Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/17/19991. Call to Order MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, February_ 17. 1999 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes a. February 1, 1999 4. Approval of Agenda 5. Unfinished Business a. Residential Parking Ordinance 6. New Business a. Bituminous Curb Variance - Just For Feet (3090 Southlawn Drive) b. Site Lighting Code Amendment c. Planning Commission Rules of Procedure 7. Visitor Presentations 8. Commission Presentations a. February 8 Council Meeting: Mr. Rossbach b. February 22 Council Meeting: Mr. Frost c. Mamh 8 Council Meeting: Mr. Seeber 9. Staff Presentations 10. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION t 830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1999 CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chairperson Frost called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Jack Frost Commissioner Matt Ledvina Commissioner Paul Mueller Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner William Rossbach Commissioner Michael Seeber Commissioner Milo Thompson Commissioner Dale Trippler III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES IV. VI. February 1, 1999 Absent Present Present Absent Present Present Present Absent Present Commissioner Trippler moved approval of the minutes of September 21, 1998, amended to have page 5, line 7 read "...store things as long as...' and the motion for V.D. read "Commissioner Trippler seconded." Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Ken Roberts, associate planner, pointed out that the applicant for Item 6. a. was present. Mr. Roberts suggested that the commission discuss this application first. Commissioner Rossbach moved approval of the agenda, amended to move Item 6. a. before 5. a. Commissioner Ledvina seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. NEW BUSINESS A. Bituminous Curb Variance--Just for Feet (3090 Southlawn Drive) Ken Roberts, associate planner, summarized the staff report. Commissioner Ledvina attended the council meeting and he said the motion was two part. The first part was to deny the variance request and the second part was approval of the first reading of the code amendment. He asked why the variance request would be referred to the planning commission when it had already been denied by the city council. It was Mr. Ledvina's opinion that the city council, in asking for planning commission review, was looking for recommended changes to the amendment. Mr. Roberts agreed with Mr. Ledvina. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-17-99 -2- Mr. Roberts said bituminous curbing is not allowed by code because it is not as durable as concrete and often a well-defined gutter line is required for drainage purposes. This gutter line typically works better with concrete curbing rather than bituminous. Commissioner Rossbach presumed that the escrow called for in Item 5 of the ordinance would be sufficient to put in concrete curbing. He also questioned what staff would use as a criteria to determine when escrow would be necessary. Mr. Roberts confirmed that the escrow was to ensure replacement with concrete curbing. He said the escrow would be required anytime that someone wanted to occupy a building before site work is completed. Mr. Roberts could not think of a case where the escrow would not be required. Commissioner Rossbach suggested changing the wording in the ordinance to say the city "will" rather than "may" require escrow. Mr. Roberts preferred leaving the item as written because of the possibility that there might be an instance when it wouldn't be required. Commissioner Trippler said he was confused by the fact that the city has already received a $10,000 escrow from Just for Feet for bituminous curbing, which is not allowed in the city of Maplewood, and is already in place at this site. He questioned why the city would get the escrow if they were not going to use it. Mr. Roberts said Mr. Johannson requested the variance in an effort to keep the city from using his escrow money. Mr. Trippler's point was that the city has laws and ordinances but if they are not enforced it does not matter what they are. John Johannson, of the Welsh Companies, explained that his company did not know that bituminous curbs were not allowed in Maplewood. When a final certificate of occupancy was requested, city staff noted the problem with the curb. Welsh Companies decided to leave the $10,000 escrow and request a variance to keep the bituminous curb. Mr. Johannson said his company has overdeveloped the site to the east and used concrete curbing to ensure adequate drainage and tie into the ponding system. He said the damaged bituminous curbing would be repaired as soon as weather permitted. He also stated that they were comfortable with the escrow and the three-year time frame. Commissioner Ledvina moved the Planning Commission recommend approval of the code change which will allow temporary use of bituminous curbing. Commissioner Rossbach seconded. Ayes--Frost, Ledvina, Pearson, Rossbach, Seeber Nays--Trippler The motion passed. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Residential Parking Ordinance Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. Staff's opinion is that the city council initially did not want to address recreational vehicle parking and storage. They were more concerned with parking daily-use vehicles. Another consideration of the council was the enforcement of an ordinance. Commissioner Pearson saw no problem with allowing a homeowner to put crushed rock down to store a vehicle in the backyard. He said he would rather see this type of surface than grass Planning Commission Minutes of 02-17-99 -3- growing up around a parked vehicle. Commissioner Ledvina liked portion of the St. Louis Park ordinance that referred to the rights of landowners and neighbors and how it all relates. Commissioner Rossbach thought the commission should look at an ordinance that "would improve the curb appeal of driving through Maplewood instead of having a bunch of cars parked on the front yard." He also felt an ordinance should address more than just vehicle parking. Mr. Rossbach did not advocate storing everything in the backyard so that neighbors would have to view it there. After touring parts of Maplewood, Mr. Rossbach came up with a list that he felt were important considerations if there was to be an ordinance. Some of these items were that the vehicles parked at a residence should be licensed and owned by people who lived in the home, screening of vehicles stored in a sideyard was more important than being a certain distance from the property line, parking, if not in a driveway, should not be allowed in front of the front setback, there should be an improved parking area for vehicles and maybe give some consideration to a size limitation on stored vehicles. It was his opinion that Maplewood should not have an ordinance that restricts a resident from having the number of cars that he needs. Mro Roberts said that a problem with tieing the number of vehicles to the number of drivers is the instance where a resident collects cars. He might have three or four cars and only two drivers in the house. Commissioner Rossbach indicated he was not referring to cars stored in a garage. Commissioner Pearson spoke of an instance where a business is operating in a residential area and has vehicles parked in the front yard. He said this is either a zoning violation, or a provision should be made to "make the area better looking." Mr. Pearson also mentioned collector streets where the front yard is becoming a used-car lot for vehicles not owned by the property owner. He preferred to give careful consideration when dealing "with people's right to the private use of their property" but felt Maplewood was "way behind other communities in addressing some kind of a standard and it is beginning to show." Commissioner Ledvina referred to a portion of the St. Louis Park ordinance that restricted the total area of the front yard of a single family lot for improvement for parking and driveway to under 30 percent. He felt this provision was appropriate and should be included. Commissioner Rossbach noted that there are many driveways in Maplewood that would not qualify for a maximum width of 22 feet. Commissioner Pearson empathized with homeowners along busy collector streets that need additional space for a paved turnaround on their lot. Ken Roberts said our driveway code now allows a maximum of 30- or 32-feet wide for three-car garages. Aisc, the city tries to require a turnaround in the front yard of new homes on collector streets. Commissioner Trippler said he was encouraged by the discussions in regard to planning an ordinance. He thought the St. Louis Park ordinance was rather lengthy and "might not be easily understood by the general population." Mr. Trippler felt it was important that Maplewood have some kind of ordinance to control the overabundance of recreational vehicles in residential yards. He was primarily concerned with recreational vehicles. Mr. Roberts suggested the commission develop a list of concerns that need to be addressed and present this to the city council for their input. He also thought a couple public meetings would be beneficial to get ideas from the residents. Commissioner Pearson pointed out that it would be prudent to include definitions of what is owned, what is licensed, etc. to make the ordinance clear. Commissioner Trippler felt the two basic questions were whether the ordinance should deal with just cars or all vehicles parked on a property, and should the focus be on the front yard issue or Planning Commission Minutes of 02-17-99 -4- the whole lot. Mr. Roberts said he thought the council wanted to know the main points that the planning commission would like to see accomplished or changed with an ordinance amendment. Commissioner Rossbach suggested that the planning commission give recommendations to the city council. One recommendation, he thought of, was to not allow parking in the front yard and screen anything that is parked somewhere else on the lot. The other recommendation, if it was decided that further regulation was needed, would be to define the items that need to be included in the ordinance. Mr. Roberts proposed that the commissioners go through the ordinance samples included in the agenda report and reach a consensus on the portions that should be included. He would then put together an ordinance for consideration. Commissioner Trippler requested copies of the Stillwater and Woodbury ordinances. Mr. Roberts said he would try to get these ordinances. Commissioner Rossbach moved the Planning Commission table the item relating to residential parking issues and code changes until the next planning commission meeting to allow further study by the commission. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. VI. NEW BUSINESS B. Site Lighting Code Amendment Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Rossbach favored this proposed ordinance. Commissioner Ledvina had a few comments regarding the language in the proposed ordinance. He thought the ordinance was a good idea and lighting plans would be helpful. Mr. Ledvina felt it was not necessary to make a specific reference to parking lot lighting. Commissioner Rossbach agreed with Mr. Ledvina and said it would be undesirable to have lighting from any source that would spill into a residential area and/or public right-of-way. It was his opinion that a lighting plan was not necessary as long as an applicant met the requirements of the lighting ordinance. Commissioner Ledvina responded that he felt a lighting plan was necessary to get the applicant thinking and planning for compliance with the ordinance. He thought the lighting plan was not necessary in all instances, just for those abutting residential properties. Commissioner Pearson pointed out that there are sometimes very large surface-mounted lights on signage that cannot be concealed. Commissioner Trippler preferred requiring a lighting plan just as a developer is required to submit a landscape plan. He wondered if this would affect the gas station at Beam and Hazelwood because it is not a parking lot but a place of business. Another issue that Mr. Tripper had was whether, if this ordinance passes and goes into effect, nonconforming businesses In Maplewood would have to change their lighting to conform to it and who would enforce this. Mr. Roberts said it would affect only new businesses. Mr. Roberts said the intent is that there can be light fixtures and light lenses installed such that they are not visible from the street but allow light to shine down to do site lighting. These are not a distraction from the street when driving by. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-17-99 -5- Commissioner Trippler moved the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the proposed Ordinance Amending the Site-Lighting Requirements for Multi-family and Nonresidential Properties, changed to have (1) read: "Install exterior site lighting. The light source., o Commissioner Rossbach seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. C. Planning Commission Rules of Precedure Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. He did not prepose any changes. Commissioner Ledvina recommended that the commissioners refresh themselves with Robert's Rules of Order. Commissioner Trippler suggested changing "his" to 'their" in A.3. and "his or her" to "their" in J. Commissioner Rossbach moved the Planning Commission adopt the rules of procedure with two modifications in the wording. "His" in the first line of A.3. is changed to "their" and "his or her" in line six of J. is changed to "their." Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS There were no visitor presentations. VIII. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS February 8 Council Meeting: Mr. Rossbach reported on this meeting. February 22 Council Meeting: There are no planning commission items on this agenda. March 8 Council Meeting: Mr. Seeber will attend this meeting. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Ken Roberts, associate planner, gave an update on the Bruentrup farm. He said there has been a proposal to move two or three of the buildings to the open space site on County Road D and then develop the White Bear Avenue property. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:37 p.m.