Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/05/2001BOOK MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday March 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. February 20, 2001 Unfinished Business a. Antenna and Tower Ordinance Amendment New Business a. Easement Vacation - Birch Run Station (Beam Avenue) b. Maplewood Imports Conditional Use Permit Revision (2780 Maplewood Ddve North) c. University Auto Sales Conditional Use Permit (1145 Highway 36 East) d. NURP Pond Ordinance Amendment 7. Visitor Presentations o o Commission Presentations a. February 26 Council Meeting: Mr. Mueller b. March 12 Council Meeting: Mr. Ledvina c. March 26 Council Meeting: Ms. Dierich Staff Presentations 10. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, MARCH 5, 2001 II. III. 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 Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present (Arrived at 7:03) (Arrived at 7:04) Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Lori Hansen Commissioner Pearson moved approval of the agenda, as submitted. Commissioner Frost seconded. Ayes -All The motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 20, 2001 Chairperson Fischer had added a friendly amendment to a motion on page 5. The item that was stricken should be deleted from the minutes. Commission Frost moved approval of the revised minutes of February 20, 2001 as amended. Commissioner Pearson seconded the motion. Ayes -8 The motion passed. Abstentions -1 (Fischer, Mueller, Frost, Pearson, Dierich, Rossbach, Thompson, Trippler) (Ahlness) Planning Commission Minutes of March 5, 2001 -2- UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Antenna and Tower Ordinance Amendment. Mr. Ken Roberts gave the staff report for the city. The commission considered the update to the antenna and tower ordinance at their last meeting during which there were questions raised about the proposed language. The commission tabled the proposal and asked staff to work on the verbiage and bring it back to the commission. The changes staff made included: Page 9, paragraph 2 stated no more than one free standing tower on a property. One of the attorney's who commented on the report suggested that it may be too restrictive. To alleviate that, a new paragraph "b" was added stating "if the property was at least five acres in size, a second tower could be considered." Page 13, B2 discussed the coverage and coverage map responsibility. It now requires that the applicant provide coverage maps of all the applicants and antenna sites within one mile of the proposed facility. Also, they would need to submit a map to the city showing all of the existing antenna sites within one mile of the proposed facility. 3. Page ten (paragraph 8) and twelve (paragraph 13) each contain language about the replication of a structure. The last sentence in each of those paragraphs should be deleted. Commissioner Trippler was concerned with the language stating there should not be more than one freestanding tower on a property at any one time. "What if a tower is built with the intention of removing the previous tower at completion?" Staff felt a phrase (item C) could be added stating when two towers would be allowable. Mr. Trippler also felt "and or business structure" should be added to the residential guideline of a 25-foot setback plus the height of the tower, in the case of a tower collapsing, the safety aspect should be applied to businesses as well as residences. Staff felt the ordinance intent was to limit the residential tower sites (zoned residential) for safety and esthetic reasons. It also ensured some separation between the towers and residents homes. Commissioner Ahlness asked if trails are included in Section 36-606 (1). Staff stated they potentially could be. He also asked where the one-mile radius was derived from when considering a significant gap in coverage. Mr. Roberts stated that was the typical standard found in other ordinances and requirements given by providers. He also clarified that the current density of towers per square mile varies within the City of Maplewood. Mr. Jim McGreevey, attorney with Larkin Hoffman Law Firm, 7900 Xerxes Avenue South, Bloomington, was present to represent Voice Stream Minneapolis, Inc. Mr. McGreevey wanted to thank the staff and the commission for listening to Voice Stream's concerns in the previous commission meeting, and adjusting the tower ordinance accordingly. Mr. McGreevey stated most providers are attempting to co-locate before building a tower. Through the normal course of the co-location investigation, they would identify where the towers were located within a particular city. In section 36-606, item 5, regarding the setback issue, Voice Stream had suggested adding language from an applicant's engineer stating that if a tower fails, it will collapse progressively onto itself. This, he felt, would be a benefit to the city and to the providers. Mr. Rossbach stated one of the radio towers on Highway 61 and Beam did fail and fall over. He assumed an engineer signed off on that tower. When the ordinance was originally granted there were safety issues addressed. "What they are designed to do, doesn't always happen". Planning Commission Minutes of March 5, 2001 -3- Mr. Mueller added 100 feet seems like a long way, but when it is your back yard, it doesn't appear to be that far at all. Even if a resident can be guaranteed that this tower is not going to fall down, they can still see the tower. Esthetics should be a concern in addition to the safety issue. Mr. Mueller would much rather see a tower go 175 feet up with numerous antennas, rather than to view two towers in his backyard. Mr. Ahlness asked Mr. McGreevey what "environmental effects" is addressing in the letter their law firm submitted to the city. Mr. McGreevey stated the federal government left radio frequency up to municipalities. The letter also stated the cities actions must be based on substantial evidence. Mr. Ahlness asked if significant resident complaint letters reach the level of substantial evidence. Mr. McGreevey stated neighborhood opposition to a tower could be one factor in a local government's decision making about whether to place a tower at a certain site. He did not feel opposition, in and of itself, would rise to the level of substantial evidence without other concerns from the government. Staff noted the proposal at the MnDOT site on McMenemy and Highway 35E went to court over neighborhood opposition. The city lost the case, and there is now a tower at that site. Peter Beck was present on behalf of AT & T Wireless Services. If a user cannot get on an existing tower due to insufficient height, he wondered if there was more impact having a separate pole next to that one, or to have a separate pole somewhere else. He personally felt two poles next to each other may not be ideal, but in many instances felt it could be better than having a second or third pole somewhere else in a residential area. Maplewood does have large residential areas. Mr. Beck reiterated that monopole technology does not experience tower failures of a flop over nature. The vendors that AT & T use have never had failure experience. Although he felt an engineer would not accept responsibility for damage caused by a failure, the owner of the tower should. Mr. Trippler asked as more and more people start utilizing cell phones, does that mean there will have to be more and more towers. Mr. Beck stated "for better or worse, it does". That decision was made at a federal level. This service must be available to every inch of the landscape and will be provided through a competitive model with multiple companies. Mr. Beck clarified with Mr. Trippler that satellites are not the answer for mobile phones. Numerous companies have gone bankrupt trying to deliver telephone by satellite. Mr. Frost suggested that the city look at making antennas in commercial areas available with just a permit. (If an applicant chose to locate a tower on one of the designated areas, they would not have to go through the planning commission or city council, but simply apply for a building permit). Staff stated they have not as of yet, but it is certainly something they could consider. Ms. Deirich confirmed with Mr. Beck that the taller the tower, the larger the base building would need to be. Mr. Frost moved the commission table the tower and antenna ordinance until the next planning commission meeting. Staff will bring back the comments and suggestions in a revised ordinance. Mr. Rossbach seconded. Ayes-All Motion passed. Planning Commission Minutes of March 5, 2001 -4- VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Easement Vacation-Birch Run Station (Beam Avenue). Mr. Ken Roberts gave the staff report for the city. Ms. Claudia Ryan, representing Oppidan Investment Company, is proposing to vacate part of an unused utility easement. This easement is north of Beam Avenue in the Birch Run Shopping Center property. The city does not have any use for the easement, therefore, staff is recommending approval of the request. Ms. Claudia Ryan, 5125 County Road 101, Minnetonka, was present for the Oppidan Investment Company. She expressed that she fully supported the staff report and recommendation. Commissioner Frost moved the city council adopt the resolution that vacates the unused public utility easement north of the Beam Avenue right-of-way in the Birch Run Shopping Center. The city should vacate this easement because: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The city and the adjacent property owners have no plans to build utilities in this location. 3. The adjacent properties have access to public streets and utilities. Mr. Pearson seconded. Ayes-All Motion carries. B. Maplewood Imports Conditional Use Permit Revision (2780 Maplewood Drive North). Mr. Roberts gave the staff report for the city. The applicant is requesting to build a 2,600 square foot addition to the east side of their existing service center and showroom. The request before the commission is for a conditional use permit revision. In staffs' review, they feel the revisions are minor and the effects on the site plan minimal. Mr. Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director, noted in the report there are conditions from the 1996 conditional use permit that need to be monitored. By code, there should be enough parking on the site (there should be about 200 parking spaces when the addition is complete). Staff is recommending approval of the recommendation that revises the conditional use permit for Maplewood Imports. Mr. Trippler asked if a neighborhood survey was completed for this project. Mr. Roberts noted they had not since staff felt the addition was minor. Mr. Rossbach felt it unfortunate a survey was not completed. He felt that may have allowed neighbors to voice any current problems they may be experiencing with the business. Mr. Rossbach was concerned with parking on grassy areas. Staff did not see a problem with condition nine being added to the recommendation about parking. Doug Moulder, General Manager, was present for Maplewood Imports. Mr. Moulder explained he has met with other dealers in the area, and talked to Mr. Ekstrand about the grass parking issue. He feels it is something all dealerships need to simply "stop doing". Mr. Moulder stated he was confused about the grass parking situation and if it was only unacceptable on the boulevard or wetland situation. That has since been clarified to him and he now fully understands that any type of grass parking is unacceptable. Planning Commission Minutes of March 5, 2001 -5- Mr. Frost moved the planning commission recommend to the city council to adopt the resolution allowing a conditional use permit revision for Maplewood Imports to enlarge their motor-vehicle repair garages at 2780 North Highway 61. This permit is based on the standards required by ordinance and is subject to the following conditions (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): 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 started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The property owner sppllcsnt shall is to submit ~ a report to staff t-he-council on ~,'~ ~.nr~u~.l~,oo,o ..... o,'~ the sump catch basin effectiveness and maintenance activities ~,'~d schedules. 5. The property owner shall not park vehicles on the grass or landscaped areas. ......................- ' ' .......... buffer ....' .............. of the slte to ......... Mr. Rossbach seconded. Ayes-All Motion carries. This proposal will go before the city council on March 26, 2001. C. University Auto Sales Conditional Use Permit (1145 Highway 36 East). Mr. Roberts gave the staff report for the city. University Auto Sales is proposing to take over the United Tile Store at 1145 Highway 36 to open a used car sales lot. This site was originally a Perkins Restaurant and has been a tile store for the last four to five years. They will take over the existing building and lay out the parking lot to meet the current city code standards with about 76 spaces for parking. There will be no garage bay or car wash on the site. They may spot wash cars on the site, but all repair work will be off the site. As with other used car lots and new lots, the maintenance and operation of the business has been a critical element in the business. The owner and operators must maintain them and keep the building and the site in a decent condition. Staff is recommending approval of this proposal subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. Since there are no design elements involved in the proposal, for simplicity reasons, the commission is asked to take action on both items A and B. Commissioner Ledvina asked if it would be appropriate to require the applicant to paint the light standards. The condition of the light standards is poor. He also felt the gas meters and the other utility equipment on the outside of the building are in need of paint as well. Staff did not see that as a problem and suggested it be added as 3e. Planning Commission Minutes of March 5, 2001 -6- Mr. Trippler noticed on part A7 in the conditions that the car lot shall be closed on Sunday. He is under the impression that there is pending legislation that may allow car sales in Minnesota on Sunday. If that happens, will that have any effect on this dealership since their CUP will not allow them to be open on Sunday. Staff is aware of that proposal, but not real confident that it will pass based on the information he has read. Mr. Rossbach noted that the city may not choose to allow car sales on 9unday. Steve Thorson, attorney, 2300 Central Avenue NE, was present for the applicant. Mr. Thorson explained that he did not know who owned the fence either, but the applicant planned to make it satisfactory to staff approval prior to opening the business. The owner of the site is planning on filling and re-sealing the asphalt parking lot. If there is more required by city staff, they would be willing to do that to the satisfaction of the commission and the city council. Regarding the possibility of the lot being open on Sunday, he does not feel it will be an issue for quite a period of time. He also agrees with staff that it probably will not be adopted by the legislature, and if it was, University Auto would remain closed until permission was granted by the city council. The owners of University Auto have been running a car dealership in St. Paul for a number of years. Mr. Ekstrand has expressed his concerns with Mr. Thorson regarding the overflowing of cars in the parking lot. His clients have not done that at the current location, therefore he felt it would not happen in Maplewood. Also, any overflow of cars would be transferred to the St. Paul location. Staff noted that Mr. Ekstrand did visit the University Avenue site and stated that it did look well run and kept. Mr. Mueller stated that the parking lot is pretty torn up. He felt it certainly will require work. He also felt from the comments Second Harvest made to the city, that they feel the applicant owns the fence. Mr. Rossbach noted that about six feet of snow is now holding this fence up, which will probably fall over when it melts. Mr. Pearson moved the board to adopt the resolution that approves a conditional use permit for used car sales at 1145 E. Highway 36. 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 the site by placing additional vehicles on the site beyond what can be parked in the striped parking spaces. The drive aisles shall be kept clear of vehicles. There shall be no parking on the grass or landscaped areas. There shall be no vehicle delivery or transport/trailer unloading along the street. This activity shall be kept 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 screening enclosure. The design and placement of any such enclosure shall be subject to staff approval. The hours of operation of this used car lot shall be 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Saturday. The car lot shall be closed on Sunday. Planning Commission Minutes of March 5, 2001 -7- There shall not be any car servicing or maintenance on the site except for minor work such as battery replacement, minor clean up and spot washing. Mechanical repairs and vehicle servicing such as oil changes are not allowed. Approval of the site plan date-stamped January 31, 2001 for a used-car sales operation at 1145 E. Highway 36. Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to the applicant complying with the following conditions: Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Provide the following for staff approval: Revise the site plan to show parking spaces to be 9 %-foot-wide as code requires. There shall also be two handicap-accessible parking spaces that are striped according to ADA specifications. The ADA requires eight-foot-wide spaces with an eight-foot-wide cross-hatched loading space between them. A plan for a trash dumpster enclosure for outside trash containers if used (code requirement). This plan must show the placement and design of the enclosure. Trash enclosures must have a 100 percent opaque closeable gate. Enclosures must be of a material that matches or is compatible with the building. A plan for parking lot repair. The applicant shall work with staff who shall determine the extent of repairs needed after the snow melts. The repairs could range from patching if needed to full overlay. 3. Complete or provide the following: a. Install handicap-parking signs for the handicap-parking spaces. b. A trash dumpster enclosure for any outside trash containers if used. Stripe the parking lot at 9%-foot-wide spaces with two eight-foot-wide handicap- accessible parking spaces with an adjacent eight-foot-wide loading space. d. Parking lot repair as determined by staff. e. Repair or remove the fence. Scrape and repaint the building fascia, light standards and mechanical equipment. The applicant shall obtain building permits from the city for any interior work on the building. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Mr. Ledvina seconded. Ayes-All Motion carries. The proposal will go before the city council on March 26, 2001. D. NURP Pond Ordinance Amendment The Metropolitan Council, as part of their review of Maplewood's Comprehensive Plan update is requiring the city to adopt a city code amendment about the use of the nationwide urban runoff Planning Commission Minutes of March 5, 2001 -8- program design criteria for storm water ponds. Mr. Trippler stated the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program makes reference to the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program Design Criteria, Walker Pond Net Model, and the Pit Pond Model. The ordinance is requiring an applicant to conform to these examples, yet does note where they could be referenced. Mr. Frost noted it is found in the MPCA's Urban's Best Management Practices Manual, latest addition. The commission chose to leave the reference in the ordinance as a model that they "may" use. Mr. Frost moved the commission adopt the ordinance that adds amended language to the city code about the use of the nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) design criteria for ponds. Mr. Rossbach seconded. Motion carries. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Ayes-All No visitors were present. VIII. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS IX. A. Mr. Mueller attended the February 26th council meeting and gave the report. The right-of-way vacation on Highway 61 was approved with very little discussion. B. Mr. Ledvina will attend the March 12 council meeting. C. Ms. Dierich will attend the March 26 council meeting. Ms. Fischer asked if there could be some type of printed handout on the tower ordinance for residents. She felt some type of tangible handout that stated what the conditions were when you could or couldn't deny setbacks, alternative, etc. Perhaps neighbors may be better prepared or have more realistic expectations of their situation if they abutted proposed towers. E. Chuck Ahl is the new city engineer. He was formerly the city engineer of Burnsville. F. A public meeting will be held in late April or May for the Hillcrest Shopping Center site. Mr. Ahlness was talking to a landscape architect regarding detention ponds, and he noted Rochester changed their standard to 1:4. He wondered if there was any interest on behalf of the commission to look at that standard. Mr. Rossbach had interest, but noted it would take significantly more room on the sites. Mr. Ledvina would like more statistics about drowning and safety issues with sedimentation ponds before he could form his opinion. Staff will speak to the city engineer regarding this issue for his opinion and feedback. STAFF PRESENTATIONS The Beaver Lake project goes to the city council on March 12th. Staff is having a meeting with the developer and his engineer tomorrow morning (March 6). ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:05p.m.