Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/17/20041. Call to Order MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 17, 2004, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. May 3, 2004 Public Headngs 7:00 2005 - 2009 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) 7:30 Olivia Gardens (Stillwater Road) 1. Comprehensive Plan Change (R-1 to R-2) 2. Zoning Map Change (R-1 to R-2) 3. Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development 4. Preliminary Plat 7:45 Trout Land (west of Highway 61 and new County Road D) 1. Comprehensive Plan Changes a. Land Use Plan Changes - R-1 and M-1 to R3(H) b. Collector Street Designation - County Road D 2. Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development 3. Preliminary Plat 6. New Business a. Conditional Use Permit- 2086 Edgerton Street (Rygwalski) 7. Unfinished Business None 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations a. May 10 Council Meeting: Mr. Mueller b. May 24 Council Meeting: Mr. Bartol c. June 14 Council Meeting: Ms. Diedch 10. Staff Presentations a. Planning Commission Interviews - May 24 City Council b. Annual Tour 11. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004 I. CALLTO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. I1. ROLL CALL Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Jeff Bartol Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Commissioner Mary Dierich Commissioner Paul Mueller Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippler Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Staff Present: Ken Roberts, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner II1. APPROVAL OFAGENDA Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes- Bartol, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Mueller, Pearson, Trippler The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the planning commission minutes for May 3, 2004. Commissioner Dierich had some corrections on page 14, on the fifth line it should be changed to: If the city doesn't know whether the pond is sprin.q fed, the city should send their people out to find out. And in the eleventh line after the words Beebe Road, the sentence should be changed to The parkin.q lot should be done in one phase, deleting the remainder of the sentence. Commissioner Dierich had a word addition on page 15, second paragraph, adding the word However, at the beginning of the sentence. Chairperson Fischer had a point of clarification on page 15, in the first paragraph. The first paragraph, second sentence, should read: The senior housing on Beebe Road was given a parking variance so visitors could park on the street. There is also parking on both sides of the street when school events occur. There are no sidewalks on Beebe road, which is now a MTC bus route. Planning Commission Minutes of 5-17-04 -2- Chairperson Fischer had another correction on page 15, in the third paragraph, changing the word there to the. Commissioner Trippler had an addition to page 18, in the fifth paragraph from the bottom, inserting the word to after the word adjacent so it reads adjacent Lo landscaping. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the planning commission minutes for May 3, 2004, with changes. Commissioner Dierich seconded. Ayes- Bartol, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Mueller, Pearson, Trippler V. PUBLIC HEARING a. 2005 - 2009 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Mr. Roberts enclosed the proposed 2005-2009 Capital Improvement Plan for the commission to review. The city updates this report each year. The Capital Improvement Plan is part of the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan. State law requires the planning commission to review all changes to the comprehensive plan. The purpose of this review is to decide if the proposed capital improvements are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Mr. Richard Fursman, City Manager for the City of Maplewood, addressed commission members and visitors. Mr. Fursman said the Capital Improvement Plan is a 170-page document, which include ideas and plans for the city for the years 2005-2009 regarding how the city is going to treat streets and facilities. The 2005-2009 (CIP) coordinates the financing and timing for equipment purchases and construction projects. The (CIP) Capital Improvement Plan is based on goals established by the City Council over the past few years on retreats held on July 30, 2002, February 2003, and March 3, 2004. Many of the projects scheduled for 2005-2009 will result in accomplishing a portion of those goals established at those retreats. There was no levy for the CIP. The city is going to require a levy of $335,000 for 2005 to finance redevelopment. The housing and redevelopment program requires $130,000, for replacement of trucks $55,000 is needed, for the Tartan Ice Arena improvements $80,000 and sidewalk improvements require $50,000. If the City Council adopts the (CIP), there will be a need for a strong commitment to follow the construction and financing schedule for the public improvement projects for 2005. This will also facilitate the Finance Department's planning for the 2005 bond issue, which becomes a critical tool for the city. The CIP by design is a planning tool that is used by the City Council, staff and commissions. Due to the uncertainties of government, the City Council retains the flexibility to proceed with projects based on the economics of the times and there may be changes ahead of us. Provided the CIP is adopted by the City Council then it will be scheduled into the 2005 budget. That will give the city another opportunity to review the capital improvement project as the city goes through the budget process this summer and into the fall. City staff condensed this 170-page document into a videotape, which is easier to understand. Commissioner Desai asked why the Gladstone Redevelopment Plan that the city has worked on for a short time is going to take priority over the Hillcrest Redevelopment Plan that the city has been working on for several years? Planning Commission Minutes of 5-17-04 -3- Mr. Fursman said he believes the city can have a greater impact on the Gladstone area now and the Hillcrest area is not quite ready for redevelopment and is a smaller area to redevelop. He would invite the Assistant City Manager, Melinda Coleman to discuss this matter further. Ms. Melinda Coleman, Maplewood Assistant City Manager, said there are quite a few property owners in the Gladstone neighborhood that have approached staff stating that they are interested in either selling or expanding their business. There seems to be a lot of interest for the property owners in the Gladstone area to move forward to do something with the area. The city has spent quite a bit of time putting a Mixed-Use Ordinance together for the Hillcrest area and that happened because the Met Council along with the City of St. Paul was pushing for the redevelopment of that area. The zoning is in place now so if a development request comes forward, the city will be ready for it in the Hillcrest area. For the Gladstone area, the city is trying to do the Land Use Plan first. The city has been meeting with the Gladstone Coalition and there are two more meetings scheduled. The Gladstone Coalition and the city plan on bringing the community, the commission and board together to finalize what that plan would look like. Next would be the zoning for the Land Use. The people in the Hillcrest area were not quite ready to move forward with changes at this point. The City Council felt there was more of a community interest in the Gladstone area for redevelopment and the council decided to move forward with that area first. Chairperson Fischer said there are really only a few blocks of the Hillcrest area in the City of Maplewood and the remainder of the Hillcrest area is in St. Paul. There is significantly more acreage in the Gladstone area and as the city moves forward there would be a continued emphasis placed on the Hillcrest area. Ms. Coleman said the City Council had mentioned the city may be able to relocate some of the businesses in the Gladstone area to the Hillcrest area or relocating businesses from the Hillcrest area to the Gladstone area and try to work with the businesses. The city has to keep the planning process going. The enthusiasm by the Gladstone property owners is much greater and the residents have shown more interest than the residents of the Hillcrest area. The Hillcrest area is more compact and commercial oriented and the Gladstone area will be more residential developments and some businesses will be moving to residential. Commissioner Trippler asked why the city couldn't move the 800 megahertz system request for the police and fire departments along sooner rather than later? Maplewood Police Chief, Dave Thomalla, addressed the commission. He said the timeline that has been set out for the 800-megahertz system is geared towards the Ramsey County project, which is currently projecting through several meetings. When the city spread the cost out over 2 years they tried to spread the dollar amount out evenly. This is a joint project between the police and fire departments and the amount of money budgeted for 2005 is for the in-house portion that is required plus some of the subscriber equipment in the form of hand held and portable radios that are needed to get this project going. In 2006 the allotment will bring them up to the level with user equipment. Mr. Dan Faust ran the 1/2 hour video of the proposed 2005-2009 Capital Improvement Plan. Commissioner Trippler asked if it was a fair statement that the street improvements were focused on completion in the year 2009? Planning Commission Minutes of 5-17-04 -4- Mr. Chuck Ahl, Maplewood Public Works Director, addressed the commission. He said that is incorrect. The city tried to balance out various street reconstruction neighborhood programs annually so there should be a major project costing $2.5 - $3.5 million dollars done every year. There are some major projects scheduled out for 2008-2009 so in his mind the projects are spread out. Commissioner Trippler said he didn't see anything in the plan regarding additional soccer fields. With the continued growth of children in the city he thought the city should move towards the future and not in the past. Mr. Bruce Anderson, Parks and Recreation Director, addressed the commission. The City of Maplewood has 2,500 children playing soccer and 600 children playing baseball. In 1972 Hazelwood Park was constructed with nine soccer fields so you won't find another community other than Blaine that has this many soccer fields. Lacrosse is the biggest growing sport and they use the same type of fields as the soccer field. Afton Heights Park is currently under reconstruction and they had five baseball fields. After completion those will be reduced to three baseball fields and there will be two soccer fields. Commissioner Dierich asked, as part of the Century Avenue area improvements is the city going to purchase property to expand the width of the street or will that happen on the Woodbury side of the street? Mr. Ahl said the Century Avenue project is currently going through those discussions and the improvements will be done on both sides of Century Avenue. This improvement could take place in 2008-2009. Both counties received a federal funding grant for 2008-2009 to help fund the Century Avenue project, otherwise the cost would higher. Because of the federal funding and because the state provided funding to the counties the turn back looks Iow at this time. They have a long way to go to determine the final dollar amount but it looks very good at this time. Commissioner Trippler asked what the term alternative funding represents? Mr. Dan Faust, Maplewood Finance Director, addressed the commission. He said the letter of transmittal from the City Manager, in item number 6 briefly describes tax abatement bonds, electric franchise fees, and the environmental utility fees. At the June 14, 2004, city council meeting they will be discussing the possibility of an electric franchise fee. The city is looking at a 1% franchise fee on electric bills in lieu of a property tax increase. This would finance the bearing of overhead power lines and finance the Gladstone and Hillcrest areas. Commissioner Trippler asked if the bonding bill at the state for the Bruentrup Farm passed? Mr. Faust said the bonding bill did not pass so that money will not be available. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the 2005-2009 Capital Improvement Plan. Commissioner Desai seconded. Ayes- Bartol, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Mueller, Pearson, Trippler The motion passed. Planning Commission Minutes of 5-17-04 -5- This item goes to the city council on May 24, 2004. b. Olivia Gardens (Stillwater Road) Mr. Roberts said Mr. Kelly Conlin, representing Homesites LLC, is proposing to build 14 town houses (in seven twin homes) in a development called Olivia Gardens. It would be on a 2.79- acre site on the west side of Stillwater Road, north of Bush Avenue. A homeowners' association would own and maintain the common areas. The applicant has not applied for design approval for the development at this time. They told Mr. Roberts that they would proceed with the design approval process, including the approval of the plans for the site, landscaping and buildings, after the city approves the above-listed requests. Commissioner Trippler said after looking at the map on page 15 of the staff report he realized that over the past year it's as if every development the commission has been reviewing has been for townhomes, twin homes, and multi-family buildings. It seems the city is packing people into neighborhoods with multi-family buildings where single-family homes used to exist. In a few years developers will be buying out single-family homes in order to build new townhomes and twin homes. He asked why staff thought it was better to change the zoning to R-2 rather than pressing the developer to build R-1 zoning? Mr. Roberts said he felt it was the city's responsibility to respond to what was presented in the application. The application seemed to be a much better plan than what had been occurring on that parcel for the past 15 years. The economics of buying and redeveloping this property probably wouldn't be feasible if the developer built four or five single-family homes compared to the proposed seven twin homes. Having more units and spreading out their cost, the developer has a better chance to make the project work and maybe make a profit. The city has had a lot of townhome developments and most of that is market driven. The Beaver Lake townhomes located up the street from this proposed development are selling for $300,000-$400,000 and the market has changed. As people are getting older people and are looking for townhomes there seem to be less of a demand for single-family homes. Commissioner Dierich said her daughter recently wrote a report for her Master's thesis regarding the demand for this type of housing and that seems to be the way the market is moving. This proposal is a nice choice especially if these are single-level townhomes and the applicant is planning these units for seniors. She said she doesn't have a problem with the number of units as much as she does the layout of the development. This type of layout is exactly what the commission turned down in the south end of Maplewood with the long narrowness of the property and now this plan comes to the commission. She would like to see a hammerhead or turnaround at the end of this development, which would also make this development visually more interesting. Mr. Roberts said to have a hammerhead turnaround most likely would involve the removal of the end unit. Mr. Roberts had asked the Fire Marshal, Butch Gervais if the fire department was concerned about not having a turnaround, he said it wasn't. His only concern was that an emergency vehicle would be able to use the driveway to turn around to exit the area. Planning Commission Minutes of 5-17-04 -6- Commissioner Bartol said everything around this piece of property is zoned R-1 and he's not sure the commission is convinced they should allow this property to change the zoning to R-2. He asked why the city should deviate from the comprehensive plan? Mr. Roberts said it was staff's opinion that having the assurance the commercial property would no longer be there was a strong enough trade off to move forward with this plan. He doesn't know that a single-family development plan would work in this proposed location. With a public street and a 10,000 square foot lot minimum they could only build four or five homes. It may not be financially feasible for the developer. Commissioner Bartol asked if the developer looked into building single-family homes to match the surrounding area? Mr. Roberts said he wasn't sure if the developer had checked into that, or if any developer had ever checked into that. If the city used an R-2 zoning with no PUD each lot would have to be 6,000 square feet or 12,000 square feet per double unit. By having the PUD each individual lot under each half of the building is less than that, but the overall density with the open space on the south side of the proposed driveway averages out to be the density standards in the comprehensive plan. Commissioner Mueller asked what the vacant parcel was and who owned it? Mr. Roberts said the vacant parcel between this proposed development and the apartment building is a tax-forfeited property, which is owned by the city. The parcel is zoned R-1 and has a ponding area. Commissioner Mueller asked if that parcel could be developed or if it was just open space? Mr. Roberts said part of the frontage near Stillwater Road may be developable but Mr. Ahl may have more information on that parcel. Mr. Ahl said the ponding area has no need for expansion to meet the drainage needs of the area. There may be a small portion in the front parcel that could be sold off to be developed. The city uses the parcel as a green space to protect the ponding area. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Kelly Conlin, with Homesites, LLC, residing at 11855 Isleton Avenue, Stillwater, addressed the commission. He said they did some comprehensive sketches on single-family lots and the lots don't meet the size requirements and also you can't get a road in that location. Mr. Conlin said because of the apartment building they thought having twin homes would be a nice transition with the single family homes in the area. They had a neighborhood meeting and most of the neighbors were in favor of this proposal. Planning Commission Minutes of 5-17-04 -7- Mr. Conlin said these units will be single level and senior housing so there will not be as many cars. Because this development would be a PUD it wouldn't affect the city. They are requesting the change in zoning for the city, the road, to get rid of the existing business and for the economics of the project. A lot of cleanup needs to occur on this site. They have built a site in Oakdale with a hammerhead turnaround for emergency vehicles and made it a no parking zone. With the cost of the lot and the building, these twin homes are going to be upwards of $300,000, and will add to the value of the neighborhood. Commissioner Desai asked where they propose the snow removal to go in the winter months? Mr. Conlin said many times the snow will have to be hauled off the site but that will be addressed in the homeowners association in the bylaws and covenants, which will be attached to the property. Commissioner Desai asked why units 3 & 5 are longer than the other units? Mr. Conlin said units 3 & 5 are narrower and deeper. Commissioner Trippler asked if one unit was removed would this project be economically feasible? Mr. Conlin said not really because of the cost to remove all of the concrete on the site. Some of the concrete is six feet thick so there is a lot of demolition and clean up. They have already hauled a contaminated tank off the site but there is a lot more work. Commissioner Bartol asked if they had considered acquiring the city owned lot and building a less restricted development, adding a turnaround and some curvature to the road? Mr. Conlin said they were not aware the city owned that space. He knows the site has been filled with soil but he thought the site was used for proper drainage. Chairperson Fischer asked if anybody would like to address the commission regarding this item? Mr. Jim Mosner, residing at 798 North McKnight Road, addressed the commission. He came to the neighborhood meeting and was pleased the developer wanted to do well by the neighbors. His main concern is how tightly packed the site is. He would like to see the density less than what it is. One of the homes is 25 feet from his backyard. The homes are packed in like sardines and he would like to see at least one unit less in this development. He suggested having 11 units making one of the units a tri-plex and leaving the density zoned R-I. Ms. Julie LaFleur, residing at 2322 Stillwater Road East, addressed the commission. She is concerned about the proposed property decreasing the property values of the surrounding properties. She is also concerned about the pedestrian safety because there is a lot of foot traffic along the sidewalk on Stillwater Road. There is a park, softball fields across the street at the church and the bus stops in that location. The cars in this development will drive across the only sidewalk in the area as well. Planning Commission Minutes of 5-17-04 -8- Ms. LaFleur said there is a potential of 28 or more cars with the proposal of the 14 homes. There is no guarantee that seniors will be living there. If children live in these twin homes there is no green space for them to play on and they will probably go across the street to play. There is no street light in the area and it's very dark there, which is another safety issue. It was unpleasant living across the street from the commercial site so it has gotten better. She is concerned about the headlights shining into her home as well. She wasn't notified about the neighborhood meetings so this was the first time she was able to speak regarding this proposal. Mr. Conlin said seniors typically drive less than single-family homeowners. As far as the traffic concern regarding cars driving over the sidewalk, the commercial cement trucks were more of a hazard than the senior residents driving across the sidewalk would be. As he stated before they really require the approval of the 14 units in order to do the cleanup and economics of this site. Commissioner Trippler said one of the residents suggested taking one of the twin homes out and turning one of the twin homes into a tri-plex. He asked what the developer thought of that idea? Mr. Conlin said he thought maybe there was a mistake in the report, which shows they have 2.79 acres and he believed it was 4 acres, however, he would have to verify that. That would mean they could have16 units on the property instead of the 14 units that they have proposed, which means they have proposed less units than what they could have built on the property. Commissioner Trippler asked if the city agreed to change the zoning to R-2 would it be possible to turn unit 7 north and south and make it into a three unit? Could they take unit 6 out, and space units 1 and 5 out more so it doesn't look so packed? Mr. Conlin said he would rather they have a four unit complex there instead. Those backyards abut Mike Green's backyard, which is very deep. The reason they are pushing for the 14 twin homes is because of the economics and the clean up. There is over $100,000 worth of clean up that they have to finish and pay for before they can build. Commissioner Mueller asked what the density would be if this proposed development goes R-2 without a PUD? In his opinion to eliminate one twin home wouldn't change the traffic issue. Mr. Roberts said the zoning would not change the density. The land use plan designation sets the density in the comprehensive plan for double dwellings in the Iow range at 5.4 units per gross acre, the medium range is 6 units per gross acre. The PUD doesn't change the density, it only changes things like setbacks, street design and driveways. Commissioner Dierich asked if it was even feasible to sell the city owned space? Mr. Ahl said the parcel is under the city's jurisdiction, which is different from city ownership. The city acquired the parcel through a tax forfeiture, which means somebody didn't pay their taxes so the property was offered to government agencies. The city put a claim in for drainage purposes so the property is listed in the state records as a lot that is needed for drainage purposes. If the city chooses to sever that agreement there is a very lengthy and expensive process to go through. The city typically doesn't do this unless they see a development in the area. They do an analysis and look at what drainage is necessary and what the final use for the land is. They would also look at future drainage needs for the roadway. Planning Commission Minutes of 5-17-04 -9- Commissioner Dierich asked if the city owned property wasn't for sale would the property be available to use as a park area? Mr. Ahl said drainage and those types of open space uses are certainly appropriate for tax forfeiture projects. Commissioner Bartol said currently the city owned property is overgrown and an eyesore. He asked if there was some way to put in the PUD association who is in charge of the land and turn it into a green space or park area? That way everybody would benefit. Mr. Ahl said staff would agree. Commissioner Desai asked for clarification regarding the actual acreage for this area. He asked if it was 4 acres as the developer said or 2.79 acres as in the staff report? Mr. Roberts said staff would have to double check and they would have that information available for the city council. Commissioner Dierich moved to approve the resolution on page 28 of the staff report. This resolution changes the land use plan for the Olivia Estates plat on the west side of Stillwater Road, north of Bush Avenue. This change is from R-1 (single dwellings) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). The city is making this change because: 1. It would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. 2. This change would eliminate an area that the city had once planned for commercial uses that was between two residential areas. 3. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for medium-density residential use. This includes: a. It is on a minor arterial street and is near a collector street. b. Minimizing any adverse effects on surrounding properties because there would be no traffic from this development on existing residential streets. 4. It would be consistent with the proposed zoning and land uses. Commissioner Dierich moved to approve the resolution on page 29 of the staff report. This resolution changes the zoning map for the Olivia Gardens plat on the west side of Stillwater Road, north of Bush Avenue. This change is from R-1 (single dwellings) to R-2 (single and double dwellings). The reasons for this change are those required by the city code and because the owner plans to develop this part of the property for double dwellings. Commissioner Dierich moved to approve the resolution starting on page 30 of the staff report. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the Olivia Gardens development on the west side of Stillwater Road, north of Bush Avenue. The city bases this approval on the findings required by code. (Refer to the resolution for the specific findings.) Approval is subject to the following conditions: Planning Commission -10- Minutes of 5-17-04 1. All construction shall follow the plans approved by the city. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes to the plans. Such changes shall include: a. Revising the grading and site plans to show: (1) The developer minimizing the loss or removal of natural vegetation. (2) All driveways at least 20 feet wide. If the developer wants to have parking on one side of the main drive (Olivia Court), then it must be at least 28 feet wide. (3) All parking stalls with a width of at least 9.5 feet and a length of at least 18 feet. (4) The driveway in front of Lots 1 and 2, Block 6 as wide as possible while still accommodating the required screening and tree planting. 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 meet all the conditions and changes noted in Erin Laberee's memo dated April 26, 2004. 4. The approved setbacks for the principal structures in Olivia Garden shall be: a. Front-yard setback (from a public street or a private driveway): Minimum - 20 feet, maximum - 35 feet. b. Front-yard setback (public side street): minimum - 30 feet, maximum - none. c. Rear-yard setback: 20 feet from any adjacent residential property line. d. Side-yard setback (town houses): minimum - 20 feet from a property line and 20 feet minimum between buildings. 5. The developer or builder will pay the city Park Access Charges (PAC fees) for each housing unit at the time of the building permit for each housing unit. 6. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Commissioner Dierich moved to approve the Olivia Garden preliminary plat (received by the city on April 21,2004). 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. Planning Commission -11- Minutes of 5-17-04 c. Pay the city for the cost of traffic-control, street identification and no-parking signs. d. Provide all required and necessary easements (including all utility easements and ten-foot drainage and utility easements along the front and rear lot lines of each lot and five-foot drainage and utility easements along the side lot lines of each lot). e. Cap and seal any wells on site. f. Have Xcel Energy install a streetlight at the intersection of Stillwater Road and the proposed private driveway (Olivia Court). The exact location and type of light shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. 2. *Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, driveway, tree, and street plans. The plans shall meet all the conditions and changes listed in the memo dated April 26, 2004, and shall meet the following conditions: a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code. b. The grading plan shall: (1) Include proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each home site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat. (2) Include contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. (3) Show housing pads that reduce the grading on sites where the developer can save large trees. (4) Show the proposed street and driveway grades as allowed by the city engineer. (5) Include the tree plan that: (a) Shows where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. (b) Shows no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (6) Show drainage areas and the developer's engineer shall provide the city engineer with the drainage calculations. The drainage design shall accommodate the runoff from the surrounding areas. c. The street, driveway and utility plans shall show the: (1) Water service to each lot and unit. (2) Repair of Stillwater Road (street, trail and boulevard) after the developer connects to the public utilities and builds the private driveways. Planning Commission Minutes of 5-17-04 (3) Driveway in front of Lots 1 and 2, required screening and trees. -12- Block 6 as wide as possible to accommodate the 3. Paying for costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. 4. Change the plat as follows: a. Show drainage and utility easements along all property lines on the final plat. These easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet wide along the side property lines. b. Label the private driveway as Olivia Court and label Stillwater Road on all plans. ¢. Label the common area as Outlot A. 5. Secure and provide all required easements for the development including any off-site drainage and utility easements. 6. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site drainage. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. 7. Obtain a permit from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for grading. 8. Submit the homeowners' association bylaws and rules to the city for approval by the director of community development. These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the maintenance of the common areas, private utilities, landscaping and retaining walls. 9. Record the following with the final plat: a. All homeowners' association documents. b. A covenant or association documents that addresses the proper installation, maintenance and replacement of the retaining walls. 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. Obtain a NPDES construction permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 12. The owner or contractor shall get demolition permits from the city to remove the house, equipment building and the other structures from the two properties. 13. The property owner shall submit a petition to the city requesting the installation of the public improvements. Planning Commission Minutes of 5-17-04 -13- 14. 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. With two added conditions: a. The developer install a hammerhead turnaround by the south unit. b. Recommend that the applicant investigate developing the open space as green space next to the pond with the association being responsible for maintaining the space. Mr. Conlin said they don't have a problem maintaining the open space property although he would have to check with his attorney. There may be legal issues dealing with the green space and the liability issues. Also he would not want to hold this development up to add this space to the association agreement. Commissioner Desai seconded. Ayes- Bartol, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Mueller, Pearson, Nay - Trippler The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on June 14, 2004. Commissioner Trippler said he likes the fact that the commercial property is going away. He likes the development concept but he thinks it's setting a precedence for this neighborhood by packing in this many parcels. c. Trout Land (west of Highway 61 and new County Road D) Mr. Ekstrand said Jim Kellison, of Kelco Real Estate Development, is proposing a multi-use development west and north of Gulden's Roadhouse. This property is an assemblage of lots totaling 23.3 acres and would be bisected by the proposed County Road D extension. The proposed residential portion of this development would consist of 78 townhomes and a 55-unit apartment building. The proposed commercial portion would include an automobile dealership, a gas station/convenience store and neighborhood-service-related retail. The applicant does not have any residential or commercial developers at this time. He is proposing this PUD (planned unit development) in conceptual form as requests for land use approval and residential density approval. As part of this proposal, the owners of the northerly 5.67 acres, Joe and Mary June Prokosch, would continue living in their residence at 1272 County Road D. Furthermore, the applicant proposes to deed a .2-acre parcel to Sparkle Auto to the north. Sparkle Auto's parking lot is presently encroaching onto the applicant's land. This deeding will eliminate disruption to Sparkle Auto's operation. Planning Commission Minutes of 5-17-04 -14- Commissioner Trippler asked what the staff's input would be if the commission recommended R- 3M zoning instead of R-3H? He looked in the comp plan under table 7 and R-3M fits the best. Mr. Ekstrand said in going over the various densities with the elimination of the apartment complex and if all of the proposed R-3H property was used for townhomes they could have 123 units, if it was designated R-3M they could have 71 units. Commissioner Trippler said about a year ago he was looking at townhome properties in the Liberty development in Stillwater and both of the units he looked at would have been next door to a gas station. He's sure the reason they didn't disclose that information is because it wouldn't have been a good selling point to live next door to gas fumes, car radios, screeching tires and doors slamming. He brings that fact up because of this proposal and the location of the gas station/convenience store. To assume the developer would inform potential buyers that a gas station would be built next door he wouldn't rely on that being passed onto the consumer. He also thinks the gas station should be moved from its location to where the auto dealership is proposed to be located. Commissioner Mueller asked staff if these commercial proposals were only suggestions at this point? Mr. Ekstrand said he asked the applicant if there was any certainty that these would be the types of uses and he said yes this is the use they are seeking, although they don't have any strong commitments yet. Commissioner Mueller asked if those commercial uses would have to come before the planning commission before it was developed? Mr. Ekstrand said if this is approved the commission would be approving the convenience store with the gas station as well as the retail. In his recommendation he stated the auto dealership would have to come before the planning commission because of the potential nuisances such as lighting, speaker systems, the orientation of the building, and garage door facing. Commissioner Mueller said he's always thought gas stations were more of a problem than a car dealership would be and he would prefer to have the gas station come back before the planning commission as well. Mr. Ekstrand said he only recommended the auto dealership come before the planning commission. Commissioner Mueller asked if 78 townhomes was a realistic number or was it just a number estimated by the developer? Mr. Ekstrand said the developer's goal is to propose as many units as the high density could allow. Commissioner Desai asked if there was a possibility of requiring the commercial development to build before the townhomes were built so potential buyers would know what they would be purchasing and what would surround their home? Planning Commission Minutes of 5-17-04 -15- Mr. Ekstrand said he didn't believe so. The city doesn't have control over the order the development is built. The city would have to trust that the developer would inform potential buyers that a gas station and car dealership would be built in the ama. However, after hearing Mr. Trippler's comment regarding looking at property and not being told there was going to be a gas station built next door, that may not happen. Commissioner Dierich asked if them would be sidewalks along County Road D so people could safely walk to the commercial areas? Mr. Ekstrand said there would be sidewalks in that area. He welcomed Mr. Ahl to speak regarding the sidewalks since he is more aware of the construction of the County Road D realignment. Mr. Ahl said the construction plans have sidewalks planned along the south and west side of County Road D. Commissioner Dierich asked what the city code was regarding the distance a gas station or car dealership could be from residential areas without a PUD? Mr. Ekstrand said the city has different categories for motor fuel stations. Minor motor fuel stations can be next door to residential, major motor fuel stations with up to 6 pumps have to be 350 feet away from residential. Commissioner Bartol asked if the gas station has to be a part of this development? In his experience the fumes from a gas station are more offensive than a car dealership. Mr. Ekstrand said from a city standpoint the gas station is not essential but it's a use in the neighborhood that would be appreciated. Commissioner Bartol said there are so many car dealerships along Highway 61 why can't a gas station be next door to one of the existing car dealerships and leave the concept for a gas station out of this development? In his opinion the proposed gas station is too close to the townhome development. Mr. Ekstrand said the city code requires a 200-foot setback from the residential lot line from fuel vents. Commissioner Trippler asked if the developer could switch the location of the car dealership and the gas station/convenience store? Mr. Ekstrand said he is recommending the gas station be moved over to the corner where the retail building is shown on the plans. Commissioner Trippler asked if that would make it 350 feet from residential? Mr. Ekstrand said yes. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Planning Commission Minutes of 5-17-04 -16- Mr. Jim Kellison, President, Kelco Real Estate Development Services, 7300 Hudson Boulevard, Suite 245, Oakdale, addressed the commission. Mr. Kellison said they have been working with the city for 11/2 years on this project area. There are 5.67 acres here and the Prokosch's will have 3,4 of an acre where they can stay for life. By the time they take the right-of-way, the pond, and the easement they have about 1.2 acres of developable property and it is very difficult to make something work economically on this size of property. They want to move forward and they see some economic gain to move forward. They have some extreme grading issues to deal with. They will have about 140,000 yards of dirt to move around on the site and about 110,000 yards of dirt to move off the site. From a density standpoint with the R-3H zoning they would be at 80% of what they could build on that property based on the density. They wouldn't be as Iow as the R- 3M zoning but they can't physically put more units on the property with the requirements for the trail, the 50 foot setback on the west side of the property, the gas line, and the high tension lines on the property. Their architect drew 68 units on the plans but wrote on the plans there is a potential for 78 units, which is the maximum number of units they can put on the property. It is up to the company that decides to build these units as to how many units they put on the property not Kelco Real Estate. They want the city to agree that would be zoned R-3H. As far as the apartment complex goes he understands from reading the neighborhood comments they don't want an apartment complex here. They are willing to eliminate the plan for apartments but they would request to build high-end condominiums for sale and the values would be around $250,000. This would be up to the purchaser of the property and they would have to come back to the planning commission and get approval. He is looking for approval of the use and that the use is acceptable to the neighborhood. Regarding the commercial project, they would like to have the gas station where it's shown on the plan. They think they have a potential use for that corner and it would be an extreme benefit to the community. They believe that having a gas station and convenience store is going to fill a neighborhood requirement because there isn't another gas/convenient store any closer than 1¼ miles north or south of this area. There are other dealerships along Highway 61 so this auto dealership would fit right in. They are looking for approval from the commission to have the dealership in this location. The owners would be required to come back to the commission for approval. In Oakdale when they had a potential development they would post signs stating this is commercial or industrial property and these are the types of uses that could occupy this parcel. They would be willing to do the same thing in this location. The developer could also put that clause in the sales agreement for the buyer to acknowledge they were told what commercial developments would be built. Commissioner Mueller asked how many units would be in the condominium complex that was mentioned in place of the apartments? Mr. Kellison said it would probably be a 3 story building with about 32 units around 1200 square feet in size with subterranean parking below grade on the west and south side and partially below grade on the north side by the pond. The apartment building was proposed to be 3-story building with 52 units and about 900 square feet in size. Commissioner Mueller asked if it would be roughly 10 condominium units per level? Mr. Kellison said that sounds correct. Chairperson Fischer opened the public hearing and the following residents spoke at the public hearing: Planning Commission Minutes of 5-17-04 -17- 1. Ed Franzmeier, 1259 Hi.qhrid.qe Court, Maplewood. In the 30 years he has lived in Maplewood he has lived in three different locations. Currently he lives in the Highridge townhomes next door to where the proposed apartment building would be. He thanked the commissioners for serving on the planning commission. He pointed out that he had provided a list of residents in the townhome association that do not want the apartment building built. There were 49 names on the list and an additional 11 people that were not home when they came around with the petition. Those residents later called him so potentially there would have been 60 people on the list. Any three-story building next to their townhomes would be equally opposed whether it was an apartment building or condominium building. The residents that bought units on the cul-de-sac paid bonus prices for bonus lots for the woods between their development and the Prokosch property. Now most of the woods are going to be removed due to the realignment of County Road D. m Cindy Kranz, 1264 Hi.qhrid.qe Court, Maplewood. She said the developer lied to them when they purchased their property and told them the land was on a wetland and could not be developed and the property was zoned R-1. She is happy the apartment building idea has been removed. Another issue is the R-3H verses the R-3M zoning. Whoever Mr. Kellison has develop this land under the R-3H zoning they could have 78 units and 71 units could be built under the R-3M zoning. This would force the developer to have more open space between the buildings. The Highridge townhomes were planned out very well leaving open space between the units. They want this to be medium density. She said if economics is an issue for Mr. Kellison and he has to be able to develop a certain number of units than maybe somebody paid too much for the Prokosch property. Eugene Bunkowske, 1249 Hi.qhrid.qe Court, Maplewood. He's happy an apartment building will not be built here. What they are really saying is that they are opposed to any zoning change from R-1 to any other designation and they would like to see the property as single-family units. The developer told the buyers that this area would be a wetland, green space and Iow density. Changing the density would totally change the neighborhood. He and his wife lived in Africa for over 20 years and when he moved back he wanted to see green space. Hal Tetzloff, 1260 Hi.qhrid.qe Court, Maplewood. He thanked Mr. Ekstrand for speaking to him on the telephone and for the work he did on this proposal. He believes their point has been made regarding their opposition of the apartment building. He wants the zoning to stay R-I. The land should be kept as close to what it is already. He would suggest the city buy the 1.2 acres on the Prokosch property from Mr. Kellison and develop it into a park and call it Prokosch Park. 5. Jennifer Bouthilet~ Owner of Hillcrest Animal Hospital, 1320 County Road D East~ Maplewood. She said she was horrified when she heard an apartment building was proposed to be built on the property, mainly because of safety reasons on her property. With MnDot changing County Road D into a cul-de-sac with no turn off of Highway 61 it leaves her property on the end of the cul-de-sac. She is concerned her parking lot is going to be a gathering place for less savory members of the community. If you had to have the property high density she would rather have it be condominiums for sale rather than rental property. She would prefer to see medium density in this area. Planning Commission Minutes of 5-17-04 -18- Jo¥ce Lambert, 2986 Duluth Street, Maplewood. She was at one of these meetings in the past when the neighborhood fought an apartment building in this same area and now she returned along with the other neighbors. Her concern is that the density is too crowded. The landscaping and grading is also a problem. This development removes their view and adds high density behind them and creates a different atmosphere from what they are used to. She agrees that things change and she can live with some change. She is unhappy as a Maplewood resident about how the change has came about. First Venburg Tire is moving across the street, then the realignment of County Road D, and now this proposal. The whole thing is not concrete because nobody knows who is going to be building these townhomes, who is going to build the gas station or the other commercial property, and you might not find anything out for another 6 months. There's no big picture, only bits and pieces of information. It's frustrating to live in a very expensive neighborhood with very high taxes and not have a say about what is going on in our neighborhood. She is the person who opposed the trail, which will go by Gulden's, past her house, and into a half a million-dollar neighborhood. This makes her neighborhood accessible especially by the people that visit Gulden's Restaurant. She has lived here for 10 years and Gulden's has had their share of problems. The police have been at Gulden's, there's been a helicopter circling around looking for people that have been disorderly. The walking path would be from County Road D, through the townhomes and through her neighborhood and past her house. Bob Kranz, 1264 Hi.qhrid.qe Court, Maplewood. The public hearing they heard previously regarding Olivia Gardens had a neighborhood meeting where the developers had the specifics all finalized, they knew who would actually be building the units and they were available for questions and discussion. This plan is very incomplete and he doesn't see the reason for this meeting. Kelco Real Estate Development is trying to put the pieces together and then find developers to develop each parcel after the zoning gets changed. To him this is like a blank check. You come to the meeting and there is no drawing or plans of what this is going to look like. The developer says he has to have R-3H high density to make it economically feasible. We should be protectors of the environment and the residential communities that we live in. This proposal is not prepared properly. Why can't the city say we can't approve this proposal until you have descriptive plans and drawings of what this is going to look at and therefore, nobody can move forward or approve only sections of this plan. This isn't understandable without clear and concise information. A person couldn't operate a business like this and these decisions have a huge impact on the people that live in this community. This zoning needs to be no higher than medium density. Let the developer come back and talk to the planning commission again. He doesn't understand why this proposal has to be rushed through. = Elena Makhonina, 3042 Duluth Street, Maplewood. She lives in one of the eleven homes that will be looking into the back of 78 townhouses. These are $500,000 homes and across the pond was a sign that said this property is zoned M1, which means light industrial. The problem is they did not know what light industrial included. They were told that could mean a small warehouse building, an office building, or something of that nature but nothing over one story tall and nothing that would block the view. Now they find out with this proposal there could be high-density zoning and they thought they would be looking at a view of large trees. This area should improve, not worsen. 78 townhomes against 11 single family homes sounds ridiculous and too high of density. She likes the idea for a park for the whole city to enjoy rather than this plan. Planning Commission Minutes of 5-17-04 -19- Dawn Keenan, 3010 Duluth Street, Maplewood. She lives in one of the 11 single-family homes near the site. The zoning should be R-1 and the realignment of County Road D to alleviate the traffic seems incorrect. If you are going to build this much additional housing you are going to increase the traffic, not make it better. She was also told a huge townhome development was going to be built on the Country View Golf Course property. She moved here 6 months ago and was told it was zoned commercial and that nothing could be built 600 feet from her property line. When a person is told that and then presented with this plan you are going to have a lot of unhappy people about the development of this property. She said they were also not informed about the realignment of County Road D coming through their backyards. 10. John Jaskulske, 3019 Duluth Street, Maplewood. He too is one of the eleven homeowners above the proposed development. This is an expensive neighborhood and these residents pay high taxes, and we are not talking about Iow income housing in this area. If there is high density residential going into this area, has the city thought of what effect that would do to Weaver Elementary where his children attend school? He asked if the kids that came from Beaver Lake when the school closed are going to get shifted to another school to make room for these children who would have to attend Weaver Elementary? Currently Weaver Elementary is over crowded. There is already a water pressure problem and depending on what time of day it is there is no water pressure depending on how many people are showering or flushing the toilet. He said he also opposes the gas station in this development. Mr. Jaskulske said when the compost site was open they could smell it two miles away, therefore, you can count on smelling gas fumes especially living on top of the hill. His suggestion is to get rid of the industrial proposal and put townhomes in. This way it would make for a nice neighborhood that flows with what already exits in the area. He too would recommend putting in a park. Mr. Ahl said as part of the overall improvements the city is going to be extending the water main in the area and that will improve the water pressure. 11. Ed Westerdahl, 1183 Hi.qhrid.qe Court, Maplewood. He lives in the Highridge townhomes and he thinks the density should be R-3M and not R-3H. He is opposed to the gas station proposal unless it is moved onto Highway 61. If it is on County Road D it's too close to residential homes and it will cause noise and problems with fumes. Mr. Kellison, Kelco Real Estate said he would like to comment on some of the items that have been brought up. He said he goes before people, commissions and councils all the time because it's part of his job and people don't like what is happening in the neighborhood. At one time this whole area was farmland and now there are houses. It's the demand, it's what happens, and it's progress. Having County Road D realigned through the area changes the whole complexion of the area. That is a collector street and a collector street is generally meant for commercial types of uses. There will be crosswalks at Highway 61 and County Road D. M-1 zoning can have a multiple of uses that could go into the area. Light manufacturing, warehouse, office building, commercial, even sex oriented shops. There are a lot of things that could go into that piece of property. There is a 350-foot setback to one of the buildings. What they are proposing is a far better buffer from single family residential than what could be there. He doesn't think residents want a metal stamping shop in this location. There are a lot of uses that people would find far more objectionable than this proposal. Planning Commission Minutes of 5-17-04 -20- There is a sand mine on that property so there is no environment there to be concerned about. It is an unfortunate situation, however, the trees that are on the property will be taken down when County Road D is realigned. They need to do this project as part of the County Road D approval now. They can't wait until they have the four or five landowners who would have to come to the city with their projects. As part of their agreement with the city they have to mass grade the site for County Road D and as part of the grading they have to start by June 15, 2004, in order to finish grading by July 27 when the city wants to start their part for County Road D. As part of the building process in Maplewood the city will require trees and more trees and the residents that live there can plant trees on their property to screen this development as well. Nothing says the residents can't plant trees on their own property to screen the view of the development if they don't want to look at it. The grade is such that after the vegetation has grown the residents won't see the development. If it works out that the gas station/retail doesn't work in that location they would be willing to relocate it to Highway 61. With respect to the apartment building, that idea is over but they are moving forward with the idea of for sale condominiums. 12. Dou.q Huntley, 3020 Edward Street, Maplewood. He didn't get notified about this public hearing and he happened to be watching cable at home and saw the discussion and decided to come down to speak. Four years ago the neighborhood was put in this same situation and they petitioned to the city and they got a great response from the city. The staff went forward to the city council against the recommendations of the neighborhood and the neighbors went back to the city council and voiced their concern. The vote ended up split and Mayor Bob Cardinal withheld his vote because he had a financial stake in the property. If he has a financial stake in this property again he should withhold his vote again. The neighborhood is asking what do they get out of this development? He's not affected with this development but he cares enough about the area to come to the meeting to say this is an important issue for the neighborhood. In terms of the school district he has three kids in the Maplewood school district and his kids are at Weaver Elementary with 27 kids in a classroom. The school is not looking for more kids to fill more classrooms. Every new development in the city will add kids to the schools. He is only asking the city to look at how developments affect the city and neighborhoods and what does that do to the schools? Chairperson Fischer closed this portion of the public hearing. Commissioner Dierich said Mr. Kellison told everyone what his group has to do for the city for the County Road D realignment, she asked what the city had to promise the applicant? Mr. Ahl said the obligation of the city is for road construction. The city is acquiring right-of-way and making agreements with the developer to do the grading. That parcel of land is land that the city has an easement over that nobody owns and that has been that way since about 1934. There have been survey problems. That area is part of the old trunk highway 61 alignment. As part of this agreement with the developer, if they get approval for a development, the city has agreed to exchange the land and the city's interest in it, and vacate the underlying. The legal process is then underway to establish them as the adjacent property owner. In exchange for that the applicant will then dedicate the right-of-way for County Road D at no expense. The city cannot sell it but they can exchange their interest for right of way they would normally have had to purchase. Commissioner Dierich asked if the city can dictate whether a developer builds an owned or rented development? Planning Commission Minutes of 5-17-04 -21 - Mr. Ekstrand said that the city may not Commissioner Dierich asked what's stopping the city from requiring a hearing on everything that goes into this development, whether it is R-l, R-2, R-3, or M-l? Can the city make this a requirement of this particular proposal? Mr. Ekstrand said if you were to approve a concept plan or a PUD such as what was done for Legacy Village he would answer no. However, he would have to check with the City Attorney regarding that. For approving land use and zoning the city is ma, king an agreement with the developer and the city should hold them to it. Commissioner Dierich said she believes the people in the audience have a legitimate concern. There is no way you can approve something sight unseen. She thinks this is lower density than what the developer is requesting. The design review board has no venue over density just as the commission does not have venue over design issues. The zoning is changing and it's not fair for the neighbors without being careful of their rights as well as landowner's rights. Commissioner Desai said in the time he has served on the planning commission he has not seen a proposal like this where the zone change is brought about without any details of what exactly is going to be put in and who is developing this. He asked if this was a normal procedure? Mr. Ekstrand said often times the city wants to see the details. In this case, the details are concepts only. We are looking at this land use plan and should we have high-density residential verses Iow density and M-1. Staff sees it both ways and often times the development comes in as more of a package. Legacy Village did not come in that way and it was more in the concept stage. Then all of those uses have to come before the city for approval. Chairperson Fischer said she believes the reason commissioners are uncertain about this plan is because of the Conditional Use Permit for a PUD. When the commissioners envision a PUD they envision seeing a plan with the development very clearly laid out. Once you say PUD and them is no planned unit development plans to look at that has many commissioners confused. She asked staff if we have seen anything like this in the past? Mr. Ekstrand said none that he can recall. The plat will also come through the planning commission for the townhomes so that is another item to consider. Commissioner Dierich said it seems that over the past year staff has been adamant that the commission not change zoning until they have the plat in front of them. Commissioner Mueller asked if this was all townhomes being built including where the proposed apartment/condominium would be, how many units could be built including all of the Prokosch property? Mr. Ekstrand said if the western portion of the property was R-3H the number of units would be 123 and medium density would be 71 units. Planning Commission Minutes of 5-17-04 -22- Commissioner Pearson said he would not support the apartment building. The city is redesigning County Road D partially because of the traffic problems and an apartment building would add to the traffic. He cannot support the R-3H zoning and the R-3M would be a continuation of the zoning of the present neighborhood and is only a few units less that they could build. The service station could be further from the roadway and with a service station especially with a car wash this creates more of a noise problem as well as a fume problem. He wouldn't have a problem with everything on the west side of this development that is not M-1 being R-3M but shod of that, he would not support this. Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the resolution on pages 37-38 of the staff report amending the Maplewood Comprehensive Land Use Plan from R-1 (single dwelling residential) and M-1 and (light manufacturing) to R-3H-M (high medium density residential). This amendment also reestablishes the collector street designation on the Major Street System & Potential Transit Plan in the comprehensive plan along the new County Road D extension alignment. Approval of this amendment is based on the following reasons: (changes to the conditions are in bold and deletions are stricken) 1. The development would be consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. The proposed town houses would be consistent with the city's policies for high-medium- density residential uses, since they would create a transitional land use between commercial property and single dwelling property. 3. The proposed town houses would be on a collector street that would serve the higher number of homes proposed. 4. Town houses would be compatible with the abutting town house development. The difference in grade between the proposed high medium-density multi-family housing and the existing single-family and town house development to the west will create a natural buffer between developments. 6. There would be no significant impact on the existing neighborhood streets to the west. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve adoption of the resolution on pages 39-41 in the staff report, approving a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the Trout Land multi-use PUD. Approval is based on the findings required by the ordinance and subject to the following conditions: (changes to the conditions are in bold and deletions are stricken) Development shall follow the plans date stamped April 15, 2004, except where the city requires changes. The applicant, master developer and subsequent developers shall submit any plan revisions noted by Chris Cavett in his memo dated May 11,2004, as included in the staff report. The city council shall be responsible for reviewing any major changes that may be proposed. The director of community development may review 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. Planning Commission Minutes of 5-17-04 -23- This planned unit development shall allow townhomes at a maximum of a high medium- density ratio on the residential portion of the development. Apartments are not allowed without an amendment to this approval. The commercial segment of this development may include the following uses as proposed: retail, a fuel station with convenience store and an auto dealership. Other similar uses may be permitted if found to be of the same character and approved by city staff. The city council may make this determination if the applicant disagrees with staff's decision. The developer of the auto dealership shall submit a request for a conditional use permit for the planning commission and city council's review. Any automotive use that may be proposed must comply with the requirements outlined in the BC (business commercial) and M-1 (light manufacturing) zoning requirements. 5. The development plan shall be revised to place the fuel station next to Highway 61 to keep it further from the homes. 6. All individual development proposals must meet all city development requirements. No variances have been included in this PUD approval. 7. The applicant, master developer and subsequent developers shall comply with the following site and design requirements: Screening from the townhomes is paramount. All commercial properties shall provide considerable landscaping to buffer and screen their sites from the proposed townhomes. Building design throughout this development shall be of an improved quality and should strive for a compatibility of design. The design of the retaining walls shall be submitted to staff for approval of design and materials before the issuance of a grading permit. Retaining walls over four-feet-tall shall have a black-colored, vinyl-covered chain link fence on top. The fence height shall be six feet. Retaining walls over four feet in height must have a building permit. Appeals of staff's wall-design approval shall be submitted to the community design review board. The master developer shall construct the retaining walls that span across lot lines as part of the mass grading of the site. 8. The applicant shall dedicate all easements noted in the memo dated May 11,2004, by Chris Cavett. These shall be dedicated prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 9. The applicant shall sign a developer's agreement with the city before final plat approval. Commissioner Trippler moved approval of the Trout Land preliminary plat date-stamped April 15, 2004. The developer shall complete the following before the city approves the final plat. 1. Meet all requirements in the memo by Chris Cavett dated May 11,2004. 2. Rename Outlot B with a lot number. Planning Commission Minutes of 5-17-04 -24- Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes- Bartol, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Mueller, Pearson, Trippler The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on June 14, 2004. VI. NEW BUSINESS a. Conditional Use Permit- 2086 Edgerton Street (Rygwalski) Mr. Roberts said Ronald Rygwalski owns the property at 2086 Edgerton Street. This property is zoned Neighborhood Commercial (NC). Mr. Rygwalski operates a motor vehicle repair service business (Ron's Service) out of a garage on the front of the property, and has two single-family houses on the back of the property. My Rygwalski occupies the larger, front house and his son and grandchildren occupy the smaller, back house. Mr. Rygwalski proposes to build an addition to the smaller, back house to make the house more livable for his son and grandchildren. To build an addition to the smaller house on the property, Mr. Rygwalski is requesting a conditional use permit to expand the legal non-conforming single-family structure. Mr. Roberts said instead of the CUP, staff is recommending that the city change the Land Use Plan and zoning of the site to R-2. This change would make the business non-conforming but would make the residential uses conforming with the zoning. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Rygwalski, 2086 Edgerton Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He said it's a family operation and they have operated it for 27 years. They have put a lot of time and effort into the property and they want to continue living there and keep the family together. Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the Comprehensive Land Use Plan change resolution on page 17 of the staff report. This resolution changes the Land Use Plan from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Double Dwelling Residential (R-2) for property located at 2086 Edgerton Street. The city is making this change because the proposal will meet the following city comprehensive plan goals and policies: a. Provide for orderly development. b. Minimize conflicts between land uses. c. Protect neighborhoods from activities that produce excessive noise, dirt, odors or which generate heavy traffic. d. Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffering and separation. Planning Commission Minutes of 5-17-04 -25- Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the rezoning resolution on page 18 of the staff report. This resolution changes the zoning map from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Double Dwelling Residential (R-2) for property located at 2086 Edgerton Street. The city is making this change because: a. 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 properties 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. c. 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 Desai seconded. Ayes- Bartol, Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Mueller, Pearson, Trippler The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on June 14, 2004. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Mr. Mueller was the planning commission representative at the May 10, 2004, city council meeting. Items that were discussed were the Kennard Street Right-of-Way Vacation north of Sextant Avenue and the CUP for Steven Peltier at 1236 Kohlman Avenue, which passed ayes all. The Toenjes Hills Estates on McMenemy Street was tabled. b. Mr. Bartol will be the planning commission representative at the May 24, 2004, city council meeting. Planning Commission Interviews will be held at 6:00 p.m. Following the interviews items to discuss include the 2005-2009 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Mounds Park Academy Expansion at 2051 Larpenteur Avenue Land Use Plan Change & CUP, and the Chesapeake Properties Retail Center at 3091 White Bear Avenue for a PUD & Preliminary Plat. Planning Commission Minutes of 5-17-04 -26- c. Ms. Dierich will be the planning commission representative at the June 14, 2004, city council meeting. Items to discuss include Olivia Gardens on Stillwater Road for the Comprehensive Plan Change, Zoning Map Change, Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development, Preliminary Plat. Also Trout Land West of Highway 61 and new County Road D Comprehensive Plan Change, Land Use Plan Change, Collector Street Designation, Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development, and Preliminary Plat. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Planning Commission Interviews - May 24, 2004 City Council Mr. Roberts said the planning commission interviews will be held Monday, May 24, 2004, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers and as Chairperson, Lorraine Fischer is invited to attend. b. Annual Tour Mr. Roberts asked the commissioners for ideas for places the commission wanted to visit for the Annual Tour. Ideas included: Legacy Village, County Road D realignment area, MnDot site north of the Priory, and the Ponds of Battle Creek Golf Course, Xl. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:18 p.m.