Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/18/2001Call to Order Roll Call Approval of Agenda MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday June 18, 2001, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East Approval of Minutes a. June4, 2001 Public Hearings None New Business a. Conditional Use Permit - Maplewood Auto Center (2525 White Bear Avenue) Schlomka Landscaping Inc. (2511 Carver Avenue) (1) Conditional Use Permit - Over-sized Accessory Structure (2) Conditional Use Permit - Commercial Vehicles and Equipment (3) Home Occupation License o Visitor Presentations Commission Presentations a. June 11 Council Meeting: Mr. Rossbach b. June 25 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler c. July 9 Council Meeting: Mr. Mueller Staff Presentations 10. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, JUNE 18, 2001 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. I1. ROLL CALL III. Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Staff Present: IV. Lorraine Fischer Present Jack Frost Present Matt Ledvina Present Paul Mueller Present Gary Pearson Present William Rossbach Present Dale Trippler Present Eric Ahlness Absent Mary Dierich Present Recording Secretary: Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Shann Finwall, Associate Planner JoAnn Morin APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Rossbach added Item d. to Commission Presentations: d. Lower Alton Road Commissioner Frost moved approval of the agenda, as amended. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes -All The motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 4, 2001 Chairperson Fischer noted changes to the June 4, 2001 minutes: Page 8, Paragraph 8, Line 3: an apostrophe is need in the word "marshal's" Page 11, Paragraph 10, Line 5: "...there was" should read "...there were". Page 14, Commission Presentations, Item D, Paragraph 2, Line 1' an apostrophe is need in Met Council's Commissioner Trippler noted a change on Page 6, Paragraph 4: There should be a space between the words "the" and "proposed". Commissioner Frost moved approval of the minutes of June 4, 2001, as amended. Commissioner Pearson seconded the motion. Ayes - 7 Commissioner Dierich abstained. The motion passed. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-18-01 -2- V. PUBLIC HEARING None. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Conditional Use Permit- Maplewood Auto Center (2525 White Bear Avenue) Mr. Roberts gave the staff report. He stated that Mr. Dale Martin of Credit Equity Sales is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to operate a used motor vehicle sales facility at the Maplewood Auto Center, 2525 White Bear Avenue. They would be using two or three of the tenant bays to store and clean up vehicles before selling them. In 1999 the City Council approved a similar request for this property. The business opened, but closed by August of 2000. A Mr. Palmer came to city staff requesting to maintain a used sales facility from the same location. The conditional use permit approval was transferred to Mr. Palmer at that time, conditional use permits run with the property, not with individual owners or operators. This request is needed for a second conditional use permit for auto sales in the same strip center. They are planning to have up to fifteen vehicles on the site. They will not have displayed "for sale" signs on the vehicles, and would limit the length of stay of the vehicles to a maximum of three days, at which time they would be sold or transferred to an auto auction. Staff reported no major issues or concerns with this conditional use permit and recommend approval for this request to operate a used motor vehicle sales business subject six conditions outlined in the staff report. Mr. Dennis Newcomb, the applicant addressed the Commission. He stated that he would be the individual that would be operating the proposed auto sales facility. He stated that he has run a small business in the past and understands the procedures for used car permits, and what is allowed and not allowed on the property. He does not plan on any dismantling of vehicles, or any type of repair. He stated that would be subbed out. The Commission had no questions of staff or of Mr. Newcomb. Commissioner Frost moved that the Planning Commission recommend that City Council adopt the resolution, approving a conditional use permit for a used motor vehicle sales at Maplewood Auto Center, 2525 White Bear Avenue. Approval is based on the findings required by code and shall be subject to the following: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed use must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall be null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. There shall not be any vehicles displayed in the parking lot with "for sale" signs or any other forms of vehicle-sale display or graphics. 5. Vehicles sales shall be by appointment only, not on a drop-by retail basis. 6. The owner or operator shall get a certificate of occupancy from the city before occupying the space. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-18-01 -3- Commissioner Rossbach seconded the motion. Ayes - All Motion carries. This recommendation will go to the City Council on July 9, 2001. Bo Schlomka Landscaping Inc. (2511 Carver Avenue) Conditional Use Permit - Oversized Accessory Structure Conditional Use Permit - Commercial Vehicles and Equipment Home Occupation License Shann Finwall gave the staff presentation. She stated Paul Schlomka of 2511 Carver Avenue is requesting a conditional use permit to build a pole barn larger and taller than code allows; a home occupation license to operate a landscaping business from residential property; and a conditional use permit to store heavy commercial vehicles and equipment on residential property. She stated Mr. Schlomka's property is zoned farm residence, as are the surrounding properties. Within this zoning district pole barns are allowed. The size of the pole barn is based on the size of the lot. In this case, Mr. Schlomka has a five-acre lot and is limited to a 1,250 square foot pole barn at 16-feet in height. Mr. Schlomka's proposed pole barn would be 4,234 square feet in area and 18.5 feet in height. Within the farm residence zoning district, commercial farming or gardening is allowed. However, Mr. Schlomka runs a landscaping business, which requires the storage of heavy commercial vehicles. Therefore, a home occupation license is required as well as a conditional use permit for the storage of the heavy commercial vehicles, which will be used within the business and stored on this residential property. Ms. Finwall stated that Mr. Schlomka noted that his pole barn will be similar to a pole barn that was constructed at 2405 Carver Avenue. The City Council did approve this 4,200 square foot pole barn in 1997. Mr. Schlomka feels that that pole barn is somewhat of a precedence for approving his request. Staff noted that the size and exterior materials will be similar, but Mr. Schlomka proposes his pole barn will be for business purposes and not the storage of personal equipment, which was the intent of the approved pole barn at 2405 Carver Avenue. The location of the proposed pole barn is well hidden. It will be located in a wooded area behind the house and screened from Interstate 494. Ms° Finwall stated that Mr. Schlomka will be the sole employee of this business, and no customers will be coming and going to the property. The commercial vehicles that would be stored within the proposed pole barn are two pick-up trucks, one bobcat, one backhoe, one bulldozer, one front-end loader, one dump truck, and two trailers. Staff is sympathetic with Mr. Schlomka as his business is his livelihood and relocation could cause financial hardship. Staff does however feel that this business within residentially zoned property could lead to future code enforcement problems. Furthermore, the home occupation request does not meet the intent of the city's home occupation guidelines. It will generate a greater volume of traffic than is normally seen in a residential neighborhood, the area devoted by the home occupation does exceed the 20% allowed, and the equipment used in the home occupation would create noise, dust, and vibration not normally seen within a residential neighborhood. Based on these findings, staff recommends denial of all three requests. Commissioner Frost asked if the pole barn's size is based on the lot size of the property. Ms. Finwall stated that the largest pole barn allowed in Maplewood is 1,250 square feet. Mr. Roberts stated that the sizes of the pole barns are based on a sliding scale of five sizes which is determined by lot size. A small lot of about 7,500 square feet is allowed a 700 square foot accessory building, and lots at one- acre or more are allowed 1,250 square feet of accessory buildings. This code has been on the books since about 1988. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-18-01 -4- Chairperson Fischer asked staff is this code has been looked at recently. She recalled that the code was put into place because of the proliferation of home businesses that were the auto maintenance type. She also stated concerns regarding unsightly storage of items in people's yards. It would be preferable to store unsightly items within an accessory building rather than in the yard area in sight of the neighbors. With that, she questioned if any effort has been made to look at the allowable garage sizes. Mr. Roberts indicated that staff has not received any directive from the Planning Commission, City Council or city management to review that code. He also stated that a factor in the amount of garage space allowed is whether there is a detached or attached garage to the main structure. If you have some attached and some detached, you are allowed more total square footage than if there is only detached garages. Commissioner Rossbach asked staff the size of Mr. Grand's property at 2405 Carver Avenue. Mr. Roberts stated that it was almost five acres. Commissioner Dierich questioned how Mr. Grand received approval for the 4,200 square foot pole barn in light of the fact that the ordinance was enacted in 1988. Commissioner Dierich felt that it was an inconsistent application of code and that perhaps another evaluation or discussion is warranted regarding our code on this issue. She also stated that there were four other businesses in that neighborhood besides Mr. Schlomka's that have heavy traffic. She also added that Mr. Grand does store heavy equipment similar to what Mr. Schlomka will be storing. Mr. Roberts stated that Mr. Grand received approval for a conditional use permit by the City Council. He added that there have been no complaints in reference to what he is storing in his pole building, therefore, there has been no investigation. Commissioner Dierich added that she felt Mr. Schlomka's business will not generate additional traffic or additional noise. The area is surrounded by small businesses using large vehicles, which generate noise and traffic. Commissioner Dierich strongly disagrees with the staff findings regarding the traffic. She stated that Mr. Schlomka is a one-person business. She also disagreed with the second finding regarding the visible changes to the property, she stated that Mr. Schlomka has improved his property. Regarding the noise and dust in the area, she stated that 1494 is very noisy already and that there are construction trucks rolling through every morning at 6:00 a.m. for the two developments further down the street. She also pointed out that there is a significant amount of Woodbury traffic in this neighborhood already. She stated that she felt that Mr. Schlomka did not meet city code home occupation requirement b)4 regarding the area allowed to be used for a home occupation. She also felt Mr. $chlomka did not meet code under Section 36-442, Item a)l regarding conformity with the city's comprehensive plan. Chairperson Fischer asked staff what was the thought of the City Council when they approved Mr. Grand's request to replace his damaged structure with a pole barn double in size. Mr. Roberts did not recall specifically. He did state that it was a situation where none of the neighbors were concerned about the size of the structure, and City Council was sympathetic with his request and granted approval. Commissioner Rossbach recalled that there were no objections and that Mr. Grand had the support of his neighbors. He feels that the Council found it attractive that Mr. Grand wanted to do something to clean up his yard by using the new pole barn for storage. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-18-01 -5- The applicant, Mr. Paul Schlomka, addressed the Commission. He stated that ideally he would prefer to have a piece of commercial property for his business. In his current position, however, he cannot afford it and that is why he is working out of his home, He stated that the property has been family owned since 1963 and virtually nothing has changed in that area. He stated that he would be willing to limit the time he leaves in the morning and when he returns and when he runs his equipment if that is an issue. He added that his secluded location next to a major interstate makes the site suitable for this type of building and business. Commissioner Trippler stated that if this application was granted approval, what is to prevent additional people from requesting oversized pole barns citing Mr. Grand's and Mr. Schlomka's applications as precedence. He asked staff if changing the zoning of the property to commercial would be possible. Mr. Roberts indicated that clearly that area is a large lot or farm type setting and felt that there may be opposition by members of the Commission to a zoning change. He added if the zoning was changed and then sold by Mr. Schlomka, the house might be removed and perhaps some undesirable development may occur there. Ms. Finwall added that would be considered a spot zoning, but a possible amendment to the city's farm residence district which would allow this type of business to be a permitted use might be a thought. Chairperson Fischer asked staff if someone was actually doing farming on this piece of property, wouldn't they also have similar types of heavy equipment. Mr. Roberts stated, yes that is possible. Commissioner Rossbach stated his issue is not about the equipment, it is about the home occupation and he stated that granting this application would set a terrible precedence. He stated that the spirit and intent of the home occupation ordinance is to allow small businesses to operate out of their home. It was not intended to have a big equipment situation. Chairperson Fischer asked if there was additional accessory building square footage allowed in a farm zone versus a R1 zone. Mr. Roberts indicated that pole barns are not allowed in R1 zones. The issue is the size of the pole barn requested, which is too large and too high. He added that the maximum size of a detached accessory building in a farm zone would be 1,250 square feet, which is for properties one-acres and higher. Commissioner Dierich asked staff if the conditional use permit for the heavy equipment would be transferred with the property, or would a new owner have to apply for a new conditional use permit to have heavy equipment on the property. Ms. Finwall stated that the conditional use permit would run with the land. However, Mr. Schlomka has agreed to make a condition that this conditional use permit would end with his ownership of the property. Mr. Roberts stated that if the City Council did approve this conditional use permit, they could set any number of conditions, such as the number of pieces of equipment or hours of operation. Commissioner Rossbach asked the applicant about the doors on the pole barn. One of the neighbors had requested that the doors face the west instead of the east. The staff report indicated that the doors would be moved to the south because of the concern over vandalism. Mr. Schlomka stated that if the garage doom were facing the freeway, it would be open to see what is inside of the garage. He stated that they have had vandalism problems in the past because of the seclusion. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-18-01 -6- Commissioner Pearson asked staff if a home occupation license would allow any retail or wholesale sales on this site. Ms. Finwall stated this home occupation could not have retail or wholesale. The home occupation that is before the commission is for a landscape contractor's office and storage. Commissioner Pearson stated that this use of the property seems to be right for the area. The neighbors are not opposing it, the noise from the highway is in excess of anything that would be generated from Mr. Schlomka's business, and additional traffic does not seem to be an issue. Commissioner Pearson stated that this request should be something that we could accommodate, but a home occupation license does not seem to be the right vehicle to get there. Mr. Roberts stated, as Ms. Finwall suggested, that a code amendment to the farm zone would be something to consider to accommodate this type of business, and/or similar businesses. Mr. Jay Libby, of 2591 Carver, a neighbor to the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated that he fully supports Mr. Schlomka's proposal. He stated that there are only three residences in that area that would be affected by this proposal. He stated that with Interstate 494 adjacent to Mr Schlomka's property any additional noise that may be generated by Mr. Schlomka's business would be unnoticeable. Ms. Judy Schlomka, the owner of 2511 Carver, addressed the Commission. She stated that she has owned the property since 1963, and nothing has changed in the area. She stated that they have always had trucks and also have had race cars, and have never had any complaints. They have always taken pride in the ownership of their property and have always kept it neat and in order. Commissioner Mueller listed nine reasons why the Commission should allow the applicants proposal: 1) Due to Interstate 494, no extra noise will be added; 2) it is a wooded lot, and the structure will be built where it is not visible; 3) it is on a 5-acre lot, the size of the pole barn is based on a 1-acre lot; 4) it is zoned farm; 5) farming requires equipment; 6) farming is somewhat a home occupation; 7) a new owner would need to apply for a home occupation license; 8) conditions can be set on a CUP; and 9) all but one neighbor is in favor of this proposal. Commissioner Dierich stated that she lived in this neighborhood. She said that this is a very tight knit neighborhood and that the neighbors themselves would control much of what goes on there and would go directly to Mr. Schlomka if there was a problem. She stated that she felt that Mr. Schlomka is very aware of that and he has been a good neighbor for many years. She stated that she would not want to deprive someone of their livelihood because the Commission cannot find a way to make this conditional use permit amenable without setting precedence. She stated that the Commission needs to be more creative with their thinking in this situation. Commissioner Rossbach stated that looking at the farm zone might be advisable and perhaps combine some of the thoughts that Commissioner Mueller stated. He feels that using a home occupation licenses is not the intent of that ordinance. He suggested denying this application and asking staff to research what could be done to the farm zoning ordinance to make this type of situation allowable. Commissioner Ledvina stated that he would support the conditional use permit with specific conditions that tie the activity to the current property owner. He stated that he would have a problem with this CUP if we were giving a long-term approval for this use. For this specific situation, it does seem to make good sense that Mr. Schlomka is able to continue his operation and his livelihood. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-18-01 -7- Commissioner Rossbach asked if we could use the conditional use permit to allow the building and the storage of equipment, and not grant the home occupation license. He stated that Mr. Schlomka is not actually doing his business on his property, only storing the equipment. Mr. Roberts cited the home occupations code, 17-21A 5, states that "Home occupations shall require a license approval by the city council if any of the following occur more than 30-days each year." Mr. Roberts stated that of the six, number 5 states "a vehicle or vehicles used in the home occupation and parked on the premises which exceeds a % ton payload capacity." Mr. Roberts stated that this is one of the reasons that Mr. Schlomka is required to have a home occupation license. If the farm code was amended, to say that a landscape business or similar type business was either permitted or a conditional use, then that would supercede the home occupation requirements. Chairperson Fischer asked if the present code exclude farm operation from having to have a home occupation permit. Mr. Roberts stated that the code does not specifically state that, but the farm code permitted uses include commercial farming or gardening, including the use or storage of associated equipment. He stated that farming is a permitted use, and overrides the home occupation requirements. Commissioner Trippler asked staff if the applicant decided to start farming could he drop the home occupation. Mr. Roberts indicated that yes, as long as he was farming. Commissioner Trippler asked what the size requirement of the land farmed would have to be. Mr. Roberts indicated that the code is silent on the size requirements. Commissioner Trippler asked if growing sod would be considered a farming operation. Mr. Roberts indicated that yes, it would be. Commissioner Pearson asked if procedurally, would it be better to lay this application on the table and give staff and the applicant time to come back with a different zoning request. Ms. Finwall stated that staff could take some time to look at the existing farm zoning, the size of the lots in much of the zoning district, and make a determination on allowing this type of business as either a permitted use or a conditional use within the farm zoning district. With that option, staff would request the applicant to sign a waiver giving up his sixty-day rights as required by the city to make a determination on this application. It could be tabled for possibly a month to review this option. Commissioner Rossbach stated that if we were to explore changing the farm zone, that we may not want to approach it under the thought that landscaping businesses would be a permitted use in that zone. We should look at it as permitting the storage of larger equipment on farm zoned property and also escalating the building size scale so that a five-acre lot would be allowed a larger type storage building than a one-acre lot. Mr. Roberts stated that reviewing this change may take up to three or four months. Commissioner Rossbach moved that the Planning Commission table the consideration of home occupation and conditional use permits for Mr. Schlomka's application for approximately four weeks to allow staff time to research additional options of amending the farm residential zone to allow larger pole barns beyond the one-acre size limitation, to allow the storage of more commercially oriented equipment on property zoned farm and also to consider what type of screen that would be appropriate if a larger building were allowed on the property. Also, setbacks should be looked at. Staff should also explore and clarify the permitted uses or conditional uses that would be allowable in the farm zone. If heavy equipment is being allowed, it should be housed and specific hours of use should be reviewed. Commissioner Frost seconded the motion. Ayes - All Planning Commission Minutes of 06-18-01 -8- Motion carries. Commissioner Frost suggested looking at Inver Grove Heights and Woodbury's farm zoning ordinances. VII. VISITORS PRESENTATIONS No visitors were present. VIII. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS June 11 City Council Meeting. Commissioner Rossbach attended this meeting. He indicated that the only item on that council meeting agenda was the Garden's Townhouse development off of McMenemy and Roselawn. There were a lot of residents in attendance at that meeting. All opposed the trail and presented a petition stating opposition of the trail. They felt the trail was an evasion of their privacy and in no way wanted any part of it. Therefore, the trail was eliminated out of the proposed development. The developer agreed to do some enhancements of the pond shape and also will be doing some additional landscaping around the pond. The residence in attendance also indicated that they would like to see more screen and less grading in the area. B. June 25 City Council Meeting: Commissioner Trippler will attend this meeting. The Afton Ridge Development will be on that agenda. C. July 9 City Council Meeting: Commissioner Mueller will attend this meeting. Do Commissioner Rossbach issued an apology to Commissioner Ahlness and Ms. Finwall for statements he made at the June 4 Planning Commission meeting. He stated that he overly, aggressively jumped onto some comments that they made and it was not his intention to offend them. Eo Commissioner Rossbach stated his concern about the speed limit on Lower Afton Road where the Alton Ridge development is proposed. Currently there is a speed limit of 50 miles per hour, which seems to be a bit excessive for that area and that type of road. He suggested that the Planning Commission look at speed limits in the area, and if appropriate make a recommendation to the City Council that they also endorse the idea of reducing the speed limit on Lower Afton Road. At that time the appropriate people could be contacted requesting the lowering of the speed limit. The Commission continued discussion regarding this issue. Mr. Roberts stated that the County is going forward with the plans of the golf course south of Lower Afton along Century. He felt that it may be prudent to include the speed limit issue as part of that application. Commissioner Rossbach suggested that each Planning Commission member look at at least six roads in their neighborhoods and their speed limits, of which four of them should be streets that have speeds of less than 50 miles an hour and two with speeds of 50 miles an hour or more. The Commission would then be able to do some comparisons. IX STAFF PRESENTATIONS Mr. Roberts stated that the City Tour will be July 30th, and asked the Commission for any particular sites that they would like to see. He also asked if there were any volunteers that would like to speak on behalf of the Planning Commission during the tour. B. Mr. Roberts stated that this Friday, June 22 from 1:00 p.m. - 4:30 p.m. the Met Council is holding a hands-on planning workshop for community planning at the community center. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-18-01 -9- Co Ms. Finwall thanked Commissioner Rossbach for his suggestion about storm water retention at the Afton Ridge Development site. She informed the Commission that the city engineer will require additional ponding for storm water retention at the Afton Ridge Development site. This project will also require Watershed District approval. Chairperson Fischer asked staff if the "Taste of Maplewood" event would be occurring this year. Ms. Finwall stated that it will be on Tuesday, August 7th. At this time it is not known if volunteers from the Commission will be needed. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.