Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/20/2000MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2000 II. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioner Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Jack Frost Commissioner Matt Ledvina Commissioner Paul Mueller Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner William Rossbach Commissioner Milo Thompson Commissioner Dale Trippler Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Staff Present: Melinda Coleman, Community Development Director Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Chris Cavett, Acting City Engineer Recording Secretary: Lori Hansen III. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Frost moved approval of the agenda, as submitted. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes-All The motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 16th, 2000: Mr. Ledvina: Page 4, wanted to clarify the paragraph to read: Mr. Ledvina suggested the existing grade for the project may need to be corrected due to there being a four foot high hump on the property from curb to back. Discussion also took place regarding the house being a two story walk out, if it was constructed with the existing grade it would be a towering building. Mr. Trippler: Page 2, second to last paragraph, amend sentence to read: if it will have any adverse affect. The last sentence in the paragraph should read there, not their. Commission Pearson moved approval of the minutes of October 16th, 2000 as amended. Commissioner Ledvina seconded the motion. Ayes-7 (Fischer, Ledvina, Pearson, Rossbach, Thompson, Trippler, Frost) Abstention-1 (Mueller) The motion passed. Planning Commission -2- Minutes of 11-20-00 PUBLIC HEARING A. Affordable Auto Sales/Conditional Use Permit--(1930 Rice Street) Ken Roberts gave the staff report for the city. The proposal is for a conditional use permit to sell used cars from the property at 1930 Rice Street. The site is on the northeast corner of Rice Street and Roselawn Avenue on the western edge of Maplewood. The zoning is BC (business commercial), and used car sales are allowed by a conditional use permit in that zone. The property was previously a fuel station and a stereo installation center, and most recently an auto glass installation facility. Recently it has been sitting vacant. Staff did not have a concern with a used car lot at this location as long as the owners keep the property well maintained and operated and parking is controlled. The Design Review Board approved the proposal at their meeting last week and staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit for the used car sales subject to the conditions in the staff report. Mr. Trippler questioned if this was the project that started construction without obtaining a permit and what reasons they gave for that action. Staff will let the applicant respond to his question. The hours of operation of the business were not included in the conditions. Staff felt because there were not any residential homes near the site the staff did not include hours of operation in the conditions. Mr. Frost questioned whether three curb cuts were excessive for a business this size. Mr. Roberts noted the review board recommended the southern curb cut on Rice Street be closed. The maintenance and repair work on vehicles was also not included in the conditions due to residential properties not being located close to the business. Cleanup and detailing is to be expected for the business, beyond that any other type of work would not affect anyone but the business itself. Mr. Thompson asked to have the parking clarified by the applicant. He wanted to know of the nineteen parking stalls, where the customers and employees park. Mr. Blaine Godes, 1930 Rice Street was present for the applicant. Mr. Godes responded to the questions from the commission. The applicant resided the building and painted the building without applying for a permit. They did not know they needed a permit for facial upgrades. As soon as the city notified them to cease working without a permit, they stopped and applied for their building permit. Regarding parking, 17 of the spaces will be for inventory cars, one will be for handicapped, one for customers, and the two stall garages inside of the building will be for employee parking. Of the two garage bays, one will be used for small repairs and oil changes and the other for employee parking. The goal of the applicant is to sell thirty to thirty-five cars per month. Every couple weeks the applicant plans to turn over his inventory and does not see a need for there ever being more than seventeen cars in the lot at a time. Mr. Mueller noticed a light that shines directly into his car window as he drives past the site and questioned whether or not the lighting was up to code. Mr. Ledvina noted the Design Review Board added a condition to the their approval stating all lighting must comply with city ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes of 11-20-00 -3- Mr. Frost moved the planning commission recommend to the city council to adopt the resolution that approves a conditional use permit for used car sales at 1930 Rice Street. Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to: All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 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. The site shall be kept in neat and orderly condition. The applicant shall observe the striping pattern and not crowd additional vehicles on the site beyond what can be parked in the striped parking spaces. This shall include keeping the drive aisles clear of vehicles. There shall be no vehicle delivery or transport/trailer unloading along either street. This shall be done on site. Outdoor storage of any new or used materials other than vehicles shall be prohibited unless such materials can be fully concealed within a trash enclosure. The design and placement of any such enclosure shall be subject to staff approval. Mr. Ledvina seconded the motion. He also added a friendly amendment to the motion to add a condition six. He suggested the condition reads: Outdoor storage of any new or used materials other than vehicles shall be prohibited. Ayes-All Motion Carries. The item will go to the city council on December 11. B. Emerald Estates Preliminary. Plat--(County Road D). Ken Roberts gave the staff report for the city. The proposal is for a 12-unit town home development on the north side of County Road D. There would be four units in each of the three buildings, and each lot would be sold individually. Staff feels this site would be a fit for the area with the existing apartment building and the expected town homes to the west. The proposal does meet the cities zoning requirements and density standards. Staff is recommending approval of the proposal with nine conditions outlined in the staff report. Staff explained the reason the developer needs to submit the home owner bylaws to the city is to assure the maintenance of the utilities, driveways and structures are covered. The city wants to ensure the homeowners association is covering services the homeowners are paying for in their association fees. If a homeowner chooses not to take care of their property it affects the owner, in a town home association it could effect all 12 property owners. Mr. Thompson wanted to commend the engineer on this site for his addressing of storm water run off. He felt there are certainly different standards being used on this project than other projects recently considered. Planning Commission -4- Minutes of 11-20-00 Ms. Coleman noted the staff also was concerned with there not being a sidewalk included in the plans for this project, but felt the issue would be addressed when the planning was being completed for the Hajieck parcel. The transportation concerns have also been discussed by staff. The department has started discussions with Ramsey County about traffic issues. The staff was unable to respond at this time on how people will be able to cross from north County Road D to south since there is not an accessible intersection. Mr. Kimm Tram-Tram Builders Realtors, 3289 Cad Court, Arden Hill, was present to answer questions. Mr. Thompson questioned why the entrance to the property was on the western side of the project and not on the eastern side. His concern was with the seven foot drop down to the adjacent property. Mr. Tram felt the proposed driveway in the plans is where the existing curb cut is for the property. Mr. Tram would like to talk to his engineer to discuss the driveway placement and would be willing to move the curb cut for safety reasons if there wasn't a good reason to leave it where it is at. The sales market for the homes would include all ages. Commissioner Mueller's concern was the lack of play area for children. Mr. Tram felt perhaps families with young children was not their targeted clientele when the design concept was created. Commissioner Rossbach reiterated his stand from previous meetings that he will not approve another development in this neighborhood until the city has preliminary plans and a procedure to address traffic concerns in the area. Mr. Frost moved the planning commission recommend to the city council to approve the plans date-stamped October 25, 2000 for the Emerald Estates preliminary plat. The developer shall complete the following before the city council approves the final plat: 1. Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b. * Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Pay the city for the cost of any traffic-control or no parking signs. d. Provide all required and necessary easements. 2. * Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code. b. The grading plan shall show: (1) The proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each home site. The lot lines on this plan shall follow the approved preliminary plat. (2) Contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. (3) The driveway grades. (4) No grading beyond the plat boundary without temporary grading easements from the affected property owner(s). Planning Commission Minutes of 11-20-00 o The street, driveway and utility plans shall show: (1) All the parking areas and driveways with continuous concrete curb and gutter. (2) The coordination of the water main alignments and sizing with the standards and requirements of the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS). Fire flow requirements and hydrant locations shall be verified with the Maplewood Fire Department. (3) All utility excavations located within the proposed right-of-ways or within easements. The developer shall acquire easements for all utilities that would be outside the project area. Pay the costs related to the engineering department's review of the construction plans. Change the plat as follows: a. Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer. Show drainage and utility easements along all the site perimeter property lines on the final plat. These easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet wide along the side property lines. Secure and provide all required easements for the development including any off-site drainage and utility easements. The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site drainage. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. Submit the homeowner's association bylaws and rules to the director of community development. These are to assure that there will be one responsible party for the maintenance of the private utilities, driveways and structure. Record the following with the final plat: a. All homeowner's association documents. A covenant or deed restriction that prohibits any further subdivision or splitting of the lots or parcels in the plat that would create additional building sites unless approved by the city council. The applicant shall submit the language for these dedications and restrictions to the city for approval before recording. If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the director of community development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat. *The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or approves the final plat. Planning Commission Minutes of 11-20-00 -6- Mr. Pearson seconded. Ayes-6 (Fischer, Thompson, Frost, Pearson, Trippler, Ledvina) Nays-2 (Rossbach, Mueller) Mr. Mueller's nay vote is due to his concerns with traffic control, the lack of a sidewalk and planning for children. This proposal will go to the city council December 11th. Mr. Pearson confirmed with staff that there will be a park fee paid on each unit developed. C. Carpet Court-(Northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Arcade Street). The staff report was given by Ken Roberts. Gary Blair of Carpet Court is proposing to build an 8,100 square foot two story building for his carpet store and warehouse. It would be located on the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Arcade Street. There is a mix of commercial and residential properties in the area. Mr. Blair is asking the city for several approvals: Rezoning the westerly part of the site from R. (single dwelling residential) to BC (business commercial). The city has planned this property for BC use. Refer to the map on page 10 and the applicant's letter on page 12. 2. A 25-foot building setback variance from the west lot line. The code requires a 75-foot setback-the applicant is proposing 50 feet. A 13 percent impervious surface area variance from the shore land ordinance. The code requires that the applicant cover no more than 50 percent of the site with building, asphalt and concrete (impervious material). The applicant's sit plan shows a coverage of 63 percent. The state law is clear on variances. The city council must make two specific findings to approve a variance: The strict enforcement would cause an undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property. Undue hardship means that the property can not be put to a reasonable use if all conditions have to be followed by the zoning code. 2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Mr. Roberts stated making the hardship determination because of a unique situation is always the most difficult to make on any variance request. That is definitely the case in this situation. With this property, it is a relatively straightforward shape and there are no unusual physical characteristics. In staffs analysis, the applicant is trying to put too much building and parking on the property in relation to city standards. Normally the city requires a 75 foot setback to the west lot line and the plans have the setback at 50 feet. Another concern is the amount of impervious surface. Code, at best, would allow 50 percent coverage of hard surfaces with the driveways, parking areas and building. This proposal is at 63 percent. Clearly, if the building was smaller there would be less need for parking, and a smaller footprint would have less impervious surface with a less building size and reduced parking. Staff has calculated that there is about 3900 square feet too much of impervious surface on this size property. With that in mind, the variance needed to the west setback and because of the impervious surface variance request, staff has major concerns with the proposal. Staff is recommending denial of all three proposals: the zoning change from R1 to BC for the Planning Commission Minutes of 11-20-00 -7- westerly lot, denial of the side setback variance, and denial of the proposed 13 percent impervious surface variance. Staff feels the applicant can not make the findings for a variance both in the setback and the impervious surface. In summary, Mr. Roberts stated "the applicant has a quart of stuff trying to go in a pint jar and because of that we have to recommend denying all three requests". Mr. Trippler was happy to see the city actually denying a variance, but was baffled as to why this request. When reading the staff recommendations on this site he kept thinking about the Kline Volvo proposal. They were requesting a 75 foot variance from a 100 foot setback right directly abutting a wetland. The city council granted a 75 foot variance so there was only a 25 foot setback. The property was right adjacent to a wetland and the impervious surface was about 85 percent of the site. The commission asked for a certain number of parking spots and the only way to get it was to double deck their cars, one on top of the other, and yet the city recommendation was to go ahead with the variance. Mr. Trippler asked staff to weigh the two and explain why one is approved and the other is denied. Staff responded by stating the Kline Volvo is not in the shoreland district. There is not a shoreland type variance there but there was a wetland variance. The difference in staffs mind was the precedent had been set with other wetland variances on Highway 61 which include the Lexus dealership and Maplewood Toyota. Maplewood Imports also has a wetland setback variance. Secondly, with their revised plans, Kline Volvo was able to make all of their parking requirements. The watershed district did work with the city on that site. They had the applicant install an underground drainage system that catches the water off of the parking lot before it goes into the wetland. The system acts as a pretreatment pond. In summary, the city did take some measures to try to mitigate the effects the development would have on the wetlands. The biggest difference is the precedent set with the wetland setback variance. The city would be hard pressed to say we've granted variances before but now we are going to stop granting them in a very similar situation. This is different in the staffs mind because we are in the shoreland ordinance and not the wetland ordinance. Melinda Coleman, Director of Community Development stated the watershed district encouraged and allowed the city to make wetland variances. The wetland ordinance came much later in the development of Maplewood (1995). Basically it would render those parcels on Highway 61 unbuildable if the ordinance was followed to the fullest extent. The shoreland ordinance has been in existence for a lot longer time period and would allow projects to be built on this current parcel. Mr. Thompson was also a little amazed with the difference in recommendation and was struggling to understand the difference in proposals, and why one can be approved and the other can be denied. Mr. Ledvina questioned the building setback from the north property line and what that setback requirement would be. Staff responded that there is no zoning code setback requirement, it would be whatever building code would require because it would be next to commercial property. Mr. Mueller asked if in talking with the builder, did they indicate if they could make that footprint smaller and still use that land. Staff has not talked to them at this point, and suggested that the question be forwarded to Tom Ekstrand who has been the point of contact up until this point. He also questioned the statement of "there would be no alternative but to forfeit the building in leu of receiving the variance" was one of the comments in the applicants proposal and was that just said to convince us to agree or are they really hard fast to that statement. Secondly, he asked if there other builders and or ideas for this piece of land. He felt it has been out there for awhile and somebody has finally come forward and said they want to use it. Staff responded that this is the first applicant that has gone this far in developing plans for this site in the eleven years he has worked for the city. Mr. Rossbach pointed out that a proposal for the property on the corner of Highway 61 and Planning Commission Minutes of 11-20-00 -8- County Road C was also in the shoreland area and was also denied by the city because they wanted to overly pave and build on the site. Even though that proposal may have had a water retention plan for the site, the same premise was true. It was in the shoreland district, and it was in a situation where they were trying to put too much in too small of a piece of property. As it ended up; the convenience store went by the wayside and the site now has the Forest Products building. Mr. Rossbach said that he has always been an advocate of the theory that Maplewoods property is desirable whether it be commercial or residential and it is going to get built on. As such, he feels there is no pressure on the city whatsoever do jump on every proposal that comes through. The commission has very little control with what does go on in some areas, so if there is any thought that they could get a better development or a more well suited development for a particular parcel of land, it seems like it would behoove the city to wait for that proposal. Melinda Coleman also wanted to point out to Mr. Rossbach's comment that the convenience store was actually denied. The city was taken to court over the request and the city prevailed. She also added that the wetland variances for the car dealerships on Highway 61 was due to the watershed districts opinion that in that particular case the existing buffer to that wetland was so degraded those developments and the improvements that were made were actually an improvement to the quality of the wetlands and to the buffers. She agreed that there are some significant differences to the variances approved to the car dealerships on Highway 61 and the applicants proposal. Mr. Trippler wondered if there have been any discussions with the watershed district on this particular application. Ms. Coleman felt the property was too small to even have to go to the district. The property is less than an acre, and therefore they do not go to the watershed district. Mr. Gary Blair, the applicant, 1769 Reany Avenue in St. Paul, was present. Mr. Blair is the owner of Carpet Court in St. Paul, and has owned this business for 27 years. This building that he now occupies is less than 2000 square feet and does not have a warehouse, and has owned this building on the corner of a residential area for over 20 years. Mr. Blair distributed business cards that displayed a picture of the current building he owns. His business is the only business on the corner, and it is commercially rated. They have outgrown this building and need a new place to set up business. It is family owned and operated with his wife and two sons. The property they purchased (the proposed site) is on the border of St. Paul and Maplewood. They had looked all over town for property and really like the proposed site. When they found this property they spoke to the real estate agent and had concerns that they would be able to put a building up with a warehouse that would provide for their business needs and to show their product. At that time, Mr. Blair, his wife and their real estate agent spoke with Tom Ekstrand. Tom provided them with the requirements for the development of the site. Mr. Blair supplied the commission with a copy of the note Mr. Ekstrand provided him. Mr. Blair then informed his Realtor he would need some time to meet with an architect. He then spoke with an architect (this was about two years ago), who designed the drawing very similar to what they are using currently. On that drawing the same square footage is used as the current drawing. They had a contingency with the oil company to buy the property on whether or not this building would be buildable. Based on the contingency that they could build this building, Mr. Blair purchased the property. Due to their type of business, they have a customer here and there, Mr. Blair felt that coming up with parking for 20 cars would not be a big issue. The chances of having that many customers at one time is slim, (he wishes that would be the case, but in all probability and case history, it just isn't going to happen). They were told by the design review board, at that point, the parking issue was workable but now feels they are not being given any leeway. Mr. Blair said he has had three architects work on the drawing and the current plans are the closest they can come to fitting a building in the lot. The recommendation states the applicant can Planning Commission Minutes of 11-20-00 -9- put a building of 5,000 feet on a 30,000 foot piece of property. Mr. Blair strongly feels that in itself indicates their is an apparent hardship with this property. The other main problem, Mr. Blair feels, is the required setback to the west. The building behind the property where this variance is being request is classified as residential, however, it is a group home. It is not a single dwelling home and the applicant does not feel the variance should be applicable. The applicant stressed he is not inferring the city has not been cooperative. He does feel as though the information they have been given over the last two years while they have been working on this proposal has not been timely. The applicant has already developed plans for a pond with a filtering system on the property that he feels is going to be much more effective than what is in place currently. It will catch all the water in the back area and take it into a filtering pond that is connected to the 5 foot main sewer line from the city. They are taking the water off of the roof and the back of the property and putting it in this filtering pond. They feel the zoning proposal should be approVed because they do not believe they have to be building to apply for zoning change from residential to commercial. The other areas they feel are definitely hardships. Brian Phelps, Stegner -Phelps Architects, Brainerd, MN was present for the applicant. Mr. Rossbach questioned whether Mr. Phelps requested from the city a copy of all ordinances and setbacks required for designing this building and if any of them are other than was is being presented in the report. Mr. Phelps answer was no. He also added that he spoke with the planning person on the 75 foot setback and he felt that it could be a 50 foot setback. Mr. Rossbach reiterated that it was the planners "thoughts" and not what was in the codes and ordinances. Mr. Phelps also noted the planner commented on stepping the building and because the master plan had the whole area rezoned to commercial (in the comprehensive plan), that someday the setback would not be a requirement. The percent coverage of the land in the shoreland area was also discussed. The architect also acknowledged knowing, when designing the plans, there would be variances necessary. In addressing the parking situation, Mr. Blair stated that the church has used his lot more than once for overflow parking. If the parking is a problem he wondered if it possible to make a written agreement with the church or with Bacchus next door to use two or three of their spots. Mr. Blair did not know if there was a Jaw or not preventing this agreement, but he was told that may be a possibility and could be done. The three parking spots were for employees in the back of the plans were added in by the engineer. If those three spots were taken out, it would lessen the impervious surface on site. If it is necessary to obtain more land in order to meet qualifications, Mr. Blair wanted to know if they purchased a lot next to the proposed site if that would take care of the problem. Staff responded in saying that there was no question that if the lot area was made bigger by purchase and combined with the current property it would definitely help their case. Also, with the parking issue, there have been occasions were the city has allowed shared parking with some type of written agreement. If something can be put together to reduce the impervious surface on the site, staff felt it would definitely help. Planning Commission -10- Minutes of 11-20-00 Mr. Thompson confirmed the applicant has owned the property for a couple of years, and stated the city frowns on outside storage, and yet there has been a Jot of outside storage on this property. Mr. Blair confirmed a lot of vehicles have been parking on the property that are not owned by the applicant. On a regular basis they have posted a note right on the vehicle to move them. For the most part that has been effective, but not always. The City of St. Paul has also been using the space to store their utility vehicles overnight and an excavating company has been doing the same. There is also equipment under cover that was brought in almost one and a half years ago for the building of the property. It is remaining there, waiting for the go ahead to start the project. The two boats sitting on the property do belong to Mr. Blair, they are for sale, and the applicant was told it was ok to do that. Other people have not been allowed to have property sitting on the site for sale. The texture of the building was a concern as documented in the staff notes. Mr. Blair stated that he was not aware the smooth brick was not preferred and had no problem switching to a rock face brick. Mr. Blair would like an attractive building and sees no problem using an all textured colored brick. He displayed a drawing of the proposed outside of the building. He wanted to ensure the commissioner understood he is not trying to overstep their bounds, but felt the site was very limited to work with. They want a building put up that they can be proud of as well. Eileen Blair, the joint owner of the property, spoke on behalf of the applicant. The one area she wanted to address was the content of the meetings with Mr. Ekstrand. The drawings were based on the recommendations from Mr. Ekstrand. She felt that when a person is in the position of dictating what is required they should be held responsible for the decisions they make or the requirements they give. "This is a two year project that has not been done hastily. They have attempted to work within the guidelines that were outlined by the city ordinances." She feels it would be an injustice to rule them out because of the setback issue. They have attempted several sets of plans with several architects to accommodate the square footage needs with the property. Mr. Rossbach reiterated that the applicants have had several architects and that no one could figure out how to design the plans to comply with the ordinance very well, and wondered if at any time did that not raise a flag that maybe they were attempting to put too big of a building on the site? Ms. Blair responded that if Mr. Ekstrand had not thought they could do it, yes. The main issue seemed to be the setback therefore they tried moving the building to the front of the property and putting the parking in the back of the property, but then you are going to have a full massive wall near Highway 61, and they were told that was not attractive, and that it may be an eyesore. Although Mr. Rossbach felt sorry for their situation, and that he felt they made a good effort to work with the city, he asked that they do not hold the commission responsible for what one person has told them and how that activity went. The Planning Commission can not change their mind and change what they have been trained to do and interpret issues based on one persons experience. When the Blair's first decided to purchase the land, Ms. Blair explained they went in and asked for a rezoning of the back lot, that was the first thing they wanted done. They were told no, the city wanted to see the entire project in its completion before the one lot was rezoned. They did not understand that since you do not need to have a building on a property to have it rezoned. Mr. Rossbach explained they typically do want to see what the project is otherwise why would they rezone the property if the project is not suitable. Although the entire triangle was going to be rezoned for commercial, Mr. Rossbach explained you could indeed build residential on commercially zoned property. He further stated the residence living to the west of the site deserve every right and respect that they would get even if it wasn't planned for commercial and they are protected by the rules of the city. The applicant has the burden to prove to the commission why they should bend the rules for the applicant to make it so it is less convenient or esthetically pleasing for someone who already lives there. Ms. Blair questioned if there was a special use permit issued to the property behind the site Planning Commission Minutes of 11-20-00 -11- because it is used for multi-family rather than a single family residence. Ms. Fischer explained that by state law, if a group home is for six or fewer residents, it is a permitted use in an R1 district without the need for a special permit. Staff confirmed this. Mr. Blair wanted to explain their intent was not to blame anyone for the situation at hand. The reasons he mentioned earlier in themselves, are self explanatory why they would like the variances. The reason is specifically for the hardship the property has, not because of misunderstandings between the applicant and Mr. Ekstrand. The property they feel is a hardship. The architect has worked a long time to try to prepare a plan to get the property developed. A building of 5000 square feet is not a workable building especially when they are looking at twenty to thirty thousand dollars a year that need to be generated just for taxes. Mr. Trippler asked Mr. Blair how likely it would be that they could purchase an additional piece of property adjacent to the lot. Mr. Blair has talked to some of the property owners and felt it was a possibility. They may be able to purchase a potion of a parcel to add the 3-4000 square feet needed. It is a possibility at this point, but not firm. Mr. Trippler asked how much of a hardship it would be for them to table their plans at this point to further explore purchasing additional property. Mr. Blair said they have spent two years working on this project and that they could spend another couple weeks on it if it takes that long. Mr. Thompson felt the commission needed more specific information that the purchase of additional land would satisfy all of the requirements. Ms. Coleman stated he needed to pick up enough land to meet the coverage requirement which is 50 percent, and needs to meet the setback requirements on the west side. Staff was not equipped to calculated out at the moment the amount of land that would entail, but it appeared that it may be a viable solution. Mr. Roberts stated staff is very happy to look at revised plans and do some calculations on a revised plans, but it is important to remember it is up to the applicant to show the city what is being proposed and what is going to work and that the city would not design it for the applicant. Mr. Roberts wanted to make sure that was made clear to all parties. Mr. Pearson suggested the eight spaces on the east side of the building could be eliminated to help increase non-impervious surface. Staff responded that may be a possibility, but the one concern is if Carpet Court was built and in the future they go out of business, would there be enough parking for the next business who wants to occupy the building? Mr. Rossbach reiterated it isn't just if the applicant is proving business from the site, it is whether in the future someone else is there that has different needs. If the commission can not prove they can fit the required parking spots on the lot in question without a variance, it won't work. Mr. Phelps stated whether the parking is there or the amount of impervious surface, the major problem is the twenty five foot set back. Right now the building is forty feet wide with the sixty-six parking in front and sidewalk, and if we have to do seventy-five feet in the rear, we are down to a fifteen foot wide building. If the city rezones that area to commercial, we went to the 50 foot setback in that area. Mr. Rossbach stated there are no plans to rezone in this area. The land use plan states that sometime in the future we would not mind if it turned over to commercial but we are not forcing that to happen. The people that live there and residences may live there for the rest of our lives, so there is no plan to make it commercial. Mr. Blair disagreed, and stated the committee indicated to the applicant it was the intent of the city to convert that entire area over to commercial. It wasn't left up to the residents, but to the city. Staff responded by saying the city could reconsider rezoning without a plan, but they usually do not. The comprehensive plan is real clear, we show it planning commercial for that triangle, but Planning Commission Minutes of 11-20-00 -12- there is no pressing plan by the city to change that. If a developer comes in to buy it or 10 properties and put a package deal together and worked out one commercial development over the whole area, that would be the kind of thing we would look at. An example would be Cub and Home Depot on a larger scale. The original comprehensive plan was adopted by the city around 1972 to make that area commercial. Ms. Coleman stated the city has never been is a position to push people out of their residences until they are ready to do so. Mr. Fischer feels the city would be hesitant to rezone and make a homeowner a nonconforming use. We may have had over the period of decades after things were adopted, have had some used that pre-existed zoning. They were existing pre-plan type nonconforming uses. Mr. Trippler moved to table the application to give Mr. Blair a couple weeks to work with staff and to explore other options to resolve some of the problems. Mr. Thompson seconded. Ms. Coleman added if the commission is going to table the proposal they need to get the applicants approval. With the new sixty day rule, the city council would have to take action by January 2nd, and the council is only meeting once in December. Mr. Blair agreed to sign a statement agreeing to table the proposal at this time to explore his options. Mr. Rossbach asked if the Blair's could come in with their architect without a full set of plans and say here is what we want to do, before they invest a few thousand dollars more redrawing plans. Mr. Roberts from the staff agreed, as long as the plans are clear enough to discern what they are proposing. If is looks like it is going to work, a full set of revisions would need to be submitted to come back before the planning commission and ultimately the city council. Ayes-All Motion passes. Mr. Mueller wished to thank Mr. Blair for the work he is doing and his willingness to work with the planning commission. 8:47 A brief recess was called. D. Planning Commission Vacancy Interviews Ms. Coleman stated their is a vacancy created by the resignation of Michael Seeber. The term ends December 31st, 2001. Mr. Thompson also has resigned, his term is up December 31st, 2000. After interviewing with the commission, the candidates will be interviewed by the city council. The commission will forward their top two selections to the city council. The applicants: Planning Commission Minutes of 11-20-00 -13- VIII. 2062 English Street, resident of Maplewood for 8 years. Mr. Ahlness is a major in the national guard. He is employed as a government technician and is currently based out of southeast Minnesota, but will be based out of the St. Paul office within six to eight months. When Mr. Ahlness was a graduate student, his assistanceship was as a coordinator for the Minnesota Association of County Planning and Zoning Administrators. He was instrumental in developing their professional accreditation program. His interests include the relationship of business placement to residential properties and how Maplewood's developments have an impact on other cities and municipalities. He has actively participated in neighborhood programs since moving to Maplewood and would like to participate in making Maplewood an excellent place to live and raise a family. 2720 Carver Avenue, resident of Maplewood for 13 years. Ms. Dierich is currently a nurse practitioner/specialist. Her interests lie in the use of open space and how those areas are developed. As a mother of four children she would like to see a place for children to play and safety issues addressed in the planning stage of development. She would like to make sure that Maplewood continues to pursue its same policies and that they have the infrastructure to support their ideas and plans without sacrificing open spaces and community areas. As a resident of south Maplewood she feels there is a lot of misused open space and would like to be a part of being involved in the process of applying consistency of land use, and implementing a long term land use plan. Diana Longrie-Kline, 1778 De Soto Street, a resident of Maplewood for 16 years. Mr. Longrie-Kline is an attorney with a strong real estate background. As a property administrator in a real estate department of a large corporation, she feels she has a strong background and understanding of planning and how everything fits into the overall scheme of development. Being active in the community and staying in touch with were they live is very important to Ms Kline. She feels objectively balancing residential needs and commercial needs while maintaining some green space is key. In response to a commissioners question, Ms. Longrie-Kline feels a major problem with Maplewood would be older stip malls not updating their exteriors and maintaining their appearance and "eye-appeal". Ms. Coleman explained there were two applicants not present tonight. Staff will contact these applicants to find out if they are still interested. All applicants will then be called back to interview with the city council on December 11th. The commission ranked the applicants 3 to 1 with three being their first choice. The commissions first choice was Diana Longrie-Kline, and second being Eric Ahlness. The commission will forward their recommendations to the city council. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS A. October 23rd City Council Meeting: Mr. Ledvina attended and gave the report. Emma's Place was approved with no people present speaking in opposition to the proposal. Individuals that lived across the street spoke in favor of the proposal. Mr. Ledvina felt the applicants did an excellent job of educating the neighborhood as to what they were doing. In terms of staff recommendation following the planning suggestion of play equipment in the center area of the site, and additional detailing of the building abutting County Road B, the applicant agreed to dress it up. It was left up to staff to work out final details. B. November 13th City Council Meeting: Planning Commission Minutes of 11-20-00 -14- IX. Will Rossbach attended and gave the report. The AT & T Monopole proposal on the Taste of India site was denied. There were other more appropriate options for the site that could be explored but were not. The lot-area and lot-width variance request from Mr. Dennis Campbell to build a home on the southeast corner of Roselawn and Kenwood was approved. C. November 27th Meeting: No planning commission member is needed. D. December 11th Meeting: The applicants for the Planning Commission will be interviewed. The commission will request that the council select two applicants for the two vacancies available. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Ms. Coleman reported on a suggested moratorium on cell monopoles. She spoke with the city attorney and through his work he has been doing with the White Bear Township has a good connection with the six or seven cell providers in the twin city area. He suggested the city get together with them and try to map out a plan that shows the needs for additional monopoles without having to impose a moratorium. Ms. Coleman feels there are changes that could be made to the city ordinance that addresses some of the concerns. For example, steering future monopoles to city properties where the city has more control over the projects. Tom Ekstrand and Melinda Coleman met with the Met Council last Tuesday and was awarded a planning grant to study land use and transportation issues in the Hillcrest Area. Although a dollar amount was not attached to the grant, the Met Council will be paying for the planning consultants. The planning study should be underway by the first of the year with a scheduled completion date by the third quarter of next year. There is a "meet the city manager" reception on Tuesday, December 5th, 5:00 to 8:00 p.m. Mr. Thompson gave Ms. Coleman an article related to growth and saving tax dollars in the metropolitan area titled"Smart Growth". Copies will be available to those that would like one. The next Planning Commission meeting will be on Wednesday, December 6th, at 7:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:03 p.m.