MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION

Tuesday, February 20, 2007, 7:00 PM

City Hall Council Chambers

Absolutely Unofficial Notes by JN

When I arrived around 7:05, the meeting was already underway and the commission was approving minutes.

Present were commission chair Lorraine Fischer, commisioners Gary Pearson, Tushar Desai, Joseph Walton, and Harland Hess. Also present were Lisa Kroll (recording secretary), Ken Roberts (planner), and Michael Thompson (staff engineer).

6. New Business

a. Pond Overlook Town Houses - Concept Plan Review (2161 County Road D)

Ken Roberts presented the staff report. A developer was looking for commission input on a concept plan for a development on the north side of County Road D, across from Bruentruep Farm. The proposal is for a 10-unit development with 5 twin homes on a cul-de-sac (which would itself be a city street/public works project). The proposal is consistent with the current comp plan, but would require a zoning change and some planned unit development approvals. Various aspects of the plan would require approval from other entities, such as MnDOT (for the storm water plans, which would have overflow into the I-694 ditch). Noise was also an issue, Roberts noted, due to the proximity of the freeway.

Walton asked for more comment about noise from the freeway, and Roberts listed various ways that the builders may mitigate it.

Hess asked about density and the comp plan. He also asked about security fencing (to keep kids away from the stormwater ponds), and water issues (concerned about the possibility of basement infiltration from the MnDOT pond right next door).

Desai asked about quantitative sound requirements. Roberts answered that 55 decibels inside the building at nighttime and 65 in daytime seemed to be what the standard was. Desai wondered if berming and trees won't be enough to reduce the freeway noise. Roberts agreed, and said the builder will have to untilize Òextra-heavy dutyÓ materials in the construction. Desai wanted to ask if the builder has experience building this close to a highway.

Pearson suggested that they should get noise measurements at the site. He also talked about the walkout and drain. Roberts said the developer needs to pay careful attention to the grading plan to make sure water drains as they need it to.

Walton asked about infiltration rates. Engineer Thompson clarified that the ponds would be dry most of the time. When it rains, they should contain stormwater for about 48 hours, tops, before drying. The rate could be quicker, if needed.

Fischer asked if there were additional items beyond the Feb 8 dated city staff comments on their materials; there were not.

Walton brought up the subject of tree removal. He wondered how they could get away without removing all the trees on the site. Staff suggested that maybe 3-4 trees that are currently on the site can be saved, but it's possible that all will have to be removed in order to properly grade the site.

Hess asked about lighting. Roberts said the developer hasn't provided those plans yet, but the city may require some to be installed.

Walton spoke up again. He had walked along County Road D at the site, and said it's a pretty narrow road. He wondered about safety issues, especially with seniors living in this new development. Roberts said he hoped it wouldn't be a problem, but hadn't really thought about it. He did observe that this stretch of County Road D doesn't have very heavy traffic. Perhaps the city might have to put in a crosswalk or something.

Fischer asked if there has been any history of pedestrain problems in the area, given other senior cottages to the west on the same street. Roberts hadn't heard of any, but speculated that the trail on the farm's open space to the south was helping keep people off the street.

The applicant was then called forth to the microphone, invited to offer comments or questions.

Fischer asked if he had any problem with the engineering comments and concerns that staff put on the report. The answer was no, and in fact the developer has already taken some of them. He also said, regarding highway noise, that they did a development in White Bear township with similar conditions, so they have experience dealing with it. He also observed that freeway-side developments have actually been their best sellers, maybe because of visibility. He went on to discuss the means of noise mitigation, in terms of windows and the use of Òsound channels.Ó

Desai asked about White Bear project and whether they'd had to check on decibels. The developer said the worst problem they had for noise was when an exhaust fan on the roof faced the freeway Ð that's where the most noise would come through into the house! So they have learned always to face those exhausts away from the freeway. He also talked about covenants in association papers for buyers that they understand the issue of noise on the site, so they won't come back against the city.

There was a call for final comments and discussion. Hess said he'd driven through that area, and raised some doubts about the density contemplated and the character of the neighborhood. Fischer observed that it does fit in the requirements of the comp plan, which is what rules. Roberts suggested that maybe the neighborhood overall is under density, at present. Pearson mentioned some benefits in terms of a planned unit development versus single family homes, since the PUD allows the city to assert more control over how the development comes together (approving the design etc.).

b. Election of Vice-Chairperson

Two candidates were nominated: Tushar Desai (current vice chair, I believe), and Dale Trippler (not present at the meeting) had also expressed interest. Fischer asked about procedure since there weren't any ballots handy. Roberts said pieces of paper were fine, but they just needed to write their names on the informal ballots. Desai was reelected, 4-1.

c. Resolution of Appreciation Ñ Michael Grover

Mr. Grover resigned after serving some time on the planning commission, but apparently the formal resignation has not yet been given to the city council. Pearson made a motion to approve a resolution of appreciation for Mr. Grover; Desai seconded. All ayes. The resolution will go to the council on March 12 or March 26. Roberts will coordinate with the city manager as to when the resignation , resolution, and advertising to fill the seat with a replacement will all take place.

d. Planning Commission Rules of Procedure

The city manager had asked Roberts to bring the commission's rules of procedure back to the commission, due to some conflicts between those rules and what the city manager wants. Specifically, the city manager wished to see changes regarding the day of meetings, the election of chair and vice chair; and an additional language change.

Some discussion ensued about timing, and the possibility of appointments/reappointments happening in December so that newly appointed commission members could vote and be nominated for chair/vice-chair positions.

Another issue emerged, in terms of the city code and the commission meeting schedule. Right now city code specifies various things and the commission's present procedures are in compliance with the ordinances (even though current practice Ñ such as this meeting being held on a Tuesday Ñ is in conflict with both). The commission consensus was that the city council should first change the ordinances, so that the commissioners can make their rules consistent with the letter of the law.

Another strange thing about current city policy for appointments was discussed. It used to be that there were more applicants and the commissions would participate in interviewing, etc.; now it's pretty much just the city council that makes the decisions (in part because there are rarely many more applicants than open positions).

Pearson observed that it was like this back when he first applied, so it seems that this sort of swings back and forth over time.

Desai discussed the importance of having a clear process established that people can see how it's supposed to be done, rather than sort of the council doing it however they want.

Further discussion ensued about commission appointments on a more general level (some cities have indefinite terms; Maplewood has 3 groups of 3-year terms, to maintian some continuity, but resignations muck it up in practice).

Pearson suggested there could be a motion to enact the changes the city manager requested, contingent on the necessary changes to city ordinance.

Desai suggested they'd be best asking the council to review and make necessary changes to pertinent ordinances, and then the commission will review the outcome and make required changes to their rules of procedure to harmonize with the new ordinances. This became a motion. Pearson seconded. All voted aye.

Tentatively, said Roberts, this matter will be brought to the Mar. 12^th council meeting.

9. Commission Presentations

February 12 Council Meeting: Mr. Desai

Reporting on the Feb. 12^th council meeting that he attended, Desai said it was interesting to hear from mayor, city manager, and some council members that they really appreciate the efforts of the planning commission members. He observed that there were only 2 instances last year where the council chose not to follow the commission's recommendations. Roberts amplified these remarks.

Desai further remarked that he was impressed that some of the rancor/disagreements seen in some previous city council meetings was quite absent through this meeting, and he complimented the council on this getting better.

February 26 Council Meeting: Mr. Hess

The big item on this meeting's agenda will be the Gladstone comp plan.

March 12 Council Meeting: ?? (was to be Ms. Dierich)

The commission member who was orginally scheduled to attend this meeting has left the commission. It is possible that the meeting agenda will include the Grover resolution discussed earlier, or perhaps the issue of the rules of procedure and conflicts with city ordinances. Pearson volunteered to attend to represent the commission, if this item does come up.

March 26 Council Meeting: Ms. Fisher

There is no idea yet of what will be on the agenda on this date.

Pearson asked if there had been any progress on subject of taking over streets from private developments. Some of that is being looked at by engineer, but it hasn't come back to the council yet. Maybe in the next month or two it will return.

Hess, continuing on that line of thinking, was wondering about city codes being applied to the street on the development discussed earlier (and the answer is yes, it would have to meet all the city standards).

10. Staff Presentations

The City Council recently appointed a representatives to a task force for Rice Street, studying lane uses and what it takes to rebuild it from Larpenteur to County J. Pinch points at Rice/Hwy 36 and Rice/I-694 are of particular concern. Chuck Ahl recommended and the city council agreed to appoint 4 people to task force. Michael Grover was originally going to be the planning commission representative on the task force, but since he's resigned, Ahl requested another nominee. Since a member not present seemed interested, the commission didn't want to decide tonight. The task force will be a sizeable time commitment, so they didn't want to dump it on someone not present without that person's consent.

Fischer had a final question on letter regarding proposed development by the priory. She wanted to make sure city hall got copy of letter too, and was assured that they had.

11. Adjournment