Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/15/19991. Call to Order MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, March 15, 1999 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes a. February 17, 1999 4. Approval of Agenda 5. Unfinished Business a. Residential Parking Ordinance 6. New Business a. Commission In-Service Training - Maplewood Room 7. Visitor Presentations 8. Commission Presentations a. February 22 Council Meeting: Ms. Coleman b. March 8 Council Meeting: Mr. Seeber c. March 22 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler d. April 12 Council Meeting: Mr. Mueller 9. Staff Presentations 10. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION '1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST~ MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MARCH '15, 1999 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer 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 Present Present Present Present (arrived at 7:01 p.m.) Present Present Absent Present Present III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 17, 1999 Commissioner Rossbach moved approval of the minutes of February 17, 1999, as submitted. Commissioner Frost seconded. Ayes--Frost, Ledvina, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler Abstain--Fischer, Thompson The motion passed. IV, APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairperson Fischer asked for a motion to move 6. a. Commission In-Service Training to 9. a. Commissioner Frost moved approval of the agenda, amended to move 6.a. Commission In-Service Training to 9.a. Commissioner Ledvina seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. V, UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Residential Parking Ordinance Ken Roberts presented the staff report. Additional sample ordinances, as previously requested by the commission, were included in the report. Mr. Roberts said the Stillwater ordinance was not available. Chairperson Fischer asked if the city council gave any direction as to what the Planning Commission Minutes of 03-15-99 -2- ordinance should cover. Melinda Coleman, director of community development, responded that this came about because a couple citizens requested that the city council take a look at this problem within the city. She said the council gave no specific direction but she personally sensed they preferred something "more simplistic than complex on the scale of ordinances." Ms. Coleman felt the major issue was the front yard. She said council had a concern about taking on more than staff could enforce. Staff confirmed that Maplewood does not presently require a new home to have a garage or paved driveway. Commissioner Rossbach wondered if motor vehicle, trailer, etc. were included in the definition of vehicle. According to Ms. Coleman, vehicle would have to be clearly defined in the ordinance. Mr. Rossbach mentioned that, at the last meeting, the general suggestion was that each member of the commission would note the items they thought were important in dealing with this issue. He said it was previously discussed to take a "two-prong attack" --write an ordinance that would only allow parking in the driveway in the front yard or address the issue of parking in both the side and backyard too. Commissioner Rossbach felt that items listed in the three approaches given in the staff report covered areas that he thought needed to be addressed. Some of his concerns were to clearly define vehicle, clearly define the parking area but not dictate that it must be concrete or asphalt (use hard surface or gravel), and screen any storage of these items in rear or side yards with 100 percent screening. Mr. Rossbach also thought it was important that the license plate be current. Mr. Rossbach was of the opinion that screening was more important than distance from a lot line. Commissioner Pearson mentioned that requiring an improved surface for storage or parking of a vehicle was discussed at the previous planning commission meeting. Commissioner Frost asked about the regulations and definition of commercial vehicles. He noted that there was a residence in his neighborhood that had three vans used for commercial purposes parking in the driveway and the street, in addition to the cars used by the residents. Mr. Frost also mentioned a neighbor who has six people in the house and each person has at least one vehicle. Commissioner Mueller commented that a blue tarp should probably not be allowed as screening. He also mentioned a very large recreational vehicle that is parked further down his street throughout the winter. Mr. Mueller said this is not a pleasant view and, therefore, he would like to have some regulations on the kind or size of recreational vehicle that can be parked in the residential area. Commissioner Rossbach thought that setting up an ordinance that addresses a vehicle which is not in the driveway and is completely screened would limit the size of the vehicle. If the recreational vehicle is parked in the driveway, this ordinance would not affect that. He mentioned a recreational vehicle and large snowmobile trailer in his neighborhood that are parked on a paved surface and would not be affected as such. Chairperson Fischer described an instance in her neighborhood where a camper sat near the property line between a driveway and a lilac hedge and was hidden from street view by a large pine tree. This screening was effective and presented no problem to the neighbors. Commissioner Ledvina felt that enforcing setback requirements would eliminate storage of very large recreational vehicles in front of garages, etc. Commissioner Trippler basically agreed with Mr. Rossbach and also spoke about limiting the amount of driveway allowable in a front yard. He proposed that the total area of a front yard of a single lot improved for parking and driveway purposes should not exceed 30 percent of the front yard area. Additionally, he recommended that the average width of the driveway should not be more than 25 feet wide. Mr. Roberts said the driveway code was changed by the city council within the last couple years. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-15-99 -3- He thought this change increased the driveway width at the right-of-way line from 22 feet to 32 feet. Mr. Trippler was agreeable to the 32 feet. Chairperson Fischer pointed out that the city has encouraged houses on major streets to have turnarounds. She felt the turnaround might create a problem on some of the existing minimal setbacks on lots that are narrower within the city. Commissioner Mueller would rather see a paved front yard than ruts in grass. Commissioner Rossbach thought neither a paved yard or ruts in the grass were good choices. He thought green space (grass) was necessary to absorb runoff and not have it all go to the street. Commissioner Rossbach suggested saying "something like your driveway can't be bigger than the front of your garage." He was of the opinion that something could be set up in the ordinance that would limit how big the paved area could get without allowing the whole front yard to be paved. Mr. Rossbach felt the lots would lend themselves to what could be put on them. Chairperson Fischer suggested that paved and improved were not necessarily the same thing and described the difference. If the city is only going to allow a certain percentage of the front yard to be paved, Ms. Fischer felt an improved surface that is not impervious might have to be excluded. She thought this would also solve some of the runoff problem. Commissioner Pearson said this would be difficult to enforce. Commissioner Rossbach said this "sounded like sound reasoning." Commissioner Frost referred to the St. Louis Park ordinance and said it made sense that a recreation vehicle over eight feet high, twenty-two feet long and 6,500 lbs. should not be parked in a residential lot. He also did not feel that these should be parked in a driveway but should be stored in a storage lot. Mr. Roberts said they are usually kept at the residence for security reasons. Commissioner Thompson mentioned vehicles that have the wheels removed. These would be inoperable and not allowed. He also did not like the idea of vehicles being stored in back lots and felt it would be difficult to screen them effectively. Mr. Thompson was of the opinion that regulating backyard storage would lead to violations that would almost be unenforceable. Commissioner Rossbach believed that it would be adequate if the vehicle in the backyard was screened from the side and rear neighbors. He pointed out that the ordinance is not to deal with individual cases but would be a way for the city to resolve the many complaints it receives about storage of various vehicles. Commissioner Pearson did not think it should be so difficult to come up with a reasonable ordinance since there were other communities that have had suitable ordinances in effect for some time. Mr. Roberts indicated that St. Louis Park had expressed some difficulty in enforcing its ordinance. Melinda Coleman, director of community development, said this was a very unpopular ordinance and many people are still outraged by it. She preferred that Maplewood take a "more simpler" approach and start out by trying a conservative ordinance to begin with. Ms. Coleman said that weight and size restrictions irritate the residents. She thought it was best to address the front yard parking problem and, if allowing storage in the backyard, require screening. Ms. Coleman advised that a public participation process should be considered before writing a more complex ordinance. Commissioner Pearson thought some of the excessive parking is the result of operating a business in a residential zone. He mentioned that many times vehicles parked in the street overnight are not being ticketed. Commissioner Mueller summarized the various aspects of the proposed ordinance and commented that he liked the size restriction on recreational vehicles. His opinion was that if you could afford the vehicle, you probably could afford a place to store it. Commissioner Ledvina liked the fact that St. Louis Park identified a purpose for their ordinance. He also was in agreement with one sample ordinance that required a parking setback of five feet Planning Commission Minutes of 03-15-99 from the curb. He thought this could be extended to ten feet. Chairperson Fischer cautioned that this might be a problem in some older sections of Maplewood that have smaller setbacks. Melinda Coleman felt the ordinance should include some type of "escape clause" so that the city council or planning commission could allow a conditional use permit for extenuating circumstances. Commissioner Rossbach suggested reading the list of concerns and having the commissioners indicate their agreement by raising their hand. Commissioner Trippler noticed the restriction on outdoor storage of fish houses on residential lots in one of the sample ordinances. He was in favor of this because he had to look at a neighbor's fish house for four years. Staff indicated that Maplewood has not received complaints on these houses. Commissioner Thompson has observed a trailer full of trash and a diesel tractor frequently parked near Mr. Mueller's house. He felt the neighbors were either afraid or reluctant to complain and so the problem continues. Commissioner Rossbach saw this as a "relief valve" where the neighbors might not care and the city primarily responds on a complaint basis. Chairperson Fischer hoped that an ordinance would solve more problems than it creates. Commissioner Thompson requested that, after all the thoughts were compiled, the commission would have an opportunity to look at the ordinance from the point of view that each person possesses. He felt there was substantial difference in the backyard storage viewpoints. Chairperson Fischer recalled a previous instance where the HRA asked for specific direction from the city council on a truth-in-housing ordinance. She suggested that the commission might also want this same type of guidance from the council on this ordinance. Commissioner Rossbach understood that the planning commission was to put together a list of concerns they felt should be addressed in an ordinance. This would be taken to the city council for their review and then staff would write an ordinance based on the direction of the council. Mr. Roberts urged that, if the ordinance is written, time be allotted to advertise and invite the public to a planning commission or city council meeting to discuss the provisions of it, Commissioner Frost questioned the response to a White Bear Lake ordinance that prohibits the parking of motor vehicles, recreational equipment and vehicles in the front yard. Ms. Coleman hadn't heard if this was an issue in White Bear but said it is not that "atypical" to not allow any parking in front of the house other than in the driveway. Mr. Frost said it was very simple to keep it out of the front yard and then screen it on the side and back yard. Chairperson Fischer requested that, if an ordinance limits the amount of impervious surface, it should include an "escape hatch" for narrower lots so families with more vehicles could meet the intent of the code. Commissioner Rossbach moved the Planning Commission table the residential parking ordinance to allow staff to prepare a summary. Commissioner Frost seconded. Ayes~ all VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS There were no visitor presentations. VIII. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS A. February 22 Council Meeting: Ms. Coleman reported on this meeting. B. March 8 Council Meeting: Ms. Coleman reported on this meeting. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-15-99 -5- C. March 22 Council Meeting: A representative will not be needed at this meeting. D. April 12 Council Meeting: Mr. Mueller will attend this meeting. Chairperson Fischer reminded the commissioners that the city would pay the fee if any commissioners wanted to attend the government training session. Information on this session was included in the commission packet. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS There were no staff presentations. Commissioner Frost inquired about Items 7 and 8 on the in-service training agenda. Melinda Coleman said she did not anticipate a lengthy discussion on those items--they were more informational. Mr. Frost requested that these items be covered first. He indicated that he did not intend to stay for the training but was interested in these subjects. Commissioner Frost moved the Planning Commission amend the agenda to discuss Items 7 and 8 of the Planning Commission In-Service Training program at this time. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. 7. Former Builders Square Site (Van Dyke Street) Melinda Coleman, director of community development, said some residents had voiced concern at the Family Service Center public hearing about the future use of this property. Rumors spread that it was going to be used for Section 8 housing and residents of the family center would then live in these units. Ms. Coleman met with a development group a few months ago. This group was considering razing the existing building and constructing townhomes. Since that time, members of the investment group on that property have started legal action against K-Mart to make some repairs to the building. The building is currently getting a new roof. Ms. Coleman said there has been renewed interest in occupying the building. Several inquiries have been received from groups in regard to using the building for a church, school, or office/warehouse. 8. The Future of White Bear Avenue Melinda Coleman, director of community development, said this issue came up at a retreat that the city council and staff had earlier this year. The city council would like staff and the planning commission to undertake a planning study of White Bear Avenue from Larpenteur Avenue to 1-694. She said council has made this study a high priority this year. Ms. Coleman said the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan will be submitted well before this study is started. X. ADJOURNMENT This portion of the Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:21 p.m. The commission reconvened in the Maplewood Room at 8:25 p.m. for in-service training. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-15-99 -6- MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN-SERVICE TRAINING Ken Roberts, associate planner, introduced Steve Kelly of Bannigan & Kelly, P.A. (the city attorney's office). Mr. Roberts explained the various attachments that were included with the staff report. Steve Kelly said he would go through a list and give ideas on how an attorney views planning issues. He said the attorney looks at issues from a litigation point-of-view--how a judge is going to view the actions of the city council and the planning commission. Mr. Kelly said many decisions are made by looking at the state law. He stated that one of the most important aspects of planning, from the city's perspective, is health, safety and welfare. Mr. Kelly felt goals were very important and said that courts often look to these goals. He said both the Maplewood Community Development Department and Planning Commission are the planning agency in Maplewood. The commission's role is advisory. Mr. Kelly said he would split off their functions into two areas: (1) advise on the comprehensive plan, new regulations and new ordinances and 2) take information and act in a judicial manner on certain issues that come up with individual property owners. Mr. Kelly elaborated on these two roles. Mr. Kelly said a comprehensive plan is required by the state legislature. From an internal aspect, the plan shows what the city wants to be, where it wants to go. He said administrative actions would be quasi- judicial areas. The hearing, from a legal point of view, should be "as open and as free as can be" because the more information the commission and the city council have to base their decision on, the more that this decision will be upheld. Mr. Kelly cautioned that this was not a time to debate public policy, but instead it was a time to listen and then discuss. He said it is allowable to set a time limit for comments from the public. According to Mr. Kelly, once the public hearing has been closed it cannot be reopened without a vote or general consensus of all members. Mr. Kelly asked the commissioners to always remember that variance and rezoning were "radical actions." He said courts will defer to the city's actions on the variance issues. Mr. Kelly said rezoning is also a radical action with a wider effect because it affects the whole city. He mentioned that care needs to be taken with "spot" zoning which benefits one landowner. Commissioner Rossbach commented that some of the criteria for approval of a conditional use permit was subjective as opposed to having specific findings. Mr. Kelly agreed that some individual findings will be subjective. In other cases, input will be received from various inspectors, etc. as to whether specific codes are being violated. He said, if an issue is raised, this should ideally be covered in the findings but would be covered in the minutes and tapes. Melinda Coleman pointed out that the Maplewood City Council typically has required staff to look further into the issue before making a final decision. Mr. Kelly mentioned some cases of nonconforming uses and eminent domain. He then answered various questions from the commissioners. Chairperson Fischer pointed out that the burden of proof is on the city for a conditional use permit while the burden is higher on the applicant for a variance. Mr. Kelly thought neighborhood committees were good tools for the planning commission to use as recommendations for conditional use permits. Ms. Coleman said another successful procedure was to have the developer meet with the neighborhood before the application is taken to the planning commission. Ms. Fischer gave some background information on the comprehensive plan. Melinda Coleman commented on taking public testimony. She thought it was necessary to be careful when saying that all testimony must be taken. Ms. Coleman said "you can't let people say things that are discriminatory or don't have any merit" to what is being discussed. Mr. Kelly agreed and said there should be control by the chair and the commission on this. He said a court does not look at testimony to be convinced by it but rather to determine if both the negative and positive aspects were reviewed. Ms. Coleman felt the chairperson needed to be in control of testimony. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-15-99 -7- Commissioner Pearson mentioned that sometimes the commissioners find themselves doing a design review, "an area where we shouldn't be," as part of their consideration of the application. Ms. Coleman said staff tries to separate those actions in the report. She also said it is important the commissioners comment on concerns they have about issues before the commission, even if they don't formally make a recommendation. Ms. Coleman said the review board also has "gray areas" and suggested the two boards get together to talk about this. Commissioner Ledvina, a member of both the planning commission and review board, felt it was beneficial to have the planning commission concerns passed to the review board. The commission in-service training adjourned at 9:55 p.m.