Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/17/2000MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, April 17, 2000, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East Call to Order Roll Call Approval of Agenda Public Hearing 7:00 Dearborn Meadow (Castle Avenue) 1. Comprehensive plan change - M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings) 2. Zoning map change - M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings) 3. Lot-area and lot-width variances 4. Preliminary plat New Business a. Fresh Paint Office/Warehouse Conditional Use Permit (1055 Gervais Avenue) b. Club FTS Conditional Use Permit (1351 Frost Avenue) Co Forest Products Shop (Highway 61 and County Road C) 1. Setback Variances 2. Conditional Use Permit Unfinished Business Visitor Presentations Commission Presentations a. April 10 Council Meeting: Mr. Frost b. April 24 Council Meeting: Mr. Seeber c. May 8 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler Staff Presentations 10. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, APRIL 17, 2000 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Lorraine Fischer Present Jack Frost Present Matt Ledvina Present Paul Mueller Present Gary Pearson Absent William Rossbach Present Michael Seeber Absent Milo Thompson Present Dale Trippler Present III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Ledvina moved approval of the agenda, as submitted. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. IV. PUBLIC HEARING 7p.m. Dearborn Meadow (Castle Avenue): Comprehensive Plan Change-- M-1 (Light Manufacturing) to R-2 (Single and Double Dwellings); Zoning Map Change--M-1 (Light Manufacturing) to R-2 (Single and Double Dwellings); Lot-Area and Lot-Width Variances and Preliminary Plat Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. He then answered questions from the commissioners. Commission Trippler asked why the city thought it was a good idea "to approve a variance that is less than half of what was supposed to be recommended." Mr. Roberts said the R-2 code was intended primarily for a typical subdivision on a public street. This is set up as a townhouse development where, if these were three-unit buildings connected together, there is no minimum lot size. He said these are actually double-unit townhomes but the code does not allow for this flexibility. Commissioner Thompson spoke about the difficulty in removing snow from a street with this width. Ken Haider, director of public works, said it was difficult to evaluate a privately built street as a potential public street because it would not meet most of the requirements of the code. He agreed with Mr. Thompson that the city has not been in favor of assuming responsibility for private streets. Chairperson Fischer clarified that Items A and B (the land use and zoning) refer to three separate properties, while C and D (lot area, width variances, and preliminary plat) involve only the development proposal property. Mike Ackerman, the developer, was pleased with the development proposal at this point. There were no questions for Mr. Ackerman. Mr. Roberts showed colored photographs, Planning Commission -2- Minutes of 04-17-2000 provided by Mr. Ackerman, of similar units that he has previously built in the Twin Cities. Chairperson Fischer opened the public hearing portion of the meeting. Jack Swenson, 1930 Castle Avenue East, commented on the increase in foot and vehicular traffic along the street. He asked where the children that would reside in these homes would play. Mr. Swenson desired single-family homes for this site. Jim Oswald, 1948 Cope Avenue East, spoke about the water problems in this area. Richard Oie, 1937 Cope Avenue East, also told about water problems he has experienced on his lot since two new houses were built in the vicinity. He asked whether trees will be removed and replaced when the utilities are run to this site from Cope Avenue. Ken Haider conceded that the drainage from the two new houses along Cope Avenue does come to this Iow area. He said the city of Oakdale has a format they have used to allow a resident to utilize a city-owned piece of property for a particular use for the advantage of everyone involved. Mr. Haider is hoping to use this model to help alleviate some of Mr. Oie's drainage problems. He also noted that the additional drainage calculations requested from the applicant's engineer have not been received. Mr. Haider wanted to ensure that the runoff was collected on-site and directed to a storm sewer connection that is being made to an existing pipe to the south. Mr. Oie felt certain that the water from the two walk-out units would run toward his property. Mr. Haider said this would require a change in the applicant's stormwater plan. Commissioner Thompson observed a piece of property on Cope Avenue that had a "noticeable, substantial" swale. It appeared to him that drainage was intended to run across this property. Mr. Roberts felt it was difficult to address this situation because he did not know which lot Mr. Thompson was specifically referring to. Mr. Thompson said it was on Cope Avenue west of German Street. Mr. Roberts said the long, narrow piece of property, between 1937 and 1949 Cope Avenue, is a tax-forfeited piece of property. The city can ask the state to get a use deed for the property and keep control of it. Mr. Haider confirmed that it was on this parcel that he intended to use the Oakdale model. Mr. Oswald said this lot is spring-fed. He mentioned that a substantial amount of soil was brought in for the two new houses and a big drop into the empty lot has resulted. There were no further comments, so Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. Commissioner Mueller had a concern about the drainage issue and was hesitant to approve this type of application until that problem was addressed. Commissioner Ledvina asked if the wetland had an outlet. Mr. Roberts said it would have an emergency overflow but not a pipe or stormsewer outlet. Chairperson Fischer asked if permits were obtained when the additional soil was brought into these lots. Mr. Haider thought they were. Commissioner Thompson wanted "concrete answers" before he approved this application. Commissioner Ledvina agreed and felt the entire west half of the proposed development could increase the drainage problems. Commissioner Rossbach felt the density was too high and the buildings would be too close to the property lines. He noted that the "basic look" of the neighborhood was single-family residential. He had concerns about the drainage. Commissioner Ledvina also thought the density was too large. In addition, he was concerned about the proximity of the two facing buildings on the southern part of the development. He suggested that the rear of these two buildings should face the rear of the buildings on Cope Avenue. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-17-2000 -3- Commissioner Mueller asked about a provision for a playground area. Mr. Rossbach thought single-floor units with an association quite typically are senior residents. He didn't think it was fair to require a developer in this instance to provide a play area. There were comments by various commissioners about the density, consistency with the comprehensive plan and maximum use of the land. Melinda Coleman, director of community development, said she recently received notification from the Metropolitan Council that Maplewood was not providing enough density and needed to find more places for medium and high density development. The council felt that Maplewood was not doing what they needed to meet population growth goals for the next twenty years. Commissioner Rossbach pointed out that the density on this parcel would be increased because it is currently not residential and has no density. Commissioner Thompson asked it there was a way to approve the project and yet get assurance on the drainage. Mr. Haider indicated that a drainage condition was required in the recommendations but said he wasn't "100 percent sure I like that responsibility all the time either" of making a decision after the fact. Commissioner Mueller moved the Planning Commission recommend tabling all four items of the Dearborn Meadow (Castle Avenue) proposal until additional information regarding drainage that is involved with the preliminary plat is received. Commissioner Thompson seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. Ms. Coleman informed those present in the audience that no further notification would be sent regarding reconsideration of this proposal at the May 1 meeting. V. NEW BUSINESS A. Fresh Paint Office/Warehouse Conditional Use Permit (1055 Gervais Avenue) Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. Before the meeting, Mr. Roberts distributed copies of an additional letter from the applicant's attorney, received after the agenda pack was distributed, asking for changes in Conditions 6 and 7. He said staff did not see any problems with the changes requested but did not have an opportunity to change the report before the meeting. Mr. Roberts answered questions from the commissioners. He said a caretaker's apartment within a building has been allowed, but the question is when it is a whole separate structure. Mr. Roberts felt the issue was in interpreting the words "in combination with" from Section 36-151 (a)(1) of the code. Melinda Coleman, director of community development, said staff was concerned because the house, as it sits, is a nonconforming use since the property is zoned M-1. She asked for policy direction, from the commission and the city council, because there are potentially other opportunities for similar requests. Mr. Roberts said that a conditional use permit is required if a building in an M-1 district is within 350 feet of a residence. If the house on this property was required to be removed, the new warehouse could be located further forward. Commissioner Frost liked the idea of having someone on site to take care of the property. He had no problem with the proposal as long as the building was maintained. Commissioner Thompson agreed with Mr. Frost. Commissioner Trippler did not like mixing M-1 with residential, but thought it was okay in this case. He thought the historical commission should be contacted to see if this house had any historic value. Mr. Trippler also suggested a connecting Planning Commission Minutes of 04-17-2000 -4- walkway or canopy if the commission thought the house and warehouse should be combined. He thought it was a good idea to have a caretaker at the site. Commissioner Ledvina "supported the staff's position on this." He surmised that a family could possibly live in the house because it is quite large, and this would create a substantial disparity in uses. Mr. Ledvina also did not like the building located that far back on the lot. Commissioner Rossbach felt that the house should not remain, particularly in this neighborhood. He preferred that a living unit be built into the structure if it was desirable to have an on-site person. Another option would be a separate building that matched the main building architecturally. Mr. Rossbach also felt the proposed screening was very inadequate. He summarized by saying the house should be removed, the warehouse should be moved forward without putting the parking lot behind the building, and evergreen-type trees should be planted within the existing growth so that eventually there would be year round screening from the residential area. Commissioner Mueller questioned the feasibility of moving the house on the site and adding a piece on the building. He also suggested the house be remodeled to look "like it belongs" with the proposed structure. Mr. Mueller felt the same as Commissioner Ledvina in regard to a family living in the house with close proximity to trucks. Jim Dierking, with the law firm of Winthrop & Weinstine, and Tom Schaffhausen, of Sanas Capital Investments (the owner of the property), were present at the meeting. Mr. Dierking gave some background on the proposal. He addressed the mixed use of residential and commercial on the property. He felt this would be allowed as long as their was some connection between the commercial and residential use. Mr. Dierking was of the opinion that the code could easily have stated the buildings would have to be within one structure if that was the intention. He said it would not work well to move the existing house to the front of the property. Mr. Dierking confirmed that Sanas Capital Investments would own and maintain the house. Mr. Schaffhausen stated that, at the time they signed the purchase agreement for the property, city staff had not indicated that keeping the house on the site would be a problem. Mr. Dierking pointed out that the house could possibly be used as office space sometime in the future. The applicant also stated that there will not be a flammable waste trap in the building. Commissioner Rossbach said it was his understanding that a drain in a commercial garage situation had to have a flammable trap. Mr. Schaffhausen said he stood corrected on the matter. Commissioner Ledvina moved the Planning Commission recommend: Adoption of the resolution which approves a conditional use permit for Thomas Schaffhausen of Sanas Capital Investments to construct an office/warehouse building on the property at 1055 Gervais Avenue. This request needs this permit because the new building would be closer than 350 feet to a residential district. The city bases the approval on the findings required by code and is subject to the following conditions: All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city date-stamped January 20, 2000, except that the owner shall remove the existing house and garage from the site. 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. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-17-2000 -5- 4. The city council may require additional parking in the future if the council determines that there is a need for additional parking on the site. 5. There shall be no outdoor storage of vehicles, equipment, materials or supplies, except the personal vehicles of the employees, permitted on the site. Except in the event of a bona fide emergency, the applicant's commercial traffic and vehicles shall use Gervais Avenue and the Highway 61 frontage road for access to this site. The applicant or owner shall use all reasonable efforts to insure that commercial vehicles under its control do not use Cypress Street for access to or from this site. The normal hours of operation shall be from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Saturday, although the foregoing shall not prohibit employees or representatives of the applicant, owner, or its tenants from being on the site outside the foregoing hours. Such activities and site visits shall be conducted in a manner to avoid unnecessary noise and shall not cause a nuisance to the nearby residential properties. 8. The lighting on the site shall be wall or post-mounted and shall shine toward the site. 9. Clean the site by removing all vehicles, unused and inoperable equipment, debris and all other unused/unusable items. 10. If the city council allows the house to stay on the property, then the occupants of the house shall have a direct business connection with the business on the site. In addition, the house shall not be rented to or sold to any person or party that does not have a direct business relationship with the business on the property. 11. The office/warehouse building shall be relocated to the southern portion of the site to the extent feasible to maximize the distance between the existing residential to the north and the proposed building. Commissioner Rossbach seconded. Commissioner Ledvina did not want to go into details as to how to position the building. He just wanted whatever was feasible in regard to parking, setbacks, etc. Commissioner Frost questioned if Conditions 1 and 11 together were contradictory. Ms. Coleman said the motion and minutes would reflect the action of the planning commission. Chairperson Fischer decided to divide the question and call for a separate vote because of the differing opinions on whether the house should remain. Staff had no recommendation to substitute the verbiage contained in the letter of April 7, 2000, from Winthrop & Weinstine. It was agreeable and seconded, as a friendly amendment, to substitute the wording from the Winthrop & Weinstine letter on Conditions 6 and 7 of the Recommendations. Chairperson Fischer called for a vote on Item 1 of the Recommendations: All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city, date-stamped January 20, 2000, except that the owner shall remove the existing house and garage from the site. The motion failed. Ayes--Ledvina, Rossbach Nays--Fischer, Frost, Thompson, Trippler, Abstain--Mueller Planning Commission Minutes of 04-17-2000 -6- Chairperson Fischer called for a vote on the motion which adopts the resolution to approve a conditional use permit for the property at 1055 Gervais Avenue but Condition 1 would read: All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city, date-stamped January 20, 2000, except that the owner shall remove the existing garage from the site. Conditions 6 and 7 shall have the wording from the April 7, 2000, letter from Winthrop & Weinstine, substituted for the wording that is currently in these conditions. Condition 11 from the above motion was contingent on removal of the existing house and is now struck from the motion. Commissioner Rossbach felt the commission did not vote on Commissioner Ledvina's motion. He concluded that they voted on the chair's move to separate it into two separate votes. Chairperson Fischer agreed that Conditions 2 through 10 were not voted on. Commissioner Ledvina said he was not withdrawing his motion, only eliminating Condition 11. Chairperson Fischer said that Condition 1 was voted on and Condition 11 was withdrawn by Mr. Ledvina. Commissioner Rossbach asserted that the vote did not change Condition 1; he maintained that it was necessary to vote on the remainder or the motion should be withdrawn and a new motion made. Commissioner Mueller was of the opinion that they had voted to let the house remain so it didn't matter what they voted on--he even felt Condition 10 was irrelevant. Ms. Coleman said that Condition 10 should remain. Chairperson Fischer then called for a vote on the motion that the Planning Commission recommend: Adopt of the resolution which approves a conditional use permit for Thomas Schaffhausen of Sanas Capital Investments to construct an office/warehouse building on the property at 1055 Gervais Avenue. This request needs this permit because the new building would be closer than 350 feet to a residential district. The city bases the approval on the findings required by code and is subject to the following conditions: 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 additional parking in the future if the council determines that there is a need for additional parking on the site. 5. There shall be no outdoor storage of vehicles, equipment, materials or supplies, except the personal vehicles of the employees, permitted on the site. Except in the event of a bona fide emergency, the applicant's commercial traffic and vehicles shall use Gervais Avenue and the Highway 61 frontage road for access to this site. The applicant or owner shall use all reasonable efforts to insure that commercial vehicles under its control do not use Cypress Street for access to or from this site. The normal hours of operation shall be from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Saturday, although the foregoing shall not prohibit employees or representatives of the applicant, owner, or its tenants from being on the site outside the foregoing hours. Such activities and site visits shall be conducted in a manner to avoid unnecessary noise and shall not cause a nuisance to the nearby residential properties. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-17-2000 -7- 8. The lighting on the site shall be wall or post-mounted and shall shine toward the site. 9. Clean the site by removing all vehicles, unused and inoperable equipment, debris and all other unused/unusable items. 10. If the city council allows the house to stay on the property, then the occupants of the house shall have a direct business connection with the business on the site. In addition, the house shall not be rented to or sold to any person or party that does not have a direct business relationship with the business on the property. Ayes--Fischer, Frost, Ledvina, Thompson, Trippler Nays--Rossbach Abstain--Mueller The motion passed. Commissioner Mueller said he abstained because he would have preferred that the applicant return with a reason why they couldn't move the house. He felt that if he voted in favor "it would mean that it didn't matter" to him. If he voted to remove the house, it says "maybe they know something I don't." Commissioner Thompson voted for approval because he felt staff indicated to the applicant, at some time within the process, "some degree of acceptance" for the structure to remain. C. Club FTS Conditional Use Permit (1351 Frost Avenue) Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. There were no questions from the commissioners. Ron Michaletz, the applicant, had no comments other than he wanted to get the project going. Mr. Michaletz said interior building improvements will be made. He said the exterior repairs are the responsibility of the landlord. Commissioner Mueller asked what would happen if the property owner did not make the required repairs. Melinda Coleman, director of community development, was concerned that the deadline for the repairs was two months after the scheduled council action. Mr. Roberts thought Item B in the Recommendations was added as a surety measure to make certain repairs are made to the property in the event that this conditional use permit was not approved. Commissioner Rossbach moved the Planning Commission recommend: A. Adoption of the resolution which approves a conditional use permit for a coffee lounge at 1351 Frost Avenue. Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to: 1. All construction, renovations and improvements shall comply with the building code. 2. The proposed use 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, unless the use is in operation and there have been no complaints or problems. In this event, the conditional use permit shall be reviewed again only if a problem arises. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-17-2000 -8- The hours of operation shall be: 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 4 p.m. to 1 a.m. Friday and Saturday. The city council may review these hours and make adjustments as warranted if there are complaints. Before the city issues an occupancy certificate for this use, the property owner shall clean up the property behind the building, repair the canopy on the front of the building, replace the broken window pane on "Permanent Skin Art," install a 100 percent solid gate on the front of the trash enclosure and restripe the parking lot. The property owner shall clean up the property behind the building, repair the canopy on the front of the building, replace the broken window pane on "Permanent Skin Art," install a 100 percent solid gate on the front of the trash enclosure and restripe the parking lot. These items shall be performed even if the applicant drops his request or if the city council denies the conditional use permit. The deadline for this work shall be two months from the date of this council action. Commissioner Frost seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. C. Forest Products: Setback Variances and Conditional Use Permit Ken Roberts, associate planner, summarized the staff report. He then answered questions from the commission. Mike Miller was present representing the applicant. He said the noise from the dust collection system was no louder than the traffic on the highway. Commissioner Rossbach thought this was not good and the collection system should be on the same side of the building as the freeway if it was that loud. He suggested repositioning the unit to the other side of the building at this time rather than adding dampers later if the noise level is too loud. Mr. Rossbach said the neighbors should not be imposed upon by this noise. He also pointed out that the proposed lighting did not meet the code. Mr. Roberts said the lighting was reviewed by the community design review board. Mr. Miller said the business makes cabinets, furniture, etc. and sells lumber. There will be a small showroom for customers. Commissioner Rossbach felt this was "100 percent better than the last proposal for this site" and he supported approval. Commissioner Rossbach moved the Planning Commission recommend: Ao Adoption of the resolution which approves a 22-foot building setback variance from the Highway 61 right-of-way and a seven-foot parking lot setback variance from the frontage road right-of-way. The code requires 30 feet and 15 feet. These variances are based on the following findings: Compliance with the code would cause the developer undue hardship because of the unusual triangular-shaped lot. The lot shape makes it difficult to meet setback requirements because of its tapered shape. 2. Approval of the building setback variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance because of the wide highway boulevard. ° Approval of the parking lot setback variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance because only a point of the parking lot would encroach into the setback area. Planning Commission -9- Minutes of 04-17-2000 Adopt the resolution on pages 16-17 approving a conditional use permit to build a cabinet shop that would be closer than 350 feet to a residential district at the northeast corner of Highway 61 and County Road C. Approval is based on the findings required by the ordinance and subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 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. o The city shall not allow a lot division to occur that would separate the 40-foot-wide portion of this site from the main part unless the shoreland ordinance would continue to be met. Work should not be done with the doors open. If the dust collector system by the dock causes excessive noise, the property owner should take steps to provide sound dampening. 6. There shall not be any outdoor storage unless the city council approves a conditional use permit for outdoor storage. Commissioner Frost seconded. The motion passed. Ayes--all VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS VIII. There were no visitor presentations. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS Ao April 10 Council Meeting: Ms. Coleman reported on this meeting. April 24 Council Meeting: There are no planning commission items on this agenda. May 8 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler will attend this meeting. Chairperson Fischer suggested that commissioners look at the Holloway Pond development on Beebe Road and Holloway Street. She thought it might help them to visualize a development such as Dearborn Meadow. Commissioner Rossbach asked about the ownership and width of the parcel to the east of the Dearborn Meadow plat. He speculated as to whether the owner of this parcel might also want a development that goes to the back of that site. Chairperson Fischer pointed out some history of the area and commented that it was "not the easiest site in the city to try to make a decision on." Commissioner Frost concurred and thought an R-1 zone facing Highway 36 was "not a very wise decision." Planning Commission Minutes of 04-17-2000 -10- Chairperson Fischer mentioned planning workshops on May 4 and May 17. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Melinda Coleman, director of community development, said the Builders Square site property closed on April 14, 2000 and the church is now the owner. She also mentioned that staff was unable to gain complaince with the conditional use permit on the problem of Kline Volvo parking cars "all over the place." This matter has been turned over to the city prosecuting attorney. Commissioner Thompson spoke about a neighboring suburb that is attempting to address the residential parking issue. He suggested staff keep an eye on this. Ms. Coleman said the new city council is interested in an ordinance. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m.