Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/06/20001. Call to Order MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, December 6, 2000, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda Approval of Minutes a. November20, 2000 Unfinished Business None New Business a. APT Monopole Conditional Use Permit (English Street and Gervais Avenue) b. Residential parking ordinance c. Planning Commission Vacancy Interview 7. Visitor Presentations Commission Presentations a. November 27 Council Meeting: Ms. Coleman b. December 11 Council Meeting: Ms. Fischer c. December 25 Council Meeting: No meeting d. January 8 Council Meeting: Mr. Frost 9. Staff Presentations 10. Adjournment II. III. IV. Mo MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2000 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:05 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 Staff Present: Recording Secretary: APPROVAL OFAGENDA Present Absent Absent Present (Arrived at 7:10) Present Present Present Present Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Lori Hansen Commissioner Pearson moved approval of the agenda, as submitted. Commissioner Thompson seconded. Ayes-All The motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 20, 2000: Commissioner Trippler noted on page 10, paragraph 4, it should be changed to if. Page 10, paragraph 5, out should be changed to have. Page 11, fourth paragraph from the bottom int he should read in the. Commission Pearson moved approval of the minutes of November 20, 2000, as amended. Commissioner Trippler seconded the motion. The motion passed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. Ayes-All Planning Commission -2- Minutes of 12-06-2000 VI. A. NEW BUSINESS APT Monopole--Conditional Use Permit--(English Street and Gervais Avenue). Mr. Ken Roberts, Associate Planner, gave the report for the city. American Portable Telecom (APT), Inc., is proposing to install a 175-foot-tall monopole for telecommunications equipment. They would like to install this monopole next to the existing monopole on the southwest corner of English Street and Gervais Avenue, just north of Highway 36. APT would remove the existing monopole after they have finished the installation of the new monopole. There also would be prefabricated equipment cabinets and equipment buildings near the base of the monopole. APT would expand their lease area from 80' x 80' to an area 80' x 181', and would build a new driveway to the site from Gervais Avenue. The applicant also would enclose the new lease area with an 8-foot-high chain link fence. The primary reason for the request is so the new monopole can accommodate three additional users. The current pole has three sets of antennas including the applicants, the new one will include six sets including the applicants. Staff is recommending approval of this proposal subject to the eight conditions outlined in the staff report. Mr. Rossbach clarified the height of the current monopole is 165-feet tall and the proposed pole 175-feet tall. The applicant was not in the audience. Staff was not aware why the applicant was not present, but informed the commission if they are comfortable, they may forward the proposal to the city council. If they had further questions they needed answered from the applicant they may choose to table the proposal. Mr. Trippler felt if there was nothing they could do about the monopole anyway, they may as well go ahead and pass it. He did want on the record his dissatisfaction with the letter that was included in the proposal from the law firm representing APT. He felt the letter was very condescending to the commission. He felt it was bogus and stupid and added nothing to their argument to having the pole. He felt the statement that they would strive to incorporate existing vegetation at the site to maximize screening was a ridiculous statement since the existing vegetation was cattails. The cattails are about four-feet tall and would obscure less than one percent of the tower. Placing the pole at that location will preserve denigrating other parts of the city, was APT's justification for maximizing the preservation of and incorporating the natural and scenic features of the site. They also state that you will not be able to see the tower base from English because there is a building there, or view it from Gervais because there is a wooded area and they are planning to add trees. "It just makes me boil", stated Mr. Trippler. The monopole will be 175-feet tall, to suggest a couple of 30 foot trees is going to cover it up so you cannot see it is more than Mr. Trippler could accept. He is glad, though, that this one will be replacing another one so the city is not adding a monopole. Mr. Rossbach reiterated what a plus it was that they are replacing a pole not adding a new one. Mr. Mueller appreciated that Sprint and APT have communicated so they will be co-locating their monopoles. He hoped this project would become an example of future communication between wireless companies. Mr. Rossbach and Mr. Pearson felt it may have been the commission's mistake in the past for not requiring all towers to be the maximum code allows of 175 feet. They feel that when they first started the process the frame of mind was they don't want them at all so the shorter the better. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-06-2000 -3- Mr. Pearson moved the commission adopt the resolution that approves a conditional use permit to allow a 175-foot-tall telecommunications monopole and related equipment. This approval is for the property on the southwest corner of English Street and Gervais Avenue (1300 Gervais Avenue). Approval is based on the findings required by the ordinance and is subject to the following conditions: All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The proposed construction of the new monopole 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 applicant or owner shall allow the collocation of other providers' telecommunications equipment on the proposed tower with reasonable lease conditions. The applicant shall remove the existing monopole and antennas within 30 days of the completion of the new monopole and antennas. The applicant shall prepare and follow a landscape and screening plan that would help to hide the base area of the proposed facility. Any antenna that is not used for a year shall be deemed abandoned and the city may require that it be removed. The applicant or APT shall post a bond or other guarantee with the city to ensure proper removal of the antenna and monopole and the restoration of the site. The applicant/developer may provide a copy of the lease indicating a guarantee of the removal of the monopole and related equipment with the end of the lease as a substitute for the financial guarantee. Mr. Rossbach seconded. Ayes-All Motion carries. This motion goes to the city council on January 8, 2000. B. Residential Parking Issues and Code Changes. Mr. Ken Roberts gave the report for the city. On September 25, 2000, the city council again discussed the issue of residential parking. Because of strong support and interest in this issue, the city council directed staff to prepare city ordinance revisions about parking in residential areas. The council is choosing to take small steps versus jumping in head first. The council, at their meeting on September 25, 2000, suggested that city staff include the following items in a code change about residential parking: The city will consider crushed rock or gravel as a hard surface for parking and storage purposes. 2. The city should not require a paved driveway with other home improvements. The city may allow exceptions to the rules, subject to the input of the neighbors, city staff and city council. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-06-2000 -4- The ordinance amendment clarified what the violation is for an abandoned motor vehicle to make it clear that is a code violation and can be prosecuted accordingly. The purpose, findings and goals sections of the report are included to show the legislative intent and why the ordinance is being created. The proposed ordinance would apply to all property less than one acre in size, and for the residential zoning district except the RE-40. There was question at the staff level if this should include all residential properties no matter the acreage. The ordinance does not apply to side yards or rear yards which may be another important discussion point to consider. Mr. Roberts informed the commission that Mr. Trippler has distributed language that Mr. Trippler is requesting be added to the proposed ordinance as item I. Mr. Thompson felt item D was not clear. He questioned that if he paved his driveway could he park a car next to the curbing in the front yard? Mr. Roberts responded saying there is a public boulevard along every street that is 10 to 15 feet wide that is public property. You cannot be on the public boulevard at all, and if you do want to make a paved parking spot in your front yard, it has to be into your private property at least 10 feet. Mr. Thompson felt it was indiscriminatory to commercial property. Chairperson Fischer pointed out a resident's property line could be very close to the curb, or they might have a twenty-foot setback. Mr. Roberts pointed out item H in the ordinance covers unique situations or where normal rules don't apply, somewhat similar to a variance. The reasoning for item D is due to snowplowing and sanding issues. Item D asks for no parking at least 10 feet back from the street right of way, Ms. Fischer questioned whether engineering felt that was really necessary. Mr. Roberts responded in saying they didn't specifically have engineering's input on that issue. He also did not see a problem with the commission asking him to reduce that to a smaller number. Mr. Trippler had two concerns with the proposed ordinance. One included what the difference was between items A and C in the proposed ordinance. He also did not understand why the ordinance applied only to properties less than one acre in size. Staff felt larger properties may not have problems with the parking issue. Past history has proven the problem lies with the smaller lot, residential areas which are those less than one acre. Staff thought if it is a 10-acre lot and a neighbor cannot see it, why would they care if their neighbor parked next to the garage on grass or in his front yard on grass. Ms. Fischer pointed out what if it is on a 10-acre lot and you can see it? Mr. Trippler felt setting the property size for the ordinance to less than 5 acres seemed more appropriate. Staff also felt A and C in the ordinance had a lot of the same language and could be combined. Mr. Rossbach felt the ordinance should include some type of language to address screening. He said if there was proper screening to obscure the vehicle so it was not a nuisance there should be proper language in the ordinance to allow for that. "What the ordinance is trying to accomplish is to not have an unsightly situation for neighbors, or for people driving down the street. Just by having a large lot does not necessarily accomplish this" stated Mr. Rossbach. He would also like to see the type of language used in the ordinance be addressed. Using "the front setback area" would only make sense to planners and suggested further definition was needed. Mr. Rossbach also didn't feel it was reasonable that an owner would have to go 10 feet into their properly to park a car. Mr. Mueller was disappointed the ordinance did not address recreational vehicles or campers. Mr. Roberts responded in saying the council did not want to address those issues at this time. Mr. Thompson pointed out Ms. Coleman straightened out his thinking regarding townhomes having more than 50 percent hard service in their front yard. She pointed out townhomes would be excluded from this ordinance due to their zoning classification. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-06-2000 -5- Darlene Laube, 134 Downs Avenue, Maplewood, was present with questions. Her main concern was people and how they maintain their property. She doesn't feel they screen their boats or junk vehicles as they should and feels it runs down the neighborhood. She thought the ten feet from the property line proposal was ridiculous and viewed parking to the side of property in a "mud pile" also a problem. Mr. Rossbach felt the ordinance was addressing this issue by requiring some type of solid surface that has been prepared for parking. Ms. Fisher added that in many families when they have the young adult drivers, the families will add a crushed rock temporary driveway, and when the vehicles are gone, they resod or landscape. Ms. Laube did not feel the ordinance covers vehicles parked in backyards in view of their neighbors' backyard. Mr. Rossbach reiterated the ordinance is not trying to dictate how people landscape, but to gain control on what people are putting into their yards as far as vehicles go. Personally Mr. Rossbach would also like to see back and side yards addressed in the ordinance. His understanding is the city is starting with the front, see what happens, and then go beyond possibly to the back yard or side yards. Mr. Roberts has found there are some people who just don't make good neighbors no matter how many rules are written. They simply don't care. There is only so much the city can do. Mr. Thompson questioned the petitions that were submitted from what appeared to be one neighborhood. He drove over to the neighborhood expecting to find a serious offense, only to find one driveway with five cars. It was a Sunday afternoon where they could be visiting at the residence to watch the football game. Mr. Trippler shared that one member of his car pool was one of the petitioners. He thought maybe he sparked their interest about the parking issue. Mr. Thompson wanted to commend the neighborhood for taking the time to register their feelings. Mr. Trippler presented a motion to add an item I in the ordinance that would state: Four or more adult residents each living at a different address and within one block of the residents having the offending vehicle may petition the city of Maplewood to have their neighbor remove or relocate an offending vehicle. The owner of the offending vehicle will be required, within 30 days of receiving a copy of the petition, to do one of the following actions: 1. Remove the offending vehicle from the property. 2. Relocate the offending vehicle to another location or area of their property which is agreeable to all of the signers of the petition. 3. Request from the Maplewood City Council a special variance to retain the offending vehicle on their property. The intent of the motion is that the ordinance proposed by the staff does not address: 1. The number of vehicles parked at a residence. 2. The type of vehicles parked at a residence. 3. Vehicles parked on either side or backyards of a residence. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-06-2000 -6- Trying to address any or all of these issues, and the infinite number of possible scenarios which might occur is almost impossible. This proposal allows any or all of the above situations to be addressed and allows for the diversity of lot sizes and neighborhoods which exist throughout the city of Maplewood, Staff felt Mr. Trippler's proposal may inspire vigilantes to pick on neighbors they simply don't like and would suggest that the city attorney needs to review the proposal. Mr. Rossbach felt the proposal was taking law into your own hands; a form of vigilante justice. Ms. Fischer questioned if there was an avenue of appeal if the person who is looking for a variance did not agree with the staff recommendation in the proposed ordinance. Staff responded in saying that process would fall under item H. Mr. Thompson seconded Mr. Trippler's motion to add his amendment to the proposal. Staff agreed with Mr. Rossbach that the nuisance ordinance would cover junk cars or expired tabs, but would not cover esthetic opinions. Mr. Pearson did not feel he could support the amendment because it may put power in the hands of people who simply just may not like another person. Mr. Mueller felt there should be a vote on whether everyone was in agreement of calling to question Mr. Trippler's amendment. Chairperson Fischer established there was no disagreement. Motion failed. Ayes-2 (Trippler, Thompson) Nays-4 (Fischer, Pearson, Mueller, Rossbach) Mr. Roberts was flexible with the less than one acre stipulation and felt items A and C could be combined since there was a lot of overlap. Item D (the 10-foot requirement) was a starting point, stated Mr. Roberts and could be adjusted to what the commission deemed appropriate. The ordinance at this point was an attempt to follow the city council's direction. If the commission felt strongly about addressing RVs, motor homes, screening, or parking on the boulevards, the staff will work on language to present at the next meeting. The majority felt the ordinance should apply to everyone regardless of lot size. A suggestion was made to also add some type of verbiage regarding screening, possibly under item H. Mr. Roberts also noted there is no suggested deadline at this point. Ms. Fisher noted the suggested changes/additions to the proposed ordinance: 1. Page 12, sixth line from the bottom should read "relative to the establishment". 2. Page 13, under item 4, the size of the lots should be eliminated. 3. Four A and C seemed redundant and should be combined. Item B, the second line would have a period after surface, and the rest of the sentence would be stricken. Item D, the 10 foot setback could be reduced if agreed to by engineering. The consensus was 0 feet (adjacent to the lot line). 6. It was established that item H included an appeal process. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-06-2000 -7- Include in parenthesis what a front setback is. (The distance between any part of the principal structure and a street right of way line). Staff will check with other cities to find out what, if any, verbiage they use on screening, and work on creating verbiage about screening. The issue of grandfathering was brought up by Mr. Thompson. Staff responded in saying the city has the right to require a resident to improve their parking areas as required to meet the current ordinance. Staff will have the city attorney review the grandfather application to the authority of the ordinance. Mr. Pearson moved the commission to table the proposed ordinance for staff to make revisions. Mr. Rossbach seconded. Ayes-All Motion carried. VII. VIII. IX. planning Commission--Vacancy Interview Mr. Roberts noted Mr. Richard DeVries was verbally informed about the meeting and mailed information. Staff was not sure why Mr. DeVries was not present. He recommended the commission uses the decision they made at the last commission meeting. All the commission members agreed. The city council was to interview planning commission applicants on December 11,2000. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS 1. November 27th Council Meeting: Mr. Roberts said there was nothing to report that directly affected the commission. 2. December 11th Council Meeting: The Affordable Auto proposal will be on the agenda, as will Emerald Estates. The planning commission vacancy interviews will be held at 5:30 and the workshop at 6:00. 3. There will be no council meeting Monday, December 25th. 4. January 8th Council Meeting: Jack Frost will be attending. There is a meeting on affordable housing and transportation investments on Monday, December 18th at 4:00 p.m. at Metro Transit in Minneapolis. STAFF PRESENTATIONS There will be a second December planning commission meeting on the 18th. The 1st and the 15th of January are both holidays. The commission will need to find alternative dates to meet which can be finalized at the December 18th meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.