Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/18/2002MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, March 18, 2002, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. March 4,2002 5. Public Hearing a. Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Maplewood Mall Area Traffic Study 6. New Business a. Dearborn Meadow Preliminary Review and Discussion (Castle Avenue) b. Zoning Code Amendment - BC-M (business commercial modified) Distdct 7. Unfinished Business None 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations a. March 11 Council Meeting: Mr. Ahlness b. March 25 Council Meeting: Mr. Tdppler c. April 8 Council Meeting: Mr. Mueller 10. Staff Presentations 11. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, MARCH 18, 2002 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. I1. ROLL CALL Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Staff Present: Staff Absent: Eric Ahlness Mary Dierich Lorraine Fischer Matt Ledvina Jackie Monahan-Junek Paul Mueller Gary Pearson William Rossbach Dale Trippler Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present until 8:05 p.m. Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Rossbach moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes-Ahlness, Dierich, Fischer, Ledvina, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the minutes for March 4, 2002. The commission requested the following changes to the minutes. On page 9, in the second paragraph, in the third sentence, it should read he would recommend to staff and to the city council that if they can .qet those two parties to be willinq sellers at a reasonable cost to include them in a broader development. Another change is in the third paragraph in the fourth sentence the word should be tier (not pier). On page 13, in paragraph five, change the abstention to Nayfor Mr. Ledvina. In paragraph six change the sentence to read he voted Nay instead of he voted with an abstention. On page 14, in the third and the fifth paragraph, change the wording to read will represent the city council meeting to read will represent the commission at the city council meeting. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-18-02 -2- Commissioner Ledvina moved approval of the March 4, 2002 minutes with the proposed changes. Commissioner Rossbach seconded. Ayes- Dierich, Ledvina, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler Abstentions - Ahlness, Fischer and Monahan-Junek V. PUBLIC HEARING a. Comprehensive Plan Amendment- Maplewood Mall Area Traffic Study Mr. Chuck Ahl, Director of Public Works/City Engineer reported that the city council has established, as one of their top priorities, a resolution of traffic concerns around the Maplewood Mall area. On May 29, 2001, the city council authorized a study of the traffic concerns in the mall area. The study recommendations were presented to a joint meeting of the planning commission and city council on December 17, 2001. Direction was given by the city council to present the study findings to the public and implement the study into the city's comprehensive plan. The public meetings have been held and a public hearing has been called for the planning commission to consider adoption of the final report. Mr. Ahl stated that staff is recommending the commission to adopt the Maplewood Mall Area Traffic Study as part of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. It has a transportation section and staff suggests that this plan be adopted as an appendix to that section. It provides guidance to the northern portion of the community and to the area surrounding the Maplewood Mall. And should be the guide and construction plan for a minimum often years for the area as they look at the various improvements. Mr. Ahl said that one of the recommendations of the report is to extend County Road D westerly from Hazelwood Street. The new roadway would be a reestablishment of County Road D but would likely be required in a new location at T.H. 61. The current County Road D/T.H. 61 intersection is too close to the 1-694/T.H. 61 intersection to operate effectively. The study suggests that a realigned County Road D should intersect with T.H. 61 south of the current location, approximately one-half way between existing County Road D and Beam Avenue. The County Road D alignment would likely intersect with Hazelwood Street at its current location. An alignment study to determine the most appropriate roadway location, intersection alignment and property acquisition needs is recommended within the next 6-8 months. This alignment study would include a review and update of the land use within the area. Mr. Ahl introduced Mr. Karl Keel, the consultng engineer for URS who prepared this study and presented it to the commission. Mr. Keel gave a presentation of the Maplewood Mall Traffic Study that was similarly done in December of 2001. It consisted of a background of what the study contained and a simulation of the traffic, which was one of the tools used in puffing together the report itself. They looked at an introduction and summary of the actual demonstration and talked about the next steps to take, many of which have already been discussed. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-18-02 -3- Mr. Keel said traffic in this area has been a concern for many years. In doing research they found reports that dated back more than 25 years that identified traffic issues in the mall area. Currently there is no reference to remedies for traffic in this area as part of the Comprehensive Plan. The traffic in the area has been identified by the City Council as a top priority so it is an important project for the city. Mr. Keel stated this project began back in May of 2001 when the City Council authorized this study. In July 2001, there was an advisory panel formed to help guide the study and it was completed in November 2001. The advisory committee is made up of representatives of all the government agencies that have jurisdiction of roadways or an interest in roadways in the area including MnDot, Ramsey County, Metro Transit, City of Vadnais Heights, City of North St. Paul, City of White Bear Lake, and the City of Maplewood. The study area is rather large. On the north is Buerkle Road, on the west is Highway 61, on the east is McKnight Road, and on the south is Highway 36. They also looked at the potential development of the 85-acre parcel owned by the Hajicek family that is to the west of the mall. Commissioner Pearson asked Mr. Keel if closing County Road D access to White Bear Avenue was ever considered. Mr. Keel said at one time access was shut down for one week but due to the volume of complaints the access was re-opened. The ultimate solution would be to add two left turn lanes on eastbound County Road D at White Bear Avenue to help move vehicles through that intersection. Commissioner Mueller asked Mr. Keel if it was possible to hook up highway 694 to County Road D? Mr. Keel said they looked at a number of alignments and how that connection would occur. One would be to connect at the off ramps at Highway 61 and highway 694 that would basically provide a direct way onto County Road D from the Highway 61 interchange. That had some advantages and disadvantages. You would have to install a full-to-diamond interchange. All the movements would be on the west side of Highway 61. MnDot has some concerns about those types of interchanges and they are not as accommodating for trucks as some of the other interchanges are. The alignment study would have to determine what the most appropriate connection to Highway 61 would be. Commissioner Rossbach stated that Mr. Keel mentioned a bridge over Highway 36 at Hazelwood Avenue. Where would that come into the equation? Mr. Keel said they looked at what impact a bridge may have on traffic as another way to get out of the mall area on Hazelwood Avenue. It was so far away from Maplewood Mall that it had almost no impact on the traffic in the mall area itself. Commissioner Trippler asked Mr. Keel if they looked at why all these cars are on this stretch? He asked if this comes into play with the projections on what the traffic will be in 20107 He is assuming these cars are there because of the mall. He asked what would happen if people started buying on the internet and stopped going to the malls and the impact that would have on the traffic? Planning Commission Minutes of 03-18-02 Mr. Keel said he would suspect that if that were the case you would see traffic at the malls going down. Commissioner Trippler said the other thing that he found interesting is the program shown. He said it presupposes that everything is pretty much static and that situations won't change. Shopping patterns won't change and the travel times won't change. He stated URS did not take a look at changes in the overall pattern of what causes the problem today? Mr. Keel said that is correct. This is basically on the general travel patterns that have occurred for many years. Mr. Ahl said in the Comprehensive Plan there is a document that tends to try to answer some of the questions that Mr. Trippler asked. One of the guidants that they looked at out 5,10,20 years and working with the Metropolitan Council and some of the trends that people are seeing are really going to see an expansion of the types of things being talked about. In order to project in the future they tend to look back and see the trends over the past ten-to-twenty years. He said one of the biggest trends people have seen in the past twenty years are the number of trips generated by the single-family homes. Twenty years ago homes did not have very many three- car garages being built, now it's the standard. Mr. Ahl said what they are seeing in traffic generation numbers is that people are driving more. He commented that before families had one car to share sometimes two cars to share. Now everyone has their own cars because there are two parents working in the household and kids are driving. The malls are providing more and more services which is causing more and more traffic. Commissioner Trippler asked what types of assumptions did they make when looking at the Hajicek property? Mr. Keel said they looked at a number of land-use scenarios ranging from big box retail to all residential. They talked about what would be a reasonable use for that property that would be relatively Iow traffic volume. The volume of traffic generated from that site has a definite impact on the adjoining properties. Commissioner Ahlness said his biggest concern is circling around the White Bear Avenue enlarging the bridge there. It seems rather a stretch he said to spend 8 million dollars to provide more parking area for vehicles. VVhen the MnDot expressed in the meeting the other night in the long range plans to increase that to three lanes anyway, and at that point they can increase that little to no cost. What is the net effect of the White Bear Avenue changes verses the County Road D at Highway 617 Mr. Keel said the larger impact project is the White Bear Avenue project. Commissioner Ahlness said he knows Mr. Keel said that MnDot does not like to have other exits off that but has anyone looked at something coming into Southlawn Avenue off of Highway 694 or any other exits that would also have a large effect on the area, but would not be such an expensive change? Mr. Keel said they did look at a slip ramp down to County Road D that started east of Highway 61 they found that did not have as large of an impact as realigning County Road D. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-18-02 -5- Mr. Ahl said he wanted to make clear that the project costs that are shown in this report are not proposed to be totally paid for by the taxpayers of Maplewood. When the city talks about those types of projects it is not something that the city would go at alone however, the format that the city needs to be in to get those types of dollars the city needs to get federal funding, MnDot funding, Ramsey County funding are all types of these improvements. The only way to get the funding is to begin the planning process now. It is a five to ten year process to get that done. Right now MnDot is projecting a shortfall in the 15 billion dollar category over the next 20 years. Dr. Jennifer Bouthilet, the owner of Hillcrest Animal Hospital at 1320 East County Road D, addressed the commission. She is generally in favor of this plan. As a business owner at the corner of County Road D and Highway 61, she would like to see County Road D go through and have traffic go that direction for her animal hospital. Her main concern in watching this proceed is where exactly the reroute of County Road D is going to be. Mr. Ahl said they need to have those discussions over the next four-to-five months and those decisions are very critical. Mr. Michael Winicki, a business owner on County Road D east of Highway 61 addressed the commission. He said as a landowner he wanted to know if the impact on landowners has been addressed in any way? Specifically if the city is talking about rerouting County Road D will that restrict access to his property and will they have to change access to their property in any manner? He asked if there would be any future restrictions on the use of their land as far as the type of business they operate and type of tenants they have? Mr. Ahl said they do anticipate trying to explore that. Obviously some changes to access are likely for your property, but as the city works through the process those are the types of things that they are going to want to sketch out. He anticipates that the consultant that works on this project will come up with some various options that will be explored. The city is not set on any particular alignment at this time. The city needs to look at the options and the impacts, the land use changes and how that all comes together. The city anticipates having to come back with a couple of options and a recommendation to the planning commission who will then make a recommendation to the city council. Access is a huge issue and the goal is to have an alignment established in September 2002. They don't anticipate major changes in the land-use restrictions. At the meeting he attended on March 1,2002, the owner of the golf course did announce that the golf course property is now up for sale and has some residential uses in mind. There will be a thought process involved with that. Mr. Ahl said as far as existing land use, one of the major issues that the city looks at is what exists? The city's business owners are very important and that is the whole genesis of this study. The city wants the businesses to thrive and provide a good solid base for the community and he would not anticipate trying to relocate any businesses as part of this study. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-18-02 -6- Mr. George Suppan, a Maplewood resident at 3050 Hazelwood Avenue addressed the commission. He said he appreciates as a resident in the area, the opportunity for the discussions that were held in early March, as they had a chance to ask questions and offer suggestions. Years ago, before County Road D was increased and turned onto Hazelwood Avenue suggestions at that time were placed to have County Road D continue with possibly a one lane going underneath the bridge so that it would move the traffic from the mall area onto Highway 61 and then out to the freeway. That did not go through and now they could look at that again. Maybe taking the bridge out and moving traffic through there would help the situation. He said the concern at that time was the amount of traffic that would be going past the residents, and over the years as the area developed it has increased and the flow of traffic passed the residents on Hazelwood Avenue. At times the residents cannot get out of their driveways because of the heavy traffic. The traffic is already here today, forget about the year 2010, we have the problem today. Mr. Suppan said as a resident in that area he and others are in favor of the traffic study and for people to take a real serious look at this study for the projects that are being recommended. Commissioner Rossbach moved that the planning commission recommends to the City Council adoption of the resolution in the staff report adopting the Maplewood Mall Area Comprehensive Traffic Study as a referenced appendix to the Transportation Section of the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan, and directing an alignment study to be conducted for the extension of County Road D, westerly, and potentially southerly from Hazelwood Street to T.H. 61 and eventually returning northerly, west of T.H. 61, to the original County Road D alignment, and, further, that a comprehensive review of the area land use, adjacent to the new proposed roadway alignment, be conducted prior to the final roadway alignment being determined. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes-Ahlness, Dierich, Fischer, Ledvina, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler The motion passed. Mr. Roberts said this item will be presented to the city council on April 8, 2002. VI. NEW BUSINESS a. Dearborn Meadow Preliminary Review and Discussion (Castle Avenue) Mr. Roberts stated that Mr. Mike Ackerman is proposing to develop a nine-unit housing development called Dearborn Meadow. It would be on a 2.11-acre site on the south side of Castle Avenue, north of Cope Avenue. A homeowners association would own and maintain the common areas. To build this project, Mr. Ackerman is requesting that the city approve: 1. A change to the comprehensive plan. This would be from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings) for the site. 2. A change to the zoning map. This would be from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings) for the site. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-18-02 -7- Lot-area and lot-width variances for each lot. The city code requires that each lot have 12,000 square feet and 85 feet of width. The proposed lots would be 5,200 square feet and would have 80 feet of width at the building line. 4. A preliminary plat for nine lots for the nine housing units and a tenth lot for the common area. 5. The design plans for the site, landscaping and buildings. Commissioner Trippler asked staff for some assistance with Number 3 in Mr. Ackerman's requests. It states the city code requires that each lot have 12,000 square feet and 85 feet of width. The proposed lots would be 5,200 square feet and would have 80 feet of width at the building line. As he understood the proposal it is going to be a joint ownership. He asked if that would change this request then? Mr. Roberts stated that in a typical R-2 zoning, the lot would layout across the front, it would be 60 feet wide and 6,000 square feet of area. He said what Mr. Ackerman is showing is a property lot that is just bigger than the building pad, so it is smaller than the minimum required by the R-2 zoning code. If Mr. Ackerman were to change the property lines, all the lots would probably meet the minimum lot size. Mr. Roberts said what is most important is the total number of units on the property. If it doesn't make sense than the commission should look at the existing zoning or changing the zoning to something else. Commissioner Trippler said he was hoping that is what staff could come up with. If there is something other than an R-2 that makes sense that is close to the 5,200 square feet he would rather see it rezoned as something else rather than using an R-2 and have it look like the city permitted a use that is less than 50% of what it is supposed to be. Mr. Roberts said there could be an R-3 zoning which does not have a minimum lot size. But the risk that is run is that allows any kind of multiple-family residential. So if the commission changed the zoning and Mr. Ackerman walked away from this site, another plan could come in with 8-unit buildings and if they met the density than they would be allowed to go ahead. Another alternative would be to do an R-2 with a PUD instead of variances. Chairperson Fischer asked staff if the commission is looking at the proposal that generally meets the R-2 densities but has a zero lot line ownership pattern with it with the rest of the space being common green space rather than individual lots? Mr. Roberts said correct. He said Mr. Ackerman redrew all of the lot lines and had no common ownership and had individual chunks of land he could meet all of the 1:{-2 code and that may have been an alternative that would be acceptable to the city and to the commission. Mr. Roberts said you have some common ownership and you have an association that hopefully will help guarantee that it is all maintained and cared for. Commissioner Dierich said she is concerned about the road. She liked the density but she had some concerns after walking the lot. She is concerned about the drainage especially in the section that is to the east of the road going in. It is quite wet there and she is concerned about the turn around and no ability to plow and get emergency vehicles back in there. The two units just to the left of the driveway, was there some reason this was not connected to the common drive she asked? She asked staff how close the class V wetland was to the road? Planning Commission Minutes of 03-18-02 -8- Mr. Roberts said the class V wetland does not require any buffer area. As long as they do not grade into the wetland they will be okay. He said these are the types of things they would be concerned about if they received an application. Commissioner Dierich said that is a pretty level lot and she is thinking to herself that the road is SO close she wonders if the road is going to be underwater a lot of the time? Mr. Roberts said if they got an application, that is something staff would take a look at, but the staff is not at that level yet. The reason the driveway was not connected to the common drive is that it won't fit. If they tried to turn it, to make the 30-foot setback off of Castle, you would get into the wetland. If there were only one unit there it would probably fit, but then they are back into trading units in density. Commissioner Pearson had a question regarding the access to Castle. If the applicant is looking at building on the current elevation there is quite an uphill to get onto Castle, will there be any fill or raising of that roadway surface? Mr. Roberts said he is sure there would be but there is not a grading plan yet. Commissioner Mueller asked staff when he was drawing the lot lines on the screen is that does that mean that inside each of those lots than you would have to place a separate building unattached? Mr. Roberts said no. What he was showing is there would be a lot line going right down the center like the center ora duplex or a twin home and that is allowed on R-2 zoning. The common wall of the twin home can be the dividing line. Commissioner Mueller said when he read the report it sounded like there was a section outside of the footprint that was green space that was owned by the lot owner and then there was a space that went outside of the green space that entered a common green space. He asked if the owner is only owning the footprint of the building? Mr. Roberts said yes and a little bit beyond, maybe a foot around. Most of it will be in common ownership, they can put a hose there and that is about it. Commissioner Trippler said to staff, as he remembered in past conversations, there was a concern about the people that live off of Cope Avenue that if this property would be developed they were concerned about the runoff that would go down the hill and into the homeowners homes. He asked if that issue had been addressed at all or is that the next phase? Mr. Roberts said part of that has been looked at, and in the memo handed out, Chris Cavett talked about that a bit. There is a small pond on Cope Avenue. With the current standards that the public works department and the engineering department use, Mr. Cavett notes that they would be looking for more onsite-storm-water control. Mr. Cavett is comfortable that the storm water issues can be addressed. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-18-02 -9- Commissioner Dierich said she understands the developer is not very far in the developing stage yet. She thinks the issues of the elevation and the drainage are all going to impact. The developer will have to bring in fill, grade, and raise the level of the homes in order to allow for adequate levels of drainage. She feels the commission needs to talk about the issues so that the developer knows that these things will need to be addressed at the end of his plan. Commissioner Mueller said he is assuming the commission will not get a plan unless the engineers have looked at the water drainage and all of the issues have been addressed? Mr. Roberts said correct. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Mike Ackerman, the developer for Dearborn Meadow, addressed the commission. He said these are all questions that he wanted to be at the meeting for to respond to. One of the biggest problems was with the homeowner next to the drainage pond along Cope Avenue. Some improvements have been made since the past two years to try and alleviate storm water in that area. The water does drain from the east to the west on the site so by putting this road in the middle of this site any water runoff that is coming from the east will mostly be captured by the road. In fact the watershed district was more concerned that he would be cutting off water to the wetland area. He said they felt that the road was catching so much water that now they would have to worry about the wetland area actually being a dryland. In the utility plan for the project there is a catch basin that will be located behind the units on the east that will catch water and it will divert the water to the wetland. When the wetland fills up there will be an outlet on the wetland that will then filter into the storm-sewer system area if all other areas are full. So the wetland area will be used for a filtering device for the storm-water runoff as opposed to a rainwater garden to filter onsite storm water. Mr. Ackerman said the watershed district was fine with using the wetland for storm water. Mr. Ackerman said the density issue is probably higher than the grading issue. To answer Mr. Trippler's question earlier, if you take the entire square footage of the entire site to have nine units instead of ten makes it more that the size or the acreage will more than support in terms of square footage and lot size. Where the road is located north-to-south there is an existing easement. On Cope Avenue to the south is where the storm sewer and water comes from and currently the water main goes the entire distance of the site from north to south where the road is. No matter what is put on this site, nothing can be built where the road currently is because of the existing water main is in this location. He said that leaves some trouble in how to lay out the site in any type of use. In the previous proposal he had six units on the east side of the road. The applicant's original proposed plat had the utility plan, the grading plan, and it was hard to tell exactly what part was the building and what part was everything else. Mr. Ackerman said that plan did not provide any help in giving the idea of the density there was too much information on it. This time he provided a color drawing of the actual units on the site as well as the aerial photo showing the surrounding neighborhood. The neighborhood to the south is much more dense than what he is proposing in terms of distances between the units. There is 30 feet between the units and he said that many of the houses in the neighborhoods are at a ten-foot minimum. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-18-02 -10- Mr. Ackerman said regarding the setbacks, the existing homes on Cope Avenue to the south of this project are on 130-foot deep lots. The current zoning ordinance from the city would allow someone to build structures as close as 26 feet to the rear property line. None of them are but the current zoning of those sites would have allowed them to build that. He said by going down to five units on the east side of the road, the unit on that side is 38 feet from the property line and the unit on the west side of the road would be 31 feet from the other property line. Mr. Ackerman asked why the site cannot be single-family homes? This site has a few unique problems it does not currently have a sanitary sewer service other than what is located at Cope Avenue. It has the easement going through the middle of it and it has the wetland. To make this site into a single-family site will probably be three units on this site. Because of the significant drop on Castle Avenue this makes single-family houses that front Castle Avenue quite hard to construct. It gets better from the road to the east side. Where the wetland is, it starts going up in the other direction again. He said that is one of the reasons why the unit on the northwest corner is facing Castle Avenue. It can't be turned to face the private drive because of the wetland and also because of the grade of the road. Commissioner Mueller asked Mr. Ackerman if there was about 2,200 square feet in the homes? Mr. Ackerman said the footprint is about 1,415 with unfinished basements. Commissioner Ledvina said he noticed one of the changes in the letter from the previous proposal, was increasing the width of the roadway from 24-feet-to-28 feet that increases the impervious area of the site. He did not see any commission comments from that at the previous meetings. Mr. Ackerman said the reason was because the city code does not allow parking on the side of a road for a road as narrow as 24 feet. The theory being if a car is parked on the road then there is not enough room for other cars to pass. He said to increase the width of the road allows for parking that is not in the driveways of the units and that was the primary reason for increasing the width of the road. Commissioner Ledvina stated that does increase the amount of impervious space on the site. Mr. Ackerman said yes. Commissioner Ledvina said when he looked at the design he had a strong concern about the position of the buildings on the southern portion of the site. He suggested that those buildings face the north that would put the backyards in the backyards on the existing homes. It would also eliminate perhaps 100 feet of the private drive. At the time the comment was that could not be done because the applicant would have to eliminate a unit or two. He asked Mr. Ackerman if he looked at that in more detail? Planning Commission Minutes of 03-18-02 -11- Mr. Ackerman said one of the biggest problems is the easement traveling through the property. The other problem is if you turned one of the units you would be encroaching on the wetland area. He touched on that question and answer a bit earlier as well. The city doesn't have a zoning designation for this type of development and that is why the way he proposed this development before was to include these variances for the lot sizes. R-3 would allow this type of development the way that it is but as Mr. Roberts said if you change the zoning and he walks away from this site someone else could facilitate an apartment building. He said one of the suggestions was to go with a PUD but Mr. Rossbach said the commission had just talked about not using PUD's. Mr. Ackerman was not sure how to take that. He thinks the way the variance is seems confusing. Commission Dierich asked Mr. Ackerman if the decks on the east side are over the setback? Mr. ^ckerman said yes the decks are closer than the 30 feet. Commissioner Mueller said he has not done much with planned unit developments but the city does not have anything that allows this type of thing in the city's codes. His understanding of a PUD is the question of does it fit, does it work, and how is the city going to plan this area to make a planned unit development work? He said personally that is what a PUD is for. Mr. Roberts said one site the commission saw that is similar to this proposal is The Gardens on McMenemy. They are 20 units on a private driveway coming in with two-unit buildings with small properties right around each building pad and a common area that would be owned by an association. Chairperson Fischer asked staff at one point the developer had to have a certain amount of acreage to have a PUD that was 5 acres. She asked what is the minimum acreage on a PUD now? Mr. Roberts said the last time the city amended the PUD ordinance 5 or 6 years ago they dropped the minimum acreage requirement. Chairperson Fischer asked staff that this development would need it then? Mr. Roberts said yes. Commissioner Ledvina asked staff about the water easement. He asked what the width of the water easement was and if it is along the proposed private drive? He asked if it can it be moved? Mr. Ackerman described to the commission where it is located on page 21 of the staff report. Chairperson Fischer asked staff if they were looking for a recommendation or was this just for suggestions and input for the benefit of Mr. ^ckerman? Mr. Roberts said Mr. Ackerman is here to get input and suggestions. Chairperson Fischer asked what the vote of the commission members would be? Planning Commission Minutes of 03-18-02 -12- Chairperson Fischer stated that the vote showed six members agreed that there should be a PUD as Mr. Mueller had mentioned. Commissioner Ledvina said he thinks about typical design elements for developments that are fitting into where other developments are and he does not think this is optimal. If it is necessary to lose one more unit than that may have to be. If the developer did that perhaps the length of the drive could be shortened. He believes there are drainage issues associated with this development and if you reduced the amount of driveway, the width of the driveway would be changed to 26 feet. He would rather see it be 24 feet, and the issue with the southerly buildings changed. Commissioner Pearson said he still has a concern with how that roadway is going to access Castle Avenue. It is quite a steep area and it could be a problem for people getting out in the winter. He likes the plan overall. He would like to hear some comments from people living in the area and he would guess that people would be in favor of looking at the side of homes rather than the homes being back to back. Mr. Pearson said there would seem to be more privacy there. He sees there would be a line of pine trees to prevent headlight glare. He agrees this is a good candidate for a PUD. Commissioner Trippler said he remembers when this was brought before the commission last year. He had an opportunity to talk with neighbors last year and he can't remember anybody that wasn't in favor of this proposal. They were concerned about having any more storm.water dumped into their yards but that was about all. If the developer accommodated that than that would alleviate his concerns about the development. He really does not like using a PUD anymore than they have to, but it does seem to fit in here. Commissioner Pearson said he likes the plan and he thinks it fits the cities over all goal for providing more affordable housing than an R-1 development. Commissioner Trippler said he wouldn't want to go to an R-3. He remembers people weren't concerned about double units but they really did not want to see eight, ten, twelve units popping in the middle of R-l's. Commissioner Monahan-Junek asked Mr. Ackerman what the selling price will be for the proposed units? Mr. Ackerman said the price will be about $190,000 to $250,000 if they finished the basement off. b. Zoning Code Amendment- BC - M (business commercial modified) District Mr. Roberts stated that last December, Chili's Restaurant constructed a food-to-go counter in their restaurant. To better accommodate their food-to-go customers, Chili's also added an exterior canopy over their side door, a drive-up lane, a call box, and also designated three parking spaces for the food-to-go customers. This curbside service was designed so that a customer who previously called in a food order can drive up to the call box, announce their name, park in one of the designated food-to-go parking spaces, and wait for a Chili's employee to deliver their food to their car. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-18-02 -13- The food-to-go counter and curbside facilities were constructed without the required building or zoning approvals. Once the city became aware of Chili's-curbside service, city staff obtained the city attorney's opinion on whether this service is a violation of the city's zoning code. The city attorney states that Chili's-curbside service violates the ordinance only to the extent that Chili's serves food to patrons in their automobiles. Mr. Roberts stated the city attorney's opinion was shared with Chili's Restaurant management who then indicated that The Outback Restaurant, also located within the BC(M) zoning district at 1770 Beam Avenue, offered a similar type of service. City staff contacted the management of The Outback Restaurant who indicated that they have been offering food-to-go for the past two years. Outback's to-go service involves customers calling in an order and identifying the type of vehicle they will be driving when they pick up the order. Once the customer arrives at the restaurant, they park in one of the designated to-go parking spaces. He said a camera mounted on the building notifies the Outback employees of the waiting customer and an employee then delivers the food to the patron in their automobile. Because two restaurants located within the BC(M) zoning district were conducting a similar to-go service where food was being delivered to patrons in their automobiles. Chili's management requested that the city review the BC(M) ordinance for possible changes. Specifically Chili's Restaurant is requesting that the city allow restaurants within the BC(M) zoning district to serve food to patrons in their automobiles. This is being requested in order to facilitate Chili's and Outback's existing food-to-go service. Commissioner Rossbach said he was around when that zoning was put into effect. That zone was created and put in place to protect the residents. He felt at the time it was a great imposition that the city put any kind of commercial development in their backyards. He would be hesitant to expand in any way the ability of those businesses to add any annoyance to the residents that live along Radatz Avenue. He realized that it may sound minor what they are planning on doing but it creates the opportunity to have idling cars, the additional noise and commotion, and he personally would not be in favor of this. Both Chili's and The Outback Restaurant went ahead with these improvements without any permits and any discussion with the city. Any contractor of any type would have known that this work requires permits. Mr. Rossbach said any owner of a business that is in a conditional use permit area knows that they can't do anything to their business without approval from the city. He finds it to be extremely disturbing that those restaurants made those improvements without following the proper channels. He would certainly urge the commission not to allow those restaurants to flaunt the city's ordinances in the city's face. Mr. Roberts stated that after Ms. Finwall wrote the report, The Outback Restaurant did contact Ms. Finwall and told her for the internal improvements in the restaurant they did get building permits from the building official. Chili's Restaurant has not gotten any permits to do this work. Commissioner Trippler said when a company goes ahead and violates the city code and does whatever they want to, couldn't the city tell Chili's Restaurant that they have to put the building back the way it was? Mr. Roberts said yes that is an option, or try to get building permits, and it was by Ms. Finwall because of the zoning issues. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-18-02 -14- Commissioner Trippler asked staff if they meant the restaurant tried to get a building permit after the work was all done? Mr. Roberts said yes. Commissioner Trippler said it seems to him if the city allows this kind of thing to go on and there is not some type of recourse that the city institutes then the only people that pay any attention to the city are the people who are generally good citizens and the rest can say why should a person bother? It irritates him, and there is no way that anyone that runs a chain restaurant like Chili's Restaurant didn't know that they just can't go and make changes to their business without getting approval and permits first. The city should either fine them heavily or make them put it back the way it was and have them submit plans for a permit. Mr. Trippler said maybe the city will approve it and maybe they won't. If the commission wants to change the ordinance he doesn't have a problem with that, but he thinks if the city doesn't do anything to this case the city is opening themselves up to being ignored. Commissioner Pearson said this is the kind of thing that tends to happen in small degrees. He draws distinction between the two uses and that the Outback Restaurant basically has a silent system. The only thing different at Chili's Restaurant is that they put up an awning outside and an outside call box. The Outback Restaurant has been going on for a long time and he has used it himself. They have a camera and a monitor and there is no noise, no horn honking, there is no more automobile exhaust or pollution than if someone was waiting to pick someone up at the restaurant. He doesn't see any great infringement on the area, although it is a violation. He agrees that when violations occur there ought to be a process for a fine or something. In terms of the service to the public, he thinks it is a good one and if the city is going to have something, he would be in favor seeing what The Outback Restaurant has done rather than a call box or anything that has voice emissions one or two ways outside. Commissioner Dierich asked staff if putting up a call box, an awning, and remarking some parking areas is a code violation and you have to pull a permit for that work? Mr. Roberts said yes, for the awning you do, and if you are changing the site plan, at minimum the restaurant needs staff approval. Commissioner Dierich said to her putting up an awning isn't a big thing, although she would agree that they are changing the nature of the business probably for the better. She said the city sees a lot more blatant things going on than this and she has a hard time saying this is a code violation. She knows the lawyer has looked at this, but still she thinks to herself, other than striping the parking lot, there was an inspector there already, they put in a counter. Mr. Roberts said Chili's Restaurant did not get any permits for any of the changes interior or exterior. Commissioner Dierich said then for sure the city needs to fine them because the violation to her is that they did not pull a permit for the interior work or maybe restriping the parking lot. Mr. Roberts said as he said earlier The Outback Restaurant did get permits for doing some interior work a few years ago, so that was looked at that time. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-18-02 -15- Commissioner Dierich said she would agree with Mr. Trippler and Mr. Pearson that the city should fine people for not following ordinances. The City of North St. Paul makes the companies rip out work that was done without approval. Commissioner Mueller asked staff if what they violated was that they carry food outside the door? Mr. Roberts said yes. Commissioner Mueller said otherwise, what they are doing, anyone can do. People drive up and walk in and bring it out. Although they did not ask permission to make a parking spot to have a place that customers can park and wait, that is not a violation, but it is a violation to make it without permission? Mr. Roberts said changing the site plan, the number of parking spaces, changing drive aisles, safety issues, all of those are all issues that the city would typically look at. He said they went ahead and did it without permission from the city. Commissioner Mueller said his opinion is if the city wants to make these restaurants poster children then let's go ahead and do it. He thinks the city can find somebody else in Maplewood that they can make a better poster child than this. Their management should have known better, they wrote a letter explaining what they did. The city has all these people that are unloading car deliveries off of trucks on Highway 61, they are parking them on grass and the commission does nothing about it other than to tell them not to do it anymore, they do it again anyway and they know they are not supposed to do it. He would rather find someone else to fine and make a poster child. Mr. Mueller said the violation is that they did some changes without permits and they are carrying food outside the door. Commissioner Pearson asked staff if Maplewood has a system that fines for violations for use, zone, permits, etc.? Mr. Roberts said as far as permits go, the building official can double the permit fee for doing work without a permit, that is a fine in a sense. He does not know how much the city collects because it gets passed onto the state and other agencies. Mr. Roberts said as far as zoning violations that is a misdemeanor and it could go into court, but the time spent and energy is not worth it. It has been city practice to work with people and accommodate what they want to do. Commissioner Ledvina said regarding the issue for code amendment, when this was set up years ago regarding district BC(M) they were looking at impacts to the residential area. He does not put much stake in the fact that the city has not had complaints from the neighboring property owners because property owners change. This activity can escalate now that people know about it, there is going to be more traffic, there is more signage now, and an audible box that Chili's Restaurant has. Mr. Ledvina said although it is not the big menu board, or lines of cars waiting for their order type of scenario, it is a use that was not intended. He just wants to make sure it does not escalate to the point that the city can't control it. Chairperson Fischer said one thing that comes to her is the lack of complaints from the neighbors from the south. Neighbors can change and the neighbors who are in there now may not know what the conditions were for the zoning. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-18-02 -16- Commissioner Trippler said it seemed to him that Chili's Restaurant did not do anything that would cause the fall of the western hemisphere but just the fact that they did not ask permission from the city to do any improvements. They have completely ignored the city and the blatant disregard for the city's authority. Mr. Robert said the question that comes to the commission and the city is, what do we do to resolve this. There are about four options. He said you could tell them they have to take all the improvements out, you can try and work with them, propose a code amendment, or tell them to get a building permit and let it go. Mr. Roberts asked if the commission liked the code amendment? If not what would the commission like to see and what alternatives if any to try to allow the restaurants to go with normal operations. If the commission does like the code amendment, then it could be moved forward. Commissioner Dierich said she believes the commission should not do a code amendment because the commission will be amending codes all the time every time somebody decides to flaunt the rules, the commission will amend the code. She believes Chili's Restaurant and The Outback Restaurant should come back to the planning commission and ask permission to do these changes. She also thinks the city should fine Chili's Restaurant for not pulling permits. Not to make them a poster child but possibly doubling the permit cost as the fine. She also thinks it is more environmentally friendly to pull up the way they have in the parking lot and it probably would have been approved had they gone through the proper channels. It should be done on a case- by-base basis. Commissioner Ahlness said his concern about making a change to the zoning district and changing the code is that he feels very strongly that the commission needs to protect the residential areas that abut these restaurants. Either the city allows people to come in and start using some type of a drive-in service or not. They can already do a business where people drive up and park their car and go in and pick up the food. He said the city is not disallowing the restaurants to conduct a take-out business but the city is disallowing some form where people drive up and let their car idle while the food comes. Whether it is a drive-in window or where someone from the restaurant comes out to bring the food out is a subtle difference, but it is something the city needs to consider in how the city applies this situation. The fact that there have not been any complaints from the neighbors he thinks that is a new point at this point. Mr. Ahlness said if you look at the past few months and there are not a lot of people in their back yards enjoying the weather. If one looks at this situation going into spring and summer there could be a substantial difference. The city may not be getting complaint calls currently, but lets say the property owners decided to put their home up for sale. The potential buyers are out looking at the property and they hear blaring music from the idling cars in the parking lot of the restaurants, this could change the situation, and the city could receive complaints and calls at that time. He said if the city is concerned about the intent of the zoning at the time it was implemented, which was protecting the residential neighbors, then he thinks the commission needs to leave that switch in the off position and not allow the restaurants to do a delivery or drive-up window or have restaurant employees go out to the customers car. The customers can go inside the restaurant and get their food-to-go as it is allowed by the zoning ordinances. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-18-02 -17- Commissioner Trippler said if the city has a policy of doubling the permit fee when somebody fails to get the proper permits that is what should be applied in this case. For every permit the restaurants failed to apply for they should be charged a double fee. He doesn't necessarily think this language is bad but he feels a little uneasy about going ahead with changing the ordinance for this particular case. He said not because the restaurants went ahead and did the changes without getting the proper authority but because it sounds like there was an implicit agreement by these facilities when they went in that they would be particularly careful about the kinds of activity that they had so they would not interfere or disrupt the residential neighborhood adjacent to the restaurants. He said without knowing the history and what was said when the zoning was first put in place he doesn't feel comfortable midstream now that the restaurants are there. He thinks about Olive Garden where they have signs that say for carryout only. The customer's park their vehicle, go into the restaurant and pick-up their food, and they go back out and drive away, there is nothing wrong with that set-up. Mr. Roberts said the restaurants with the drive thru windows are geared towards people with small children that are in strapped in their car seats. The people can leave the children in the cars and have the food delivered to their car verses going in and un-strapping their children and bringing them in to get the food-to-go, or a worse case scenario would be that the parents leave the children unattended while they run into the restaurant to bring the food back out. Commissioner Trippler asked staff if the commission does not change the ordinance the way it has been proposed, would that disallow what The Outback Restaurant is currently doing? Mr. Roberts said yes. People would have to get out of their cars and go into The Outback Restaurant and to Chili's Restaurant to get their food. Commissioner Mueller said he thinks businesses are changing all the time and he thinks the commission needs to consider that the businesses need to change. He also believes that people and their attitudes are changing all the time and the commission needs to consider that possibility. Consumers would not have McDonald's Restaurant be as popular if they were not allowed to have a drive-thru window. He said he would hate to be a group of people that stood in the way of a business that believes in light of other business practices that this is something the restaurants needs to do to be competitive. In some respects the code that is there the commission needs to look at the reasonableness of code in relationship to changing attitudes and changing values and systems. It may not mean the commission changes the code but he thinks the commission needs to think about that as a possibility. The big issue at stake is not offending the residents, which is the intent of the code. In terms of changing the code he has heard Burger King's intercom speaker from quite a distance away and he thinks that does affect the residents quite a distance away. He would not be in favor of those intercom box speakers but he does not think that the code as it is worded would eliminate that. He believes it says you cannot bring food out to the cars and food should not be visible to the residents. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-18-02 -18- Commissioner Mueller said if he would go inside the restaurant and bring it back out, or a restaurant employee brings it out, technically it is visible to residents either way people are going to see the food. He does believe it would be helpful for a handicap person not to have to get out of their car. He would be interested to know if this code is a violation in that regard as the code stands now. If a handicap person wants Chili's food, and is willing to drive there but will not be given that food because the city has a code that states nobody can bring it to them. Is that an issue or not, maybe it isn't. He doesn't think that ignorance is an excuse not to get permits but it surely can be a reason. He is more upset with people who have violated city ordinances a number of times and the city has never done anything to them. He liked one of Mr. Robert's comments that an option is that the city works with these people and to find a way to work this out. It may be to bring them here and tell them they should have gotten the proper permits and not to do this type of thing again. The city has brought people forward and asked them not to do something again and they do it again and again anyway and still the city does nothing to them. These are the types of people he believes the city ought to make poster children. If they have to pay a double fine because of this then fine, it is not a big deal to him. He thinks the city needs to be careful not to let the double, triple, or quadruple offender get away with things as they city has allowed them in the past. Commissioner Dierich said she thinks it is as simple as asking Chili's Restaurant and The Outback Restaurant to come back in to the city and work with the city to work with the traffic plan. They have changed the flow of the parking lot, they changed the parking spaces, and they need to come back and ask for a change in their permit. She does not think it is an unreasonable thing to do and that would be to work with them. They pulled a fast one, ignorance or not. She would not have known about the striping in the parking lot even as a planning commissioner. They know it isn't okay so the city just needs to educate them further and review those plans. Chairperson Fischer asked staff as the ordinance now sits, the city could not allow delivery of food to the car? Mr. Roberts said that is correct. The main issue is the use of the property having the food service going to the car. The secondary issue is the site plan changes to implement that service. Commissioner Dierich said a site change would necessitate them coming before the planning commission and the commission could consider that individual request or variance. Mr. Roberts said there is no need for a site change if the code doesn't allow the restaurant to do food service to vehicles. Commissioner Dierich said she understands what staff is saying but she doesn't think the commission should change the code cart blanche because you will have those code changes all over the city. It needs to be done case-by-case and maybe it needs to be put in the permit. Is this something you may be doing in the future? Planning Commission Minutes of 03-18-02 -19- Chairperson Fischer said as Mr. Rossbach pointed out earlier, the BC(M) was developed because the city had some instances where there was zoning going up to pre-existing residential. The usage going in this particular area was more intense than one would have put next to residential existing. Radatz Street was there first and then Beam Avenue came through and it brought big assessments along with it. Obviously with the type of assessments on Beam Avenue you were not going to see single-family detached homes developing on the south side of Beam Avenue. The BC(M) was created for this stretch to meet the challenges of putting the Beam Avenue mall type of development adjacent to pre-existing single-family homes. Some safeguards that were considered safeguards at that time, were placed in the restrictions on that zoning that don't apply to other plain BC(M) zonings throughout the city. As staff pointed out in the report there are a few other places where the city has this zoning. Chairperson Fischer asked if there was anyone in the audience that wanted to speak to this issue to come forward. Mr. Steve Parr, the Managing Partner of The Outback Restaurant at 1770 Beam Avenue, Maplewood, MN, addressed the commission. Mr. Parr said The Outback Restaurant did go ahead and do the curbside food-to-go for almost three years. He said they did the right thing and got the permits and had it inspected by Marge Ostrom. They explained it to her exactly what they were doing regarding how people call ahead, the camera, ask them what type of car they are driving, and then bring the food out to the designated parking spots. Maybe they were ignorant not knowing what the designated parking spots or this ordinance but they thought they did the right thing at the time. The two neighbors directly behind the restaurant have been there almost five years and have not had any complaints from them. He would hope that the commission would not make a decision based on what Chili's Restaurant had done. He asked the commission to please consider the fact that The Outback Restaurant tried to do the right thing. They are trying to grow their business and the drive up is a large part of their restaurant. They have over 600 restaurants across the Country that do this exact thing. If you pull into The Outback Restaurant you will not see stripes on the ground, if you did not see the picture you would not even know it is a take-out area, you would just think it is part of the restaurant. Commissioner Mueller asked Mr. Parr if when Marge Ostrom came out to inspect the restaurant did you explain to her that you would be carrying food out to the cars? He asked if she noted that this was illegal? Mr. Parr said yes we did explain to Marge Ostrom that we would be carrying food out to the cars and no she did not explain it was illegal. Commissioner Mueller asked Mr. Parr why she didn't explain it was illegal and why didn't he know that it was illegal? Mr. Parr said he would not know why she did not know it was illegal. He said he did not know it was illegal to carry food out to the vehicle. Mr. Roberts said Marge Ostrom was the building official who is now retired. The carrying out of food is really a zoning issue, and to her defense, she would not have known. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-18-02 -20- Mr. Parr said if they would have known about this ordinance he would guarantee that The Outback Restaurant would not have gone ahead and done this it is not the kind of thing his operation does. Mr. Roberts said the question is was there any input given by anyone on the planning staff to check the zoning and that he can't answer without going through the file.. Marge Ostrom may have thought it was just some interior remodeling. The zoning question may not have even come to her. Chairperson Fischer asked Mr. Parr how frequent is carrying food out to the customers as opposed to having the customers carrying out their own food? Mr. Parr said there is three designated parking stalls for customers to wait at. When they take the customers order the employee asks them what type of car they will be driving, the color of the car, and the customers name and phone number. There is a camera in the take away area and one in the kitchen, and when they pull their car in the employees see what type and color of car it is, look at the ticket, the employee brings the food out to them, the people pay the employee and go back into the building. Chairperson Fischer said then essentially it is 100% that is brought out to the car. Mr. Parr said hardly anybody goes into the restaurant to get the food to go, although some people will call and come in and have a drink at the bar while waiting for their food to be ready. Commissioner Mueller asked Mr. Parr how many to-go-orders a day do they get? Mr. Parr said it varies from day to day. Friday through Sunday is their busiest times. There are probably 10 to go orders per day during the week and around 25 to-go orders per day on the weekends. When the customer's pull into the marked parking stalls to wait for their food, most people leave their cars running in the winter, but in nice weather most shut their vehicles off while they wait. Commissioner Trippler asked Mr. Parr if the city council decides not to change the ordinance, what kind of an impact would you say it would have on The Outback Restaurant? Mr. Parr said it would have a major impact on his business because most of the people that come to The Outback Restaurant are expecting that service to be available and be brought out to the customer's car. The service is available for busy families. Many are with two parents working who pick up their children and call on their cell phone on the way home because they don't want to bring their children into the restaurant for a sit down meal. Commissioner Pearson said he wants to point out that these parking spaces do not preclude the most favorable spaces for handicap parking. Mr. Parr said the handicap parking is located in a different part of the parking lot. In some instances, on a busy night when the handicapped spots are full, people have parked in the take- out only parking spaces and management just has to deal with that situation. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-18-02 -21- Commissioner Mueller asked if there is a representative from Chili's Restaurant available to speak? Mr. Parr said no there is not. Commissioner Mueller said maybe Mr. Parr could help. He asked if Chili's Restaurant would say the same thing he is saying or would they have a different scenario? Mr. Parr said they would probably say the same thing but they have a different cliental. He is really not too familiar with their situation. Commissioner Pearson recommended that the planning commission recommend to the city council to adopt the ordinance amendment on pages 16 and 17 of the staff report. The amendment allows restaurants within the BC(M) zoning district. Commissioner Mueller seconded. Commissioner Mueller said he is in favor of changing the code, however, he would like it to be amended slightly. He does not want to allow the intercom call-box speaker. To make it possible to let restaurants take food out to customers needs to be something that doesn't require any sound boxes but cameras are fine. Chairperson Fischer asked staff if they would rather this be tabled to come back with appropriate wording? Also bearing in mind some discussion that occurred earlier about creeping erosion of conditions that were originally placed. What could be an acceptable practice today wouldn't be 20 years ago when that ordinance was written. Without opening it wide open she is looking at commission members and she sees some nods in the group. Commissioner Ahlness said he thinks this item should be tabled. The business has been operating for over three years without complaints. Chili's Restaurant did not appear for the discussion that was the restaurant that caused concern and The Outback Restaurant did send a representative. Staff wanted to look at this further to consider a viable option that contains the spirit of the modified nature and protects the residents from encroachment of the business he thinks that would be a prudent action, otherwise, he is concerned it would go through tonight. Commissioner Pearson said one thing that he would have liked to see in the packets would have been if the R-1 residents would have been polled as to their feelings about this subject. Mr. Roberts stated the residents were not polled. Commissioner Pearson said he would have serious interest in knowing how the residents feel about this. Commissioner Ledvina said he wondered if there were other properties in the BC-M zone that could develop in this manner? Mr. Roberts said BC-M zoning on undeveloped property that is next to residential is BC-M is right next to Chili's Restaurant and that is the only other property that he is aware of. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-18-02 -22- Chairperson Fischer said she gets the consensus that the commission doesn't have a problem with the silent approach to the drive-ups and she asked if the commission has a feeling about the speakers being allowed or not allowed? Commissioner Pearson said his preference in offering this is to use the model that The Outback Restaurant is using with no speaker and that is as silent of a service that could be offered. As far the restaurant doing this in violation, he doesn't think they did it in a clear intent to violate an ordinance, he thinks they did it in the spirit of trying to provide customer service. In terms of fines, or permit costs, or making them go back through the process that is up to the city council. Commissioner Monahan-Junek said she agrees with what is being said that it should be silent, but what she would not like to see is the commission asking staff to take on of other duties for this type of item. Maybe the commission could come to some type of consensus at the next meeting based on the wording. She doesn't want to open up ordinances to be changed every time somebody violates it. She agrees that the city needs to do something to fine them like doubling the fees or something. On the other hand if the commission takes each issue that comes up and keep beating it and not come to some type of consensus after some level of discussion, members need to try to stream line that. Commissioner Pearson the commission is getting to an area where the planning commission has had a lot of conversation with the city council and the staff in the past, and the city is going to have to create another staff position, not only for things like code amendments but also for many other types of enforcements. It is not something that the planning commission is going to be able to solve here. It will have to be figured into the budget somewhere along the line to get another staff person to help with things like this. Commissioner Trippler said he appreciated the fact that The Outback Restaurant came to the city and instructed the city as to what their plans were and assumed that they were doing the right thing. Where he works at the Pollution Agency people try to do the right thing all the time, they make the contact and down the road they find out they should have gotten another permit from another part of the company. The agencies should know what permits and issues the individual needs it should not be the person that should know all the rules and laws, although ignorance isn't justifiable. He thinks the difference between the Chili's Restaurant and The Outback Restaurant is night and day. The fact that Chili's Restaurant did not send a representative here to answer questions or concerns is really a sign. On the other hand, when he thinks about how the commission is splitting fine hairs between somebody driving up and walking into the restaurant to get their food order, verses driving up, parking and having a restaurant employee walk out to give the customer their food is just ridiculous. He thinks the situation that The Outback Restaurant has probably causes a lot less pollution and aggravation than any of the other systems. When he has been to other restaurants that have the 5-minute pick-up windows, a lot of times he sees people leave their cars running and go in and pick up their food and come back out. Where as if you call ahead to pick up your food, you probably pull into the parking space, and while you are waiting for the delivery, you make a cell phone call or two and turn your car off while you wait. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-18-02 -23- On one hand he would like to accommodate The Outback Restaurant and the ability for them to offer that kind of a service. He doesn't want to see the commission developing any kind of drive- up service window that is sort of a high class McDonald's or Burger King Restaurant. He would not vote for anything that allows any kind of a voice-box ordering system. If they have a camera where the restaurant can monitor when the customer is there and the restaurant employee can bring the food out to them immediately when it is done, he doesn't have a problem with that. Mr. Roberts said the way the amendment is written it says on page 16 (c) (3) "Restaurant, where there are no drive-up food or beverage windows or outdoor menu or ordering boards." So the city is trying to address what Mr. Trippler is saying as well. Maybe the commission could add into it to have no outdoor speakers as well. Chairperson Fischer said she thinks it would almost be necessary to add that because if you are silent on this speaker subject you would assume that the speaker sound would be allowable. Mr. Roberts said except that an ordering board has a speaker in it, so you could place an order and hear an order. Chairperson Fischer said that may be the case now and it may be the case some places. But you could still have a speaker system without having an ordering board. Mr. Roberts said the commission could certainly add that there should be no speakers as part of the system to move this along. He said to point out there is a motion on the floor that was being discussed. Chairperson Fischer said there is a motion for recommendation for approval. Commissioner Ahlness would like to make a friendly amendment. His suggested friendly amendment would be (c)(3) adding after the words ordering boards to add or call boxes or speaker systems. Also adding a number (c)(8) screening whether a fence or trees would completely screen the waiting area if in view from residential areas. Also adding (d)(8) after the words ordering boards, orca# boxes or speaker systems. Mr. Roberts said typically screening is looked at very carefully as part of the community design review board of any commercial site plan next to residential. He does not know if that is needed as a specific condition here. All screening is looked at by the CDRB and by staff and he is confident that would be covered on a case-by-case basis. Commissioner Ahlness said he would want to withdraw that part regarding screening if that was the case. Commissioner Pearson said having moved the motion he would accept the changes to (c)(3) and (d)(8). Commissioner Mueller said as the person to that made the second motion he would agree with those changes. He would assume that if a commercial business wanted to do that than anything that has to happen inside or outside would come through the city for the correct permits? Mr. Roberts said that is covered by other sections of the code. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-18-02 -24- Chairperson Fischer asked for a vote on the motion with changes. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the amendment with the above changes and Commissioner Mueller seconded the motion. Ayes-^hlness, Dierich, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler Nays - Ledvina Commissioner Ledvina said he thinks if the city has a specific zone, and the intent is very clear where you do not allow this kind of service, he does not think it is appropriate to go back on it. He said the zoning designation was designed very specifically. He thinks this is a fine line. He does not think this will be a real detriment to the community but he thinks it goes back to what the original BC(M) was set up for. Commissioner Mueller said he is not sure what was decided to do about Chili's Restaurant. He asked staff if that is something the planning commission makes recommendations to staff for or does staff just figure that out on their own? He asked what the staff does when somebody violates the code? Mr. Roberts said the first step is to process the code amendment and assuming that gets approved and adopted by the city council, then that would allow the restaurants to provide this service delivering the food to the car. The next step would be to work with the restaurants on building permit needs and any site plan changes that they want to do to implement the code change. Mr. Roberts said yes the staff will continue to work with these businesses, primarily Chili's Restaurant. If the code amendment gets done The Outback Restaurant did not make any changes. Mr. Roberts said this item will go to the city council for its first reading April 8, 2002. Chairperson Fischer said the code requires two readings by the city council? Mr. Roberts said it takes two readings by the city council to have it adopted. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS VIII. None. VISITORS PRESENTATIONS None. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-18-02 IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS -25- a. March 11, 2002, city council meeting. Mr. Ahlness was the planning commission representative at the city council meeting. He reported on the pawnbrokers and currency exchanges and this was the first reading and the city council voted ayes all. However, there were three of the city council members that told the staff to re-look at the distance of 350 feet increasing it to 500 feet away from residential properties. The city lawyer weighed into that saying that the city may cause legal problems for themselves if the staff recommended 350 feet and the city went with 500 feet away from residential properties. If the staff recommended 500 feet and the city went with the 500 feet away from residential properties, then legally they could get away with it. The second item was a conditional use permit for Maplewood Toyota. The city council voted ayes all, but they stressed that the city engineer should approve changes as it relates to the wetland area and that they should look at that closely to ensure the wetland is protected. The city council was also interested in the details from the planning commission when conducting a conditional use permit that the plan for the entire site should be brought up to code. There were a number of planning commission members that brought up that issue before and the city council was interested in hearing about that as well as having staff look at that in the future. The third item was St. Jerome's Catholic School and that was an ayes all vote and there were no issues to discuss. They also voted in the newest member of the planning commission, Jackie Monahan-Junek and members welcome her to the commission. b. March 25, 2002, Mr. Trippler will represent the planning commission at the city council meeting. Items to be discussed will be The Annual Report and the Hillcrest Animal Hospital conditional use permit. c. April 8, 2002, Ms. Dierich will represent the planning commission at the city council meeting. d. May 13, 2002, Mr. Mueller will represent the planning commission at the city council meeting. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS XI. None ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:12 p.m.