Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/05/2001MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, February 5, 2001, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda Approval of Minutes a. January 17, 2001 5. Unfinished Business a. Residential parking ordinance New Business a. Highway 61 Frontage Road right-of-way vacation (3007 Maplewood Drive) 7. Visitor Presentations o Commission Presentations a. January 22 Council Meeting: Mr. Ahlness b. February 12 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler c. February 26 Council Meeting: Mr. Mueller d. March 12 Council Meeting: Mr. Ledvina o Staff Presentations a. Reschedule February 19 meeting (Presidents Day Holiday) - Tuesday February 20? 10. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA FEBRUARY 5, 2001 I1. II1. IV. 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 Dale Trippler Commissioner Eric Ahlness Commissioner Mary Dierich Staff Present: Recording Secretary: APPROVAL OF AGENDA Present Absent Absent Present Absent Present Present Present Present Melinda Coleman, Assistant City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Lori Hansen Staff suggested new business and unfinished business be switched in order on the agenda. Commissioner Rossbach moved approval of the agenda, as amended. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes-All APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 17, 2001: Commissioner Trippler noted: page 9, (2a) should read "five-foot", and page eleven (item H) should read "Mr. Frost", instead of Mr. Trippler. Commissioner Trippler approval of the minutes dated January 17, 2001, as amended. Commissioner Rossbach seconded the motion. Ayes-5 (Fischer, Mueller, Rossbach, Trippler, Ahlness) Abstention-1 (Dierich) Motion carries. Planning Commission -2- Minutes of 02-05-2001 V. NEW BUSINESS A. Highway 61 Frontage Road Right-Of-Way Vacation (3007 Maplewood Drive). Mr. Ken Roberts gave the staff report for the city. This item is a request by Frank Frattalone of Frattalone Excavating to vacate part of an unused highway right-of-way. The right-of-way in question is a 50-foot-wide strip along the west of the Highway 61 frontage road which is just north of Gulden's Restaurant. It is adjacent to Mr. Frattalone's development site which the city reviewed and approved last year. As best as the staff can tell from their research, the highway department acquired this right-of-way in 1936 as part of the Highway 61 project at that time. It turns out, however, they did not use the additional 50 feet of right-of-way. The jurisdiction of the frontage road was turned back to the city in 1988 and the city has not done anything with the right-of-way. The city engineer does not see any reason to keep it, nor does any other city staff see any reason to keep it, or to use it. The right-of-way is essentially an extra wide strip of land that is in public ownership. Staff is recommending the city vacate the property because: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The city and the adjacent property owners have no plans to build a street in this location. 3. The adjacent properties have street access. Mr. Rossbach confirmed with staff that the zoning of the adjacent property is M-1 (light manufacturing). Mr. Barry Morgan, the engineer for the project, 2021 Hennepin Avenue East, was present for the applicant. With the zoning for the adjacent property being light manufacturing, Mr. Frattalone is still looking for several options that fall within the light manufacturing classification. Mr. Rossbach moved that the planning commission recommend the city council adopt the resolution that vacates the unused part of the Highway 61 frontage road right-of-way that is south of County Road D, next to the property at 3007 Maplewood Drive. The city should vacate this right-of-way because: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The city and the adjacent property owners have no plans to build a street in this location. 3. The adjacent properties have street access. Mr. Trippler seconded. Ayes-All Motion carries. This proposal will go before the city council on February 26, 2001. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Residential Parking Ordinance. Mr. Roberts gave the staff report for the city. Staff is bringing back to the commission a revised ordinance that was originally looked at by the planning commission on December 6, 2000. The city attorney has looked at the draft ordinance and has added suggestions. The implementation of the grandfathering clause for those parking situations that do not meet the proposed ordinance was confirmed by the city attorney. The city cannot enforce the new ordinance and regulations on someone who has an existing parking situation that does not meet code. With that being said, if the city finds an individual parking in the grass and making mud, which creates a nuisance, it can be treated as a nuisance. Planning Commission -3- Minutes of 02-05-2001 The statement that the ordinance excludes those properties larger than one acre in size has been removed. The ordinance will apply to all single and two-family residential properties in the RE-40, RE-30, RE-20, F, R-I(S) and R-2 zoning districts. Ms. Fischer requested "residential" be added to item a. (The area between the front of the residential structure and the street right-of-way line). The total area in the front yard setback area of a single-dwelling lot improved for parking and driveway purposes shall not exceed forty percent of the front-yard setback area. Screening language was added to the ordinance for the city to have the option to require screening to help hide the parking area and vehicles from the view of adjacent residential properties, or from the view from the public street. Mr. Ahlness asked staff what the most pertinent issue was from other cities regarding parking issues. Mr. Roberts responded in saying "there is no magic wand. You can read the ordinances from ten different cities and get ten different sets of rules." Staff has attempted to create a set of rules for Maplewood that works best for the situation in Maplewood. The other cities' ordinances that staff reviewed included: Mahtomedi, Woodbury, Oakdale, and North St. Paul. Mr. Ahlness clarified with Mr. Roberts that the "yardstick" used to handle an existing situation would be the city staff and the adjacent neighbors. Mr. Roberts also clarified with Mr. Rossbach that inoperable and unlicensed parked vehicles are not currently allowed. As far as screening is concerned, Ms. Dierich asked if city staff had the only say in the type of screening used. Staff noted Section 25-65 of the city code requires notification of the neighbors and gives them the opportunity to comment. Mr. Mueller asked if a homeowner parked directly adjacent to the curb would be grandfathered in with the new ordinance. Staff responded in saying they are already breaking the law, because prior to this ordinance, you could not park in a right-of-way. Therefore, that party would be in violation of the ordinance. The standards for commercial parking are as high as the residential parking requirements, as clarified by staff for Commissioner Ahlness. Ms. Dierich asked where the 40% maximum for parking and driving surface of the front yard set- back area was derived from. Staff noted it was based on surveys and site plans done on recent homes that were built. Mr. Trippler asked if driveways should be stricken from 4C. Staff suggested that "parking areas" be added, now to read: "Driveways and parking areas shall be at least five feet from a side property line and parking shall not be in the street right-of-way or on other public property". Ms. Dierich was concerned with the 40% rule. Mr. Rossbach responded in saying he felt that regulation would be self regulating. He didn't feel people were going to want to put a bunch of paving and concrete in their front yard. Ms. Fischer asked what the vehicle was for a property owner to appeal if they disagreed with the ordinance or staff interpretation. Staff felt Section 25-65 did cover an appeal situation. VII. -4- Mr. Trippler moved that the planning commission recommend the city council adopt the code change about off-street parking in a residential area with the following amendments: Paragraph 4a, insert the word residential at the end of the first line. The sentence will now read: '~/ehicle parking in the front yard setback area (the area between the front of the residential structure and the street right-of-way line)." Paragraph 4c, insert the words parking areas. The sentence will now read: "Driveways and parking areas shall be at least five feet from a side property line and parking areas shall not be in the street right-of-way or on other public property." Paragraph 4f, insert setback area after yard. The sentence will now read: "The total area in the front yard setback area of a single dwelling lot improved for parking and driveway purposes shall not exceed forty (40) percent of the front yard setback area. The total area in the front yard setback area of a duplex or double dwelling lot improved for parking and driveway purposes shall not exceed fifty (50) percent of the front yard setback area." Mr. Rossbach seconded. Ayes-All Motion carries. This proposal may go before the city council on February 26, 2001, for the first reading. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. VIII. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS IX. January 22nd city council meeting: Mr. Ahlness attended and gave the commission report. The city council considered two proposals at this meeting. The Jehovah's Witness Kingdom Hall expansion was approved. The Comfort Bus proposal was also approved. The council was concerned with the use of Roselawn Avenue as a main feeder road to the interstates. The applicant did confirm that the only busses that will be using Roselawn Avenue are those that are already using Roselawn. Therefore, the traffic flow on that road will not be increasing. The council also included a requirement for a recycling disposal area and a garbage area. B. Mr. Trippler will be attending the February 12 city council meeting. The lot division for Mr. Callahan and the Rose-Rice proposal will be on the agenda for this meeting. Mr. Mueller will be attending the February 26 city council meeting. On this agenda will be the Highway 61 Frontage Road Right-of-Way Vacation, and possibly the residential parking ordinance. D. Mr. Ledvina is scheduled for the March 12 city council meeting. STAFF PRESENTATIONS The February 19 planning commission meeting will be rescheduled for Tuesday, February 20, 2001. The 162-unit Beaver Lake Townhome Plat will be on the agenda. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:55.