Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/06/20001. Call to Order MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, March 6, 2000, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 2. Roll Call Approval of Minutes a. February 23, 2000 4. Approval of Agenda o New Business a. Wheeler Lumber Landscaping Materials Center Conditional Use Permit (Corner of English Street and Gervais Avenue) Unfinished Business a. Historic Resources Management Plan 7. Visitor Presentations Commission Presentations a. February 28 Council Meeting: Mr. Rossbach b. March 13 Council Meeting: Ms. Fisher c. March 27 Council Meeting: Mr. Pearson Staff Presentations 10. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, MARCH 6, 2000 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Lorraine Fischer Jack Frost Matt Ledvina Paul Mueller Gary Pearson William Rossbach Michael Seeber Milo Thompson Dale Trippler Present Present Present Present (arrived at 7:03 p.m.) Present Present Absent Present Present III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. February 23, 2000 Commissioner Frost moved approval of the minutes of February 23, 2000. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes--Fischer, Frost, Ledvina, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler Abstain--Thompson The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Frost moved approval of the agenda as submitted. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. NEW A. BUSINESS Wheeler Lumber Landscaping Material Center Conditional Use Permit (Corner of English Street and Gervais Avenue) Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the CUP as it would be compatible with Truck Utilities across the street and should not be offensive to any future or existing neighbors if properly screened. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-06-00 -2- Ken Fields, the applicant, was present to answer the commissioners' questions. Commissioner Ledvina asked the applicant if there would be any retail activity on the site. Mr. Fields said they were strictly contractor wholesale. Mr. Fields said there would be three staff people, two people in the office and one person in the yard. Commissioner Trippler said there were only three parking slots designated and asked where anybody else that comes would park. Mr. Fields said that their clientele were mainly people in one-ton trucks that come into the yard, load, and leave. According to Mr. Fields, they would basically have the same amount of inventory that is at the current site on McKnight Road. He said most of the stock is delivered about two or three times per week on a semi-trailer and one or two times per month on a concrete block truck. Commissioner Thompson commented that the hours of operation at their present location were somewhat of a touchy issue and asked what the hours would be at this site. Mr. Fields said they normally are 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday only. Supply trucks would come during these hours. Commissioner Frost moved the planning commission recommend the adoption of the resolution approving a conditional use permit for the outdoor storage of landscape materials on the property at the southwest corner of Gervais Avenue and English Street. The city bases approval on the findings required by the code and subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. 2. The proposed construction 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. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The city council may require more parking spaces should the need arise. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Commissioner Rossbach commented that, even though they weren't going to be dealing with the landscape portion of the project, this would ultimately be a fine example of why the city should change the screening ordinance so that it will not allow just the use of a screen fence. Ayes--all The motion passed. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Historic Resources Management Plan Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. Mr. Roberts revised the draft plan in order to put it in a format more consistent with the style and layout of the city's current comprehensive plan. He also added a couple of headings, including a purpose section and a section titled "Discussion, Challenges and Issues." Mr. Roberts said the next step was for the commission to decide which plan they liked better and if they have further changes. Mr. Robert Overby, a member of the Maplewood Area Historical Society (MAHS), was present to answer the commissioners' questions. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-06-00 -3- Commissioner Trippler said that, under the Historic Preservation Goals on the staff's draft report, it sometimes says that Maplewood does something and sometimes it says the city does something. He wanted to know if it was staff's intent that wherever it says "Maplewood will..." or "Maplewood shall...", that they were referring to the council. Mr. Roberts said the word "Maplewood" did not necessarily refer only to the city council--it could mean anybody within the city. He said part of the reason for using the words interchangeably was to avoid redundancy. Chairperson Fischer interjected to say that one of the directions they had given to staff was to reformat this plan so that it was the same as the comprehensive plan. She felt that wherever the plan refers to the city, or Maplewood, etc., one word should be used for consistency throughout the plan. Commissioner Trippler said that it seemed to him there needs to be some consistency so that it's clear, not only to the reader but to the planning commission and to the council, what their responsibilities are and what is just a general statement about what people should, could or will do. Chairperson Fischer said that in other plans there was a chart implementation showing action, responsibility, timing, funding, and coordinate with. She said that in the land use part nowhere in the verbiage does it show the Planning Commission; in the housing part nowhere do you see the Housing Redevelopment Authority, etc. Commissioner Trippler said he liked the staff's rendition better than the draft plan because there were portions in the draft plan that were ambiguous. He said it seemed there were several areas that could potentially cause too long a delay from the time that someone comes in and requests an action and the time that the council gets it to conclude the action. Commissioner Thompson wanted to know what a property designated as a Maplewood Heritage Landmark would be zoned as. Staff said the intent was to have a place to visually reference this property, besides having the list which is in the report. Staff said when someone checked the zoning on the property they would see that the city has designated the property as a historical property, and then the question would be what does that mean and what can or can't we do. Staff said that this would be some of the policies and actions that the commission should look at. Commissioner Mueller said that as he read the report it sounded like the preservation commission was going to be able to dictate to the planning commission as well as to city council what they should, can or can't do with the items that are noted as heritage landmarks. Staff said their recollection was that in order to have a property designated as a Maplewood Heritage Landmark or on the National Register it would have to be approved by the city council. Mr. Overby had a couple of comments regarding the uncertainty about the Historical Advisory Commission. He said they didn't think to add Ordinance No. 755 that the city council had passed back in 1996. He read pads of two sections of the ordinance which he thought would help clarify the role of the commission and the questions about the authority of same, and who designates what, and how it affects property owners. Mr. Overby said that Char Wasiluk had a list of items that explain why the Historical Preservation Commission should be continued even though it is scheduled to sunset at the end of this year. Char Wasiluk, of 1740 Frank Street, said that as a historical commission they can apply to be a certified local government and then they can apply for federal grants but that this cannot be done without an official commission. The citizen advisory panel that is appointed by the council has major responsibilities for identifying, registering, protecting and enhancing the heritage resources in Maplewood and for establishing a broad planning direction for the city's preservation program. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-06-00 -4- Chairperson Fischer asked Ms. Wasiluk if this body would be generally operating within the guidelines of the ordinance that was just read or would there be additional powers or duties that might be involved. Ms. Wasiluk said she envisioned this being an advisory board. Mr. Overby said that if the city adopts the Historic Preservation Plan chapter then that could provide guidance to the ordinance that is on the books and then if the city council wants to amend the ordinance they could use the plan chapter to figure out how they might change it or add to it. Commissioner Mueller said he wished he could get rid of the current section on the policies and replace it with the information that the applicant had. Mr. Overby thought that city staff had done a good job in revising the draft plan. Mr. Overby said there were a few elements in the first draft that spoke to the role of the Historic Preservation Commission that were omitted in the current draft. He said that there was a lot more detail in the first draft than was probably needed but that there were some pieces he felt should be reinserted because they spoke to the planning process. Chairperson Fischer said that normally if a homeowner wanted to add a second story on to their home they would need a building permit only. She asked that if the house had some historic significance would the homeowner have additional hoops they had to jump through rather than just obtaining a building permit. Mr. Overby said it would be helpful to have some information sheets which would explain to homeowners which properties in the neighborhood are part of what gives it the historic character. He also said that, depending upon the type of architecture or design of the house, sometimes you can add additions that blend in with the rest of the design. Chairperson Fischer asked how historically accurate they can be if there have been changes in the structure over the years, the year it was built, the year it was changed and so on. Mr. Overby brought up the Bruentrup house and how there were new aluminum combination windows and yet a lot of the structure was similar to what it looked like in 1912 when it was built. He said the basement windows in the house were not saved and that Andersen Windows was able to design windows that would fit. Mr. Overby said that the Commission would provide homeowners with guidance and if someone didn't have the financial resources to do it the way they might like that loans or grants might become an option. Chairperson Fischer asked about Pete Boulay's statement from a previous meeting that the review process might just be the opportunity to get pictures because the property may be leveled or structurally altered because it was no longer suitable for today's owner's needs. Mr. Overby said that in most cases the city wouldn't step in and say you can't do anything and in those situations there are people at the State Historical Society that can be called in and assess what the situation is. If the city is doing a project like a new bike or walking trail someplace and they knew it was going to go through an old part of town that might have some sensitive resources, typically a consultant would be called in to check out the areas that might have those resources to make sure that either they aren't there or if they are, they become inventoried and cataloged and maybe taken off the site before the project goes through. Commissioner Rossbach said that the current list they have is the Additional Sites of Major Significance. He wanted to know what did something have to do to get on that list. Mr. Overby said Pete Boulay made up the list. He said that age was a factor and another factor was a house or business that displayed a certain architectural design or character. Commissioner Rossbach said he wasn't in favor of telling homeowners what they can and can't do to their house unless their house is extremely special. He also said he didn't want the city to set something up that would block the city from redeveloping or upgrading. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-06-00 -5- Chairperson Fischer asked if the list Commissioner Rossbach referred to is complete. Mr. Overby said they were not through doing the list or inventory yet. He said part of the inventory is to engage the citizens in the different neighborhoods and see what they remember and can educate us about. Ms. Wasiluk said she didn't think that the list means that they want every one of the things kept as they are. Ms. Wasiluk said it was Pete Boulay's list of sites of major significance and it doesn't say anything more than that. Ms. Wasiluk said that Carol Peterson and she interviewed the two women that were living at the Husnick Farm before it was torn down and that they gave them a lot of information and pictures of the old street car that went by their place. She felt that it wasn't necessary to keep every one of these things on the list if there was historical information on what was there. Mr. Overby said that when properties are put on the National Register of Historic Places it is with the intent that they substantially remain in the design and condition that they are in, such as, the Ramsey County Poor Farm Barn which would face the toughest controls on design or modification. If a property is not on that list they don't receive the same scrutiny and even if they are on the list it doesn't mean they are legally protected from being torn down. Commissioner Pearson asked what kind of funding they were typically expecting to get once this was all approved and in place. Mr. Overby said it was not just a question of financial resources but having the people power to work on it. He said it depends on how many volunteers in the city are willing to come forth and help them with the work. They have about 20 active members in their society and a number of them are fairly engaged in the farm preservation project but would welcome other volunteers to work on this. Commissioner Pearson said he had a concern that when they start talking about getting federal money that it always comes with federal controls. He has a concern that what starts out as a fine local planning agenda all of a sudden loses control and is not controlled by local people, local councils or local desires but by federal statutes. Mr. Overby said that these standards could be softened up until the design review board or other city group determined that it makes sense to follow the standards. Chairperson Fischer asked if once we had in place the designation of what properties are historically significant would they have to look at everything else that came through or would they only review what was pertinent to the site that was designated. Staff said that under Historic Preservation Policies in the staff report, Item 10, it says, "In cooperation with city staff and the Maplewood Planning Commission, the Heritage Preservation Commission may comment on all development proposals that would affect properties on the historic properties list." Mr. Overby said that would be fine as worded. Commissioner Mueller asked that if his house became designated, what's in it for him. Mr. Overby said his house could be put on a walking tour and someone might stop and take a picture of it. He said this was about "community identity and preserving a resource." Commissioner Mueller asked what would happen if he added a second story to his ranch home. Mr. Overby said that if you didn't want your property nominated for the National Register of Historic Places, it wouldn't have to be. Commissioner Mueller asked if criteria was drafted that could be used to identify historic sites. Mr. Overby said that those are things that go back to historic contexts and the landmark designation process and they don't have it. He said they could get that from the State Historical Society. Mr. Mueller thought it was necessary to establish standards for both the Register and for historic sites. Mr. Overby suggested starting with a basic inventory and educating the Planning Commission Minutes of 03-06-00 -6- residents by keeping the historic preservation commission and have the city staff work with the society and commission to do an inventory and establish criteria. He felt it was important to keep an explanation of historic context and what it means for Maplewood in the planning guidelines. Commissioner Rossbach agreed with Ms. Wasiluk that too much is probably "being read into this." He said it is a good thing for the city to have people that are interested and to have a history. Mr. Rossbach said the commission "should quit trying to be the historical society and figuring out how they should go about things" and just determine what the planning commission wants to do at this point. He thought the concept of what the historical commission wanted to do "was a good one" and ultimately it would work itself out. Mr. Roberts thought the commission should first decide if they feel a historic resources management plan should be in the comprehensive plan. If they think so, then how much and in what format. Commissioner Trippler questioned if the WPA dam on Keller Creek was the structure north of the Gateway Trail that controls the flow of water into Lake Phalen. He said it had been totally redone three or four years ago. Mr. Roberts took No. 4, under Historic Preservation Goals on page 15, to mean "putting together a comprehensive historic resources management plan to guide the decisions and actions of the city." He read it as a goal to do a whole plan. Mr. Overby thought it would be clearer to say that "Maplewood will use the historic preservation plan chapter as the framework for decisions and actions related to historic preservation." Commissioner Trippler said he was supportive of having a historical commission and "liked the things that staff put together on page 14 through page 18." He felt there should be some consistency in referencing what the city is going to do versus what the historical commission will do. Commissioner Thompson asked if there was a vehicle to avoid surprises where someone owned a piece of property that could possibly have restrictions and they wouldn't know it. Mr. Overby suggested that something might be recorded with the property deed that was informative but not necessarily binding. He said you typically see this on a map of historic properties. Mr. Trippler mentioned a deed restriction which is an actual statement that is put on the property deed stating any restrictions to the property. He also said there are also deed notifications which go along with the deed but are not recorded on it. Chairperson Fischer questioned the listing for the 3M building on page 13. She felt that some of the wording now presented did not adequately reflect the thoughts from the last commission meeting. Other commissioners agreed with her. Commissioner Pearson said some of the terminology could be made more "benign and less dictatorial." Mr. Overby assured the commission that they were not talking about taking of any property. Commissioner Mueller suggested that a distinction be made between a policy and a procedure, particularly on page 16. Ms. Fischer thought it was a matter of rearranging the content into a format that followed the remainder of the comprehensive plan. Commissioner Frost felt that staff had enough direction, from the all the discussion that had been presented, to rewrite parts of the chapter and then submit it to the city council. Commissioner Rossbach wanted to see this item again before a recommendation was made to the council. He felt it was necessary to include the city's projected monetary cost. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-06-00 -7- Mr. Overby said the city gives the historic preservation commission, and indirectly the historical society, $2000 per year. Most of their time has been spent on the Bruentrup farm in the last year but they normally try to maintain a balance between getting histories of older residences and identifying resources. There was a consensus of the commission that this should be a part of the comprehensive plan. Mr. Overby pointed out that the city, under the Metro Land Planning Act, is required to say something about historical preservation in the plan. He also wanted the city council to see the draft plan before they made a decision on the continuation of the historical commission. Chairperson Fischer concurred with Mr. Rossbach in that she felt the planning commission should see the plan again. Mr. Roberts asked for a "condensed version of the direction." Ms. Fischer suggested that it should cover Mr. Mueller's concerns over what is a policy and what is a procedure. She also recommended looking at verbs more carefully so they would not convey a message that was not intended. Mr. Roberts thought it would be good to make a separate set of maps that would identify the historical properties by address. Commissioner Mueller felt a criteria to identify historic places was essential. He was of the opinion that it would be most beneficial to list a limited amount of procedural issues. Mr. Roberts said that if procedures were not adequately listed, the council would question it. Commissioner Pearson thought the council might like to see a copy of the standards and guidelines from the Secretary of the Interior. Commissioner Rossbach moved the Planning Commission return the Historic Resources Management Plan to staff to have it revised in accordance with some of the recommendations that were discussed by the Commission and Robert Overby. Staff should work with Mr. Overby to complete a final version which will then be presented to the city council after review by the planning commission. Commissioner Thompson seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. Commissioner Thompson thanked Ms. Wasiluk and Mr. Overby. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS There were no visitor presentations. VIII. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS February 28 Council Meeting: Mr. Rossbach reported on this meeting. March 13 Council Meeting: Ms. Fischer will report on this meeting. March 27 Council Meeting: Mr. Pearson will report on this meeting. There was a report on the White Bear Avenue Corridor meeting of February 24, 2000. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Ken Roberts, associate planner, distributed some information from National Research for the commissioners. He also mentioned some workshops for planning commissioners put on by the Government Training Service. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m.