergency preparedness. It shall have a minimum of three square feet per person for 80% of the planned population. 9. The city council shall review this permit in one year. *The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or a building permit. Commissioner Trippler seconded the motion. Commissioner Ledvina stated that he was concerned about the size of the building, but understands the economics of a development such as this in terms of making the project financially viable. In terms of the land use, he feels it is a good change and supports the change. He stated that there are some draw backs in terms of the size of the building but feels that the other positive features of the proposal outweigh those drawbacks. Commissioner Pearson added that he was not just proposing approval on this application because someone else has to live with it. He also lives in the area where a senior housing development has gone in and also looks at a three-story building with similar setbacks. He does not feel this as a terrible imposing presence. Discussion continued regarding the size and setbacks of the project Commissioner Pearson described. Commission Rossbach agreed that the proposed spot is good, and we need the housing. However, he stated that he feels the proposed plan is bad, and the City could do better. Commissioner Trippler agreed that yes, we could always do better. But given the situation and the proposal before the Commission, it seems that there isn't really anything that could be done with the shape of the lot. His primary concern was with the property owner to the east of the site, and how they felt regarding the proposed project. It appears that the property owners are not opposed to this development and it indicates to Commissioner Trippler that the 50-foot setback is not an issue. Ayes - 4 Planning Commission Minutes of 07-09-00 -7- Nayes- 1 (Rossbach) Abstention - 1 (Thompson) The motion passed. This item will be on the October 9, 2000 City Council agenda, and on the September 19, 2000 Design Review Board agenda. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. AT & T Monopole Conditional Use Permit (1745 Cope Avenue) Ken Roberts, Associate Planner presented the staff report for this request. The request is for AT&T to install a 125-foot tall monopole and an equipment building for their telecommunication equipment on the southwest corner of the existing parking lot south of the Taste of India building at 1745 Cope Avenue. The applicant is requesting approval of the Conditional Use Permit and design approval for the site project plans. AT&T did perform a site search in the area for existing structures that possibly would work for their facilities. They looked at the U.S. West (Quest) site located on Jarvis Court which has an existing 90-foot monopole with antennas on it. However, AT&T would be at a 57-foot height, which would not be sufficient for their needs. AT&T also checked the city's water tower on Cope Avenue and concluded that it was outside their search area, it is too far east. The other monopole in the area is located at English and Jarvis which has two sets of antennas and is not structurally capable to allow additional equipment and may be too far west for AT&T's purposes. Mr. Roberts indicated that there has been some discussions with the owners of the monopole located at English and Jarvis about possibly trying to re-do it into a larger, taller monopole to allow more antennas. Mr. Roberts indicated that he has not received a reply to that request yet. Mr. Roberts stated that by putting the equipment building and monopole on the corner of the site it will have no effect on the Taste of India business or the parking lot. Staff was concerned about the view from the existing insurance building, and were not sure of the property line. Staff was hoping to get additional landscaping in the area to help screen the building in the base area, but that may not be possible. This proposal does meet the requirements of our tower ordinance, it does meet the requirements for a conditional use permit and Mr. Roberts recommends approval of the conditional use permit for this request. Commissioner Ledvina questioned staff if the location north of the restaurant, closer to 36, was considered. Mr. Roberts indicated that he was not aware of that site consideration, but the applicant could address that question. Julie Townsend, representing AT&T, addressed the Commission. She stated that the location north of the restaurant is in a grassy area and there is a potential of slight flooding. The equipment shelter would not be conducive for that particular location. She stated that tucked back into the corner of the south side, the structure would be hidden by some trees, therefore from the highway view, it was best hidden. Another consideration that was taken by the construction individuals of AT&T was the distance to a power source. If the monopole was located to the north, a considerable amount of the parking lot would have to be torn up in order to get to the power source. Commissioner Pearson questioned why the AT&T monopole had to be 122-foot pole in comparison to the other monopoles being installed at 90-feet or less. Ms. Townsend stated that it had much to do with the type of technology being used. AT&T wireless services an analog system at the 850- megahertz level whereas the other cellular telephone towers are PCS carriers and are on the 1850- megahertz level. What that means is that the PCS carders are placing their towers approximately every two to three miles, whereas AT&T, having more height, can space out their towers - sometimes ten to fifteen miles. Commissioner Pearson questioned if the 122-foot pole would be able to accommodate more than Planning Commission Minutes of 07-09-00 -8- one or two additional carders. Ms. Townsend indicated that the tower was being built to accommodate at least two additional carders. Commissioner Ledvina stated that on some of the other monopoles the antennas have been located very close to the pole and that reduces the negative aesthetics of the pole in his opinion. He asked Ms. Townsend if this would be possible with this antenna arrangement. Ms. Townsend stated that AT&T does not have an option at this point to position their antennas, it is a function of the technology. She shared with the Commission photographs of existing AT&T monopoles. She stated that the extedor shelter is 12-feet by 28-feet and the color of the exterior shelter would be whatever the staff recommends. She also displayed a photograph of the Quest monopole located nearby. She stated that Quest indicates that they claim they have co-locatable poles, meaning they can take on additional carders. However, they have used up three sectors of the monopole. Other carders need to have separation both horizontally and vertically. Therefore, there is not an opportunity for another carder to go onto that pole. Commissioner Frost questioned staff if when we approved these monopoles that we communicated that they needed to be co-locatable and was it known at the time of approval that there would be three or more antennas on the poles. Mr. Roberts stated that he did not recall and the technology or design of the monopole may have changed. Commission Frost questioned staff as to whether the companies can add to the monopoles without coming back to the City Council. Mr. Roberts indicated that they could add and change antennas around without city approval. Commissioner Frost suggested that we consider this topic in a future ordinance revision. Mr. Roberts indicated that would be possible. Commissioner Thompson clarified that U.S. West is now known as Quest. He asked Ms. Townsend if there were a 125-foot tower at that location, would it be practical for ^T&T to use that tower. Ms. Townsend indicated that if there were a 125-foot tower at the existing Quest location, and if AT&T had the opportunity to have the height necessary based upon the elevation of that site, yes they would co-locate. Commissioner Thompson pointed out that the existing Quest monopole was designed for co-location, however, it does not currently look as if it has multiple users. Commissioner Thompson is interested in testing the ethics of this issue. Commissioner Rossbach questioned Ms. Townsend regarding AT&T's future plans for additional poles in the area. Ms. Townsend indicated that she believed the next location nearest this site would be Woodbury. Commissioner Rossbach asked Ms. Townsend if she were aware of the proposed locations to the south. Ms. Townsend indicated that she did have a map indicating what poles AT&T currently have. Mr. Roberts asked Ms. Townsend if AT&T was co-located on any sites in the area. She indicated that the sites she pointed out includes all antennas, including any co- located poles or antennas located on top of buildings. Commissioner Tdppler asked staff to explain how they ardved at the conclusion of question number nine on page fifteen of the staff report. "The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects." Mr. Roberts indicated that page 15 of the report was submitted by the applicant as their response to city criteria. Commissioner Trippler directed his question to Ms. Townsend. Ms. Townsend explained that environmental effects are based upon what is necessary when building a site. They look into NEPA Phase I, they look at aesthetics, and also take into consideration the area and the topography. The pole will not be placed in a highly residential area, and it will be in a district that the city ordinance states that monopoles are allowed. Commissioner Tdppler asked if this would be a non-negative environmental impact for the area. Ms. Townsend indicated that the this location would be best suited for a monopole in the area. Ms. Coleman questioned the applicant if there was any expected life span for the monopoles. She also asked if technology is expected to advance to the stage where there will not be monopoles Planning Commission Minutes of 07-09-00 -9- every quarter mile down the street. Ms. Townsend stated that is not a question she could answer. Commissioner Trippler asked if the tower.emitted energy. Ms. Townsend indicated that she would not be able to answer that question appropriately. Commissioner Trippler asked if the cellular phones emitted energy. Ms. Townsend took the position not to answer that question. Ms. Coleman stated that in some other applications that have come before the Planning Commission the applicants have stated that all the energy that is emitted from them are no more than a microwave oven. She also indicated that those are the things that are regulated by the FCC and are not in our domain to regulate. Commissioner Trippler felt that if it causes adverse health effects that the Planning Commission has the authority to question whether it is adversely impacting our citizens. Ms. Coleman indicated that based upon the research that was available to staff in the past, there was not conclusive evidence indicating health concerns from the monopoles. The research that she had reviewed indicated that the effect of these poles is comparable to using a cellular phone or a microwave oven. She went on to say that the Federal and State courts have indicated to cities that it is not the city's place or business. Ms. Coleman agrees that she does not like the tower, and perhaps it is time to look at a moratorium in order to get a grip on how many more poles will be placed in our community. She also indicated that the city has gone to court on this issue in the past and have lost and feels this is not a reason that we could deny this application. She suggests efforts be put towards looking at a comprehensive coverage plan, or hiring a consultant to work with the different providers and the city to look at where these poles are absolutely needed and compile our own plan. She stated that some cities around the United States are doing that. It becomes a policy issue for cities to decide if they want to spend money hiring their own consultants and making their own plan. Commissioner Thompson stated that he understands from what is presented that there is no further consideration regarding the Quest site. He asked staff if the Commission could delay approval or recommendation of this application while a 120-foot tower might be considered at the Quest site. Ms. Coleman indicated that it would be difficult to tell Quest to build a pole for AT&T. She also questions whether or not Quest put up the three antennas that they have in such a fashion to prohibit co-location, because the City does require that. She indicated that there may be some repercussions to Quest for not following the city ordinance. However, it is a legal issue and an issue that would not warrant denial of this application. Ms. Coleman clarified that Quest has told AT&T they cannot accommodate another antenna. Commissioner Thompson asked if a 120-foot pole at the Quest location was serviceable. Mr. Roberts indicated that Quest has not been approached and asked about installing a larger pole at their existing facility. Commissioner Thompson asked staff if it is in the Commissions domain to request a delay pending on that question being presented to Quest. Mr. Roberts asked the applicant if this issue has been discussed with Quest. Ms. Townsend indicated that AT&T has talked with Quest about building larger facilities at other sites. However, at this particular location a few things are unique. The land is owned by Quest, therefore they do not have to lease AT&T land space to go onto their property and there is a space restriction at this particular property. Ms. Townsend indicated that there is a scenado called "one up, one down". This is when a carrier will build a brand new tower right next to the existing tower. Once the new tower is up, AT&T puts their antenna's on, Quest then has to take off their antennas and move their equipment, replace their antennas and go onto the new site, then the other site goes down. The problem that would be faced at this particular Maplewood location is the space restriction. Construction would require a large enough foundation to accommodate a 120-foot monopole, which may not fit next to the existing monopole. Ms. Townsend stated that it would be quite a bit for AT&T to ask Quest to take down their existing tower, remove all their equipment, and put it back up onto the new AT&T monopole. Commissioner Thompson asked Ms. Townsend if she did not feel that it was quite a bit for AT&T to ask the city for permission to locate an additional monopole at this new site as well. Ms. Townsend indicated that Quest has made it very clear in the past that they want nothing to do with Planning Commission -10- Minutes of 07-09-00 this type of scenario. Commis o~ner T~h~mpson reiterated that Quest is not amenable to co-location if at all possible. Ms. Townsen~ stat_~tfiat on other towere where there is space available at a conducive height, Quest does allow for co-location. She also indicated that all carriers do. She indicated that if AT&T were to approach Quest at this location and request co-location at 50-feet, that Quest would be agreeable if the space is open. Unfortunately, this particular tower does not meet AT&T's needs with height. Commissioner Thompson moved to table this application until there are answers regarding potential co-location at the Quest site. Commissioner Trippler seconded the motion. 5 - Ayes I - Nay (Frost) Motion cardes. The motion is to table the AT&T Wireless monopole application until the possibility of co-location at the Quest location is expressed. Commissioner Ledvina added that he would like to have the issues related to the property boundary and the possibility of screening and locating some plant material added be resolved in the interim. He also stated that he was still not convinced that a location north of the restaurant closer to Highway 36 would not be a good location. He requested that the applicant reconsider if indeed the selected location of the monopole is the only location for the pole. Commissioner Frost indicated to Ms. Townsend that she work with staff to resolve the Commissions concerns and welcomes her back in a few weeks. Commissioner Rossbach stated that after this discussion regarding monopole's located in the City it has become apparent that our ordinance currently on the books are not really doing what we thought they would do. He stated that the Commission should recommend to the City Council that they impose a moretorium on the construction of towers. He added that it would not affect this application. He stated that he feels that the city needs to reflect what the current ordinances are doing and what we should do to change them or upgrade them in order to get more uniform disbursement throughout the city. He also agreed with Ms. Coleman regarding the possibility of bringing the carriers together and discuss with them what the city's wants, desires and needs are and also allow the carriers to spend time figudng out what their needs are going to be in the future in Maplewood. Commissioner Rossbach moved that the Commission recommend to the City Council that a moratorium be imposed regarding monopoles in the City of Maplewood. Commissioner Ledvina seconded. Commissioner Ledvina added that perhaps the city should strongly consider developing a detailed comprehensive plan as well as evaluating the ordinance looking at the whole area. If necessary hire their own engineer to help the city to provide an unbiased prospective on the need for towers and where towers should be located. Ayes - All Motion carries. B. White Bear Avenue Corridor Study - Summary Recommendation Ms. Coleman present the overview of the review that was done by the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission Minutes of 07-09-00 -11- Planning Commission on their findings on the White Bear Avenue Corridor Study. Ms. Coleman indicated that she would like the Commission to let her know if anything was forgotten that was discussed. She indicated that if this meets the Commissions approval it will be taken to the Council for their review on October 9. Commissioner Thompson indicated concem regarding lack of comment on transportation in this study: He requested that transportation issues should be included in the study. Ms. Coleman asked Commissioner Thompson to clarify his request. He indicated that specifically he was trying to address public transit on White Bear Avenue. He stated that the public transportation atmosphere could be improved without spending big dollars. He offered an example, instead of having a commercial on the roar-end of a bus, a sign is placed thero saying "Yield to Buses" giving buses a little bit more privilege. He stated the goal is to have legislation conducive to moro rapid public transit. Ms. Coleman stated that with the money that was spent on this study, we did not necessarily get what we were all looking for. She explained that what she was looking for this evening is things that we could pull out of the study and apply to our work hero. She agreed that what Commissioner Thompson discussed was not in the study. Commissioner Thompson requested that the study reflect the absence of the transit issue. Ms. Coleman stated that she could put language into~the study regarding the absence of any discussion on public transit and that we will still be cj:,3fiition of it. Commissioner Rossbach motioned to move the White Bear Avenue Corddor Study Summary onto City Council. Seconded by Commissioner Thompson. Ayes - All Motion carries. VII. VISITORS PRESENTATIONS No visitors were present. VIII. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS A. July 10 Council Meeting: Commissioner Trippler reported on this meeting. He informed the Commission that the Goodrich Clubhouse passed, Ayes all. He also reported that the Amusement City Permit was passed with the deletion of all guns on the premises. The pizza parlor and the additional racetrack was approved. There was also discussion regarding the clearing out of the used car lot. He indicated that there was concern regarding the High Point Ridge development. This application was tabled. B. July 24 Council Meeting: Ms. Coleman reported on this meeting. She indicated that the U.S. West monopole was approved at County Road C. They also approved the Super America project with a change to the setback requirements. Highpoint was reconsidered. They followed the Planning Commission's recommendation and did not approve the apartment part of the project. C. August 14 Council Meeting: Commissioner Trippler reported on this meeting. Ms. Coleman indicated that the comprehensive plan update for the historic resources management plan was approved with very little discussion. Ms. Coleman stated that the zoning code change for the business commercial district was approved. D. August 28 Council Meeting: Ms. Coleman stated that Council approved the first reading on a curbing ordinance amendment to the zoning code and will be doing second the reading next Monday night. E. September 11: Ms. Coleman indicated that representation from the Planning Commission was not needed at that meeting. F. September 25: Commissioner Frost will attend this meeting. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-09-00 -12- Commissioner Thompson commented on the used car lot just north of Amusement City. He indicated that the chain link fence is down, and posts are there with chains between them. The parking lot is black topped. The buildings have been dressed up considerable. The sign is painted and the owner hopes to have between 50 and 75 used cars on the lot. There will be no more used cars stored on the lot. IX STAFF PRESENTATIONS Ms. Coleman discussed the residential off-street parking. She indicated that the plan is to start from ground zero with the new council and t~j to define issue areas. Staff has come up with four to six items that they will look at. Ms. Coleman also stated that the public has been invited to come in and comment on the items. She stated that they have received numero~,.us phone calls and letters. She indicated that almost all responses have been u~fiVersa~ in favor~rl~addressing the issue of parking in front yards. Any kind of ordinance amendments that would be changed would be brought before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Trippler asked that the staff screen any responses received by the public, particularly looking for any suggestions on what they want to see in a parking ordinance. He also indicated that he would like to see how many people suggested certain things.. Ms. Coleman indicated that staff is keeping t,r,a~k of the letters and phone calls and their major area of concerns. She stated that a large amou,Ft of the responses indicated that they were concerned with parking on the street. She stated thatl4he Police Department is not enforcing overnight parking on the street. There was also indications of concerns regarding home occupations. She indicated that the Commission will receive a summary of the responses. B. Mr. Roberts reported that Mr. Haider will be leaving the employment of the City at the end of the month. Ms. Coleman reported to the Commission that the City Manager's position has been offered, and a contract is being negotiated. She stated that someone should be on board mid to late October. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Preliminary Plat - Pineview Estates County Road D, east of Hazelwood September 12, 2000 INTRODUCTION Project Description Patrick Goff, of Goff Homes, is proposing a preliminary plat for the Pineview Estates development. Refer to the maps and drawings on pages 7-12. Mr. Goff is proposing 72 lots for townhouses in six, twelve-unit buildings. Each of the proposed twelve-plexes would have the same design and exterior materials. The proposed buildings would have exteriors of horizontal-lap vinyl siding. The front (street -side) elevation also would have brick accents. Refer to the building elevations on page 12. (The community design review board has already approved these plans.) Requests Mr. Goff is requesting approval of a preliminary plat for 72 lots so that he may sell each unit individually. BACKGROUND On May 25, 1999, the community design review board (C~RB) approved the plans for the Pineview Estates Condominiums. (See the building elevations on page 12.) This approval was subject to four conditions. On June 13, 2000, the community design review board approved revised plans for Pineview Estates Apartments. This approval was subject to five conditions. Since this approval, Mr. Goff has decided to build the units that the CDRB approved in 1999. DISCUSSION Preliminary Plat The preliminary plat for the 72 units meets the city's density requirements for high-density residential development. Having a lot under each unit will allow the developer to sell each unit individually. RECOMMENDATION Approve the Pineview Estates preliminary plat (received by the city on August 24, 2000). 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: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Pay the city for the cost of any traffic-control or no parking signs. d. Provide all required and necessary easements. 2.* Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall be revised to follow the site plan and preliminary plat dated August 24, 2000, and shall include the grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, trail, sidewalk and street plans. The plans shall follow the plans dated December 15, 1999, as approved by the Assistant City Engineer on February 14, 2000 and shall meet the following conditions: a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code. b. The grading plan shall show: (1) (2) (3) (4) The proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each home site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat. Contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. The proposed street and driveway grades as ellowed by the city engineer. All proposed slopes on the construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. On slopes steeper than 3:1, the developer shall prepare and implement a stabilization and planting plan. At a minimum, the slopes shall be protected with wood fiber blankets, be seeded with a no maintenance vegetation and be stabilized before the city approves the final plat. (5) (6) All retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls taller than 4 feet require a building permit from the city and shall be designed by a structural engineer. The developer shall install a protective rail on top of any retaining wall that is taller than four feet. Sedimentation basins or ponds as may be required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. (7) No grading beyond the plat boundary without temporary grading easements from the affected property owner(s). (8) Revise the westerly most sanitary sewer alignment to improve the connection and flow angle of the sanitary sewer line entering the city's existing sanitary sewer manhole. The city engineer must approve the sanitary sewer connection realignment. (9) Have the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) review and approve the proposed utility plans. Specifically, the former submittal required 4-inch mains to service the buildings with blow-offs at the ends. All fire hydrants shall be next to County Road D. c. The street, driveway, trail and utility plans shall show: (1) All the parking areas and driveways with continuous concrete curb and gutter. (2) The coordination of the water main alignments and sizing with the standards and requirements of the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS). Fire flow requirements and hydrant locations shall be verified with the Maplewood Fire Department. (3) All utility excavations located within the proposed right-of-ways or within easements. The developer shall acquire easements for all utilities that would be outside the project area. 3. Pay the costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. 4. Sign a developer's agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Provide for the repair of County Road D (street and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the driveways. 5. Change the plat as follows: a. Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer. Show drainage and utility easements along all the site perimeter property lines on the final plat. These easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet wide along the side property lines. Secure and provide all required easements for the development including any off-site drainage and utility easements. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site drainage. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. Submit the homeowner's 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 structure. 9. Record the following with the final plat: a. All homeowner's association documents. A covenant or deed restriction that prohibits any further subdivision or splitting of the lots or parcels in the plat that would create additional building sites unless approved by the city council. The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to the city for approval before recording. 10. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for grading. 11. 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. *The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or approves the final plat. 4 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 5.98 acres Existing land use: Undeveloped SURROUNDING LANDUSES North: White Bear Lake across Interstate 694 South: Undeveloped land across County Road D West: Maplewood ponding area East: ^ 1.23-acre property with a single-dwelling that the city has planned and zoned R-3 PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: R3(H) (multiple dwelling residential-high density) Zoning: R3 (multiple dwelling residential) Application Date We received the preliminary plat application on August 24, 2000. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. As such, the city council must take action on this proposal by October 23, 2000. p:sec34-30/pineview, mem Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Proposed Utility Plan 5. Proposed Grading Plan 6. Proposed Landscape Plan 7. Building Elevations 8. Plans date-stamped August 24, 2000 (separate attachments) Attachment 1 VADNAIS HEIGHTS BEAR LAKE LOCATION MAP Attachment 2 300' --~-,o, 694 MAPLEWOOD_--~ PONDING PROPOSED PINEVlEW ESTATES COUNTY RD. D PROPERTY LINE i ZONING MAP Attachment 3 SITE PLAN el Mcc~cnmenc ~ ~.2d-oo PROPOSED UTILITY PLAN Attachment 5 PROPOSED GRADING 10 PLAN Attachment 6 East Elevation Office South Elevation Office BUILDING ELEVATIONS 1999