Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/06/2006 MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Mondav. February 6, 2006, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. January 17, 2006 5. Public Hearings 7:00 Conditional Use Permit Revision - Menards (2280 Maplewood Drive) 7:15 Code Amendment - Nonconforming Uses 6. New Business Resolution of Appreciation - Eric Ahlness 5. Unfinished Business Noise Ordinance Discussion 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations January 23 Council Meeting: Tushar February 13 Council Meeting: Mr. Kaczrowski February 27 Council Meeting: Ms. Dierich 10. Staff Presentations Reschedule February 20 meeting (Presidents Day) - February 21 or February 22? 11. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, FEBRUARY 6,2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the rneeting to order at 7:00 p.rn. II. ROLL CALL Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Cornrnissioner Mary Dierich Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Cornrnissioner Michael Grover Cornrnissioner Jirn Kaczrowski Cornrnissioner Gary Pearson Cornrnissioner Dale Trippler Cornrnissioner Jererny Yarwood Present Present Present P rese nt Present Present Present Present Staff Present: Ken Roberts, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Cornrnissioner Dierich requested the addition of a public service announcernent as itern d. under Cornrnission Presentations. Cornrnissioner Pearson rnoved to approve the agenda as arnended. Cornrnissioner Trippler seconded. The rnotion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Approval of the planning cornrnission rninutes for January 17, 2006. Chairperson Fischer rerninded the recording secretary that Cornrnissioner Dierich was absent frorn the January 17, 2006, rneeting and therefore her narne should be taken off the voting in the rninutes. Chairperson Fischer had an addition to page 7, in the third paragraph, it should read: Ms. Coleman said that's another thing the city has to keep in mind if the city wants to economically be in the ballpark....some of the other communities miaht be looking for those grants or funding which ami is another factor to consider. On page 10, in the second frorn the last paragraph, it should read: Mr. Soby said the concepts you are looking at were developed prior to their meeting with Ken Roberts. The original set of renderings determined the cul-de-sac was too small so they changed it to the hammerhead version instead. Cornrnissioner Trippler requested a deletion on page 13, in the tenth paragraph, after the word help, add the word avoid and strike the word wi#I. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-06-06 -2- Cornrnissioner Pearson rnoved to approve the planning cornrnission rninutes for January 17, 2006, as arnended. Cornrnissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Abstention. Dierich V. PUBLIC HEARING a. Conditional Use Permit Revision - Menards (2280 Maplewood Drive) (7:06-7:26 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said Robert Geske, of Menards, Inc. is proposing to build a 16,1 05-square-foot garden center addition on the south side of the Menards store. They are proposing an exterior of glass panels, emerald green accent panels and a wrought iron fence for the garden center. The proposed plans also show changes to the existing parking lot and changes to the exterior of the building. Specifically, Menards would eliminate 17 parking spaces and reconfigure the parking lot so that all of the spaces would be at gO-degrees to the drive aisles. In addition, they are proposing to update the front of the store. This would include changing the existing mansard and signage over the main entrance and adding four fieldstone and timber colurnns to support the new canopy. Mr. Geske is asking for a conditional use permit revision, a parking reduction authorization for 50 spaces, and the site and building design plans to be approved. CommissionerTrippler said he spoke with people at Menards regarding the parking reduction on site and he doesn't think it will be a big issue. However, he asked if it would be appropriate to add a condition that Menards should hire a parking lot assistant to help with the traffic flow during the holiday season or during the busier times of the year? Mr. Roberts said that condition could be added if the commission chooses. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Robert Geske, Real Estate Associate with Menard, Inc., 4777 Menard Drive, Eau Claire, Wisconsin, addressed the commission. He said Mr. Roberts did an excellent job with his report and presentation. This is a fairly simple project if the city allows them to go forward with it. Menards looks forward to bringing this garden center addition into the city. Commissioner Grover said since rnost of the activity for a garden center mostly takes place in the spring, summer and early fall, he asked what Menards would be using the garden center space for during the late fall and into the winter months? Planning Commission Minutes of 02-06-06 -3- Mr. Geske said a lot of Menards stores turn the garden center into an area to sell Christmas trees and other things during the off season months. If there were to be any storage in the garden center it would have to be stacked appropriately and would be done according to the city requirements. The garden center would be used for rocks, blocks, bricks, plants, flowers, trees, and other things like that during the season. Chairperson Fischer asked if Menards would have any problem with the request made by Commissioner Trippler regarding hiring someone to assist with the traffic flow during the busier times? Mr. Geske said he would have to take that back on advisement to the real estate comrnittee but he believes Menards does that already. Chairperson Fischer asked if anybody in the audience wanted to address the commission. Mr. Will Rossbach, city councilmernber and Maplewood Resident, 1386 County Road C East, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He said at a previous planning commission meeting Commissioner Grover said it would be nice to know what the city council might be looking for regarding certain projects. Mr. Rossbach said in the past the concern regarding Menards has been the residential homes along County Road B which is the reason the tall fence is there. Those residents may show up at one of the city meetings to see what the proposal for Menards is about. There was an oversight that occurred with the last Menards building addition project. There was an approved plan for Menards and they built a building that was not the same plan that had been approved by the city council. It wasn't discovered until the building was already started and he wants to make sure that Menards has crystal clear plans forthe city and that Menards follows the approved plans so this problem doesn't occur again. Chairperson Fischer asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak. Nobody came forward. Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the resolution on pages 26-28 of the staff report. This resolution approves a conditional use permit revision for Menards at 2280 Maplewood Drive to add a 16,1 05-square-foot garden center to the existing store. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code. Approval of this CUP revision is subject to the following conditions (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): 1. Adherence to the site plan date-stamped January 17. 2006 Maya, 1999. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. Compliance with the following screening-fence requirements: a. The property owner shall continue to have and keep, in a maintained condition, wooden screening fences as follows: (1) The eight-foot-tall screening fence west of 1071 County Road B and running east- west behind 1071, 1081 and part of 1101 County Road B shall remain. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-06-06 -4- (2) All other screening fences that abut the residential lots shall be 14 feet tall. (3) All screening fences shall be constructed of vertical boards of the same dimension, color and rnaterial. b. No material on the storage racks, adjacent to the fence behind 1101 and 1115 County Road B, shall extend above the 14-foot-tall fence. c. No more than 2% feet of the 17%-foot-tall interior storage racks shall be visible from the hornes to the south that are at street level along County Road B. This excludes those houses that sit higher on a hill. d. Menards shall be responsible for the safety of the neighbors in regard to the rnaterials stored over the height of the fence. 3. Hours of operation in the storage yard and qarden center shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 4. An exterior public address system shall not be allowed. 5. All lighting in the storage yard that is not needed for site security be turned off after business hours. 6. The city council shall review this permit in one year if Menards has not vet started the construction of the qarden center if the proposed retail spaGe addition has Rot bequn. 7. Plowed snow shall be stored away from the southern and eastern property lines to avoid runoff problems on residential property. 8. Menards shall store all their materials within the fenced storage area. g. Sanitation facilities shall be provided by Menards for the employees. 10. ~. The proposed building addition and site work must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 11. The perimeter of the building must be kept accessible for fire emergencies. The applicant shall arrange with the fire marshal for access through the gate behind the building in the case of emergencies. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve a parking-reduction authorization for Menards at 2280 Maplewood Drive to have 51 spaces fewer than the code requires. (The city code requires 451 parking spaces and Menards is proposing 401 parking spaces.) Approval is because: 1. The required number of spaces is excessive. Menards has gotten by, essentially, with the main parking area in front of the building since 1988. Menards customers do not typically use other available parking areas on the site. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-06-06 -5- 2. The proposed garden center addition would need 80 spaces according to the code. However, Menards is currently using this sarne area for retail sales and outdoor storage as approved earlier by the city. 3. Durinq busv holidav seasons. Menards shall hire and use a parkinq lot assistant to help with the traffic flow in the oarkinq lot. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on February 27,2006. b. Code Amendment - Nonconforming Use (7:26 - 7:31 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said on May 29, 2004, Governor Tim Pawlenty approved amendments to the state's nonconforming statute. The amendment authorizes further restriction toward repairing and replacing nonconforming uses. The amended statute takes precedence over the city's current nonconforming ordinance. To be consistent with the standards in the state statute, staff is proposing an amendment to the city's nonconforming ordinance. The City's zoning code, Article 1, Section 44-12 (c) states that a "nonconforming use that is wholly or partially destroyed by fire, explosion, flood or other phenomenon or legally condemned may be constructed and used for the same nonconforming use provided that building reconstruction shall be commenced within one year from the date the building was destroyed or condemned and shall be carried on without interruption." However, Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.357, subdivision 1 (e) states that any nonconforming use may continue after destruction unless more than 50% of the market value was destroyed and nO building permit has been applied for within 180 days from the date of the destruction. Changing the city's nonconforming use ordinance to disallow a nonconforming use if 50% of the market value has been lost and to mandate owners of nonconforming uses to apply for a building permit within 180 days will be consistent with state statute. Commissioner Yarwood asked if the city has any choice in the matter? Mr. Roberts said yes. But if the city was in a court battle over this, than what is the point? In fairness to developers, applicants and property owners, the city should be consistent with state law. The city doesn't have to change the ordinance but it can get confusing. An example would be on the northwest corner of Roselawn Avenue and Arcade Street there is a small service station that burned more than 50% and was zoned LBC and with that zoning that type of business would not be allowable today. Because they started reconstruction before the six months time and the city did not have the 50% limit ordinance, the city allowed the station to rebuild. If this nonconforming use ordinance amendment were in place, the service station would not have been allowed to build another service station. It would have to be another use that met the zoning standards at that time. Chairperson Fischer asked if anybody in the audience wanted to speak regarding this item? Planning Commission Minutes of 02-06-06 -6- Nobody carne forward. Chairperson Fischer closed the hearing. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the proposed ordinance amendment attached in the staff report. This code amendment changes the nonconforming ordinance (section 42-12) to make it consistent with Minnesota Statute, Section 462.357, subdivision 1 (e). Commissioner Yarwood seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on February 27,2006, for the first reading. VI. NEW BUSINESS Resolution of Appreciation - Eric Ahlness Mr. Roberts said Eric Ahlness resigned from the planning commission on January 13, 2006. Staff is recommending the planning commission approve the resolution of appreciation for Eric Ahlness. Commissioner Grover moved to approve the resolution of appreciation for Eric Ahlness. Commissioner Dierich seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion passed. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Noise Ordinance Discussion Mr. Roberts said priorto Eric Ahlnesses resignation from the planning commission, he requested that the city's noise-control ordinance be placed on a planning commission meeting agenda for discussion. Staff did so on January 3, 2006, but the commission tabled this discussion because Eric was absent. Commissioner Trippler has asked that this matter be scheduled again for a discussion about whether the noise-control ordinance should be amended. Mr. Trippler had proposed some revisions to the ordinance and emailed them to staff. Commissioner Trippler said he thinks the way he stated it in the e-mail makes it clearer regarding the first paragraph of the ordinance. In paragraph (c) he thought this would apply to the things like the Ramsey County Fair, National Night Out and the Fourth of July celebration at Hazelwood Park. Ifthis is included in the ordinance it would take care ofthings. He is okay striking everything in paragraph (c) in the third line after the words "of a residential use" and deleting the rest of the sentence. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-06-06 -7- Commissioner Yarwood said in paragraph (c) it states The city manager may waive the requirement in subsection (a) of this section where the event or activity would not cause a nuisance. If it doesn't cause a nuisance is it really even governed by this ordinance? He wasn't sure if that was meant to be a catch all term or not. Commissioner Dierich said she doesn't care for the noise ordinance as it is stated. It states that you can make noise from 7 a.m. until 7 p.m. Monday through Saturday but not on Sunday in a residential neighborhood. She has a lot of experience listening to noise at her house from 7:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. when people are working on construction during the week and on Saturdays. She thinks people shouldn't be allowed to make noise on a Saturday at 7:00 a.m. because people like to sleep in on Saturday mornings. People like to sit outside and enjoy their yards but that can be difficult if you have to listen to machines and construction all day and night and that can be annoying. Commissioner Trippler said paragraph (c) gives the city manager the authority to waive an activity that is not within 350 feet of a residence. Commissioner Yarwood asked if there should be a line that specifies that the event would not cause a nuisance? Should that be stricken and go right into the "where the proposed activity would not be within 350 feet of a residential use or the event or activity is limited in duration to less than 7 days. Because the city manager already has the choice to decide whether the activity is covered by this ordinance. Commissioner Trippler said the first question is if the planning commission wants to change the ordinance or not? Chairperson Fischer asked what the city's experience has been with handling complaints from neighbors regarding noise and monitoring the situation to the satisfaction of the neighbors? Mr. Roberts said it has been the city's experience in the planning department that noise is not to be made from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. and if sorneone does make noise the neighbors should call the police. It has been a fairly simple matter in the Community Development department. Occasionally there are uses that are regulated by a CUP where hours of operation are a concern and then planning gets involved, but that doesn't happen very frequently. The most recent experience has been the St. Paul Pioneer Press building and the noise that has affected the neighbors in a residential neighborhood. Staff isn't necessarily pushing for a change to the noise ordinance but staff agrees the noise ordinance could be clearer and easier for everyone to understand, but no noise from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. seems pretty easy to understand. Commissioner Trippler said he had the opportunity to talk to the police chief about the noise ordinance because he telephoned a complaint in to the Maplewood Police Department. When he spoke to the officer who came to his house, she understood the noise ordinance meant people could make as much noise as they want to from 7 a.m. until 7 p.m. and thatthe police department had no authority to do anything about it. Commissioner Dierich said that is the same thing the police department told her when she made a complaint call to the Maplewood Police Department. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-06-06 -8- Commissioner Trippler said the police chief told him on the telephone that is not what the noise ordinance states. So the noise ordinance process rnay work well with the planning departrnent but apparently it's not working well for the police department. He would hope the police would receive some training on how to interpret this noise ordinance. Mr. Roberts said the police department may be referring to the first sentence in paragraph (a) which says no person shall make or cause to made any distinctly and loudly audible noise that unreasonably annoys, disturbs, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace, safety or welfare of any person or precludes such person's enjoyment of property or affects such person's property values. He thinks what the police chief was saying is if somebody is playing their stereo so loudly that the neighbors within 350 feet can hear it in the middle of the day the police can tell that person to turn the radio down. That kind of noise is unreasonably annoying. Another example is if someone is putting an addition on their house and they use the nail gun at 7:01 a.m., the contractor will say he is working within the noise ordinance guidelines, even if the noise occurs right next door to someone's home. That kind of noise would be "reasonable" because they have the right to do construction during the working hours and the police could do nothing about it. Commissioner Yarwood said he agrees with that statement but in the last sentence it states "any violation of this general prohibition between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday through Saturday and all day Sunday is a per se violation of this division. "To hirn that implies the noise ordinance can only be enforced during those hours. Chairperson Fischer said there certainly seems to be a difference in what the interpretation of the noise ordinance is. Commissioner Trippler said he called the Maplewood Police Department because a neighbor of his was playing the drums every day in their garage. If he were to put his house on the market, and someone came to see his house, and they heard the drums banging, the prospective buyers would not be interested because of the noise. When he calls to complain about the noise, and the police arrive, the drumming is over so the police cannot hear what he has to listen to. Commissioner Yarwood said he would like a clarification as to when this noise ordinance can be enforced as the noise ordinance is written. Can it be enforced throughout the day or only between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. It would be nice to have the attorney's perspective on the noise ordinance and that could give more direction on how the noise ordinance could be written clearer for everyone involved. Chairperson Fischer said another questionable situation would be a person working outside with a power tool, would that fall under this noise ordinance too or not? Mr. Roberts said if the noise were done within the 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. hours they would be safe. Chairperson Fischer said in the summer month's people like to get out early on the weekends and get their outside jobs done and during the week they usually do the outside chores after work so they can enjoy their weekends. With the amount of daylight we have in the summer months people would try and get their work done before it gets to dark and that would go past 7 p.m. up until g:OO p.m. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-06-06 -9- Mr. Roberts said working outside in the evening is also cooler so people would do what they can before dark. Commissioner Desai said in the winter month's people get up early and SnOW blow their driveways at 6:00 a.rn. in the morning as well so they can get out of their driveway in the rnorning. Does the noise ordinance cover that as well? Commissioner Yarwood said he believes the noise ordinance should be written in such a way that it can be enforced at any time. The police should feel they have the discretion to do so if the noise is unreasonable and he is not sure that the way the noise ordinance is written currently that the police department feels they can police the noise situation. Some help with the interpretation on this would be helpful. Commissioner Desai said it would be a good idea to get some input from the police department since they are the enforcers of the rule as to what the issues are that they see before anything is rewritten. Mr. Roberts said it seerns the cornrnission would like staff to do sorne further work on this and check with the police department and possibly, the city attorney and other departments involved for input and bring the matter back to the planning commission for more comment and or changes. Commissioner Trippler said it may be worthwhile to have in the noise ordinance whether an activity is a consistent on-going activity such as loud music every day that goes on for weeks as opposed to a snowplow going by early in the morning twice a winter. Mr. Roberts said some would argue that there shouldn't be any grass mowing on Sundays if there is no noise on Sundays. The problem with the exarnple Commissioner Trippler gave is how do you document the on-going activity and who documents it. It's all up to interpretation of what noise is acceptable and what is not acceptable. One example of documenting things is the dog barking ordinance in the City of St. Paul. If a dog barks for more than 5 minutes in a row, three times a day, then animal control can be called to assess the situation. The problem is who has the tirne to use a stop watch three times a day, for 5 rninutes or more, before anirnal control can be called and will the dog still be barking when they finally get there to prove there is a problem. Chairperson Fischer said the other problem is years ago there were not as many outdoor noises as we hear now. Chainsaws, power tools, leaf blowers, etc. are all common household tools that people have in their garages now and people use them readily at all hours of the day and night. Commissioner Dierich said she isn't worried about common noises like snow blowing, grass mowing, trimmers, kids playing. She is concerned about tree trimmers, backhoes, dump trucks etc. she thinks those types of noises could wait until 8:00 a.m. or later. Mr. Roberts said in the past people have called the city complaining about kids playing basketball or making noise outside in the evenings. This is especially true in summer when kids like to play outside when it gets cooler and that can annoy some people. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-06-06 -10- VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Mr. Desai was the planning commission representative at the January 23, 2006, city council meeting. The only planning commission item to discuss was the Special Construction Agreement to build a house at 1784 Edgehill Road, which passed ayes all. Commissioner Desai said the city council meeting went until 2:00 a.m. and he sat through the whole meeting until his project carne up. Staff gave their presentation and the city council had no questions for the applicant or for himself as the PC representative. He thinks the city should reconsider the necessity of having a PC representative at their meetings. If there is a subject that is likely to be hotly debated then someone should be there, otherwise staff could give their presentation and be there for questions. For simple issues like this proposal was you sit and sit and he didn't even get called on to answer questions and there was no need for him to be there all night. He could have had the pleasure of sitting in his own home instead of sitting on those hard chairs for all those hours. Commissioner Dierich said she thinks it would reasonable for the PC representative to only come for the timeframe or portion of the meeting that represents the PC rather than sitting through the city council meeting for several hours. Mr. Roberts said that is an option. But if you attend the whole meeting you get to see the city council in action and report back to the planning commission. b. Mr. Kaczrowski will be the planning commission representative at the February 13, 2006, city council meeting. The city council will continue their interviewing for the CDRB and the PC openings and the regular city council meeting will follow that. The only item to discuss so far is the 2005 Planning Commission Annual Report. c. Ms. Dierich will be the planning commission representative at the February 27,2006, city council meeting. Items to discuss include Menards at 2280 Maplewood Drive for a conditional use permit revision and the Code Amendment for Nonconforming Uses. d. Commissioner Dierich to make a public service announcement. Commissioner Dierich said the Payne Phalen Block Nursing Program is having a multi-cultural health fair and will have around 20 vendors for senior citizens of all cultures. It will be held on February 14, 2006, from 1 :00 to 4:00 p.m. at the First Covenant Church on Arcade Street in St. Paul, close to the Whirlpool site. The hope is that if this is popular the Block Nursing Program will branch out into Maplewood. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-06-06 -11- X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Reschedule the Monday, February 20, 2006, Planning Commission Meeting because of President's Day. The planning commission took a poll and decided to hold the meeting Tuesdav. February 21, 2006. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m.