Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/17/2006 MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Mondav. April 17, 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. April 3, 2006 5. Public Hearings 7:00 Easement Vacation (2249 Kenwood Court) 7:15 Conditional Use Permit- Oversized Accessory Structure (2345 Maryland Avenue) Code Amendment- Accessory Structures 6. New Business None 7. Unfinished Business a. Noise Control Ordinance Code Amendment 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations Apri/10 Council Meeting:?? April 18 Special Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler and Mr. Grover April 24 Council Meeting: Mr. Pearson May 8 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler 10. Staff Presentations PCICDRB Responsibilities and Duties - Possible Meeting? 11. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, APRIL 17, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Commissioner Mary Dierich Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Michael Grover Commissioner Harland Hess Commissioner Jim Kaczrowski Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Present Present Present Present at 7:05 p.m. Present Present Present Present Present Ken Roberts, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary Trevor Oliver, Attorney at Law with Kelly & Fawcett Staff Present: III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Desai seconded. The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Hess, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Approval of the planning commission minutes for April 3, 2006. Commissioner Trippler had clarifications and changes to the minutes on pages on 7, and 8. On page 7, item number 1. insert the word followinq before areas:, in number 1., line 3, change the word sited to gited, in item number 4., second line, change the word GReness to openness, on page 8, item number 6., after November 14, 2005, add }, in the second complete paragraph, change the word Community to Commissioner. Chairperson Fischer had clarifications and changes to the minutes on pages 5 and 9. On page 5, in the second paragraph, third line, change the word conclusions to considerations, on page 9, in the second paragraph, second line, the word to should be tOQ. Commissioner Yarwood moved to approve the planning commission minutes for April 3, 2006, as amended. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-17-06 -2- Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Hess, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood V. PUBLIC HEARING a. Easement Vacation (2249 Kenwood Court) (7:05 - 7:17 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said Mr. James Tschida, the owner of the property at 2249 Kenwood Court, is proposing that the city vacate part of an existing drainage and utility easement. This easement is along the west property line of his lot. Mr. Tschida wants the city to vacate this easement area to provide him space to build an addition onto his existing garage. The city acquired the easement in question in 1989, when the developer recorded the final plat with Ramsey County. Mr. Tschida is requesting the vacation because his proposed garage addition would encroach about 2.6 feet into the five-foot-wide easement. The city engineering department stated that the city does not have a need for the existing easement. The city and the adjacent property owners have no plans to build any utilities and the city does not need it for any utilities. However, the engineering department noted that the city needs a legal way to access the drainage and utility easement across the northern part of the property. In trade for the city vacating the existing easement, city staff is requesting that the property owner grant to the city an additional five-foot-wide easement near the east property line of the lot. Such an easement over the property would allow the city access to the drainage area to the north and would provide more space to install underground utilities if the city decides that there is a need for such improvements. Commissioner Trippler asked if the easement vacation is approved would that have an affect on the variance because this is within five feet of the property line? Mr. Roberts said that is correct. The city cannot process the variance until the city knows if the easement vacation is approved. Commissioner Trippler asked if the applicant proceeds with this would the applicant be coming back before the planning commission for a variance? Mr. Roberts said the administrative variance for the garage setback does not require planning commission or city council action. Ifthe neighbors adjoining this property agree to this and sign a petition, staff can handle the variance administratively. Commissioner Grover asked what the neighbors think of the easement vacation? Mr. Roberts said the neighbors have already signed the petition and submitted the paperwork. He said that's how all of this was started. City staff put a hold on the variance request until the easement vacation went through the appropriate steps. Commissioner Hess asked if the proposed garage addition roof overhang was included in the easement encroachment? Mr. Roberts said the code refers to the foundation line as a wall line and a small roof overhang like this isn't an issue and is commonly done. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-17-06 -3- Commissioner Hess said he is concerned about the fire safety and the closeness of the proposed garage addition to the house next door's living space? Mr. Roberts said he estimated the neighbor's garage to be 12 to 15 feet away which does not include the living space. At the time of the building permit process the building inspectors may require additional sheetrock in the garage to meet the fire code, but that would be handled during the building permit review. Commissioner Hess said he noticed the third parking stall addition is more than 10 feet wide (which is the common size) and if this garage addition was only 10 feet wide this would not require a variance. He asked if the laundry room and storage area were new additions to this addition proposal as well? Mr. Roberts said he understood the laundry room and storage space would be included in the proposed garage addition. He said there are some parking stall additions that are 10 feet wide which is narrower than what the applicant is requesting and would not require as much of a variance. That may be a question for the applicant but the difference in size may relate to the stairs and how the back is laid out with a straight wall down the one side. Commissioner Trippler asked if the neighbor to the west had signed the petition stating they are okay with the easement vacation? Mr. Roberts said yes. Commissioner Trippler said when he visited the site he noticed this was the only house on the cul-de-sac that would be so close to their neighbor. He asked if staff had considered that when working on this proposal? Mr. Roberts said the easement vacation is a separate matter. Regarding the setback, the city could take that into consideration. The code on a side setback, garage to garage, if the neighbor adjoining it approves it and it doesn't look way out of character or isn't an excessive request, the city really has no choice other than to grant it and it has been the practice of the city to approve those requests. It has been city staff's opinion if the two neighbors are happy and they can coexist on a small setback variance of two or three feet, the city won't interfere. City staff did not look at the rest of the setbacks of the other homes on the cul-de-sac, staff was primarily focusing on just these two properties. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Dennis Prohofsky, 755 Montana, St. Paul, father-in-law of James Tschida, the applicant, addressed the commission. He said he's retired and has put a lot of time into the application to help his son-in-law out. He said there are two other properties here with three stall garages and one of those is closer to the property line. He said he included that information in his application. All adjacent neighbors have agreed to this proposal and they would like to proceed with the next step. Chairperson Fischer asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak regarding this easement vacation. Nobody came forward. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-17-06 -4- Chairperson Fischer closed this portion of the public hearing. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the resolution on page nine of the staff report. This resolution is for the vacation of part of the drainage and utility easement on the west side of the property at 2249 Kenwood Court. The reasons for the vacation are as follows: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The city and the property owner do not need or use the existing easement for utility purposes. 3. The two properties adjacent to the easement have adequate utilities and drainage. This vacation is subject to the property owner: 1. Granting to the city an additional five-foot-wide drainage and utility easement over the east part of the property, subject to the approval of the city engineer. 2. Maintaining the drainage on the west side of their house and garage on their property and within the five-foot-wide easement on the adjacent property. Commissioner Grover seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Hess, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on May 8, 2006. b. Conditional Use Permit - Oversized Accessory Structure (2345 Maryland Avenue) (7:17 - 8:13 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said John Wykoff is requesting that the city approve a conditional use permit (CUP) for his property at 2345 Maryland Avenue. He would like to add a 36-foot by 56-foot detached garage to his property north of his existing accessory buildings. Mr. Wykoff wants this new garage to house a 45-foot-long motor coach. He purchased this motor coach with his father to convert into a recreational vehicle. The proposed garage would be centered between his side property lines and have approximately 19 to 20 feet of setback from each adjacent property. Staff has misgivings about this request. Building such a large storage garage would be a temptation for illegal commercial usage in the future after Mr. Wykoff sells the property. A building of this nature would easily be a temptation for a future homeowner to operate an auto-repair garage from this residential lot. It is true that the city has regulations against such occurrences, but these violations are difficult to regulate when they happen. Staff asked, why create a problem? Another problem is the sheer size and mass of the proposed garage. The proposed building would be very large and visually very noticeable and overwhelming for neighbors. Staff does not feel that approving such a large garage on residential property is a good idea. As noted, it opens the door for code violations to occur in the future. The garage would also be visually overwhelming. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-17-06 -5- The applicant already has an over-size garage for his home occupation. Staff feels that the proposed structure exceeds the regulations of the city code far too much. The only plus staff sees is that there weren't any abutting neighbors that voiced any concern about this proposal. There were over forty neighborhood surveys sent out with five responses received. Fourwere supportive of the request and felt it was better to keep the bus-repair activity out of view in the proposed garage and one person had concerns about this proposal. Staff is recommending denial for the proposed conditional use permit requested by John Wykoff at 2345 Maryland Avenue for the construction of a 36-by-56-foot, 2,016-square-foot, 20-foot-tall garage on his property for the storage and repair of a motor coach. Denial is based on the following reasons in recommendation A. items listed as 1-3 in the staff report. If the city councilor planning commission wishes to approve this conditional use permit, staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for a larger and taller garage than allowed by ordinance, subject to the following conditions in recommendation B. items listed as 1-15 in the staff report. If the city council or planning commission approves Recommendation 8, they should also approve the attached code amendment for accessory buildings on page 21 in the staff report. This ordinance would allow garages to be larger and taller than the limits expressed by ordinance by conditional use permit with no required maximum. Maximum sizes would be determined by the city council based on each individual proposal. Commissioner Hess said he would be abstaining from the discussion and voting because he was an acquaintance of the applicant, John Wykoff. Commissioner Pearson said he responded to the neighborhood survey and he felt there was a conflict of interest for him to vote on this proposal. Chairperson Fischer said she didn't think that would disallow Commissioner Pearson from voting on this proposal just because they were within the notification distance of a proposal. Chairperson Fischer asked staff to clarify this matter? Mr. Roberts said as long as there is no financial interest it would be fine for Commissioner Pearson to vote on this proposal. Commissioner Dierich asked if the 16 foot garage height ordinance only applied to detached garages and not attached garages? It would seem this would be a common problem in the City of Maplewood if this ordinance applied to attached garages. Mr. Roberts said the 16 foot garage height ordinance is only for detached garages. However, there are attached garages that are taller but there's usually living space above the garage and the garage space itself is not taller than 16 feet tall. Commissioner Dierich said she noticed the immediate neighbors on either side of the applicant did not have any comments. Mr. Roberts said the comments staff received are in the staff report and the neighbors on either side of the applicant did not respond. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-17-06 -6- Commissioner Trippler said looking at the ordinance staff is recommending amendments to what was the rational to increase the garage sizes in the ordinance? Mr. Roberts said on page 21 of the staff report, under the ordinance amending accessory-building requirements in item (a), in the middle column, the word Detached was added and on the line that has 42,000+ square feet, the line accessory was added. Otherwise the garage sizes have not changed. What has changed is paragraph (b) removing the wording as vi owed from tho stroot and adding as measured from arade and paragraph (c) where the three lines are stricken and reduced to one sentence. Commissioner Dierich asked if a CUP would always come before the planning commission and never be done administratively? Mr. Roberts said correct. Unless somebody changes the code down the line for a conditional use at this point, CUP's are reviewed by the planning commission. Commissioner Dierich said the city rarely enforces CUP's. For example, on the Schlomka property the planning commission required no outdoor storage but yet when you look at the site there are tractors, vehicles and other things on the property, so from what she can see the city rarely enforces any of the conditions put on a CUP. Mr. Roberts said the city staff tries to stay on top of enforcing the CUP's. When complaints come in city staff inspects the complaint. He said this is another reason city staff does the annual CUP review. Commissioner Dierich said she would prefer that the planning commission do the annual review of the CUP's due to the lack of enforcement of the conditions placed on the CUP. Commissioner Desai said when he drove behind the proposed site on Lakewood Drive he thought right away this proposed garage would be a visual detraction in comparison to the homes in the neighborhood and would stick out like a sore thumb. He said you may not see the oversized garage from Maryland Avenue but you would definitely see it from Lakewood Drive. Maryland Avenue is not as well traveled as Lakewood Drive. Lakewood Drive is an area where many people drive and the area carries a lot of traffic to and from 3M so the proposed oversized garage would really look out of place in this area. Chairperson Fischer said three car garages are very common these days and she asked if the allocated square footage under this ordinance is still adequate for the types of construction and the types of vehicles and toys that require additional storage today? Mr. Roberts said he's sure if people asked if they could build a larger garage or storage space they would if it was allowed. He said with a 10,000 square foot lot it starts to become a balancing act regarding how much storage you want on a property and how large the structures are that you can have. Staff is comfortable with the number of requests that come in. Chairperson Fischer said that's another reason the code had been amended to take into account that larger lots could accommodate larger garages or accessory buildings. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-17-06 -7- Mr. Roberts said correct. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. John Wykoff, the applicant, 2345 Maryland Avenue, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He said he and his dad purchased a 1989 Prevost Motor Coach from the Voyageur Bus Company last year to convert into a motor home. Brand new it would cost $500,000. It was so nice on the inside that they felt bad taking the bus seats out because it had just been reupholstered, it had 3 brand new televisions in it, 30 different radio stations can be played on it at the same time and it was absolutely beautiful, but his dad wanted to convert it to a motor home. He said he then started taking the seats out etc. He said he is self employed, doesn't work for the government and he depends on people to give him business. In the summer months he letters boats for the rich and famous so the more people that buy boats, the better off he is. Because of the price of gasoline the boat business is pretty slow out there. Even the rich complain about the price of gas. So in the summer months he doesn't have time to work on this motor home. He would only be able to work on the motor home in the winter months in the off season for boaters. He said his driveway is not eroding as stated in the staff report. He said he dug drainage ditches to divert the water from washing out the rocks on his property. There are other properties around his home that more than half of the property is impervious and those people are not being asked to put rainwater gardens in. He said he doesn't know how much it costs to have a rainwater garden but he did get an estimate for the trees to be planted that the city is requiring which is estimated to cost $4,000. It's going to take him awhile to save up enough money to put a cement driveway in. One of the reasons he doesn't want to put a cement driveway in yet is he knows if he gets the permit to build the garage he wouldn't want to drive a cement truck over the concrete driveway because it would bust it up. But he said he would put the concrete driveway in if he gets the permit to build the garage for the motor home. If he doesn't get permission to build the garage he and his dad are going to work on the motor home outside. He said if he didn't have anything to do right now, it would still take him 9 years to finish converting the motor home to an RV while storing in the proposed garage. Without the permit to build the garage it would take about 19 years to convert the motor home to an RV outside on his property. Mr. Wykoff said he's only one person and his dad is 90 years old and can't do very much. Commissioner Dierich said she thought there was a city ordinance stating you can't have a large oversized recreational vehicle sitting in your yard and the applicant just stated he would leave it outside while working on it which could take 19 years? Mr. Roberts said vehicles that are licensed as a "recreational" vehicle are allowed and there are no size limits. "Commercial" vehicles have size and weight limits in the City of Maplewood. He understands this motor coach is a commercial vehicle but understands that once the motor coach is converted to an RV it would be considered a recreational vehicle. Commissioner Trippler asked if there was another location off-site that the applicant could work on this motor home? Mr. Wykoff said he is not a millionaire and he explained he was self employed and it would cost too much money to rent a space and work on the motor home off-site. Commissioner Trippler asked if the motor home could be worked on at his father's property? Planning Commission Minutes of 04-17-06 -8- Mr. Wykoff said his dad lives with him. He said his dad didn't make a lot of money in his life time either and it was his dad's dream to own a motor coach. He said if you bought a motor coach like this it would cost about $1.5 million brand new. He said this is called the poor man's Prevost. Chairperson Fischer asked Mr. Wykoff if he had any questions for the planning commission? Mr. Wykoff said he is against planting the trees that are required in the staff report. He said he cannot plant the trees himself so he would have to hire someone and that would cost about $4,000. He doesn't know what the cost of the soil testing will be, he doesn't know what it means to require noise barriers or what that means, he doesn't have a problem with a security system in the garage because he said he has one now and he said he doesn't know what a rainwater garden is or what that consists of, if he could do it himself, or how expensive that would be. He found out that a 2% inch caliper tree weighs 450 pounds and him and his dad could not lift the tree and set it in the ground themselves. He said he didn't know what the 150% escrow would cost that was required, or if he could even able to afford that. He said he is going to build a "first class" building here and everything on his property is first class. He said when he bought his home it was not first class, it was a HUD house and it had a Harley Davidson motorcycle parked in the middle of the living room, the house was trashed and nobody wanted it. Commissioner Kaczrowski asked if the applicant looked into renting a commercial space to work on this motor coach and storing it compared to the costs to build this large garage and all the fees involved for the requirements by the city involved in this proposal? He believed it's less expensive to rent a commercial space compared to the concrete driveway, rainwater garden, security system, noise barriers, permit fees, tree requirements, and the cost to build the garage, etc. Mr. Wykoff said yes he checked into a commercial space and that it would be way too expensive and would add to the cost of doing this project. All of his tools and stuff would be off site and he said he would have to have "two" of everything. Chairperson Fischer said no one is in the audience to speak regarding this proposal. The planning commission then closed the public hearing. Chairperson Fischer asked the planning commission for their comments. Commissioner Yarwood said his feeling is as much as this exceeds the normal city guidelines for the size of accessory buildings or garages on properties, if you don't abide by the city code and you allow this proposal, at what point does the city follow the city code requirements? This may be nice to convert a bus into a motor home but he can't find a compelling reason to allow this proposal over what the City of Maplewood normally allows. If it were him, he personally would have put more thought into if it would even be possible to have the motor home on the property and if it would be allowed by the city to work on the motor home on the property prior to purchasing the motor home. Another issue is if you wouldn't be allowed to work on this on the property where could you work on it if you purchased it and how long would it take to do the renovations given the resources and time you have etc. It doesn't appear that the applicant weighed all the factors before purchasing the motor home. He said he cannot find a reason to approve this proposal. Chairperson Fischer asked if Commissioner Yarwood was making a motion to deny this proposal then? Planning Commission Minutes of 04-17-06 -9- Commissioner Yarwood said yes. Mr. Wykoff asked if he has a voice in this discussion? Chairperson Fischer said the planning commission has closed the public hearing portion of the meeting and have already moved forward with making a motion to forward to the city council. The motion made by the planning commission is only a recommendation; the city council makes the final decision. Commissioner Yarwood moved to deny the proposed conditional use permit requested by John Wykoff, of 2345 Maryland Avenue, for the construction of a 36-by-56-foot, 2,016-square-foot, 20- foot-tall garage on his property for the storage and repair of a motor coach. Denial is based on the following reasons: 1. The proposed garage would exceed the amount of garage space allowable by conditional use permit by 766 square feet. 2. The proposed garage, in addition to the applicant's previous large garage, would be overwhelming visually on this residential property. 3. There is too much risk for abuse of zoning requirements by permitting such a large garage on residential property. The city often gets requests for non-conforming businesses on properties when there are large out buildings. Examples of these businesses are: auto repair, landscaping businesses and contractors with commercial vehicles to store. Commissioner Dierich seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood Abstention - Hess Commissioner Hess abstained from voting because he is an acquaintance of the applicant. The motion passed. This item will go to the city council on May 8, 2006. Chairperson Fischer said she would like the planning commission to consider that the city council does not always go with the recommendation given by the planning commission. If in the case the city council would consider granting this proposal, would the planning commission prefer to have a motion made regarding recommendation B stating if the city council wishes to approve this conditional use permit what the conditions would be as written by staff? Commissioner Grover asked the chairperson if she is asking if the planning commission should vote on recommendation B as well? Planning Commission Minutes of 04-17-06 -10- Chairperson Fischer said in the past she remembered a proposal that the planning commission recommended denial of and the commission didn't put any other conditions on the proposal. Then the city council approved the proposal. When the city council was questioned about the decision the city council said if the planning commission had other conditions they wanted to place on the proposal why weren't they included in the report before it went to the city council. Commissioner Grover asked staff if that was the intent of recommendation B in the staff report? Mr. Roberts said he understands recommendation B to be for the city council. If the planning commission already voted to deny the proposal, staff wouldn't recommend the commission make a separate motion for recommendation B. Chairperson Fischer asked if recommendation B would go to the city council anyway as it is shown in the staff report? Mr. Roberts said staff would leave recommendation B in the staff report and unless there is a strong minority report, the planning commission already made a recommendation to deny the proposal so there would be no need to make a motion on recommendation B. Chairperson Fischer asked staff how the planning commission should address the recommendation of approval of the ordinance on page 21 of the staff report? Commissioner Dierich asked if she could make a recommendation to strike recommendation B in the staff report? Chairperson Fischer said the planning commission is not voting on recommendation B. Mr. Roberts said if you want to make that a motion so it is recorded in the minutes you can, but staff would leave recommendation B in the staff report for the city council. Commissioner Dierich said her feeling is the more options that are put on the table for the city council the more doorways you allow the city council to walk through. She understands the political reason staff wants to do that but on the other hand the planning commissioners were chosen to represent the city's interest. When the planning commission recommends denial of a proposal you shouldn't leave a second door open as the backup. The planning commission doesn't review proposals to make a denial or recommendation to the city council and have a backup in case the city council chooses a second option. Mr. Wykoff said he wanted to take every person in this room to court and sue them. He asked for the names of every person in the room to be written down now. Chairperson Fischer asked the planning commission if they wanted to allow Mr. Wykoff to make a statement? The planning commission replied no. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Trippler said he would agree with Commissioner Dierich's comments to strike recommendation B from the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-17-06 -11- Mr. Wykoff threw his book across the room and his papers emptied outon the floor. While picking up his papers he screamed foul language at the planning commission. Commissioner Trippler said he believes it sets a bad precedence if the planning commission starts second guessing what the commission thinks the mayor and the city council want to hear and he doesn't believe this is the purpose of being an advisory committee. Mr. Wykoff screamed another foul word to the planning commission before exiting the city council chambers. Commissioner Trippler said the purpose of an advisory committee is to give the city council the commission's opinion of what they would like to see or not to see and clearly the planning commission thinks this garage proposal is a bad idea and recommended denial to the city council. The commission didn't recommend denial and then think if the city council doesn't agree with the commission, here is a second option to consider. What he hears staff saying is recommendation B will remain in the staff report for the city council but requires no motion by the planning commission since they recommended denial of the proposal. Commissioner Grover said the planning commission has the pleasure of having a city attorney present this evening. He asked if the planning commission had the ability to strike information in the staff report? He also said this discussion would be part of the planning commission minutes so the city council would have the opportunity to read the discussion that took place. He said even though he respects the opinion of Commissioner Dierich he has no problem leaving recommendation B in the staff report. Mr. Roberts said the planning commission could ask the city attorney that question. Chairperson Fischer said she has no problem leaving recommendation B in the staff report as well. Commissioner Grover said he strongly believes that this proposal should be denied and he would not consider recommendation B. This is the first time he has seen another option given in the staff report and he asked how often this happens because since he was chosen to serve on the planning commission 1 Yo years ago, this is the first time he has seen this option in the staff report. Mr. Roberts said staff's first recommendation was to deny the proposal. However, staff does not want this to get to the city council and have the council make any conditions up as they go. This way if the city council disagrees with the recommendation to deny this proposal staff would have things properly laid out ensuring nothing could is missed. Including this in the staff report is for the city council's benefit. This is an unusual situation. For the most part staff is committed one way or the other regarding proposals. Mr. Roberts introduced the city attorney to the planning commission. Mr. Trevor Oliver, one of the city Attorneys with Kelly & Fawcett, addressed the commission. Commissioner Grover asked the city attorney if the planning commission had the ability to strike text from the staff report when this is forwarded to the city council? Planning Commission Minutes of 04-17-06 -12- Mr. Oliver said his opinion would be no. The staff report and the opinion of the planning commission are two different things. Staff owes certain duties to the city council and if staff feels that certain conditions should be in the staff report then it shall be so stated. It's very clear that the staff recommendation is to deny the proposal and it's been stated very clearly that the planning commission recommended denial of this proposal and that information will be very clear when the city council reads the minutes from this evening's meeting. You can still have consideration motions on the ordinance in part C regardless of how it was structured in the staff report, if the commission chose to discuss that. Mr. Roberts said the planning commission will have the benefit of having a PC representative to give their report at the city council meeting as well. Commissioner Dierich said since the recording secretary has recorded the discussion and the planning commission has given a firm opinion about this, she would withdraw her recommendation to strike recommendation B from the staff report. Commissioner Grover asked if there is something that is driving staff to include recommendation B? Mr. Roberts said the city council appears to listen to the neighbors regarding proposals and three or four of the neighbors had no problem with the garage proposal being built. If there were neighbors voicing disapproval of the garage and staff was recommending denial of this proposal, then there would be no need to include a second option or recommendation B in the staff report. However, being that there is a slight chance this could still be approved by the city council even though staff and the planning commission recommended denial, the city council for a lack of neighbor descent, could view that as approved by the neighbors and could prove to be okay with the city council. Staff's opinion is, if by chance the city council thought this proposal was appropriate, the conditions would be laid out correctly ahead of time. Recommendation B in the staff report reads as follows: If the city council wishes to approve this conditional use permit, staff recommends approval ofthe conditional use permit for a larger and taller garage than allowed by ordinance, subject to the following conditions: 1. The city council must first amend the Accessory Buildings Ordinance to permit a garage larger than 1,250 square feet in area and taller than 16 feet. 2. All construction shall follow the plans approved by the city date-stamped March 24, 2006. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 3. The proposed construction must be substantially started and or the proposed use utilized within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 4. The council shall review this permit in one year. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-17-06 -13- 5. The applicant must present a grading and drainage plan to the city's engineering department for approval of an on-site stormwater management system. My Wykoff shall install a rainwater garden on the west side of his property to catch the runoff from the proposed building as well as from the existing garage. This is needed because the property is near the 30 percent impervious-surface area maximum currently required within the Seaver Lake Shoreland Overlay District. With the additional garage, it would increase to 35 percent. 6. The gravel driveway on the west side ofthe house is eroding. This driveway shall be graded to divert any silt-laden runoff into the boulevard and percent it from entering Maryland Avenue. This driveway shall be paved from the property line a distance of 20 feet into the property. A rainwater garden would also be beneficial in this area and may be required. 7. The applicant shall comply with any additional requirements of the engineering department based on the plan to be submitted by the applicant. 8. Mr. Wykoff shall submit a landscaping plan for the area east of the proposed garage to provide screening for the two neighbors to the east. This plan shall provide at least eight trees, four for screening for each neighbor. The applicant shall work with staff to determine placement and the type of trees. Evergreens shall be at least eight feet tall and deciduous trees shall be at least 2Y2 inches in caliper, balled and burlapped. 9. The applicant shall comply with all building code requirements. There shall be no plumbing in the garage including floor drains, sinks or bath facilities. 10. The garage shall have sufficient insulation and noise barriers to assure that the noises associated with the restoration of the bus do not interfere with the day to day activities of the neighborhood. 11. There shall be adequate lighting and security mechanisms on the garage to prevent thefts from or burglaries of the facility. 12. The applicant shall provide escrow in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of planting the trees and providing the required paving and stormwater-control elements prior to getting his building permit. 13. The use of the proposed garage shall be limited to the applicant's residential needs and the storage and repair of his motor coach. Any commercial use of this building is prohibited. 14. There shall be no excessive noise allowed anytime. Noise is especially prohibited by ordinance between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. Monday through Saturday and all day Sunday. 15. Staff may approve minor changes to these conditions. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-17 -06 -14- c. Code Amendment - Accessory Structures Mr. Roberts said staff feels that the ordinance should be revised to allow property owners in the city the opportunity to build a larger garage in situations where they have the land area to support it and where there is neighbor support. Staff recommends amending the ordinance to delete the maximum area on larger garage sizes by CUP. We would strike the language stating "however, the maximum area of anyone building shall not exceed the maximum area allowed for an attached garage in subsection (a) of this section." The reason forthis change is that there may be basis for a property owner to have a larger garage than the limit stated by the ordinance. Staff also recommends that the ordinance needs to be revised to strike the language stating that "the height shall not exceed the height of the house." The goal here is to keep accessory buildings in a proper scale as compared to the dwelling. In other words, keep the house as the primary building on the site and not subordinate to the garage. This makes sense at first consideration, but it is not realistic from the viewpoint that many pole-barn type structures built in rural areas may certainly exceed the house height. Garage or accessory building height should be regulated, but should be done so as part of the CUP review, not simply by an arbitrary maximum. An additional problem with how garage height is regulated is that the ordinance states that garage height shall not exceed 16 feet as viewed from the street. Staff feels that this should be revised to say "shall not exceed 16 feet from grade." Chairperson Fischer asked the planning commission if they have any problems with the code amendment for accessory buildings as it's written on page 21 in the staff report? Commissioner Grover asked if this ordinance had been an issue in any other situation other than the proposal the planning commission reviewed this evening? Mr. Roberts said he could think of three cases in south Maplewood where people wanted oversize pole barn buildings. Two different cases were on the Schlomka properties and one was on Carver Avenue where they were between 2,500 and 5,000 square feet and staff is not sure those should have been approved by a conditional use permit. Staff may have made an error in processing those requests that way because they were exceeding the numbers at that time. As the language is proposed now staff would require those oversize requests to go through the conditional use permit process so that drops the need for a variance. When a request comes in for an oversized structure with a 5 to 10 acre property, the question becomes, is it acceptable to have a large pole barn on the property. Mr. Roberts said variances are supposed to be for unique and special circumstances. Those criteria are laid out in the state law where conditional use permits are more subjective and the city has more latitude to approve or not approve those and place conditions on them. That's why CUP's are used in more zoning situations. Those types of requests don't come in too frequently but they have been asked for in the past. Commissioner Pearson said the more testimony he heard from Mr. Wykoff the less confident he is that this proposal would go forward and that the steps required by the city would be taken if this proposal for an oversized garage were approved. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-17-06 -15- Commissioner Pearson said we heard a lot from the applicant regarding how expensive it would be for Mr. Wykoff to take care of the requirements listed in the staff report but the renovation of the motor coach into a RV is even more expensive and by his own admission this could take anywhere from 9 to 19 years to complete. Besides the fact that he is following his father's dream who is already 90 years old. This is not a very well thought out project and the motor home in its current condition should not be allowed to be stored here on his property. The project does not meet the city ordinance and based on Mr. Wykoff's testimony and his conduct this evening; this does not give him any reason to approve this project. Commissioner Trippler said he doesn't have a problem with the recommended changes to the ordinance with the exception of part C. Commissioner Grover asked if Commissioner Trippler meant he doesn't think a conditional use permit should be possible and the variance process should be required? Commissioner Trippler said he understood if the application meets the criteria it can be processed as a conditional use permit, but if the application doesn't meet the criteria then it has to go through the variance process. That was the purpose of removing the second part. Mr. Roberts said if the ordinance remains in paragraph C there would be some requests that would require both a conditional use permit and a variance. If the ordinance changed as staff has proposed some of the oversize buildings would only require a conditional use permit. If the planning commission is really concerned about having latitude over conditional use permits paragraph C could be changed. At the end of the sentence it could read by variance rather than by conditional use permit. Commissioner Desai said he thought that would read better. Commissioner Dierich said as she understands it the "use" permit is different than the building piece. You are approving the use of the permit and not the building itself. She thinks this puts two items together that don't really belong together. Mr. Roberts said there is some truth to that statement, although recently staff had been processing them by conditional use permit so the use of the property with the large garage and the uses that would occur in the garage would also be covered under that same permit. Commissioner Dierich said Mr. Wykoff was requesting permission to rebuild a motor home which is similar to an auto garage type of use on this property. Then there is the additional piece for the oversize building. To her that's like two different processes. She is not in favor of either of those requests in this particular neighborhood, but in another neighborhood such as in southern Maplewood where there is a lot of acreage and space between properties she would be more in favor of a request such as this. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-17-06 -16- Commissioner Trippler recommended the attached code amendment for accessory buildings as shown in the staff report on page 21 of the staff report. With the exception of part C,leaving part C as is and not striking the second part. This ordinance would allow garages to be larger and taller than the limits expressed by ordinance by conditional use permit with no required maximum. Maximum sizes would be determined by the city council based on each individual proposal. Chairperson Fischer seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Hess, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on May 8, 2006. VI. NEW BUSINESS None. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Noise Control Ordinance Code Amendment (8:14 - 8:44 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said on February 6, 2006, the planning commission discussed the city's Noise- Control Ordinance and directed staff to review the ordinance for possible changes. Mayor Longrie requested that the city attorney be present at the planning commission for this discussion. The largest problem with the current ordinance is its lack of clarity. The code addresses the important aspects of noise control, but it was written in an unclear fashion and is confusing and hard to interpret. Staff asked Police Chief Dave Thomalla for his comments regarding the current noise ordinance since the police department enforces the noise complaints. ChiefThomalla said the biggest issue is the vague language about annoying or disturbing noises and how that relates to the language about hourly restrictions. Many of our officers believe the noise ordinance is only in effect from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. It becomes somewhat ambiguous as to what is meant by annoying. What annoys one person may not annoy another. Staff has proposed to clarify noises that would be allowed and the ordinance amending the noise- control requirements is shown on page 5 of the staff report. Staff is looking for direction on how the noise control ordinance should be changed. Commissioner Yarwood said given the fact that this is subjective as to what is and isn't noise has there been any thought of putting the noise decibel level in the ordinance? Mr. Roberts said no. Mr. Oliver said there are two ways to go about that. One thing is the city may consider adopting the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's (MPCA) noise standards in Chapter 7030 in the Minnesota Rules. That sets out decibel levels for daytime and night time. The MPCA has more time to dedicate to noise measurement than the Maplewood Police department does but that is one potential source that the city could use and refer to and not have to come up with a certain set of noise guidelines. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-17-06 -17- Mr. Oliver said the City of Minneapolis has a provision for noise above the ambient level. If it is higher than 10 decibels, then it's a violation. The question is how to put together an ambient noise level after somebody has made a report regarding noise pollution. Commissioner Grover asked how frequent noise complaints arise in the City of Maplewood such as the complaint for the St. Paul Pioneer Press building on Gervais Avenue? Mr. Roberts said noise complaints don't come in very often. Noise complaints could be answered by the Maplewood Police department so the Community Development department may not even be aware of them. For example, say somebody is playing their stereo loudly at 4:00 p.m. and it's disturbing the neighbors, should that be a noise violation or not? The person playing the music doesn't think there is a problem because it's the middle of the day and they want to play their music loudly but the neighbor calls the police complaining that they are bothered by the neighbor's loud music. This is subjective and many times the police have to make a judgment call. The complaints that come in for commercial buildings that are brought to the attention of the city council are few and far between however. Commissioner Grover asked how the noise amendment meets what the city staff and the city council see on a regular basis and how this would meet the police department's ability to act on the noise ordinance? It seems there are two needs here. There is the issue that one person's noise is not necessarily another person's idea of noise. The other issue is that the police department understands they can only enforce the noise ordinance between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. He asked if the changes recommended by Tom Ekstrand address these issues? Mr. Roberts said there is no way for staff to write a noise ordinance that covers all situations. Looking at what is proposed in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) staff is hoping 95% ofthe problems are covered in this noise ordinance amendment. Staff thinks the change in the noise ordinance will help the situation but is it perfect, no. Commissioner Desai asked if the noise control ordinance should be handled by staff in Community Development and the Planning Commission? He said maybe this should be handled by the city council in conjunction with the police department who enforce the noise ordinance. Personally he believes this ordinance doesn't belong in the hands of the planning commission. Mr. Roberts said that's a very fair statement. The noise ordinance isn't a land use or zoning issue; however, if the city deals with conditional use permits and is concerned about noise and activities, the staff puts conditions on hours of operation and tries to prevent bothering the surrounding neighbors. The unfortunate situation is there is no other commission to filter the noise ordinance through or get more input on before it goes to the city council. Staff could have taken this directly to the city council but felt it was important to get feedback from the planning commission since the noise ordinance was brought up previously by the commission. Mr. Oliver said while it appears that most of the noise issues here are stereos, lawn mowers and snow blowers, there is also the question of the types of uses that go into the city. The MPCA requires Maplewood, since they regulate land uses, to take noise issues into account when looking at new uses. The bulk of the noise issues are not planning commission material however, there is a large piece that is. Especially when we are talking about coming up with objective and subjective measures for new industrial uses. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-17-06 -18- Commissioner Trippler asked what the sentence means on page 5 in the middle of item (a) which states: The noise prohibition stated above shall always be in effect, however, any excessive noise during the following hours of noise prohibition shall be strictly enforced? Mr. Oliver said it is difficult to say how you strictly enforce something where the standard is hard to pinpoint because a noise that bothers one person may not bother the other person. He believes Mr. Ekstrand was trying to put that sentiment into words. CommissionerTrippler asked if it would be appropriate to move the sentence (If there is an event or activity that is sponsored by the city or, a party has a permit for such activity issued by the city, this prohibition does not apply.) into paragraph (b) because that is an "exception"? Mr. Oliver said yes. Commissioner Trippler said in section 3. Section 18-113 item (a) it states The police department may inspect private premises other than private residences and shall make all reasonable efforts to prevent violations of this division. He asked what the difference was? Mr. Oliver said that is not a new part of the code and that already exists in the code. He interprets that sentence to mean a detached garage away from a dwelling, additional lot, business property or another privately owned property. Commissioner Trippler asked if that meant that the police cannot enter a private residence without a search warrant or without being allowed or invited in? Mr. Oliver said with the enforcement of any crime, regular search and seizure rules would apply. Unless the police have some other type of an exception to a warrant, they are not going to be allowed to go in. Commissioner Trippler said he thinks it's important to clarify this ordinance for the police department because they are struggling with trying to understand the noise ordinance and how they are to enforce it. The confusion needs to be eliminated so they can do their job properly. He would like to see the ordinance changed a little bit. He would recommend the following changes: (If there is an event or activity that is sponsored by the city or a citv oermit a party has a fJormit for such activity has been issued, BY tho city, tRiB the above prohibition does Rei apply.) And the correction of Nose Control to Noise Control. Commissioner Desai said he believes the city should check with other neighboring city's to see what their Noise Ordinances are to see how noise is measured. It would be very useful and helpful to have examples of this for the police department to enforce regulations. Commissioner Trippler said as a former MPCA employee his experience with the noise ordinance is that they have employees that can spend time measuring noise decibels. The Maplewood Police department doesn't have that kind of man power or time to deal with measuring noise decibels. It's nice to have special criteria to follow or rely on but the problem is being able to "enforce" the criteria. But based on the idea to use the MPCA noise ordinances the ordinance would almost never be able to be enforced. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-17-06 -19- Commissioner Hess said without a way to measure the noise decibels it is still a subjective situation. One person's noise is another person's music. Usually there is a noise decibel level and a duration period that they are trying to determine if it exceeds the ambient level. Without the proper tools for the police department to measure the noise decibel he wasn't sure how this situation could ever be handled. Mr. Roberts said that would require the police department to have decibel meters that they could take to the site and they would have to have the proper training to measure that noise as well. Commissioner Trippler said the practical application of the noise ordinance is that the police department as they currently operate tries to work out some kind of a reasonable agreement between the person making the noise and the person that is annoyed by the noise. In order to work out a compromise he doesn't believe they need a decibel meter. The problem is the police department doesn't believe they have the power to enforce noise problems because they think the noise ordinance is for the hours of 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. and anything other than that the police think they don't have the authority to enforce it. That is the real problem. The police department is not looking for the ability to write out tickets, they just need the noise ordinance to bring to the person and make sure they understand what it means. Right now the way the ordinance is written it's confusing and needs to be written clearer to be properly enforced. Commissioner Yarwood said his vision wasn't to officers walking around with a decibel meter but to have them on hand as a fall back if there is a chronic problem. Commissioner Trippler said the city can institute stricter noise ordinances and the state can always regulate the Minnesota Chapter 7030.0030 noise rule. Mr. Oliver said to some degree you can follow the Minnesota Chapter 7030.0030 noise rule. The City of Minneapolis has a large noise ordinance and even have a specific section on stereo usage with more definite ways to measure noise levels. Mr. Roberts said the Minneapolis noise ordinance is very lengthy. The question is just how large does the noise ordinance need to be to say what you intend to get across. Mr. Oliver said the City of Saint Paul uses the MPCA noise standards and basically states do not irritate your neighbor with noise. That is the approach he would take if he was asked to draft this noise ordinance. Commissioner Trippler moved to recommend the adoption of the changes to the Noise Control Ordinance Code Amendment with the changes recommended. Commissioner Kaczrowski seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Grover, Hess, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion passed. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-17-06 -20- IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Commissioner Trippler attended the April 1 0,2006, city council meeting. However, there were no planning commission items to discuss. CommissionerTrippler said Mayor Longrie and the city council voted 3 to 2 to remove the City Manager, Richard Fursman. Mayor Longrie named Greg Copeland as the Interim City Manager. b. Commissioner Trippler and Commissioner Grover will be the planning commission representatives at the Special Council Meeting April 18, 2006. Mr. Trippler will report on the PC recommendation for the master plan (800 units) and Mr. Grover will report on the minority report to have 600-700 units in the Gladstone neighborhood. c. Commissioner Pearson is scheduled to be the planning commission representative at the April 24, 2006, city council meeting, however, because there are no PC items to discuss no PC representation is needed. d. Commissioner Trippler will be the planning commission representative at the May 8, 2006, city council meeting. Items to be discussed include the Easement Vacation at 2249 Kenwood Court and the CUP for an Oversized Accessory Structure at 2345 Maryland Avenue and Code Amendment for an Accessory Structure. Chairperson Fischer asked staff about two upcoming proposals, Comforts of Home (off of Hazelwood and Highway 36) and Carver Crossing in south Maplewood. Mr. Roberts said those two proposals would be heard by the planning commission sometime in May. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS PC/CDRB Responsibilities and Duties - Possible Meeting Date Mr. Roberts said there has been discussion regarding the responsibilities and duties of the Planning Commission and the Community Design Review Board and the overlaps. The most common item that has come up is the parking ordinance. Who should review those things and who should comment on them? Should we leave things as they are? Do you want both Chairs to meet and report to the commission and board on the decision? Commissioner Pearson said one thing he would like staff to provide in the packet is if the proposal had been reviewed by the CDRB or not or if it doesn't need to be reviewed by the CDRB. If it doesn't need to go to the CDRB then certain items should be brought up by the planning commission for discussion before it goes to the city council. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-17-06 -21- Commissioner Trippler said he has had this discussion with the CDRB Chairperson Linda Olson. It may be good for staff to put together a list of things that are discussed at both meetings such as parking lots and then decide how many things clearly fall under the CDRB or under the realm of the PC. Commissioner Pearson said the PC finds themselves discussing things like screening, lighting etc. and those are really items for the CDRB. Years ago the PC used to discuss the location and screening of the mechanical equipment on rooftops and now the CDRB covers that in their review. Chairperson Fischer said in the past the city had the pleasure of having Matt Ledvina on both the PC and the CDRB so the PC could get a report on items that were discussed and covered by the CDRB. That was a rare situation to be in. Now with people's time commitments it's too difficult to serve on two boards or commissions. Commissioner Grover said he would be interested in rainwater gardens. Commissioner Dierich said she would like to know more about roof heights, grading surfaces, and impervious surfaces. The PC decided staff should compile a list of things the PC has concerns about. Then Mr. Roberts would check with Ms. Finwall to see if she could bring this item up at one of the CDRB meetings. Then the PC and the CDRB can decide if a meeting is needed or if the chairpersons should meet to discuss the overlapping of certain items that get discussed at the meetings. Then the chairs from each group can bring the discussion back to the respectable groups. This would alleviate the need for a joint meeting or having to make sure there is a quorum. Then city staff would decide what the next step would be. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m.