HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-04-19 PC PacketAGENDA
MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
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 15, 2011
5. Public Hearings
a. 7:00 p.m. or Later: Conditional Use Permit for South Metro Human Services, 1111 Viking Drive
6. New Business
a. Tax Increment Financing Request for Maplewood Mall Area Improvements
b. Zoning Map and Comprehensive Plan Map Changes— Review and Discussion (Please bring
your zoning /land use maps to the meeting)
7. Unfinished Business
a. Renewable Energy Ordinance
8. Visitor Presentations
9. Commission Presentations
a. Commissioner report at the city council meeting of March 28, 2011. Commissioner Fischer
was scheduled to attend, but there were no planning commission items for review.
b. Commissioner report at the city council meeting of April 11, 2011. Commissioner Martin was
scheduled to attend. The item scheduled for review by the planning commission at this
meeting was the Hazelwood Street right -of -way vacation of excess right -of -way.
c. Commissioner report at the city council meeting of April 25, 2011. Commissioner Boeser is
scheduled to attend. The anticipated item for review are the Western Hills Area Street
Improvements — Wetland Buffer Waiver (reviewed on March 15, 2011).
d. Commissioner report at the city council meeting of May 9, 2011. Commissioner Pearson is
scheduled to attend. There are no items yet scheduled for review at this meeting.
10. Staff Presentations
11. Adjournment
•iT.TTI
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 2011
CALL TO ORDER
A meeting of the Commission was held in the City Hall Council Chambers and was called to order
at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Fischer.
AI Bierbaum, Commissioner
Present
Joseph Boeser, Commissioner
Present at 7:05 p.m.
Tushar Desai, Commissioner
Present
Lorraine Fischer, Chairperson
Present
Robert Martin, Commissioner
Absent
Tanya Nuss, Commissioner
Present
Gary Pearson, Commissioner
Present
Dale Trippler, Commissioner
Present
Jeremy Yarwood, Commissioner
Present
Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, Senior
Planner
Michael Thompson,
City Engineer, Deputy Public Works Director
Steve Kummer, City
Engineer 11
Steve Love, Assistant
City Engineer
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the agenda as submitted.
Seconded by Commissioner Pearson.
Ayes — All
The motion passed.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the February 15 2011 planning commission minutes
as submitted.
Seconded by Commissioner Pearson. Ayes — All
The motion passed.
5. PUBLIC HEARING
a. Western Hills Area Street Improvements — Wetland Buffer Waiver
L Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand introduced the item and addressed the commission.
i. Civil Engineer Il, Steve Kummer gave the presentation on the Western Hills Area Street
Improvements Wetland Buffer Waiver and answered questions of the commission.
March 15, 2011
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Chairperson Fischer opened the public hearing.
1. Jacob Popp, 103 Larpenteur Avenue East, Maplewood, spoke in favor of the project.
Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the waiver to the Maplewood Wetland Ordinance to
stated by the ordinance:
1. Utility or street corridors, including any allowed maintenance roads, shall be as far from the
wetland as possible.
2. Utility or street corridor construction and maintenance shall protect the wetland buffer and
avoid large trees as much as possible.
3: The city shall not allow the use of pesticides or other hazardous or toxic substances in buffers
or wetlands; however, in some situations the use of herbicides may be used if prior approval
is obtained from the administrator.
4. The owner or contractor shall replant utility or street corridors with appropriate native
vegetation, except trees, at preconstruction densities or great after construction ends. Trees
shall be replaced as required by city ordinance.
5. Any additional corridor access for maintenance shall be provided as much as possible at
specific points rather than to the road which is parallel to the wetland edge. If parallel roads
are necessary they shall.be no greater than fifteen (15) feet wide.
Seconded by Commissioner Pearson. Ayes — All
The motion passed.
This item will go to the city council April 11, 2011.
b. Hazelwood Street Vacation of Excess Right -of -Way
i. Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand gave a brief report and addressed the commission.
ii. Assistant City Engineer, Steve Love gave the presentation on Hazelwood Street Vacation
of Excess Right -of Way and answered questions of the commission.
iii. Deputy Public Works Director, City Engineer, Michael Thompson answered questions of
the commission.
Chairperson Fischer opened the public hearing.
There were no speakers to address the commission.
Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the resolution for the vacation of the Hazelwood Street
Right -of Way, south of County Road D The reasons for the vacation are as follows:
March 15, 2011 2
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
It is in the public interest and;
1. The city is not using the right -of -way for a public street.
2. The right -of -way is not needed for street access purposes as the adjacent properties
have street access on the realigned Hazelwood Street and County Road D East.
This approval is subject to:
1. Comply with the requirements contained within Assistant City Engineer, Steve Love's
report dated February 24, 2011.
Seconded by Commissioner Pearson. Ayes — All
The motion passed.
This item will go to the city council April 11, 2011.
6. NEW BUSINESS
a. Phalen - Keller Regional Park Master Plan Update — Presentation by Bryan
Murphy, Park Planner with the City of St. Paul'
i. Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand introduced the item.
ii. Landscape Architect, City of St. Paul, iBryan Murphy gave the Phalen - Keller
Regional Park Master Plan Update and answered questions of the commission.
iii. City Engineer, Deputy Public Works Director, Michael Thompson answered
questions of the commission;
The commission asked various questions and commented of the master plan. No action
was required for this item.
b. Complete Streets /Living Streets — Presentation by Michael Thompson, City
Engineer
i. City Engineer, Deputy Public Works Director, Michael Thompson gave a brief
presentation on Complete Streets /Living Streets and answered questions of the
commission.
ii. Administrator, Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District, Cliff Aichinger gave
a presentation on Complete Streets /Living Streets and answered questions of the
commission.
The commission commented on things such as sidewalks, bike trails, concerns with
having 22 foot wide curb to curb streets, emergency vehicle clearance, snow removal,
snow plow concerns, infiltration systems, and on- street parking regulations.
Staff will summarize the comments received by the commission and this will be brought
back to the commission in the near future. No action is required at this time.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
March 15, 2011
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
8. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
None.
9. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS
a. Commissioner report on the city council meeting of February 28, 2011. Commissioner
Nuss attended. The items reviewed were the Open Space and Parks properties
rezoning to OSP and the Ramsey County Family Services Center CUP Revision
which was passed by the city council.
b. Commissioner report on the city council meeting of March 14, 2011. Commissioner
Bierbaum was scheduled to attend. There were no items scheduled for review by the
planning commission at this meeting.
c. Staff announced there are no items to be heard at the March 28, 2011, city council
meeting. Items for review at the April 11, 2011, city council meeting are the Western
Hills Area Street Improvements — Wetland Buffer Waiver and the Hazelwood Street
Vacation. Chairperson Fischer is scheduled to attend.
10. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
None.
11. ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Fischer adjourned the meeting at 9:02 p.m.
March 15, 2011
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
MEMORANDUM
TO: James Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
Chuck Ahl, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit and Design Review —South
Services Mental Health Care Facility
(Simple- majority vote required for approval)
LOCATION: 1111 Viking Drive
DATE: April 13, 2011
INTRODUCTION
Metro Human
South Metro Human Services is requesting approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) to
operate the Community Foundations program, a mental health care facility with temporary
housing for 16 patients, at the former Ethan Allen furniture store located at 1111 Viking Drive.
The proposed therapeutic treatment facility would have 16 transitional housing units as well as
space for counseling, clinical and office purposes. City ordinance requires a CUP for the
housing portion of this proposal.
The applicant is also requesting approval to repair and remodel the building, add landscaping
and utilize existing parking spaces. Please refer to the attached narrative and plans.
Project Description
As described in the applicant's letter, the proposed facility would include:
• 16 single room dwellings for clients requiring continuous care and supervision. Each dwelling
space would include a kitchenette and bathroom in addition to a studio -style sleeping room.
• Two lounges and private secure patio to encourage clients to participate in group activities.
• A licensed commercial kitchen with a communal dining area to accommodate up to 20
people.
• 8 -10 offices for professional staff to alternately be used as offices and counseling spaces.
• Multiple conference rooms for meetings and group therapy trainings.
• Interior common spaces that can be observed from the Business /Reception Office,
Conference Room and one private office. Access to the building would be controlled and
supervised by the Business /Reception Office.
• Native exterior landscaping and parking lot to accommodate 16 -18 vehicles.
• Secure back entrance and loading dock accessible to commercial kitchen.
i
DISCUSSION
Neighbor's Comments
Staff sent a questionnaire to the surrounding property owners within 500 feet of this property for
their comments about this proposal. Eleven persons responded. Some were beyond the 500
foot mailing radius. The following are the questions and comments we received:
• A commercial neighbor was concerned that the applicant may complain about the nearby
commercial activity and commotion. Staff feels that the applicant would be aware of the
nature of this neighborhood being a commercial and light industrial area. Trucking noise and
such business activity should be expected to occur.
• What will be the affect on property values? The county assessor's office does not see how
the proposed Use would affect the property values of homes since they are not in close
proximity to this site.
• Might patients of the facility have criminal records? According to the applicant's written reply,
this is a potential,
• Might patients be sex offenders? The applicant has responded their program is not a
program for sex offenders.
• Might patients be dangerous? The applicant has responded that this is an untrue stigma
and not the case.
• Will patients be free to leave and exit the facility? Yes they will.
• Will the applicant wish to expand this facility in the future? The applicant does not feel this is
likely since they are limited to serving 16 persons at a time.
• Will the area children be safe? The applicant states that they do not recall any incidents
involving their facilities and youth in those neighborhoods.
• If this is approved will it hinder the future redevelopment of this area? Staff does not see
that this use would impact any future redevelopment efforts should that come about.
• Has there been any record of clients harming others in their current neighborhoods? The
applicant feels their residents are more vulnerable to any harm than the other way around.
• Is there Section 8 housing proposed near County Road c and rrrgnway of west OT the parK
and ride? No,, there is no such proposal. Furthermore, there is no proposal for any sort of
development in that area.
• What are the notification rules? Several residents commented /complained that they were
not notified directly of this proposal. State law requires that we notify to a distance of 350
feet. The city's policy is to notify to a distance of 500 feet from the proposed site. We also
posted a "Proposed Development' sign on the subject property to additionally inform
2 _.
neighbors that something is being proposed. We are happy that those who lived beyond our
1=
already increased mailing radius commented by email or phone call to give us their
comments about this proposal,
f—
• The quality of the staff in such facilities is typically low. What is the staff like? The applicant
f_
explains that their staff "are on site 24/7 and fully credentialed and have years of experience
working with the population we serve."
F
i-
• Patients of this facility may get hit on the busy highways like deer. This is one neighbors
concern. Staff has no comment.
• Why doesn't the applicant renovate one of their existing facilities rather than open this one?
This is the applicant's choice. Staff has no comment.
• t don't want this in my backyard. Staff has no comment to this statements
Staff Comments
Building Official
Dave Fisher, the Maplewood Building Official, had the following comments:
• The city will require a complete building code analysis from a design professional. This will
include items such as fire separation, exiting, occupant loads, bathroom counts and any
updates resulting from this change in use:
• Building /construction plans are required by registered design professional:
• Verification that the mechanical system meets code requirements is required:
• Verification of adequate bathroom facilities is required.
• The building is required to have an automatic fire suppression system. Verify that the
coverage is adequate for this use.
• Provide a fire alarm system. Verify these requirements with Butch Gervais, the Maplewood
Assistant Fire Chief /Fire Marshal.
• Handicap- accessible parking is required,
• A handicap- accessible elevator is required.
• The contractor shall have a pre - construction meeting with the city staff.
--
Assistant Fire Chief /Fire Marshal
• Install fire protection per code requirements.
• Install fire alarm per code requirements.
,3
....
• Any doors that are locked 24/7 so people can't leave the facility must operate according to r-
code if any fire alarms are activated.
r
E
• There shall be proper exit signs and emergency lights.
• A fire department lock box shall be installed.
• The sprinkler - control room needs to be clearly marked.
i-
• The alarm - control room needs to be clearly marked.
• If there is any area where biohazard is being stored it must be clearly marked. These are
areas where biohazard materials and sharp containers are stored.
Engineering
Refer to the Engineering Plan Review by Jon Jarosch. In short, Mr. Jarosch will require
drainage, traffic and utility information prior to obtaining permits to begin construction.
Police
Police Chief, Dave Thomalla, reviewed the applicant's proposal and commented on the
frequency of police calls to the applicant's existing facility. Please refer to Chief Thomalla's
memo. He found that the applicant understated the number of police calls to their St. Paul
facility. The information Chief Thomalla received from the St. Paul Police Department indicated
that in the past year Community Foundations had 147 police calls to that facility. Examples of
the calls were:
58 missing person reports
9 medical calls
9 suicides or attempts
9 flights or assaults
5 calls for drunkenness
3 narcotics complaints
2 sex offenses or assaults
The applicant has reviewed Chief Thomalla's memo and prepared a written response. Refer to
their reply:
CUP Findings for Approval
The zoning ordinance requires that, in order to approve a CUP, the city council determine that all
nine . 'standards" for CUP approval must be met. These state that it must be determined by the
city that the proposed use would:
• Comply with the city's comprehensive plan and zoning code.
• Maintain the existing or planned character of the neighborhood.
• Not depreciate property values.
• Not cause any disturbance or nuisance.
• Not cause excessive traffic.
4
• Be served by adequate public facilities and police /fire protection.
• Not create excessive additional costs for public services. k __
• Maximize and preserve the site's natural and scenic features.
• Not cause adverse environmental effects.
Staff feels that the proposed use would not have any real impact on most of these factors.
There does not appear that there would any substantial impact due to traffic, affect on property
values or be any physical disturbances (noise, pollutants, commotion or other nuisances that
could be more common for businesses in industrial districts). Any proposal would conceivably
have some affect on a neighborhood, but this request would not seem to have much impact in
these regards. Nor would the proposed use adversely affect the environment or the sites natural
and scenic features. All needed public utilities, facilities and police and fire services are also
available.
Staff is not convinced, however, that there would not be any disturbance or nuisance involved
i
because of the patients of the facility potentially going outside into the neighborhood. This is not
to imply that the patients at this facility would pose any threat to the neighborhood, but simply the
fact that there is already a heightened concern by the residential neighbors to the north that
lends to this feeling of disturbance and unease.
The other factor is that the proposed use would not meet the CUP criteria which states that "it
does not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. This is based on
Chief Thomalla's finding that the number of police calls to the applicant's existing facility in St.
Paul is notably higher than the applicant indicated in their narrative, The applicant stated that
they experience five police calls per month. The St. Paul Police Department said that they had
147 police calls to that facility last year or 12:25 calls per month.
Design Evaluation
The applicant is proposing to remodel the building by doing the following:
• Add new windows on the east (front), west and north elevations
• Remove an existing window on the east elevation
• Add new doors on the north and west elevations
• Repair damaged stucco
• Remodel the entry vestibule
• Remove old lap siding and corrugated metal siding and replace with stucco
• Add a sky light on the north elevation
• Add landscaping
• formalize parking on the north side of the building for three parking spaces
• A new patio in the back of the building to be enclosed with a decorative fence
These are all improvements to this building which has been falling into neglect and disrepair for
several years now. Staff's only concern is that the proposed parking area for the three spaces
north 'ofthe building be reconfigured to remove enough blacktop to provide a 15 foot parking lot
setback as the city code requires. This area would not require curbing, but since work is being —
proposed to revamp this paved area, it should be done to bring it closer into code compliance.
This means that excess pavement should be removed to decrease the impervious pavement
area since this site is within the shoreland boundary area of Keller Lake. Providing a 15 -foot
parking lot setback may result in there being room for only two parking spaces in this area,
however.
s
Summary
Staff's major concerns are that this facility has the potential for generating numerous police calls
per month, based on the data derived from the St. Paul Police Department. This number was
not reflected in the applicant's narrative and justification for their request. The CUP approval
requirements state that "a conditional use permit may be approved, or amended by satisfying all
of the following standards for approval... not just some of the nine standards or findings.
Based on that requirement, staff cannot recommend approval since we feel that the proposed' c
use would have the potential to generate a significant number of police calls to this facility above
the number indicated by the applicant.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Deny the proposed conditional use permit for a residential facility in conjunction with a
proposed mental health care facility at 1111 Viking Drive. Denial is based on the following
reasons:
a. Section 44 -1097 of the Maplewood conditional use permit ordinance requires that all of
the listed nine standards for approval of a conditional use permit be met, not just some of
these standards.
b. Standard Number 7 would not be met since the proposed use has the potential "to create
excessive additional costs for public facilities or services," namely, the potential for an
heightened number of police service calls to the facility based on data provided by the
City of St. Paul Police Department concerning the applicant's existing facility in that city.
2. Approve the plans date - stamped March 17, 2011 for the proposed building, site and
landscaping improvements to the former Ethan Allen Building, located at 1111 Viking Drive.
Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the applicant doing
the following:
a. Revise the site plan to provide a 15-foot parking lot setback from the Gervais Avenue
right -of -way line. This may result in there being room for only two parking spaces in this
area.
b. The excess pavement in this area shall be removed to decrease the impervious
pavement area since this site is within the shoreland boundary area of Keller Laker The
area of the removed pavement shall then be restored as lawn.
6
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Staff surveyed the owners of the 18 properties within 500 feet of the proposed facility. Staff
received replies from others in neighborhood beyond this mailing radius as well. In all, staff �
received 11 replies, two were in favor, five were opposed and four gave comments or raised
questions, but took no stance either for or against the proposal.
In Favor
1. We have no objections to this proposal. (Second Harvest Heartland)
2. 1 am fine with the proposed facility, however, our building is an active warehouse facility with
many trucks and noise next door to this facility. Trucks also use the road right next to the
proposed facility. This has never been an issue in the past as the building was for retail. If
used as a residential facility, I would not want complaints of noise and truck traffic to impact
on our building being used as it always has been —an active warehouse. I hope those
considering this location for residential purposes fully acknowledge this in seeking this
change. (Eric Larson)
Opposed
1 We do not want mental house too close to our home. it will affect property values and
could have other problems too. (Pisanu and Vipa Sukhtipyaroge)
2. Some neighbors and I have the following concerns:
• Have any of the potential clients ever been convicted of a serious crime?
• Are any of the clients sex offenders?
• Are the clients dangerous?
• Will the clients be confined to the facility? Will they be taking walks outside or around the
neighborhood? Will family members be visiting hence talking walks outside?
• If approved will the facility want to expand making the facility closer to the neighborhood?
• We are concerned that having such a facility so close to the neighborhood might impact
resale value on homes?
• We have a young child in our household and we are very worried about having such a
facility so close to our house. We never would have built a house knowing that a Mental
Health Treatment Facility was so closer We feel that such a facility would be better
suited somewhere else. There are approximately 37 children in the neighborhood
(Cypress, Sextant, Demont and Adele Streets) and a daycare located in the
neighborhood on Cypress. We are very concerned for the children in the neighborhood.
(Kelly Ubel)
3. Refer to the two emails from Becky Bergerson.
4.
Refer to the email reply from Kathy Kleve.
s
-
i
5.
Refer to the email reply from Richard Kleve.
c
Comments, Questions and Concerns (these replies were neither for nor against)
1.
if this is allowed, would it help to set the character of the neighborhood more so than it is
now and make it more difficult for any neighborhood redevelopment? What kind of security
h
would the facility have? (Huey's Saloon and Grill)
i
2.
Since 1987 (when they started) have they had any serious problems with people getting lose
i
or harming anyone outside of their property? (Eugene and Jeannette Kern)
3.
Much to my surprise I was informed by a neighbor tonight that there is Section 8 housing
going in across from the park and ride on County Road C and 61 next to the trailer park. In
addition 1 have heard but not confirmed that the old Ethan Allen building byHuey's may be a
new location for people with issues in transition. As a Maplewood community member for 17
years this is of great concern to me. This would mean on one big block there would be
Section 8, a trailer park and whatever may be going into Ethan Allen. (Bonnie and Dan
Keran)
4.
l run a family based daycare out of my home. I am concerned about how available the
residents would be to the neighborhood. If they would have access to Kohiman Park and be
able to roam through the neighborhood. Would any sexual predators be part of the
rehabilitation program? When is the proposed date for the facility to open? How would this
affect the value of our homes? I have 8 daycare families that would be interested in some
more information as well. (Michelle Dansky)
s
-
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION,_ -
- k
Site size: 25,700 square feet
Existing land use: The former Ethan Allen Furniture Store now vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES E
North: Gervais Avenue, single dwelling, K &W Roll -offs, the Northernaire Motel, Huey's Saloon
and Grill and Sunset Realty
South: Highway 36 and Keller Lake
East: Highway 61 and Second Harvest Heartland
West: Thomas Tool Company (now vacant), Links Paint and Promotional Resources and
Hermanson Dental
PLANNING
Land Use Plan designation: C (commercial)
Zoning: M1 (light manufacturing)
CODE REQUIREMENTS
Section 44- 1092(3) of the city ordinances requires a CUP for residential programs.
Findings for CUP Approval`
Section 44- 1097(a) requires that the city council base approval of a CUP on nine findings. Refer to
the nine standards for CUP approval included in the attachments.
APPLICATION DATE
The application for this request was complete on March 17, 2011. State law requires that the
city decide on land use applications within 60 days. The deadline for council action, therefore, is
May 16, 2011.
9
p:sec9 \South Metro Human Services CUP PC Report 411 to
Attachments:
1. Location /Zoning Map
2. Land Use Plan Map
3. Site Plan
4. Applicant's Written Narrative date - stamped March 17, 2011
6. Section 44 -1097 Standards for CUP Approval
6. Project Review Memo by ChiefThomalla dated March 22, 2011
7. Applicant's Written Response to Chief Thomalla's Project Review dated stamped April 7, 2011
8. Applicant's Written Response to the Neighbor's Concerns date - stamped April 6, 2011
9. Email Responses from Becky Bergerson dated March 29 and March 31, 2011
10. Email Response from Kathy Kleve dated March 29, 2011
11. Email Response from Richard Kleve dated March 29, 2011
12. Engineering Report from Jon Jarosch dated April 1, 2011
10
Location/Zoning Map
r
Attachment
Location /Zoning Map V_
+ t I -
o.ns:ais�r .o ,MU
Copyright
MaplewoodBaseMap
Chad Bergo e.
Parcels: This data set is available to everyone. Fees and policy are published in the Ramsey County Fee Schedule. Charges are
variable and are subject to change. Seethe Ramsey County Fee Schedule for specific information on fees and policy. t_
i
l
http: // maps. ci. maplewood. mn. us / aspnet_ clienVESRI/ WebADF IPrintTaskLayoutTemplates... 4/13/2011
0 � Attachment 2
O �
U)
0
O
wo x o
0 Z L
N L L
U �
U
w H
m bi Z Y
aa>
a
p w O
ILL)
J
3 y y N N C N
C y
E O a y O
N 0 "O O
O W J 20 1 2 U 2 0 5 a 0 MO
tM
O
M
O
W
I. I
O
'
N
Q
i
r
Q
1
•
►
o
y
N r
1
y f0.
N
N
y
N
r
y
y.
N om,
0
w
c
A
to _
J
3 y y N N C N
C y
E O a y O
N 0 "O O
O W J 20 1 2 U 2 0 5 a 0 MO
tM
O
M
O
W
I. I
O
'
N
Q
i
r
Q
1
o
y
y f0.
N
N
y
N
r
y
y.
N om,
0
w
c
A
to _
J
3 y y N N C N
C y
E O a y O
N 0 "O O
O W J 20 1 2 U 2 0 5 a 0 MO
tM
O
M
O
W
I. I
ORNAMENTAL
PERIMETER
FENCE WITH
GERVAIS AVENUE
PARKING
SPACES
DRIVE
PATIO
I ORNAMENTAL
PERIMETER
FENCE
T"
ROOF
0
PARKING
GENERAL SITE NOTES
1. ALL TREES SHOWN ARE EXISTING
'� 00
ug
wxnx�
INC.
PHONE:
ORNAMENTAL METAL
G SWING GATE
ca e:
SITE PLAN
AS-1.1a
F -_
�i .� -
TL'�
South Metro Human Services B Y-- - - --
Community Foundations -1111 Viking Drive East
Attachment 4
CUP & CDRB Application Narrative
South Metro Human Services (SMHS) is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for the 1111
Viking Drive property to be the new home of the Community Foundations program that
has served mentallyill individuals in Ramsey County since 1987. SMHS will undertake a $2.5
million rehabilitation of this long vacant property, the former "Ethan Allen" retail store, and
transform it into a therapeutic treatment facilitywith 16 units of transitional housing and
2,500 square feet of counseling, meeting, and office space.
Since 1987 South Metro Human Services has operated the Community Foundations
program in a four -story turn of the century apartment building in Saint Paul. This facility is
one of Minnesota's oldest Intensive Residential Treatment Services (IRTS) facilities and has
effectively served over 550 individuals in its 24 -year history. SMHS and its funding
partners, the Minnesota Department of Human Services (AIN DI and Ramsey County
Human Services, believe it is time to transition the Community Foundations program to a
state of the art facility and to a location that would better meet the needs of the clients and
the community. The goal is to upgrade the facility by locating it in a suburban location that
can provide a safer and more dignified housing option that is better suited for treatment,
stabilization, and recovery.
The proposed rehabilitation of 1111 Viking Drive East in Maplewood would include:
• 16 single room dwellings for clients requiring continuous care and supervision. Each
dwelling space includes a kitchenette and bathroom in addition to a studio -style
sleeping room.
• Two lounges and private secure patio to encourage clients to participate in group
activities.
• A licensed commercial kitchen with a communal dining area to accommodate up to
20 people.
• 8 -10 offices for professional staff to altematelybe used as offices and counseling
spaces.
• Multiple conference rooms for meetings and group thempytrainings.
• Interior common spaces that can be observed from the Business /Reception Office,
Conference Room and one private office. Access to the building is controlled and
supervised bythe Business /Reception Office.
• Native exterior landscaping and parking lot to accommodate 16 -18 vehicles
• Secure back entrance and loading dock accessible to commercial kitchen =
-1-
Intensive Residential Treatment Services (IRTS)
There are an estimated 42,000 adults in Ramsey Countywho suffer with a serious mental
illness. Community Foundations is one of six IRTS programs in Ramsey County licensed by
the Minnesota Department of Human Services W DHS). IRTS exist to provide time -
limited mental health services in a residential setting to recipients in need of more a
restrictive environment (versus community settings) and at risk of significant functional
deterioration if they do not receive these services. IRTS are designed to develop and
enhance psychiatric stability, personal and emotional adjustment, self - sufficiency, and skills
to live in a more independent setting. The efforts and compassion of programs like
Community Foundations, coupled with the courage and persistence of people with SPMI,
demonstrate that many clients can do well in the community with adequate support and
services.
The Community Foundations program offers a full range of treatment service components
in order to provide comprehensive 24 hour treatment and care. The facility is licensed to
provide housing for no more than 16 residents at a time (approximately 70 unduplicated
clients per year) for a maxim of 90 days (average stay is 48 days). Clients come diagnosed
with a range of a serious and persistent mental illness including Major Depressive Disorders
(25% in 2010), Bi -Polar Disorder (13 %); Schizoaffective Disorders (38 %) and Schizophrenia
(19 %). The services provided are designed to promote individual choice and active
involvement in the treatment process. These treatment service components are designed to
promote recovery and psychiatric stability through the use of established rehabilitative
principles and best practices based on contemporary research. The service is intended to be
short term and directed toward transition to a more permanent living situation.
South Metro Human Services
South Metro Human Services has a long and respected history of providing clinical mental
health services to adults in Ramsey County. SMHS is a tax exempt, non - profit agency
founded in 1986 and opened its first program Community Foundations in 1987. Currently,
SAE-JS has several hundred employees and serves over 2,500 clients per year in Ramsey,
Hennepin, Anoka, Washington and Dakota Counties. SAE-IS has become one of the largest
providers of mental health support services to low-income and formerly homeless adults
living independently in Ramsey County. In 1988, SMHS expanded by opening the ACCESS
program which works with mentally ill persons who are experiencing homelessness in
Ramsey County. Also in 1988, SAE-IS became one of the providers of Rule 79 Case
Management services in Ramsey County. Over the next ten years, the number of SMHS
programs increased in Ramsey County by providing Chemical Dependence Case
Management, Housing Services Programs, Representative Payee Services, CADI /TBI Case
Management and Pre - Petition Screening. The largest growth period began in 2003 with the
addition of the Adult Foster Care Program and the opening of the Dayton house in St. Paul.
In 2005, SMHS added Assertive Community Treatment teams in Ramsey, Hennepin and
Anoka counties as well as the creation of the Adult Rehabilitative Mental Health Services
[ARMHS] program
-2-
City of Maplewood's Criteria for Approval
The proposed use of the property meets and exceeds all of the City of Maplewood's Criteria
for Approval including:
1. The use will be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in
conformitywith the Cir/s Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances.
• This facility use meets the following goals outlined in Maplewood's Housing Action
Plan including to:
• Provide for the housing and service needs of a disabled population
• Provide housing and services to meet the needs of non - traditional
households
• The building will be designed and constructed with respect to the Maplewood's
Design Review requirements and the International Building Code.
• Reuse of this existing building as a mental health treatment facility is in an area
designated as Light Manufacturing in the City's Land Use and Zoning Maps.
Consisting largely of commercial activities, i.e. counseling, mental/medical treatment
and office space, the transitional housing use is allowed under a conditional use
permit.
• South Metro Human Services owns numerous properties (primarily Adult Foster
Care Homes) in the metro area that demonstrate a practice of exemplary property
maintenance.
2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area.
• The proposed use is a short term residential treatment facility and the supporting
offices for SMHS staff.
• The proposed design and rehabilitation of the property will work within the existing
character and not alter the architectural footprint of the current building structure.
• The proposed design and rehabilitation of the property includes minimal exterior
alterations and will have only positive impact on the existing character of the
surrounding area.
3. The use would not depreciate property values.
• Currentlythere is no data that suggests the proposed use would have anypositive or
negative effect on property values.
• The proposed rehabilitation of this long vacant property includes a significant
financial investment to improve interior and exterior features of an essentially bare
commercial structure.
• SMHS, even though it is a 5016 non- profit organization, pays propertytaxes on all
of its properties.
■ The building interior will be completely remodeled in a manner and with durable _
materials appropriate to long term use of the facility.
■ The building exterior will be enhanced with additional windows, a skylight, a new
entry and renovated wall surfaces.
■ The appearance and value of the building will be enhanced with landscaping,
retaining walls, a patio, and fencing.
3-
4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of
operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a
nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor,
fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run -off, vibration, general unsightliness,
electrical interference or other nuisances.
• The property will be properly maintained and the proposed use will not be a
nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust,
odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run -off, vibration, general
unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances..
• A minim of 2 staff members will be on site 24 hour per day. SMHS staff will take
every step to monitor residents so that they do not adversely affect the surrounding
community. Many assume that individuals with mental illness will cause additional
nuisance, commit criminal acts and exhibit violent unpredictable behavior in the
community where they reside. Our experience, statistics and contemporary research
indicate that this stigma is simply not true and that individuals in treatment for SPMI
are more likely victims of crimes rather than perpetrators.
5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not
create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets.
• It is anticipated that approximately 30 vehicular trips will be made to and from the
facility in a twenty-four hour period.
• Automobile traffic generated by the proposed use will be minimal. During the day,
no more than ten staff members will be on site. At night two staff members will be
present onsite.
• While most residents do not have personal use of automobiles, they will occasionally
have visitors.
• Occasional deliveries will be made at an anticipated frequency of less than two
deliveries per day.
6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets,
police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and
parks.
• This program will have minima impact on public facilities and services including
streets, fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and
parks.
• Currently, the Community Foundations program requires approximately five police
responses per month at the current location in Saint Paul. Lacking negative urban
influences and providing a more isolated location the new facility is expected to
require less support bylaw enforcement.
• To provide for increase plumbing required for the proposed use and for the
additional of a fire protection system, the water and sewer capacities will need to be
increased.
7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services.
• Due to the addition of a fire suppression system and the increase in domestic
plumbing fixtures, larger water and sewer services will be required to serve the
building. This work will be a project cost paid by South Metro.
• The utilitywork will disturb the recently reconstructed Gervais Avenue. South Metro
will incur additional costs to repair the public right -of -way.
• Additional costs of water and sewer service will be paid by South Metro, the building
owner.
■ No extraordinary impacts on public facilities or services are anticipated.
8. The use would maximiz the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic
features into the development design.
• Impervious surfaces on the site will be reduced.
• Storm water management on the site will be improved to meet current requirements.
• Changes to the existing building will be primarily aesthetic improvements.
9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects.
• No adverse environmental effects are associated with the proposed use.
• Potential adverse environmental impacts of construction will be mitigated.
-5-
Attachment 5
(c) All decisions by the city council shall be final, except that any person aggrieved by a
decision, may within 30 days of the decision, appeal to the county district court. (Code
1982, ss 36 -441)
Sec. 44 -1097. Standards.
(a) A conditional use permit may be approved, or amended by satisfying all of the
following standards for approval, in addition to any standards or findings for a
specific conditional use found elsewhere in the Maplewood Code of Ordinances:
(1) The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated
to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and this Code.
(2) The use would not change the existing or planned character of the
surrounding area.
(3) The use would not depreciate property values.
(4) The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or
methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental,
disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of
excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution,
drainage water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference
or other nuisances.
(5) The use would not exceed the design standards of any affected street.
(6) The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including
streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer
systems, schools and parks.
(7) The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or
services.
(8) The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural
and scenic features into the development design.
(9) The use would cause no more than minimal adverse environmental effects.
(b) The city council may waive any of the requirements in subsection (a) of this
section for a public building or utility structure, provided the council shall first
make a determination that the public interest would be best served by such
waiver.
(c) The applicant shall have the burden of proving that the use would meet all of the
standards required for approval of a conditional use permit. The city may require
the applicant provide, at his cost, any information, studies or expert testimony
necessary to establish whether these standards would be met or to establish
conditions for approval.
(Code 1982, § 36 -442)
Attachment 6
Memo
To: Tom Ekstrand
From: David J. Thomalla, Chief of Police
Date: 3/22/2011 0
Re: Project Review for South Metro Human Services
I have reviewed the above project proposal and have concerns about the project and the statements
made by the applicant.
Although the area of this proposed location is designated light manufacturing, this facility would be
directly across the street from two residential properties and within city lot's distance from several other
residences.
The statement is made in the packet that the current location of Community Foundations "requires
approximately five police responses per month ". This number is grossly understated. When I called
the St. Paul Police Department and gave the desk officer the address, he responded with "we get a lot
of calls there ". I requested a report on the calls for service for the past year and that showed there
have been 147 calls to that location. This seems to be a concerning number for a facility with 16 -20
beds. The Ramsey County Correctional Facility which has 430 beds and much more security only had
188 calls for service for the same time period and the Ramsey County Family Service Center which
has minimal staff and 60 beds, had 51 calls for service.. This equates to 2.28 calls per bed (or per
capita) at the County Correctional Facility, .85 calls per bed at the Family Service Center, but 7.35 calls
per bed at Community Foundations. The City per capita average is roughly .64.
The nature of some of the calls to Community Foundations is also concerning. The calls in the past.
year include:
58 Missing Person Reports
9 Medical calls
9 Suicides or attempts
9 Fights or assaults
5 Calls for drunkenness
3 Narcotics complaints
2 Sex offenses or assaults
I am unsure as to what value an organization that places additional burdens on public safety resources
has to the community as a whole.
400 Sibley Street
Suite 500
St. Paul, MN 55101
phone: 851.291.1979
fax: 851.291.7378
Attachment 7
web: south- metro.or0
Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
Office of Community Development
1830 County Road B East
Maplewood, MN 55109
Re: memo from Chief Thomalla, dated 3 /22/11
t
APR 0 7 2011 D
I have reviewed the memo by Chief of Police Thomalla regarding out proposal to relocate our
residential mental health treatment facility to Maplewood. Comparing out unlocked residential mental
health treatment facility to a state -of- the -art County JaR is inappropriate for a number of reasons. We
are very familiar with the facility the Chief refers to; out staff have offices in the Ratnsey County
Correctional Facility through a contract with Ramsey County Corrections.
It is not out intention to mislead or "grossly underestimate" police involvement at the current site.
Many of the calls made to the police that are tallied as "calls" do not require police visits to the site.
We did not include these in our reporting, thus the discrepancy. Our tesidents are far more likely to be
victims of crimes than perpetrators. The police call report listed two instances of "sexual assault," both
of$iese situations involved program participants as victims, not perpetrators of a crime. Due to their
vulnerability, if a client does not return from an appointment in a timely manner of staff cannot verify
their whereabouts, a call is made to the police department reporting them as "missing" incompliance
with the Minnesota Statute for Vulnerable Adults. Usually clients do return in a short period, but there
are times when they do not and timely intervention can have a significant impact on the client's
welfare. If a client breaks the law, the program will reportit, The overwhelming majority of the
transgressions repotted happen within the walls of the facility and not out in the community.
The new site allows us to operate a more appropriately designed facility more suitable to effective
treatment and monitoring of participants. The Viking Drive location will be more isolated from the
negative influences that ate present in the current neighborhood and we believe that calls to the Police
will decrease significantly.
The program is an alternative to hospitalization for individuals with mental illness and plays an
important tole in managing health care cost. This has a direct benefit for the state of Minnesota and
Ramsey County residents.
Sincerely, - -
M
Terry M. Schneider, MA
Licensed Psychologist
Director of Clinical Services
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO Attachment 8
NEIGHBOR'S CONCERNS
1. Have any of the potential clients ever been convicted of a serious crime? rAP U
2. Are any of the clients sex offenders? 20 11
3. Are the clients dangerous?
First of all, we stress that Community Foundations is a mental health treatment pr
not a corrections program or a program the treats sex offenders. This program serves
adult men and women for whom maintaining independent living stability in the
community has been an ongoing challenge because of mental illness. The goal of the
program is to provide an alternative to hospitalization and offer mental health treatment
that will help the client transition to a permanent, appropriate.and dignified housing
situation in the community.
As a community mental health services program licensed by the Minnesota Department
of Human Services, Community Foundations is held to specific treatment planning
standards and performance outcomes. The staff that are on -site 24/7 are fully
ctedentialed and have years of experience working with the population we serve. As pan
of the required treatment planning prior to admission of each resident, the facility staff
complete a diagnostic assessment and an Individual Abuse Prevention Plan. These
assessments detail the applicant's immediate needs and personal history, including needs
related to his or her health and safety, past medical treatment and previous legal issues.
If an applicant has a criminal record, it is reviewed as part of this process ... it is not
automatically a cause for denial. The assessment determines whether the individual is of
immediate risk to themselves, to other program participants, to South Metro staff or of
risk to the residents of the surrounding community. Once this is established it is then
determined if Community Foundations is an appropriate treatment option for them
moving forward. Not all referrals are accepted into the program.
Community Foundations is not a program for sex offenders. The program has never had
a sexual crime involving a Community Foundations participant against a resident of the
surrounding community. Further more, we do not serve any level 3 offenders, but as
licensed facility, Community Foundations would be required to notify the neighborhood
if we had a level 3 offender. Sexual offenses that have been reported to police have
involved program participants as victims, not perpetrators of a crime.
We understand that many fear that individuals with mental illness will commit crimin
acts and exhibit violent, unpredictable behavior in the community where they reside.
Our experience, statistics and contemporary research indicate that this stigma is simply
not true and that individuals in treatment for mental illness are more likely victims of
crimes rather than perpetrators.
4. Will the clients be confined to the facility? Will they be taking walks outside or
around the neighborhood? Will family members be visiting hence talking walks
around the neighborhood?
Clients are not confined to the facility and are free to leave the facility at any time. A
minim of 2 staff members are on site 24 hours per day and staff do take every step to
monitor participants to guarantee each participants safety.
Because this is a short-term treatment program (max 90 days), the primary focus is
stabilization and treatment. Individuals in the program have a relatively full schedule
meeting with caseworkers, attending psychiatric appointments and participating in a
variety of groups. At the current site, which is located immediately adjacent to other
residential property, participants do not typically go for "leisure" walks in the
neighborhood. We believe that at the Viking Drive site this will stay consistent. Current
staff does not recall any negative interaction between participants and the neighbors. We
also believe with improved living facilities and attractive common spaces, including a
secure back patio, program participants will be encouraged to spend more time within
the confines of the facility addressing their needs.
We expect that program participants will on occasion walk along the frontage road when
accessing public transportation at the Park and Ride on Route 61. We believe use of
public transportation will be infrequent because most of the transportation needs of
residents to and from the facility will be handled by South Metro staff (the facility has a
van), community case - workers, friends, family or medical transportation programs. We
believe they will be less likely to venture into the surrounding residential neighborhood.
5. if approved will the facility want to expand making the facility closer to the
neighborhood?
No. IRTS facilities may serve a maximum of 16 individuals at a time and the rehab
of this building is designed for this purpose.
6. We are concerned that having such a facility so close to the neighborhood might
impact resale value on homes.
Currently there is no data that suggests the proposed use would have any positive or
negative effect on property values.
If anything we believe we are adding value by purchasing and rehabilitating a long vacant
property. The proposed rehabilitation of this long vacant property includes a significant
financial investment to improve interior and exterior features of an essentially bare
commercial structure. The building interior will be completely remodeled with durable
materials in a manner appropriate to long -term use of the facility. The building exterior
will be enhanced with additional windows, a skylight, a new entry and renovated wall
surfaces. The appearance and value of the building will be enhanced with landscaping,
retaining walls, a patio, and fencing. There will be no exterior signage to indicate the
nature of use of the facility.
Concerns for children in the neighborhood
Currently, Community Foundations exists in a residential neighborhood with a
population of children equal to and probably greater than the neighborhood adjacent to
1111 Viking Drive. The facility is also adjacent to the Mt. Airy Homes public housing
community that has a high density of children. Staff do not -recall any incidents
involving Community Foundations a nd youth from the community.
Tom Ekstrand
From: Bergerson, Becky (Becky. Bergerson@capella.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 20113:11 PM
To: Tom Ekstrand
Subject: Proposed Mental Health Treatment Facility Attachment 9
Categories: Red Category
Hi Tom,
I am writing in regards to the South Metro Human Services proposal submitted earlier this month. I live in the residential
neighborhood immediately adjacent to the business area that includes the old Ethan Allen facility.
i am planning to submit formal comments but first have a few questions:
1. What are the notification rules for a proposal such as this? My house is .3 miles (driving) from the location in question, but I
did not receive any information first -hand. One of my neighbors heard about this from yet another neighbor (who might
live slightly closer as the crow flies but further driving -wise) and passed out copies of your letter. I am concerned
2. Would the proposed facility be locked down, or would residents be able to come and go as they please?
3. If a registered sex offender were to take up residence in this facility, would the neighborhood be notified or would the
offender be somehow "protected" as a transitional resident of the treatment facility?
From: Bergerson, Becky (Becky. Bergerson@capella.edu]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 20119:43 AM
To: Tom Ekstrand
Subject: I object to the proposed mental health treatment facility
Hello,
My name is Becky Bergerson and I reside at 2471 Cypress Street in Maplewood. My spouse's name is Kevin, and we have two small
children (18 months and 4 months). We purchased our home in October 2006. Kevin works as a Director of Marketing at the
Sportsman's Guide in South St. Paul and I am an Analyst at Capella University in downtown Minneapolis. We work hard, take care of
our home, and follow the rules. We are good people and good citizens.
It took us a long time to find our home. We wanted it "all," a nice newer house in a quiet neighborhood filled with kids, a great
backyard, good schools, lakes and parks close by, etc. We felt very fortunate to find our home ... and we paid a considerable amount
of money for all of these great things. We would never have chosen this location if there were a mental health residential facility
within .3 miles of our home. It feels crass to say that, but it's true.
I feel that this facility will decrease the safety of the neighborhood. I feel that it will increase police activity in the neighborhood.
think it will lower property values. I think it will create a more transient neighborhood.
I'm not sure how much response you're getting to this proposal, but I'm quite sure you would have gotten more if you had notified
all residents of my neighborhood. I'm also guessing there is a bit of a language barrier in play. We have numerous Hmong families
in our neighborhood — families who love their kids as much as I love mine and would likely have the same concerns— but families for
whom English is difficult. Even if they had been notified they may not have understood what the proposal entails.
It seems odd to me that South Metro Human Services thinks that a suburban location such as this will be an improvement. Outside
of the daily rush hour -only commuter buses, there is no convenient public transportation. Grocery stores and Target are not all that
close by.
I did not receive a response to my previous message, so I need to ask that you acknowledge this one. I'd also ask again that you
notify me when a public hearing is scheduled.
Thanks for your time.
Becky Bergerson
i
From: Kathy Kleve [mailto:kathyodo @comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 20119:42 PM
To: Tom Ekstrand Attachment 10
Cc: Marvin Koppen; James Llanas; Will Rossbach; John Nephew; Kathleen Juenemann
Subject: Proposed Mental Health Facility at Ethan Allen
Mr Ekstrand
Tam writing regarding the recent letter that was distributed to a select few residences /businesses in the vicinity of the
Ethan Allen building regarding the proposed mental health facility. While my intent of this is to share my concerns on this
proposal, at the same time I would like to understand what the criteria is for notification in this type of situation.
We dust happened upon the information, and given we are five houses away from someone that did receive this, I do not
understand, nor am I happy with, the process by which so few people were notified.
Regarding the proposed facility. t do understand the need to have places to house and rehabilitate individuals in these
situations, however, I will be brutally honest in the fact that I don't want it in my backyard.
We moved to our house in Maplewood 5 1/2 years ago. Since that time, we have lost over 28% of the value of our home.
I am in the mortgage business so what has happened over the last few years in the mortgage market is not foreign tome.
However, there are areas of the Twin Cities that have not lost as much value as others, with Maplewood being one on the
end of higher property loss values (yet we will be paying higher taxes again in 2011):
Introducing a facility such as this in a neighborhood that has not only a number of young children, but a home daycare in
close proximity is concerning. From my perspective, we already have our share of issues that can affect the value of our
neighborhood, in particular, I am speaking of the Northernaire Motel and some of the activities that apparently transpire
there.
What information do you have at your disposal that will assist with making this proposal or, is this already a foregone
conclusion and this is a mere formality to make folks think what they say can make.a difference? (I can't help but make
this assumption after having worked with you when Maple Leaf Ridge Business Center was built in 2005/2006:' That was
a situation where the citizens were not heard, the City did what it wanted, what benefited the developer, and our opinion
didn't matter, and we didn't even ask for that much.)
What type of staff does this place employ? From the little information I was able to gather, these used to be state funded
facilities and the state did away with these and now they are all non- profit. I can't imagine that the quality, training or ratio
of staff to patient in a non profit setting can possibly be at the level that is needed for this type of facility and to ensure the
safety of the area.
What information do you have available about this organization and it's current facility? Have there been complaints filed
against them? If so, for what and how have they been resolved? What are the licensing requirements for this place?
There are probably. numerous other questions /concerns I would have had I had the time to do some further leg work on
this, and rest assured, I will do futher fact finding and I will be attending any meetings regarding this subject.
I strongly oppose this facility going in in our neighborhood due to safety and property value concerns.
I can only ask that the residents actually have a voice in what happens here.
_
I look forward to futher information being shared with the people affected by this.
Thankyou
Kathy Kleve
2498 Adele Street
Maplewood, MN 55109
612.518.2572
2
Tom Ekstrand Attachment 11
i
From:, Richard Kleve [rkleve08 @gmaii.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 6:02 PM E
To: Tom Ekstrand �G
Subject: Proposed Mental Health facility
Attachments: Mental Health Facility - Ethan Allen bldg.pdf
Dear Mr. Ekstrand,
I would like to respond to your request for opinions regarding the proposed re- location of the South Metro
Human Services Mental Health Treatment Facility.
First of all I was disappointed and dismayed, as were most of our neighbors, that none of us received the
attached letter and none is apparently seeking an opinion from the majority of the neighborhood (apparently
only those along Sexton Ave)
I would like to offer my thoughts on the matter:
- The letter from So. Metro M.H. is quite vague about staff ratios for
supervision and the education and training requirements of the staff in
this facility. Frankly, one of the key issues is the quality of staff (which is
usually pretty low in these types of places) and the number of staff to
supervise and control.
-These type of facilities popped up almost 20 years ago as
the state had a great (misguided) idea to close state mental hospitals and save money.
This year's legislative budget closes even more (basically everything) with
a plan that these non - profits will care for individuals in the community.
The costs are less because the non - profits usually pay their staff minimum wage and
minimal to no benefits which is why the quality of the staff would be a major
concern.
- I want to express my concern over safety issues that effect the value of our home /neighborhood.
There is a Daycare facility in the neighborhood with very young children, as well as a neighborhood park.
The neighborhood is full of young children. I don't believe this kind of facility would be a good fit for this area.
- Besides all the safety issues for the neighborhood, my other concern quite frankly is for the patients. I can't imagine putting such a
facility within 100 feet of the intersection of two major highways (36 & 61). The safety issues are obvious. I don't want to see
patients lying in the ditch (ala our neighborhood deer) as I drive by in the morning.
- I am all for these patients getting an updated facility. Why can't they use the S2.5million to renovate their existing facility?
-According to SMHS, these patients are suffering a serious mental illness. They state that their patients are at risk of significant
functional deterioration. I don't want to put our children at risk with this type of facility located in our neighborhood. 1 believe you
will find a very united and robust opposition from the families who live in this neighborhood.
i
Please feel free to contact me if you wish to discuss. We will attend any hearings on the subject united and in force.
Best regards, —
r
Richard Kleve
— 2498 Adele St:
Maplewood, Mn 55109
r
t�
F
r
2
�
Attachment 12
Engineering Plan Review
PROJECT: South Metro Human Services
PROJECT NO: 11 -04
REVIEWED BY: Jon Jarosch (Maplewood Engineering Department)
SUBMITTAL NO: 1
DATE: 4/1/2011
South Metro Humane Services is requesting a conditional use permit for the former Ethan Allen
building at 1111 Viking Drive. They are proposing to convert the building into a therapeutic
treatment facility with 16 housing units. This conversion will require the replacement of the
existing sanitary sewer and water services to the site. Other exterior modifications to the site
appear to be minimal in this initial submittal.
The following is a list of requirements for this proposal.
General
1. An exterior site plan shall be submitted for approval detailing the extents of all exterior
improvements including pavement removals, new pavement areas, proposed grading,
erosion control, drainage flow arrows, and permanent stabilization of all disturbed areas.
2. The developer shall provide information regarding the change in impervious areas (paved
areas, patio, etc.) on the exterior of the site. If there is an increase in impervious areas on
the site, additional measures may be required to reduce the volume of storm -water runoff.
3. The developer shall provide flow rate information for the increase in sanitary sewer usage
from the proposed development:
4. The developer shall submit plans to Saint Paul Regional Water Service for the water
service upgrades to ensure their standards are met.
5. The developer shall submit plans detailing the water and sewer service connections to the
main- lines. These plans shall include detail regarding the size, depth, slope, and location
of the proposed services.
6. The developer shall submit plans detailing the restoration of Gervais Avenue after the
installation of the new services. The restoration of Gervais Avenue will be subject to the
requirements of the City of Maplewood's Right -of -Way ordinance.
7. The developer shall submit a traffic control plan detailing how traffic will be detoured
around Gervais Avenue during the installation of sanitary and water services.
8. The owner and project engineer shall satisfy the requirements of all other permitting
agencies.
h4Tzi [s7 7_1�I bill JA
TO: James Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Michael Martin, AICP, Planner
Charles Ahl, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Tax Increment Financing Request for Maplewood Mall Area
Improvements
DATE: April 11, 2011
INTRODUCTION
On March 1, 2011, Simon Properties, managers of Maplewood Mall, announced plans for a
major renovation of the mall's interior and exterior entrances. The proposed improvements are a
substantial investment into one of the city's majortaxpayers and certainly are a good reflection
on the health of the mall area. In addition, this is a solid reflection on the council's decisions
over the past 6 years to invest in the Maplewood Mall Area Transportation Improvements
(MMATI).
The city is proposing to utilize Tax Increment Financing (TIF) for additional site improvements
that will be added onto the planned $13.5 million investment that Simon Properties will be
making at Maplewood Mall.
BACKGROUND
In past years, TIF legislation has not allowed the capture of increment for improvements at
commercial properties; generally restricting TIF to industrial and housing economic development
or blighted areas. In 2010, due to the economic conditions, the state legislature authorized TIF
uses for commercial areas to help create jobs within the state. This legislation expires on June
30, 2011; although the state legislature is considering a bill to extend this deadline.
The TIF application proposes up to $1,000,000 of improvements to the site. It would help
provide pedestrian and bicycle access to the mall area businesses (see attachment) as well as
proposed improvement to the access roads, including possibly street lighting improvements at
the entrances.
fOM01FRI-119W
The planning commission is charged to review the TIF application to ensure compliance with the
city's comprehensive plan. A memo from the city's financial consultant, Springstead, is attached
to this report and outlines the review area for the planning commission. Also attached to the
report are several documents outlining the proposed TIF plan.
Maplewood's 2030 Comprehensive Plan guides the Maplewood Mall as Commercial. The
Commercial guide is consistent with the Maplewood Mall improvements and the proposed site
improvements. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan's Parks, Trails, and Open Space plan shows a
future trail through the Maplewood Mall site in order to provide additional connection to the
Lakes Link Trails and to provide walkable access from the neighborhoods east and west of the
mall site. Maps from the 2030 Comprehensive Plan are attached to this report.
Attachment
Springsted
MEMORANDUM
TO: Tom Ekstrand, City of Maplewood
FROM: Mikaela Huot, Assistant Vice - President
Tom Denaway, Analyst
Springsted Incorporated
380 Jackson Street, Suite 300
Saint Paul, MN 55101 -2887
Tel: 651 - 223 -3000
Fax: 651 - 223 -3002
www.spdngsted.com
DATE: April 11, 2011
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Review— Draft TIF Plan for District No. 1 -11
At the request of the City we have prepared the following overview for the Planning Commission review of the
proposed TIF Plan for TIF District No. 1 -11.
Minnesota Statute 469.175 Subdivision (3) outlines a number of findings that a municipality must make in order to
approve the creation of a TIF District. One of the specific findings outlined in this section is, "that the tax increment
financing plan conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole. In
order to comply with this requirement City's typically ask their Planning Commission to review the proposed TIF Plan,
and the development described within, and confirm by resolution the finding that the proposed development conforms
to the comprehensive plan of the City.
Included for the Planning Commissions review are the proposed modification to the Development Program for
Development District No. 1, the proposed Tax Increment Financing (Economic Development) Plan for TIF District No.
1 -11, and the resolution approving conformity. The Planning Commission is being asked to review the provided
documents, and if believing the proposed redevelopment of the Maplewood Mall to be in accordance with the
comprehensive plan to make the required finding through the adoption of the included resolution.
Public Sector Advisors
TABLE OF CONTENTS
22193970 i
Page
SECTION I
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
NO 1 ................................................................................. ...............................
3
I.I.
Definitions ................................................................................ ..............................3
1.2.
Statement of Public Purpose ................................................... ...............................
4
1.3.
Statutory Authority ................................................................. ...............................
5
1.4.
Statement of Need .................................................................... ..............................5
1.5.
Statement of Objectives .......................................................... ...............................
6
1.6.
Boundaries of Development District ...................................... ...............................
7
1.7.
Development Activities .......................................................... ...............................
7
1.8.
Payment of Project Cost .......................................................... ...............................
9
1.9.
Environmental Controls .......................................................... ...............................
9
1.10.
Park and Open Space to be Created ........................................ ...............................
9
1.11.
Proposed Reuse of Property .................................................... .............................10
1.12.
Administration and Maintenance of Development District .. ...............................
10
1.13.
Rehabilitation .......................................................................... .............................10
1.14.
Relocation ............................................................................... .............................10
1.15.
Parcels To Be Acquired In Whole or In Part Within the Development
District.....................:............................................................. ...............................
10
1.16.
Amendments ........................................................................... .............................11
1.17.
Development Activity in the Development District for which Contracts
HaveBeen Signed ................................................................... .............................11
1.18.
Other Specific Development Expected to Occur Within The Development
District............: ...................................................................... ...............................
12
Exhibit A
Boundaries of Development District No. 1 ................... ...............................
A -1
22193970 i
May 12, 2003 The Program for Development District No. 1 was modified by increased
Project Costs.
June 23, 2003 The Program for Development District No. 1 was modified by increased
Project Costs and the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Housing District No. 1 -8 within
Development District No. 1 was adopted.
August 25, 2008 The Program for Development District No. 1 was modified by
increased Project Costs and the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Housing District No. 1 -9
within Development District No. I was adopted.
Au"st 9, 2010: The program for Development District No. 1 was modified by
increased Project Costs and the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Housing District No. 1 -10
within Development District No. 1 was adopted.
April 25, 2011: The program for Development District No. 1 was modified by
increased Project Costs and the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Economic Development
District No. 1 -11 within Development District No. 1 was adopted.
2219397v1 2
(a) It will discourage commerce, industry or manufacturing from moving their operations
to another municipality; or
(b) It will result in increased employment in the state; or
(c) It will result in preservation and enhancement of the tax base of the state.
"Governing Body" means the duly elected City Council as defined in Minnesota Statutes,
Section 469.125, Subd. 8.
"Housing District" means a type of tax increment financing district which consists of a
project, or a portion of a project, intended for occupancy, in part, by persons or families of low
and moderate income, as defined in chapter 462A, Title II of the National Housing Act of 1937,
as amended, Title V of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended, any other similar present or future
federal, state, or municipal legislation, or the regulations promulgated under any of those acts, as
defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subd. 11.
"Municipal Industrial Development Act" means the statutory provisions of Minnesota
Statutes, Sections 469.152 through 469.165, as amended.
"Municipality" means any city, however organized as defined in Minnesota Statutes,
Section 469.125, Subd. 2.
"State" means the State of Minnesota.
"Tax Increment Bonds" means any general obligation or revenue tax increment bonds
issued and to be issued by the City to finance the project costs associated with Development
District No. 1 as stated in the Development Program and in the Tax Increment Financing Plan for
the Tax Increment Financing Districts within Development District No. 1. The term "Tax
Increment Bonds" shall also include any obligations issued to refund the Tax Increment Bonds.
"Tax Increment Financing District" means any tax increment financing district presently
established or to be established in the future in Development District No. 1.
"Tax Increment Financing Act" means the statutory provisions of Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 469.174 through 469.1799, inclusive, as amended.
"Tax Increment Financing Plan" means the respective Tax Increment Financing Plan for
each Tax Increment Financing District located within the Development District.
1.2. Statement of Public Purpose The Council (the "Council ") in and for the City of
Maplewood, Minnesota (the "City ") has determined that there is a need for housing,
development and redevelopment within the corporate limits of the City to provide employment
opportunities, to enhance development opportunities for the private sector, to improve the tax
base and to improve the general economy of the City, the County of Ramsey and the State of
Minnesota. It is found that there are certain parcels of property within the Development District
which are potentially more useful, productive and valuable than is being realized under existing
conditions, is less productive because of the lack of proper utilization, and, therefore, are not
2219397vl
1.4. Statement of Need The Development District is established by the City of
Maplewood for the purpose of promoting the redevelopment of existing commercial areas and
the development of new business opportunities within the community. The City has found that
the area within the Development District has not realized its greatest development potential due
to a variety of factors. Included in the development barriers identified by the City are:
inadequate public improvements, improper land use and utilization, and lack of investment. The
City has found that the creation of the Development District and the utilization of tax increment
financing is needed to remove these barriers and to promote development of the community.
1.5. Statement of Objectives The Council determines that it is necessary, desirable
and in the public interest to establish the Development District in the City, pursuant to the
authority of the Development District Act. The Council finds that the creation of the
Development District is necessary to give the City the ability to meet certain public purpose
objectives that would not be otherwise obtainable in the foreseeable future without intervention
by the City in the normal development process.
The City intends to satisfy the following objectives through the implementation of the
Development Program:
(a) To provide safe, decent, sanitary housing for all residents of the city and in
particular low and moderate income residents.
(b) To provide an adequate housing supply for all residents at a cost they can
afford.
(c) To provide housing choices for low and moderate income residents who
find housing opportunities are not available to them because of economic conditions.
(d) To provide project activities which will assist in making possible the
construction of a planned apartment for low and moderate income residents, as well, as
improving health, welfare and convenience of citizens residing in the Development District.
(e) Provide for the financing and construction of public improvements,
including recreational and community center facilities, in the Development District, necessary
for the orderly and beneficial development of the Development District and adjacent areas of the
City and the provision of adequate City services to the City residents.
(f) Promote and secure the prompt development of certain property in the
Development District, which property is not now in productive use or in its highest and best use,
in a manner consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and with a minimum adverse impact
on the environment, and thereby promote and secure the development of other land in the City.
(g) Promote and secure additional employment opportunities within the
Development District and the City for residents of the City and the surrounding -area, thereby
improving living standards, reducing unemployment and the loss of skilled and unskilled labor
and other human resources in the City.
22193971
(5) the installation of traffic lights at Hazelwood Avenue and Southlawn
Avenue on Beam Avenue.
(6) acquisition of land and improvement of Hazelwood Park located at County
Road C east of Hazelwood Avenue;
Road;
(7) improvement of Playcrest Park located at Lydia Avenue and McKnight
(8) acquisition, expansion and improvement of Harvest Park located at
Hazelwood Avenue south of County Road C and North of Highway 36;
(9) the construction of water, street, sanitary sewer and storm sewer
improvements within an area North of Beam Avenue, South of the Northern City limit,
East of Highway 61 and West of White Bear Avenue;
(10) acquisition of the abandoned Burlington Northern railroad right of way
running from Larpenteur Street to Highway 694;
(11) acquisition of the land that the Cottages of Maplewood will be developed
on and the payment of certain site improvements for the Cottages of Maplewood project;
(12) acquisition and betterment of a city recreational and community center
facility;
(13) improvement of Sherwood Park located at Hazelwood and Cope Avenues;
(14) improvement of Afton Heights Park, Geranium Park, Gethsemane Park,
Gladstone Park, Goodrich Park, Hillside Park, Lion's Park, Maplecrest Park, Maplewood
Heights Park, Nature Center, Robinhood Park, Sherwood Park and Timber Park;
(15) construction of a municipal storage building to house park equipment;
(16) construction of public alleys east of White Bear Avenue from Woodlyn
Avenue to County Road D and a public alley southwest of the southwest corner of Beam
Avenue and White Bear Avenue;
(17) construction of traffic improvements on White Bear Avenue from
Interstate Highway 694 to Beam Avenue; and
(18) bike path along McKnight Road (County State Aid Highway 68) from a
point 788.17 feet north of the Southwest Comer of Section 36, Township 29N, Range
22W to a point 37.00 feet south of the West Quarter Corner of Section 36 Township 29N,
Range 22W.
(d) The acquisition of property consistent with the objectives of the
Development Program.
2219397v1 8
(e) the improvement of Afton Heights Park, Geranium Park, Gethsemane
Park, Gladstone Park, Goodrich Park, Hillside Park, Lions Park, Maplecrest Park, Maplewood
Heights, Nature Center, Robinhood Park, Sherwood Park, Timber Park;
(I) the acquisition and improvement of park land adjacent to Housing District
No. 1 -9, the acquisition and improvement of the park land will not involve the use of tax
increment revenues.
1.11. Proposed Reuse of Propert y . The Development Program does not contemplate
the acquisition of private property until such time as a private developer presents an
economically feasible program for the reuse of that property. Proposals, in order to be
considered, must be within the framework of the above cited goals and objectives, and must
clearly demonstrate feasibility as a public program. Prior to formal consideration of the
acquisition of any property, the City Council will require a binding contract, performance bond
and /or other evidence or guarantees that a supporting tax increment or other funds will be
available to repay the project cost associated with the proposed acquisition. It shall be the intent
of the City to negotiate the acquisition of property whenever necessary. Appropriate restrictions
regarding the reuse and redevelopment of property shall be incorporated into any land sale
contract to which the City is a part.
1.12. Administration and Maintenance of Development District Maintenance and
operation of the public improvements will be the responsibility of the City Manager who shall
serve as administrator of the Development District.
The administrator will administer the Development District pursuant to the provisions of
Section 469.131 of the Development District Act; provided, however, that such powers may only
be exercised at the direction of the Council. No action taken by the administrator pursuant to the
abovementioned powers shall be effective without authorization by the Council.
1.13. Rehabilitation Owners of properties within the Development District will be
encouraged to rehabilitate their properties to conform with the applicable state and local codes
and ordinances, as well as any design standards. Owners of properties who purchase property
within the Development District from the City may be required to rehabilitate their properties as
condition of sale of land. The City will provide such rehabilitation assistance as may be
available from federal, state or local sources.
1.14. Relocation No person will be displaced and have to be relocated as a result of
the Development Program. The City accepts its responsibility for providing for relocation
pursuant to Section 469.133 of the Development District Act.
1.15. Parcels To Be Acquired In Whole or In Part Within the Development District
The City intends to acquire all or part of the land within Housing District No. 1 -3 to facilitate the
construction of the Cottages of Maplewood housing project. The City intends to reimburse the
developer for the cost of the land within Housing District Nos. 1 -4, 1 -5 and 1 -6 to facilitate the
construction of the Carefree Cottages of Maplewood housing project (Phase I, Phase 1I and
Phase III). The City intends to reimburse the developer for the cost of the land within Housing
District No. 1 -7 to facilitate the construction of the Van Dyke Village project. The City intends
2219397v1 10
0) The development of the Carefree Cottages of Maplewood senior citizen
housing project.
(k) The acquisition of property located at 2146 White Bear Avenue,
commonly referred to as the Tastee Bread Store in an amount anticipated to be $500,000 or the
development of the Community Park in the amount of $500,000.
(1) The development of the Schroeder Milk project.
(m) A development agreement with respect to the construction of an
approximately 20 unit townhome -style housing facility in the City (the Van Dyke Village
project) consisting of 8 one - story, two- bedroom and 12 two- story, three- bedroom units.
(n) A development agreement with respect to the construction of an
approximately 80 unit rental housing facility in the City (the Sibley Cove project) consisting of
two- and three- bedroom units and related amenities.
(o) The City intends to enter into a development agreement with respect to the
construction of an approximately 111 unit senior housing facility in the City (the Gethsemane
project).
(p) The City intends to enter into a development agreement with respect to the
construction of an approximately 162 unit senior housing facility in the City (the Shores of
Maplewood project).
1.18. Other Specific Development Expected to Occur Within The Development
District It is anticipated that development will occur within the Development District as
described in Section 1.17. Additional development may occur in the Development District in the
future; however, no contracts have been entered into at this time with respect to such
development. The nature and timing of further development cannot accurately be predicted at
this time.
2219397x1 12
Attachment 3
Prepared by:
SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED
380 Jackson Street, Suite 300
St. Paul, MN 55101 -2887
(651) 223 -3000
WWW.SPRINGSTED.COM
Maplewood, Minnesota
City of Maplewood, Minnesota
Section A Definitions
The terms defined in this section have the meanings given herein, unless the context in which they are used indicates
a different meaning:
"City" means the City of Maplewood, Minnesota; also referred to as a "Municipality " .
"City Council" means the City Council of the City; also referred to as the "Governing Body " .
"County means Ramsey County, Minnesota. A
/ Ij O t1 r
"Development District means Municipal Development District No.1 in tft CI which is described in the
corresponding Development Program., x„
"Development Program" means the Development Program for the Development Disfsl P5
"Project Area" means the geographic area of the Development Distnbt O
"School District" means Independent School District No 622 Minnesota.
"State" means the State of Minnesota.
� � +t
"TIF Act" means Minnesota Statutes, Sections4 9 174 through 469 t .both inclusive.
n die
"TIF District" means Tax Increment Financing (Ecditomiceyedopment) Dlstt,(No. 1 -11.
"TIF Plan" means the tax increment ncing plan far the TIF prstrlo (tffi"ocu bh
twtna t).
Section B
See Section 1.3 of the
Section
See 9 6 1.4 of the
Section D =trF� Statement of
See Section 1.5
District.
Public Purpose
fitfor the Development District.
for the Development District.
Section E Designation of Tax Increment Financing District as an
Economic Development District
Economic development districts are a type of tax increment financing district which consist of any project, or portions
of a project, which the City finds to be in the public interest because:
(1) it will discourage commerce, industry, or manufacturing from moving their operations to
another state or municipality;
(2) it will result in increased employment in the state; or
SPRINGSTED Pagel
City of Maplewood, Minnesota
Section F Duration of the TIF District
Economic development districts may remain in existence 8 years from the date of receipt by the City of the first tax
increment. The City anticipates that the TIF District will remain in existence the maximum duration allowed by law
(projected to be through the year 2021). Modifications of this plan (see Section AA) shall not extend these limitations.
All tax increments from taxes payable in the year the TIF District is decertified shall be paid to the City.
Section G Property to be Included in the TIF District
A ,
The TIF District is an approximate 91.34 acre area of land located within the P_ooj t Area. A map showing the
location of the TIF District is shown in Exhibit I. The boundaries and area encompassed by the TIF District are
;� -,
described below: re 1
Parcel ID Number
02.29.22.23.0010
02.29.22.22.0007
02.29.22.23.0007
S 291 56qSUf Part W Of Maplewood Malfpddition Of Nw 114
Of OloveOf Sec 2 Tn,22 & In Sd MapleVW4od Mall Addition
Part LryUlg S Of A Lin 1'" 41.55 Ft N Of & Par7 >The S Line Of
Nw 114`15fJJw 1/4 d,,,Sec 2 Of Lot 6 Blk 1 & Subj To Esmt;
Part Lying 1 Ijr,fouthlawn Road Of Lot 7 Blk 1 & Subj To
And With EsdFfart Lying Ely Of Fol Desc Line Com At Ne
j✓qr Of Lot 2 TheftaV On N Line Of Sd Lot 43.33 Ft To Beg
Theri,S To E4 irte 548.37 Ft Thence Swly On Curve To
Rt nce S I A9eg 3 Min 45 Sec W 71.24 Ft To S
me Oft Dt &sre Terhi Of Lot 2 Bilk 1 Subj To Esmts & Ex
F2rt aFot 5 Blk 1 p�c As Com At A Pt On E Line Of Lot 7
Blk ° t j' „mist 258.25 Ft S' Of Ne Cor Of Sd Lot 7 Thence E 44.08
Ft IBeg Thence N 3 Deg 32 Min 27 Sec E 282.72 Ft Thence
Nei jt Q,ng A 654.67 Ft Radius Curve To Rt For 304.55 Ft
Thence ,220 Ft Thence S 27.9 Ft Thence E 64.97 Ft Thence
a f fiOt Thence W 390 Ft To Beg And Also Ex Part Of Sd
LfMesc As Com At Nw Cor Of Lot 10 Blk 1 Thence E Along
N Line Sd Lot 10 For 435.41 Ft Thence N 51 Ft To Pt Of Beg
Tence Cont N For 214.16 Ft Thenc E 152.56 Ft Thence N
23.33 Ft Thence E 387.31 Ft Thence S 7 Deg 6 Min 43 Sec E
332.06 Ft Thence S 4 Deg 12 Min 57 Sec W 30.78 Ft Thence
S 12 Deg 44 Min 6 Sec W 49.62 Ft Thence S 26 Deg 14 Min
59 Sec W 250.19 Ft Thence N 44 Deg 59 Min 49 Sec W
361.47 Ft Thence N 60 Deg E 57.98 Ft Thence N 44 Deg 59
Min 49 Sec W 156.83 Ft Thence W 140.88 Ft To Beg The Fol;
Lot 5 Blk 1
Subj To Esmt; Part Of Lot 5 Elk 1 Desc As Com At A Pt On El
Of Lot 7 Dist 258.25 Ft S Of Ne Cor Thereof Th E 44.08 Ft To
The Actual Pt Of Beg Th N 3 Deg 32 Min 27 Sec E 282.72 Ft
Th Nely 304.55 Ft Along A 654.67 Ft Radius Curve Concave
To Se Th E Not Tan To Sd Curve 220 Ft Th S 27.9 Ft Th E
64.97 Ft Th S 543.5 Ft Th W 390 Ft To Beg
Subj To Esmts; Lot 4 Blk 1 Maplewood Mall Addition
Part Of Lot 5 Blk 1 Desc As Coin At Nw Cor Lot 10 Blk 1 Th E
Along NI Sd Lot 10for 435.41 Ft Th N For 51 Ft To Pt Of Beg;
SPRINGSTED Page 3
VL.zV.LL.LL.VVVO
City of Maplewood, Minnesota
redevelopment improvements may occur in 2013 to adjacent property, with the renovations fully completed in 2014
and be 100% assessed and on the tax rolls as of January 2, 2013 for taxes payable in 2015.
At the time this document was prepared there were no signed construction contracts with regards to the above
described development.
Section J Findings and Need for Tax Increment Financing
In establishing the TIF District, the City makes the following findings:
(1) The TIF District qualifies as an economic development district$. %d
See Section E of this document for the reasons=gntjfa§t$ supporting this finding.
AA,
(2) The proposed redevelopment, in the opinion of the Cif would not reas'g4eply be expected to occur
solely through private investment within the reasonaW'foreseeable future arlp increased market
value of the site that could reasonably be expected`46 occur without the use of3a- increment would be
less than the increase in market value eshrrJate� to result fr m the proposed tdevelopment after
subtracting the present value of the projects fax increme tsrpr the maximum N' of the TIF
District permitted by the TIF Plan.
IT, ANY
Factual basis:
Proposed redevelopment not expectedtccdr
The proposed redevelopment, protect co sins of inter +}r 2tsihe renovations to the Maplewood Mall, in
addition to public improverrr nts to the distnck end !SUrrounarng ))p Included with the proposed
private improvementV;b' the Mall are the C public improvements including construction of additional
sidewalks alongAh"O ling -road arou)d the Mall np other roadways adjacent to the site and other public
improvements''', ,infrastructure rj s in the diitrkd. The City intends to finance a portion of the costs of
these public imp' rpents to ttte Mall roperty v tkibe use of the tax increment financing provided in this
TIF Plan. : ? O' a _ ,
TE;Qt> fta §d�R"ined tfi the proposed improvements would not occur but for the financial assistance
fif# in this JF`�R1an becausg of the extraordinary costs associated with redevelopment of the Mall and
R 11; site. Duefo theTiost of site improvements and infrastructure costs, the redevelopment
�nuld not occur without -the finanmatlassistance provided by the City, as it would not be economically
9r ¢)e without financial) Wstance. Therefore the redevelopment is not feasible, and would not occur, but-
for use of tax incremeritfo finance a portion of the costs related to site improvements and infrastructure
costs. fife City finds thwblg'of tax increment necessary to finance the additional improvements such as site
improvemen nd m rp l ucture costs that currently do not allow development on the property. The City
anticipates finauai ng #e ^site improvements and infrastructure costs through either the use of an interfund
loan or a bond is "'staiade.
No Higher market value expected
The proposed development, in the opinion of the City, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely
through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future, and the increased market value of the
site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment would be less than the
increase in market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present
value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the TIF District permitted by the TIF Plan.
The increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax
increment financing would be less than the increase in market value estimated to result from the proposed
SPRINGSTED Page 5
City of Maplewood, Minnesota
Section K Estimated Public Costs
The estimated public costs of the TIF District are listed below. Such costs are eligible for reimbursement from tax
increments of the TIF District.
Land /Building acquisition, Public Utilities, Site
Improvements /Preparation Costs, and other
Eligible Improvements
""
$959,100
Bond Interest Payments
Interest on invest edrfu_nds
228,704
Administrative expenses
461
138,883
Other Ex endituresn
'
0
Capitalized Interest payments
omits'
62,142
Cost of Issuance
Grants"," r
a
Total"
7 7 $1,388,829
The City reserves the right to administratively adjust the at
additional eligible items, so long as the total estimated public
The City is anticipating financing the public costs
increment bonds.
iy of the items lift.,above or to incorporate
':
increased. 4� :w
loan Qr�4he issuance of 9e64,ral obligation tax
Section L Estimated Sources of Revdit-
Tax Increment revenue
""
$1,388,829
Interest on invest edrfu_nds
A41, ;
; ._"U:, „
0
Bond proceed A_ 4 ' -,_.
w -
kk '
0
Loan p r4C6Ed'S'`<
0
Grants"," r
a
0
Other n2: N F'
" r -.s.
0
ToFaf finis+ r .. t
$1,388,829
WO� r,..
V
The City-- f}jdipates prdvff#(r1� * financidtessistance to the proposed development with upfront financing, either as an
nterfundid n or bond issuance, ,As taXnriyrements are collected from the TIF District in future years, the City will use
a portibtif these taxes as rep2ent of themitial obligation for financing of the public costs incurred (see Section K).
The City re8eim, the right to finaii'Ge any or a1I public costs of the TIF District using pay -as- you -go assistance,
internal fundmd geoeral obligation r3r =revenue debt, or any other financing mechanism authorized by law. The City
also reserves the ngh °tto use otYiesources of revenue legally applicable to the Project Area to pay for such costs
including, but not limiieddq sp)Y assessments, utility revenues, federal or state funds, and investment income.
Section M Estimated Amount of Bonded Indebtedness
The City does anticipate issuing either an interfund loan or tax increment bonds to finance the estimated public costs
of the TIF District, and reserves the right to issue bonds in an amount not to exceed $1,055,010 (959,100 + 10% -
contingency).
SPRINGSTED Page 7
City of Maplewood, Minnesota
The estimates shown in this TIF plan assume that commercial class rates remain at 1.5% of the estimated market
value up to $150,000 and 2.0% of the estimated market value over $150,000, and assume a 3% annual increase in
market values.
Each year the County Auditor shall determine the current net tax capacity of all property in the TIF District. To the
extent that this total exceeds the original net tax capacity, the difference shall be known as the captured net tax
capacity of the TIF District.
For communities affected by the fiscal disparity provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Qbapter 473F and Chapter 276A,
the original net tax capacity of the TIF District shall be determined before the,,ppiication of fiscal disparity. In
w
subsequent years, the current net tax capacity shall exclude the product of ij an�' d I disparity increase in the TIF
District (since the original net tax capacity was certified) times the appropriatesa1 disparity ratio.
The County Auditor shall certify to the City the amount of captured net taxapacdy baeh, year. The City may choose
to retain any or all of this amount. It is the City's intention to retain 400" /o of the capt ifeditiet tax capacity of the TIF
District. Such amount shall be known as the retained captured rio, capacity of the TIF'Drstr ct.
Exhibit II gives a listing of the various information and
contained in this TIF Plan, including Exhibit III which
anticipated life of the TIF District.
tions used in preparing a number of the exhibits
the project tax increment gen rated over the
Section Q Use of Tax Increment
Each year the County Treasurer shall deduct 0.36%3
such amount to the State's General Such'i
financial reporting and auditing #a ctement fir
projected deduction for this e oveYlheanticipa
�
The City has determined fja t d will use 1 the
the following purposes._
;rated by the TIF District and pay
the State Auditor for the cost of
the state. Exhibit III shows the
TIF
tax increment generated by the TIF District for any of
(1 a day
or the es"(tr� atai("public cos[s -TIF District (see Section K) and County administrative
," f oos s a &pciatedWnth _the TIF District (see Section T);
0,5� < �
pay prmc nd N6 , ri tax increment bonds or other bonds issued to finance the estimated
" c n public costs of ffie.TIF Diftl
,accumulate a reserve securing the payment of tax increment bonds or other bonds issued to
n tt� the esti�at 'd public costs of the TIF District;
i `V� �
(4) pay al� pr aIfion of the county road costs as may be required by the County Board under M.S.
Section ,175, Subdivision 1a; or
(5) return excess tax increments to the County Auditor for redistribution to the City, County and School
District.
Tax increments from property located in one county must be expended for.the direct and primary benefit of a project
located within that county, unless both county boards involved waive this requirement. Tax increments shall not be
used to circumvent levy limitations applicable to the City.
Tax increment shall not be used to finance the acquisition, construction, renovation, operation, or maintenance of a
building to be used primarily and regularly for conducting the business of a municipality, county, school district, or any
other local unit of government or the State or federal government, or for a commons area used as a public park, or a
SPRINGSTED Page 9
City of Maplewood, Minnesota
The City anticipates that allowable pooling expenditures will be made outside of the TIF District and within the Project
Area (along with allowable administrative expenses.
Section T Limitation on Administrative Expenses
Administrative expenses are defined as all costs of the City other than:
(1) amounts paid for the purchase of land;
(2) amounts paid for materials and services, including a
connected with the physical development of the real p
(3) relocation benefits paid to, or services provided for, I
project;
4 amounts used to a principal or interest on, W a r
O pay P P f; „,
pursuant to section 469.178; or Nr
(5) amounts used to pay other financial obligafi2irrs to the
costs described in clause (1) to (3).2::
uYa
Administrative expenses include amounts paid.
economic development consultants, and actufir`5
increments may be used to pay administrative I
estimated public costs authorized by the TIF Plan
Section U
Year Rule
If after four years frotr, rtification of W TIF District ho demolition, rehabilitation, renovation, or qualified
improvement of an adtac 6 "street has,ppai&,nced on a pa ! located within the TIF District, then that parcel shall
be excluded from the TIF aDiskrtctk f1ieangint, neJ trcapacity shall be adjusted accordingly. Qualified
improvementst1ofj'%pept are hrnrfed fdlbonstructio I or nmg of a new street, relocation of a street, or substantial
reconstruP{tptlrrebttilbii)Pf an isting street. The City must submit to the County Auditor, by February 1 of the
fifth year�„e Bence that tfi ir i it has taken place for each parcel in the TIF District.
ph
if a pardef tS excluded from t F District the City or owner of the parcel subsequently commences any of the
above ac�ivjes,,_the City shall ceify to the County Auditor that such activity has commenced and the parcel shall
once again liE )ppluda in the TIF Did {_dct. The County Auditor shall certify the net tax capacity of the parcel, as most
recently certified ti the Commissto'rii of Revenue, and add such amount to the original net tax capacity of the TIF
District.
Section V
on Other Taxing Jurisdictions
Exhibit IV shows the estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions if the maximum projected retained captured net tax
capacity of the TIF District was hypothetically available to the other taxing jurisdictions. The City believes that there
will be no adverse impact on other taxing jurisdictions during the life of the TIF District, since the proposed
development would not have occurred without the establishment of the TIF District and the provision of public
assistance. A positive impact on other taxing jurisdictions will occur when the TIF District is decertified and the
development therein becomes part of the general tax base.
The fiscal and economic implications of the proposed tax increment financing district, as pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 2, are listed below.
urab ifideengineering services directly
id1) i $inoject;
6 NO
Wilding or businesses located in the
g
for or self #,;discount bonds issued
obligations w'9 tltsed to finance
idedkb pnd counsel, fiscal consultants, planning or
by thhe .N.,' nl in administering the TIF District. Tax
TIF Distni I to the lesser of (a) 10% of the total
I tax indkoognt project.
expenditures for the ro
ffep #a P P 1
SPRINGSTED Page 11
City of Maplewood, Minnesota
The City does not anticipate entering into an assessment agreement.
Section Z Modifications of the Tax Increment Financing Plan
Any reduction or enlargement in the geographic area of the Project Area or the TIF District; increase in the amount of
bonded indebtedness to be incurred; increase in the amount of capitalized interest; increase in that portion of the
captured net tax capacity to be retained by the City; increase in the total estimated public costs; or designation of
additional property to be acquired by the City shall be approved only after satisfyin .all the necessary requirements
for approval of the original TIF Plan. This paragraph does not apply if: „ref >y
(1) the only modification is elimination of parcels from the TIF
(2) the current net tax capacity of the parcels E
those parcels in the TIF District's original net
original net tax capacity will be reduced by nr
eliminated. „4
The City must notify the County Auditor of any modifc,
District. The geographic area of the TIF District may be
certification.
Section AA Administration of the Tax IncfemenfEjriaOcinq Plan
jtials or- the net tax capacity of
or the City r @es that the TIF District's
the current nePlaulcapacity of the parcels
-Wrges the geographio,.area of the TIF
ed after five years following the date of
Upon adoption of the TIF Plan the-City shall subm�a copy ofefidh plar,tohdMinnesota Department of Revenue.
The City shall also request theMGla t tttty cerflfy the brigm net
Cdapacity and net tax capacity rate of the
TIF District. To assist the Cpdttty'AuditotridAhis procesa,'the City shall sub "mit copies of the TIF Plan, the resolution
establishing the TIF Did acid adopting 1hg TIF Plan acid a listing of any prior planned improvements. The City
shall also send the Cout({y any assessment agrgbent establishing the minimum market value of land and
improvements in the Tlf pis3rjct, and shall . l est that 44"gounty Assessor review and certify this assessment 1 . 1
agreement as reasonable. rub
The Coun�sa11 dfsttlflGle to the the amount of tax increment as it becomes available. The amount of tax
incremett 'any year repreat hts the ap r icable property taxes generated by the retained captured net tax capacity of
the TdF 7istrict. The amounf pf x mcYernent may change due to development anticipated by the TIF Plan, other
develophtehl inflation of properly y lues or changes in property classification rates or formulas. In administering and
implementii"I a TIF Plan, the following action`s should occur on an annual basis:
(1) 00pT to July 1 )ht ity shall notify the County Assessor of any new development that has occurred
m M ,, TIF DIM nduring the past year to insure that the new value will be recorded in a timely
t
manrl(F
%VT
(2) if the County Auditor receives the request for certification of a new TIF District, or for modification of
an existing TIF District, before July 1, the request shall be recognized in determining local tax rates
for the current and subsequent levy years. Requests received on or after July 1 shall be used to
determine local tax rates in subsequent years.
(3) each year the County Auditor shall certify the amount of the original net tax capacity of the TIF
District. The amount certified shall reflect any changes that occur as a result of the following:
(a) the value of property that changes from tax - exempt to taxable shall be added to the
original net tax capacity of the TIF District. The reverse shall also apply;
SPRINGSTED Page 13
Exhibit I
Map of Tax Increment Financing (Economic Development) District No. 1-11
Within Development District No. 1
MAPLEWOOD
Page 15
R
1= A
Page 15
Exhibit ///
Assumotions Report
City of Maplewood, Minnesota
Tax Increment Financing (Economic Development) District No. 1-11
Maplewood Mail Improvement Project
Scenario I -$9.7M EMV of Improvements
Type of Tax Increment Financing District Economic Development
Maximum Duration of TIF District 8 years from 1st increment
Alt,
:5
Projected Certification Request Date 06130/11
Decertification Date 12/31/21 ,(4,fj%rs of Increment)
Base Estimated Market Value
Original Net Tax Capacity
1 476
Year
Base Estimated Market Value $122,551,300 $122,551,300 $122,551,300
Increase in Estimated Market Value 0 SyF
7,096,791 9,109,695
Total Estimated Market Value j300 127, 18 726.
129,648,091 131,660,995
Total Net Tax Capacity
$2,538,662 $2,578,920
NAM
City of Maplewood %
/'E"
Ramsey County "A P N 5414
27
ISD #622 76K
7n 9
Other .- ...,,,- M .902%
Local Tax Capacity Rate 131.098%
M
2010/2011
Fiscal Disparities Contribu i 34.5317%
Administrative Retainage V,.0 ` 10.00%
Pooling Percent 0.00%
Bonds Note (PavnAs-You-Go)
Bonds 06/ Note Dated
06/30/11
Bond 00%( IC) " . " Note Rate
M
6,00%
Eligible Costs R, Note Amount
$959,100
3 r U -
Present at ate 06/30/11
6.00%
Notes
Projections assurne-'rp A ftlass and tax rates, and a 3% market value inflator
, ture changeel
'
Projections are based 'bi1f,"' oosed,26-iftax rates
PT9
SPRINGSTED Page 17
w
k
w
d
A
E
.
W
d a m m N
A c a + n of
s c dL
d d
m d U Z
e o e
- y O O N
d O x
J
S ❑ F d C
> d O
N O O O m L d
y "- 5W?o;y . m V r W O d x m
❑ A_s O 9 O K M Ip N M y 0 I- 16 d x
F:
r Gt�v.•.� d J f. ++ p
C ,''
r
R:e G 8afl t>' d T O ; T E L d a
tu+
_�pf;% L ? m d d m R' vi t c 0 o m
3: 40237 3 o a w L c
4*' d' N
E WI M , i f . L2.r v+ 'i l Y1 } y. °IO N N O d N
y? :Ah ,-t '4 LL c V O1 .L
° E E w m{ a x d w
U d
g d w`o m w d
A f0.1 N r ry d F $ C'Y, ::r m d d y❑ U y
w . w ° m m^ oo a m-' x t a LL x m
C O). O O F Z d M V r ,., y U� J" I� _
O O N U �- b d
ii d o o e e 4� m E _ x ry c
A i °m
0 0 N J F }tF A..y m H '� p
C J LL 'sr
F 3 c m 110
mv
a o x v. m of v vi
Z M V r V3 `` ate f N U C
«$ K A 5
N
C C
E E
d d
c 3 3
a N N
c o +
v a
H � o �
v 0
0
m U
0 m
5 E 0 w
m
d ❑ L c
U K 52 0 H
Q)
N
N
a
d d
a m
a
n �
d
a
4
5 0
a
0
C N
0 N
3 r
c c
a °
y
0 d
w
v �
w n
w m
LL �
H
a
O w
U �
a
O1
U
d d
a �
�p w
O %
w
N O
c a
d
r
II c
U r
d d
n w
U d
L
1
° c
W
c
d
d n
a E
z
F F
0.
vN ��
Exhibit Vll
Projected Interfund Loan Note Report
City of Maplewood, Minnesota
Tax Increment Financing (Economic Development) District No. 1 -11
Maplewood Mall Improvement Project
Scenario 1 - $9.7M EMV of Improvements
Note Date:
06/30/11
Note Rate:
4.00%
Amount:
$959,100
Semi -Annu
Loan
Net
Capitalized
Balance
Date
Principal
Interest
P & I
Rev
Interest
Outstanding
1
2
3
4
6
7
IV
959,100.00
02/01112
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.57
981,585.57
08/01112
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.00
1 71
1,001,217.28
02/01/13
0.00
0.00
0.00
20,
1,021,241.63
08/01/13
14,987.17
20,424.83
35,
35,412.00
1,006,254.46
02/01/14
15,286.91
20,125.09
35,
0
35,
.00
0.
90,967.55
08/01/14
34,513.65
19,819.35
54,3
5
0
0.00
56,453.90
02101/15
35,203.92
19,129.08
54,333.
3.00
0.00
921,249.98
08/01/15
51,400.50
18,425.00
69,825.5
825.50
0.00
869,849.48
02/01116
52,428.51
17,396.99 69,825.50
9,825.50
0.00
817,420.97
08101116
55,580.58
16,348.42
929.00
29.00
0.00
761,840.39
02/01/17
56,692.19
15,236.81
00
.00
0.00
705,148.20
08/01/17
59,992.54
14,102.96
7
,
74, 0
0.00
645,155.66
02/01/18
61,192.39
12,903.11
74,095.
74,0
0.00
583,963.27
08/01/18
64,647.23
79.27
6,3
_
26. 0
0.00
519,316.04
02101/19
65,940.18
2
.50
0.00
453,375.86
08101/19
69,558.
9,
.00
78, 26.00
0.00
383,817.38
02/01/20
70,9
7,67
6.00
78,626.00
0.00
312,867.73
08/01/20
74, 5
6,257
80, 50
80,993.50
0.00
238,131.58
02/01/21
76,2
4,7
80, 0
80,993.50
0.00
161,900.71
08/01/21
80,193.
193 .4
83,432.00
0.00
81,706.72
$1,249`t854.85 $1,249,854.85 $62,141.63
Tax Increment 91.15
al Net Revenue $1,249,946.00
SPRINGSTED Page 21
-- Attachment 5
JZ;:
dN
J �
�aQ
�a�
Qw
uU
W Z
00
�U
J
J
d
0
0
W
J
CL
d
R y
8
e =�
r � d
Y
a 3
o
o _
N N
� W
Z Z m
W y
N
J W 6$ ®pe
I 8
G
C 'S
L
C
e Oro
B�+
s�
520
Attachment 7
CITY OI' HIPLEWOOD w
,
- •. e a
2"0 3
r
CD87PRO41'NSIVZ: PIAN
-
, a
f s .'
l
E
-
x
e
n
INM
g
Maplewood Proposed Parks,
0
03 0.6
1.2 1.8 2
Trails and Open Space
tle
A111
Trails
— Existing Trails
- • - - -• -• Proposed Trails
HA AVE
-- Existing Road Trails
- • ° - -• -• Proposed Road Trails
— Existing Sidewalks
- - - - - --- Proposed Sidewalks
w,
Land Use
Parks
open Space
Government
m
Park Search Area
6 m ®�a
Water
January 25, 2010
_
o .
5
�T
0
o�x,.
T
N
N' N
MEMORANDUM
TO: James Antonen, City Manager
FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
Chuck Ahl, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Zoning Map and Comprehensive Plan Changes
DATE: April 5, 2011
INTRODUCTION
Chairperson Fischer had asked the planning commissioners to review and compare their set of
zoning /land use maps to see if there were any zoning inconsistencies with the land use plan
that should be corrected. This report covers the list of potential inconsistencies staff received
from commissioners. Staff is also including the previous zoning - related changes already made
and other pending changes still yet to be considered. Some of the potential changes mentioned
below are land use plan revisions.
This report includes the following:
• Zoning map & zoning ordinance revisions resulting from the 2030 Plan Update.
• Zoning map inconsistencies initially identified by the planning commission.
• Zoning map corrections only (wrong color on map, wrong labeling carried over from earlier
maps, etc)
• Additional zoning map inconsistencies suggested by the planning commission for further
study.
• Possible land use plan changes.
DISCUSSION
Zoning Map & Zoning Ordinance Revisions Made Resulting from the 2030 Plan Update
(All completed)
• R1 and BC to MU for the land at Larpenteur Avenue and Arcade Street
• M1 to R1 for 2255 Duluth Street
• M1 to MU for 2055 White Bear Avenue, 2080 Prosperity Avenue and 2075 Prosperity Avenue
• F, R1 and M1 to R3 for the Town and Country Mobile Home Park and abutting properties
• M1 to R2 for 2095 Prosperity Avenue
• F to MU for the Bailey Nursery Property
• R1 to R1 R for 1400, 1420 and 1440 Sterling Street South
• R1 to R1 R for properties fronting on Dorland Road, Heights Avenue and Overlook Circle
• F to R1 R for two large lots between Carver Avenue and Fish Creek
• Several zone changes within the Gladstone Neighborhood to R3 and MU
• Discussion about the future zoning of lands abutting Highway 36 and Highway 61
• Rural Conservation District Ordinance change
Zoning Map inconsistencies Initially Identified by the Planning Commission
(All completed)
l
• Parcel south of the Regal Car Wash having split zoning (F to BC)
-
• Emma's Place and Van Dyke Town Homes having split zoning (BC to R3)
New Horizon playground rezoning (R3 to LBC)
E
Land north of Connemara Condominiums (F to R3)
Home sites north of County Road C, south of Kohlman Lake with split zoning (F to R1)
2433 Highwood Avenue with split zones (F to R1)
Still to be Reviewed
1961 to 1975 Sloan Place which are planned C and zoned R1. The planning commission
noted that they prefer residential for these lots and suggested a land use plan change to
LDR.
2694 Stillwater Rd, west of Knowlan's Market planned as LDR and zoned LBC. This lot may
be more appropriately planned and zoned for residential.
Zoning Map or Land Use Map Corrections (no other action needed)
• The single dwelling properties shown as M1 needed to be depicted as R1 south of County
Road C between Duluth Street and English Street. This was missed during the conversion
from paper maps to electronic. (page 8 —map correction completed)
• The Comforts of Homes Senior Housing site at Highway 36 and Hazelwood Avenue was
rezoned to PUD (planned unit development), but the map was not revised. (page 16 —map
correction completed)
• The Pond Overlook residential development on the north side of County Road D east of
The needs to be changed from F to PUD.
White Bear Avenue was rezoned to PUD. map
(page 19 —map correction, completed)
• The Gethsemane Senior Housing site was rezoned to PUD. The map needs to be changed
from F to PUD. (page 31 —map correction completed)
• The Waldorf School shown as Government and should be changed to Institutional (page 1)
• Wetland area south of County Road C, south /southeast of English Street, should be zoned
F not CO. (page 8 & page 15)
• Xcel substation site along County Road D is shown as Institutional. The land use plan
should be changed to Commercial. (page 13)
• Gethsemane Senior Housing site is shown as Park and should be both HDR for the
approved housing part of the site and P on the easterly 1/3` for the remaining park. (page
31)
2
• Watershed District Alum Treatment Pond is shown as HDR and zoned R1. It should be
guided G for government not HDR. (page 32)
• The properties fronting along Century Avenue next to the New Century Addition have been
incorrectly shown. Some lots not in the PUD are depicted as being part of the PUD.
Likewise, the land use plan incorrectly depicts which area is part of the PUD. (page 38)
• The single - dwelling residential home (1330 Ripley Avenue) at the SE corner of Hagen Street
and Ripley Avenue is planned as HDR and zoned R1. This should be planned LDR. The
city council approved a plan amendment in 1999 to re -guide all of the lots on the east side of
Hagen Street from Medium Density Residential (MDR) to LDR. For some reason, this
corner lot was overlooked by the draftsman in 1999 and the HDR inaccuracy remained.
(page 18)
• Change the land use plan classification from MU to LDR for the MCI tower site on Carver.
This was discussed by the planning commission along with the above zoning map
corrections. (page 39)
Additional Zoning Map Inconsistencies Suggested by the Planning Commission for
Further Study. (Staffs comments and suggested action are shown in bold.)
The zoning of the SW and SE corners of Beebe Road and Holloway do not match. Similar
developments but SW is zoned R2 and SE is zoned R3. Both developments are planned
HDR. Staffs opinion is that these developments are both zoned appropriately. The
westerly development has all double dwellings which fits the R2 zoning. The easterly
development has a mix of two, three and four -unit buildings. R3 zoning is appropriate
here. Take no action. (page 25)
• Goodrich park and golf course is zoned F. Should this be changed? These park
properties are in the process of being changed via the new OSP (open space & park)
ordinance. (page 25)
• Hill- Murray is zoned R3 but planned I (institutional). Should a change be considered? Hill -
Murray has always been zoned R3. We have no matching zoning for Institutions
(churches and schools). Staff speculates that Hill- Murray, along with the Priory site,
were both zoned R3 since they were part of the Priory property which was, in part,
residential. (page 27)
• The pale yellow colors used to depict R1S (small lot single dwelling) and for R2 (double
dwelling) are very similar and hard to tell apart throughout the map set. The color key
should be revised to depict clearly different colors. Staff will refer this to the city's IT staff
for revision. Take no action. (all map pages)
• Are all the R2 lots in the area of Larpenteur Avenue and Jackson Street correctly zoned as
R2? All are, except for 118 Kingston Avenue and 119 Larpenteur Avenue. The
original paper zoning maps showed these properties to be zoned as R1. Furthermore,
staff found no evidence in our records of the rezoning of these properties to R2. Staff
suggests making a map change back to R1 with no further action. (page 2)
r
• Are all the R2 lots shown on page 4 correctly shown? Yes they area No action is needed.
(pag 4) -
• Are the R2 lots shown north of Larpenteur Avenue between Jessie Street and Edgerton
Street correct? They are planned LDR (low density residential). These properties are
developed with single dwellings. They have always been zoned R2, so the zoning
classification was correctly carried over from the original zoning maps. The allowed
density in a LDR planned area allows double dwellings as well as single dwellings.
R2 zoning allows single dwellings as well. The two lots fronting Edgerton Street are
not large enough to be developed as a twin home or duplex lot. There is no harm in
leaving the R2 zoning in place, but staff recommends rezoning 1681 and 1683
Edgerton Street to R1. The planning commission should decide whether they wish to
pursue a rezoning to R1 or to leave these properties zoned as R2. (page 5)
• Is 2195 Day Road shown correctly as R2 ? Is 1272 County Road B shown correctly as R2?
2195 is a single dwelling, but the lot is large enough for a double dwelling. 1272 is a
double dwelling according to county records. Staff recommends no action on either
parcel (page 9)
• Why is the parcel west of 1200 Junction Avenue planned Park on the land use map? This
land is not a park, but is city owned. It is hindered from development by a pipeline
easement and resulting problems in meeting setbacks. This land is not developable
and could be reguided as LDR. However, leaving it with a Park designation does not
harm anything. If the city chose to put in a small playground, it would accommodate
that. (page 9 )
• Are the R2 lots on the north side of County Road C between Hazelwood Street and Gem
Street (five of them) correctly zoned? Yes they are. According to county records, three
are double dwellings and two are single dwellings. Those with single dwellings are
large enough for double dwelling. Staff recommends taking no action. (page 14)
• Is 1927 Fiandrau Street correctly zoned as R2? This is a correct carry over from the
original paper zoning maps. County records show this to be a single dwelling. The
lot is 7,500 square feet in area. In 1988, the city council approved a lot division to
create this lot shape and area and rezoned it to R2. R2 zoning allows single dwellings
on 7,500 square foot lots. This lot is in compliance. Staff recommends no change.
(page 18)
• Should the R1 S lots on the north side of Lydia Avenue east of Ariel Street be reguided on
the land use plan as LDR rather than MDR? The density is within the LDR range of 2.6
to 6 units per acre at 5.4 units per acre in this row of lots. The MDR density range is
6.1 to 10 units per acre. It doesn't harm anything having density under the allowed
MDR density range. Staff feels it would not be worth the trouble in reguiding these 15
lots to MDR since the allowed use of the property would not change. (page 20)
•
The R1S and R2 properties in the vicinity of County Road: D, Gall Avenue and Woodlynn
Avenue have a mix of LDR and MDR land use classifications. Also, the light yellow
coloration for R1 and R2 are too close to differentiate from each other. The LDR and
MDR land use classifications work for both R1S and R2 zoning. Staff recommends no
change in zoning or land use since the use of these properties would not be affected.
4
t
Thp coloration must be changed, however, to make the maps more readable. (page
26)
The R2 zoned properties on the north side of Maryland Avenue, between McKnight Road
and Lakewood Drive, are zoned R2 and designated LDR. These lots are all developed as
single dwellings. Is R2 zoning desired for this area? Is the LDR land use correct? LDR is
appropriate as it allows double dwellings in that land use classification. These
properties have always been zoned R2, in anticipation of more intense residential
development. Staff recommends making no changes since LDR permits R2
development. (page 29)
Is the R2 zoning correct for the predominantly single - family Mayhill Road cul -de -sac? This
cul -de -sac was developed as part of the Ed Cave and Sons development along with
the contiguous land to the west/southwest. Double dwelling development was
anticipated for this street, but only one twin home was built on the corner of Mayhill
Road and Ivy Avenue. Single dwellings are allowed in R2 districts so there is no
zoning conflict. This block of homes is part of the Ed Cave and Sons PUD, though. In
the late 1970s and early 1980s the city was not labeling the zoning map with a "PUD"
for such developments. The planning commission may wish to consider whether this
block, as well as all of the Ed Cave and Sons development, should be relabeled as a
PUD. (page 29 )
• Is 1037 Century Avenue correctly zoned as R2? Yes it is. This property is also guided
as LDR which allows double dwellings. No further action is needed. (page 30)
• Why is the Ramsey County Workhouse property planned P (park) rather than G
(government)? The workhouse property is part of the same lot as the golf course land
to the south of Lower Afton Road. Being the same parcel, the green map coloration
for the gold course (park) automatically covered the workhouse site. This is
misleading and not accurate, even though the coloration is consistent within a given
parcel. Staff recommends making a color change to show the workhouse site as G.
The golf course's green coloration for "park will remain. (page 36),
• Why is 2287 Mailand Road classified on the land use map as G? This is correct. 2287 is
a water booster station owned by the St. Paul Regional Water Services. Staff did find,
however, that 2287 and the abutting parcel to the west are zoned PUD. This is a
mapping error. The abutting PUD coloration on map should not include these two
properties. Staff could not find evidence of a rezoning of either of these properties to
any other than farm (F). Staff can make that correction to F which was the actual
zoning classifications of these parcels, however, the corner parcel may be better
zoned as R2 or R3 for compatibility with the MDR land use classification. (page 36)
P:COMPPLANtzoning map comp plan comparison study & zoning followup update 1 11 to
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner
SUBJECT: Renewable Energy Ordinance
DATE: April 12, 2011 for the April 19 Planning Commission Meeting
INTRODUCTION
The city adopted an energy efficiency and conservation strategy in December 2009. The
strategy was required as part of the city's energy efficiency conservation block grant. One
purpose for the strategy is to help establish policies and priorities to move Maplewood in the
direction of improved long -term operational energy efficiency.
Implementation of the strategy includes the adoption of energy policies that will ensure
achievement of the city's energy goals. The renewable energy ordinance, which will assist in
the promotion of renewable energy sources throughout the city, will help Maplewood meet that
goal.
BACKGROUND
The Environmental and Natural Resources (ENR) Commission recommended approval of the
renewable energy ordinance on December 9, 2010.
In January and February 2011, the Planning Commission began review of the renewable energy
ordinance. During the review, the Planning Commission expressed concern over allowing wind
turbines in residential zoning districts (January and February 2011 Planning Commission
minutes attached).
On March 7, 2011, the City Council held a workshop to review the draft renewable energy
ordinance. A summary of the workshop discussion can be found in the Discussion section of
the report below.
DISCUSSION
Ordinance Review
For review, following is a brief summary of the regulations proposed by the ENR Commission
for wind, solar, and geothermal energy in the renewable energy ordinance:
r�
Large Wind Energy Conversion System (WECS):
Definition: Large WECS - A WECS of equal to or greater than 100 kW in total nameplate
generating capacity. These are commercial grade wind turbines. The energy must be used on-
site with excess energy distributed into the electrical grid.
Location: Allowed with a conditional use permit in the following zoning districts: commercial,
multiple dwelling residential, planned unit developments, or properties guided as government or
institution in the city's land use designations.
Height: Ground mounted -125 feet, as measured from ground grade to the blade tip at its
highest point of travel. Roof mounted — 25 feet, as measured from the top of the roof to the
blade tip at its highest point of travel. For residentially installed small roof mounted WECS, the
height of the WECS and the structure on which it is attached must not exceed the maximum
height allowed in the residential zoning district for which it is installed.
Number: Ground mounted —1 on a single lot of 1 to 5 acres; 1 per 5 acres of land area
thereafter. Roof mounted — number approved through the conditional use permit process.
Placement: Ground mounted — Must be located entirely in the rear or side yard, have a
minimum setback distance of 1 -1/2 times the height from any property line, have a minimum
setback distance of 600 feet from any property guided as park or open space in the city's land
use designations, and have a minimum setback distance of % mile from any bluff. Roof
mounted — Must be erected on the roof of a building or structure.
Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS):
Definition: Small WECS - A WECS of less than 100kW in total nameplate generating capacity.
These are residential grade wind turbines. The energy must be used on -site with excess
energy distributed into the electrical grid.
Location: A permitted use in any zoning district.
Height: Ground mounted - 60 feet, as measured from the ground grade to the top of the blade
tip at its highest point of travel. Roof mounted— not to exceed the maximum height in any
zoning district.
Number: Ground mounted — 1 on any single lot. Roof mounted - 3 on any rooftop.
Placement: Ground mounted - Be located entirely in the rear or side yard, have a minimum
setback distance of 1 -1/2 times the height from any property line, have a minimum setback
distance of 600 feet from any property guided as park or open space in the city's land use
designations, and have a minimum setback distance of'% mile from any bluff. Roof mounted -
Be erected on the roof of a building or structure.
Solar
Definition: Solar Energy System (SES) -A device which provides for the collection storage and
distribution of solar energy for space heating or cooling, electricity generating, or water heating.
The energy must be used on site with excess energy distributed into the electrical grid.
Location: A permitted use in any zoning district.
Height: Ground mounted - 10 feet. Building or roof mounted - not to exceed the maximum
height in any zoning district.
Ef
t
I
Coverage: Ground mounted - not to exceed the area restrictions placed on accessory
structures within the subject district.
Placement: Ground mounted - setback the required distance of an accessory structure in the
zoning district in which it is installed. Building or roof mounted - not to extend beyond the
exterior perimeter of the building.
Geothermal
Definition: Ground Source Heat Pump System (GSHPS) - A system that uses the relatively
constant temperature of the earth or a body of water to provide heating in the winter and cooling
in the summer. System components include closed loops of pipe coils or plates and fluid that
absorb and transfers heat and a heat pump unit that processes heat for use or disperses heat
for cooling and an air distribution system. The energy must be used on site.
Location: A permitted use in any zoning district
Placement: Setback at least 5 feet from interior and rear lot lines. GSHPS can be located
within stormwater ponds.
CR Planning Model Wind Energy Ordinance
In 2008 the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency hired CR Planning to draft several model
sustainability ordinances. One of those ordinances is a Model Wind Energy Ordinance. Staff
will refer to the Model Wind Energy Ordinance throughout the remaining sections of the report
and has attached the ordinance for reference (Attachment 3).
March 7, 2011, City Council Review
Following is a summary of the City Council's comments and recommendations during the
March 7, 2011, workshop:
1. The ordinance should promote wind turbines in residential zoning districts.
2. To address concerns about residential wind turbines, the ordinance could require a
neighborhood petition.
3. How does the ordinance address solar panels that are mounted on the side of a
building?
4. The ordinance should allow wind turbines in a planned unit developments and multiple
dwelling zoning districts to promote shared wind energy projects.
5. Review the definition of solar energy system — it could be describing a window.
6. Why does the ordinance prohibit the removal of significant trees with the installation of a
wind turbine? The city's tree preservation ordinance should cover this type of
construction project, just as it does with any other project.
7. The ordinance will help promote renewable energy sources in the city. However, the city
shouldn't spend too much time on the ordinance, particularly the wind section because
there is limited wind capacity in the city. What the city really needs are incentives to
encourage renewable energy.
Staff has made changes to the ordinance to reflect the City Council's recommendations. The
changes are shown in italics on the attached draft ordinance (Attachment 4).
Ordinance Changes Requested by Planning Commission
Following is a summary of the changes proposed to the wind section of the ordinance by the
Planning Commission during the January and February review, and staff's recommendations to
those changes:
Setbacks:
a. To buildings: The ordinance requires a setback from a wind turbine to a property
line of 1 -1/2 times the height of the wind turbine. The Planning Commission
inquired about safe setback requirements from a turbine to a business or home?
The Model Wind Energy Ordinance proposes the following setback requirements:
1) Commercial: Setback to buildings - 750 feet; setback to property lines -
1.1 to 1.25 times the height of the turbine.
2) Noncommercial: Setback to buildings - no setback requirement given for
noncommercial wind turbines to buildings; setback to property lines - 1.1
times the height of the wind turbine.
Based on this information, staff recommends adding a setback requirement to
buildings for commercial wind turbines only (750 feet).
b. Setback measurement: The ordinance requires setbacks from wind turbines to
property lines, bluffs, etc. The ordinance does not describe where that setback
measurement begins, i.e., at the base of the monopole or at the blade at its
furthest extension. The Planning Commission discussed having the setback
measured from the blade at its furthest extension.
The Model Wind Energy Ordinance does not define where the setback from a
wind turbine is measured. It only suggests setbacks to property lines of 1.1 times
the height of the wind turbine. It would be difficult to define the setback from the
blade at its furthest extension, as that setback could only be measured from two
sides of the wind turbine, with the other sides of the wind turbine not having
blade extensions. The ordinance does require a setback of 1 -1/2 times the
height of the wind turbine to a property line, which is more restrictive than the
Model Wind Energy Ordinance. This additional setback should alleviate
concerns about where the setback is measured from a wind turbine. Staff
recommends no changes to the setback requirements. -
2. Wind turbines in multiple dwelling residential and planned unit developments: The
ordinance allows large wind turbines in multiple dwelling residential and planned unit
developments with a conditional use permit and small wind turbines as a permitted use
in any zoning district. The Planning Commission expressed concern about allowing
wind turbines in these zoning districts.
i
4
The purpose of allowing large and small wind turbines in these zoning districts is to
promote shared use of a wind energy system. To ensure this is the case, staff has
added language to the ordinance which requires that these turbines be installed for
shared wind energy production only.
Number of wind turbines: The ordinance allows one large wind turbine on a single lot of
one to five acres and one per every five acres for larger lots, but only allows one small
wind turbine on any lot no matter the size. The Planning Commission inquired why the
city would limit the number of small wind turbines to one if a property owner had a large
lot.
To address this issue, staff recommends allowing the same number of small wind
turbines as large — one small wind turbine on a single lot of one to five acres and one
small wind turbine per every five acres for larger lots.
4. Maximum rotor blade length: The ordinance requires wind turbine rotor blades to
maintain at least a 20 -foot clearance between the lowest point of the blade and the
ground. The Planning Commission inquired whether the ordinance should restrict the
actual length of the rotor blade as well.
The Model Wind Energy Ordinance suggests a rotor blade clearance of 12 feet between
the lowest point and the ground. Additionally, it mentions Pipestone County's wind
ordinance which states that that the blade design and materials must be engineered to
insure safe operation in an urban area. Maplewood's ordinance should not specify a
maximum blade length; that should be left up to the engineered standards for wind
production of a particular wind turbine. Rather, staff recommends adding language
which addresses safe design for blade operation in an urban area.
Roof mounted wind turbines: The ordinance requires roof mounted WECS to be erected
on the roof of a building or structure. The Planning Commission inquired about the
feasibility of allowing side mounted turbines.
Since wind must be captured above the roofline in order to have adequate wind
generation for a turbine, it is unlikely the city would see a roof mounted wind turbine that
was mounted to the side of a building. However, it is possible that the mounts
themselves could extend onto the side of the building. For this reason staff recommends
adding language which would allow the mounting of the turbine to the side of a building.
Changes described above are shown on the attached renewable energy ordinance as
underlined if added, and stricken if deleted.
RECOMMENDATION
Review the renewable energy ordinance (Attachment 4) and offer feedback and comment.
Attachment:
1. January 2011 Planning Commission Minutes (Partial Minutes)
2. February 2011 Planning Commission Minutes (Partial Minutes)
3. CR Planning Model Wind Energy Ordinance
4. Draft Renewable Energy Ordinance
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, JANUARY 18, 2011
NEW BUSINESS
a. Renewable Energy Ordinance
I. Environmental Planner, Shann Finwall gave the Renewable Energy Ordinance report and
answered questions of the commission.
ii. ENR Commissioner, Ginny Yingling answered questions of the commission.
Planner Finwall gave an introduction of the renewable energy ordinance. The Environmental and
Natural Resources Commission reviewed the ordinance during several meetings in 2010 and
recommended approval of the ordinance in December 2010. The ordinance will help the city
promote and regulate renewable energy sources including wind, solar, and geothermal. This is
the first time the planning commission will review the ordinance. Because of the detail involved,
staff is hoping to touch on the highlights and gain initial feedback on the ordinance during this
meeting.
Questions and items discussed by the planning commission in regard to the ordinance include:
• Roof mounted turbine heights.
• City liability issues for turbines that fall over.
• Aesthetics of turbines.
Ice throws from turbines.
• How will the city enforce the noise ordinance with wind turbines?
• Turbines will require large equipment to maintain. Is this appropriate in residential areas?
Allowing wind turbines in residential areas does not seem like an acceptable use. There
are too many nuisance issues that could result from this.
• Turbines in planned unit developments.
Planner Finwall summarized that the planning commission's main concern with the proposed
ordinance which had to do with allowing wind turbines in residential districts. During the next
planning commission review of the ordinance, staff will discuss this issue further including
requiring certain lot sizes, increased setbacks, or neighborhood approval.
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2011
6. NEW BUSINESS
a. Renewable Energy Ordinance
Environmental Planner, Shann Finwall gave the report on the renewable energy
ordinance. During this month's review of the ordinance staff requested that the
planning commission discuss whether or not the city should allow wind turbines in
residential districts.
Commission comments included:
Several commissioners commented that a conditional use permit should be required
for wind turbines in residential zoning district.
- Include a maximum blade length for wind turbines.
- How are the wind turbines going to be monitored as far as upkeep and possible
abandonment issues?
- Limit the kilowatt use of wind turbines for residential homes to 25kw.
- The City of Maplewood should be on the front end of the curve rather than the back
end of the curve. How can we protect our homes and the impact these turbines would
have on the neighborhoods.
The city does not have to allow wind turbines in Maplewood. These turbines generate
noise, the units throw ice in the winter, and it will be difficult to ensure they are
maintained properly.
- In Maplewood there is not very good wind coverage, unless you live on a hill.
- One commissioner commented that he can't support large WECS in planned unit
developments.
- The large wind turbine systems don't have a place in residential or multi - family
districts.
Roof mounted wind turbines should be allowed to be mounted on the side of a wall
also.
This renewable energy ordinance will go to the city council for their first review during a
workshop on March 7, 2011.
3
o a O m
e
m � d 0
g' as
a
04
O
'0
O_
C1
O
�D
5A
LA
t�
r
C�9
m O
p
$ 3
T
n�
O
�
O
y
N
n
G
O
^O ° t3 m On 0 o O
� M ' H N p ro o• H� a
ANY �� rn n E rt �• N
G� g G a
^
o ° P °
o
M 0 rt n rt o N P.
p n < n
rn ,� • ^ �S
a
n a lo
R. A• N
n G w w
cr
. C. n a w
m m p p.
a G P. .� G to k� F� O
o�a�,
CL a
G ro qq
5 n w �
CL , -0
a^
rort n 01, w N
n o
e° w G G
p 0 .�. y 6. O �J Q. y
m w
E Ke a
n
rt
r. N o u- 0 .
ao O� Qro e o 'was
rt
0 0 o
09 O^ G• ^ H n
O
N rt
�ompoa
o W o p. o Q. p.
O ` n
O
^ o o ^ b d
y . °
p
p W P y C n
N
O m m
H
O
b
° z
0
Q
i1
m_
s
m
a
m
z
�n
0
0
a
cn
o ron
a b ° c
e o
n m
a N o
F () �i1 r �' ."�' �M G o �C 5 z o 0
° B w o o o o Cnn a p
UQ n m 5 p
G ,'mY t C O O .p°. '. y n ro O a n O n p p P.
CL
n n" R. p
a °� � N � m n
n
a o o y � n n a p m
rn n C a ' w V n x d a �.
° p � g �-- 5 '" c
Q ro O e n 5
rl
cr
a l
a. E p ^n G� g m m R. P" p �C pr a G
w o 0 5° m N n o ° o G y w 5
• m 0 R ° ro ,R qq a� G C 5 n ° p p
O
n
s C n 0
O cr W ro V� qq n O n
N O
p rtVrt ,. C O O p m m 0 w n
o- ,_t $ n o m op
y r w '� K .,n, m • 5 w E a w
w
5' w a 5 w
G ZL 5 b R. n n
a. n n o� A 5 7 p m o o
,�» w n ro io a
S
R R n �° o E rt
», p ,
S � � m t 9 � Y
n
A
m
'J
m
0
�n
O
a
0
w . y '.� w d til 0 'V 1 C t7i
O
H
G G io n Y F,Y O x n
dd a c v G c "o o c a 0 0
t w 04 y K `C n p., �' to
C O T p O r m 0 �
P a -
rn w Orn p n O m "y Vg p nn n ro
5 p .z w
o n
`s C _O Y n R m 5 a G m O
IL
m w Q F �' O c N a N 5' '3 t ^ O p q n 0 ro
Si p L' a N
a n n ¢ 6. ro " 'sl y a `C N pmq y rt w O w w
4 m G ti w. rt w 0 O 5 P.
n p 5' G E a w o n 8$ a M c. w O
r w ro w ran O p m ❑Cg W rory nC: , a O
o' A =' � w a.
y O w O O q p n n
CL
o q q q q [
p p p m p p 0 r
o ° ayo ^ ° aw ° N E o CL
B � ° y ° o ° o' p E
. S' S �' w o 5 ry S. o°. ° 9 n 5 n o
» E o
rt
p 0 rt
O 0 p O t n ln/� C 0' x 6 n N
p C G T fit. n 'h
o G Er a a N N riwi k
n
ro
p
iL
G
5
ZL
m
N
Z
S1
0,
rn
n
r
�
O
G)
0
G)
0
G' O
C.
n o y C y , S�
g o
o
7 m O
o00
5
W m•
"mss'
n ° � n
n
w R 'U
N
v w
5 p
o^
a• 0 w
a
�•
ry
5 ppp � o
m 0
N
E rt w p
O
m y^ O °2
0
o
o
°
o � o•
� � 5' ° �
a �
,b
0 5
5
x � � �
s
5
°
c
n
5' � � ° p
o
ok..
all 0
p
"
a B
a
p n-
no
'
a
n o
o• � w
0
n 0
n ro
w
ro
O
r
�
n
N
p
"^ f O.
o
.
p c.
E
ro 0
o 5
N �
�
F
�C
ro n �. R.
ro wer
w'0
°
°
P. O n
�c pro
w
•..�°
w
R
H n
Ki' C C rn
O
A
ry�
n
5
x
fo p
F :
Fr
W
F.
F�
N
0
C
n
y
o•
m
O
R.
n
r
G)
0
G)
0
G' O
p y rt
O
g o
o
7 m O
o00
5
W m•
"mss'
n ° � n
B a
o
N
v w
5 p
° no E
�•
ry
5 ppp � o
o n
p
m y^ O °2
5
°
c
n
5' � � ° p
CL
all 0
a
'
a
W
F.
F�
N
0
C
n
y
o•
m
O
R.
n
d
C. ni ° ro rt O ro w o
n w n n a E 0» m 0 5 ro
a o ` c 5' n W t ° 0 n 0� H w e o
O a' fn p m •y O � r a C) �. y E' A ro ro " N n O P . w Lam'. P. v
a 7 n °F D p w " o E 5 ^° p° 1 ET p 7 5 n R F R
n o
aT o m 0 ro n » 0 w w a n E n C. M
0 0 (�'' R'e m m A R' R' O n w n E
T b w IT ° rt Q• It
N o o. a E o �e o a 1 5 '
° L . E g o o ° n G ti J oa
n '^ a P. O a a », o N rt c� o W F w "^ S ° 0. a•' ° rt
k n° o n ° n a Er ° n a n w a y n a n C a4
z b r °» o o. 7 o rn y E G CO a n
CL
O R. H P. .,y O n- p 04 �° 5e n o - w w � C) n w m R
5 E ro n
m y n a R. a'
rn m ro y
a O R. O �. n c� rt O w P' a
5 5 ie O n to w '"^ O a P' n n O p 5 R.
a n y OV F , n "' w ^U „7� n p o w ¢ R L' a �` m n y
ro a h a m ry R w R O
E 2 L p o . R j
R. rt p O o `
n
5 `° m � G n
o n c
c 5 v 5 aP E° a
o
07 v y d °°
n p m
5 c o G o w
o
Q' fo p 00 0 F' ° y
O o N n E 5 5 ro o
a M. a 5 ° o° x o V 5 a E .°
a ' R v .q ro O O y y W n y $", O m r O n
rt p q a w GO ,' o O rt m .wrt-. Q• n P•
CL 5' w va n� 04 a R°" 5' m a 5 o a
o e a a w „,. n ° 5 n E.
p P• n � O w 5 G 5 y 5' S- �. . n G O
. 'II
a w E w ro n w n R. P. 5 no s w
a row w a o "'Ln ' ro n o.a c w
°
rD �' o n y m p o h rt a w a P• n w
P. w O°
p. d o. O rt C a" 'ro0 P• a p
y R n c a .' ry
OP 3' m
ru 5 . w
n n ro
0
O
$S.
m
3
5ti
N
cp
R
n C w
ry
ro'
O
p
a
a
a
y
O
'Lt
O
n
ry
w
0
�-n
b
O
n
w
0
�-n
v
0
�o
ro
1
P
h7
O
ro n 0
n°
E
a
E
n a w
w
n
a
o n
W
E.
n
o.
x
oa R.
d
o
b
C y
rn rOne C
ti a C
p
O
m
UO'
y w y
n
G
,C.. ^
R• i
n 5 �1
.o
w ` ['
�
OLD' '3
n
�
( x
0
O
w
o- O
a y
tl�Q W
cN
a O
O
N
n
w
^
y
C1
P. P.
n
r. °.+' C. m
n
C
�* b
N O y M
C
y
5•
P 7°
n q
^
°� °�
n
O.
Ft
° P.
N
W
n g' S
r
a
p
C. p
F
. °
y
0
n rn
n
a
O
p
i °�'
��.'
a
� C
y p
O C
K
V.
m
Dy
w
o
rt. 7
n
n N
5
w n
o
o"
w
°
w" rt
O
n
w 5 w
w
5
v
p
p a
O rt
O
O
n
m
art
5 h 0
N
G
C
n O
x
q
A
q
Yit
3
fa
t9
ro
0' n W !n rt W n C
P
n" a s
P.
5 ' ` ^ o a� o o' ' 0 0
p
^ n �i H G p O cn
CL
WW y w
0 n JQ 'O p O i A .0 p N O M
... O
P. o �J' C p p O a �� � �'•
P.. � A' � ppO p �❑ » o �
re A r� " s7 b
't7 R O
a. oaS d P' m x 5
b
UP CL
UP
C
tr CL
�
io O '9 p'
;C Z. O
b w
w y rn g o E �°n p' o�
J 3 p
r
O n O O O N n b
. O
ti
O � p
�b
G.. o
n w w
O b p G w w
0
N
p '
n G r G
p h p n p � 0q o m" G O^ n O
O tp f r 5 n O
n k;
O O O g O' F n ' 0 n R 0
0 3 B td p °n N 5 a b
A• rt G.
O . w '. W C ' p.. O n w O
S . F C
O k
rn rn
C. a
S y o 0 0 0 c E " a w' S
p' G' p n n b .Trt'09
G n C5 w �' O w h
O n rt n O y O O p
G n Oq cn p n n p, b '+, G,
5 O n
a * O
�• G O a o tao C
rn r 5°ti 0 w E. p
Fr y a
n O n
TJ G O w b
o �' d4 ry n wo w
O
0 "`
fjq
a rt
0
O
EL
tb
S
II.
z
c{
ri
ti
m
rt O
N A w
m C
o n
m
ro o N
w N
°
.
y
� n
� a
$ o.
x
c
w �
x
0 0
M
n
m
n
n
4�
C
W (�
n W
m O
n. R
`C y
a
P. to
n
a�
m ro
y a
O� O
a o'
� ro
c "
� a
E °
0
ro qq
C.
a
c
a.
0
x
x
n
w
m
g
n
z
z
n
0
0
0
o ro
o'
�.
G
�.
x
n
0
p
O O
O
O
O
O
a
O
O
tl
a �"
1f
In } t
m �
n
ro
ro
0
0
RY
ro
y n G
�ry
n
'o
m
rt
ry
o e.
m
fie.
y tee GF
m °»,
n
n
n
n
p
m m
n
4�
C
W (�
n W
m O
n. R
`C y
a
P. to
n
a�
m ro
y a
O� O
a o'
� ro
c "
� a
E °
0
ro qq
C.
a
c
a.
E
q
n `
n �
E
C
a n
� o
oa
7
b`
O
5
v
O
a
E
tlq
or
w
C
n
O
p
G
n
R.
E
O
O
w
0
19
9'
ib
s
Sz.
O
O
�l£e
�v
rn
n
td
w
a
❑
0
r7
m ❑' T
� �
m P
,Y
n
m "yw'i
O
5
p
n n
n
n n o tlK
,w„
n
-4 9 'fJ O
O
O
O
O
C
IJ
rt
N
n O w m
C n
no
no
�
rt
ry
n
n
w H
m
CD
T
or
C n GG
on
ry W
rt
O
o'
v n
7
rn E.
n
T
} o
} O
} o
} O
p,
m
ry
m
m
a
Ry
w
w
N w
y w
m'
o
00
❑
p
IQ =,
w. =
n
�,
19
9'
ib
s
Sz.
0
a
a
ro
rn
l<
N
~ A
w O FL
O h1 N h E' 5, n °
O ..� q
- 0 � N
N ^ w R m O w 'O
'71 G O .n w O o' N m rn
a n o c fq o 0
w °° G 9 L ° o S w o 6' a a o aro cn o w
�. N to ° m moo. �,b m of ao �,' p, Cl.
n n 0 o co ;+ ° m n W ° w 5 ,`6 ., '�' w C R n C cn cr m
R b7 m n Ors'
$ E n �, a w ° E n 0 a o
.,, ° `� �a ° o ° n a y ° �a
HUQ a a N n n o c 5 ao� a5 9
m WW o ca
n "C � G ^• CL G � � Oq , O w o y` � re r, rrJ C ��,', °
p^ n q K o m ry R• y n° '�
a
n 0 N °rte_
p ro ° rt w o`CgN CL
[ C .7Q p a y R' n .e
CC O p .°
C
CL a T n
x C. oa n y CL
o rcz �x °p CL ° y o n h o 0 5
o ° cn C:) Cti.
G._ n O n
G H f O O 5 P. w p C
io O ,7�
x O
CL Ct @ �• O n ». n m G�
o C')
o' ro y d a g " y n o a ry UC m x. a
E o o n y" w . o N r a an
C W Q T1 m ], n w �• o m t" 'd 0' 0 p. a 10 0 m ?• O G Gq . p w w O n E b -' n n
° M n 'y p N n P F- n z p C
w' r w w a "+. G d y y o A o w n o 5'
N p ° o w o° ° E N o 5 po y
E a n o o p w y C N ^ rt 0
ti h d 'tl O wp h n w rn y G w o p.
m y o " 3 n. C �' ° on °. ro cc 6� a p m q
G M '"^ �'` N G G O i' on °" ^ n n rt ". p In
y' y A n ' n 0 ^ ^ P. �. H 11 w n M. w . r J v+ O O . �' w-. m n n n O w
n. ❑ ^ p �6 td
O b Q�0 y �' w » p (no n p �,
w �. p. p qg.
O rn W n ro a. ro
^ `� T
o a. E n 0 , � E' o E' a E � w
N�.vn a a n a ° m ��o c
.O
n
c ro "c G ro c ° ,n ° ,ro m C2 a I K
n o c. o o n g o" 0, o B e ^ 5.
0 a a C p w C n •p. k �' �•
a s °• R, n u 5. ro° n o Pt a o' u-
° a o v�
Q " a _a 8 ° n
' y G .. y C p. °" H n.'�
a w a a y c C H c a E
n� a n° o w
n n W ro " ^
0
0
D
a
'rl
,7
K: r.
� � E
o o a
n 5'
M N
E E �
w ^
�c .p
C n
O
^ w
a 0
d
G
a
o'
0
A
0
0
0
0
9.
R
RL
m
3
l<
K
5
4
m
C
n
O
O
0
a
O
0
O til
rp n
O
0
z"
O C.
w N
w
� O
n y
C R
.n- a
O G
Q
P
w r)
0
� a
R w
w n
� n
n
w
o'
m n
a
a "a
a
w
n
a
X
n
•o
C
C
A
9
0
w
m
r x
0
d a y C n G m•
a. °,.o x m�a
7 n v
n O w
G O n F M Q w ra
G ry
n P. '.nY
R
G• w n n n n
0 0
R. W O ro
n O g wF
' N p
O'
^ R w a n
O O G. n
10
o
w^ a o o 0
P• o �' �' '� R R '
Y .
r O .
ro n rtJ' �
� n �
r
x
o•
w
�
p;
N
N
n ; �,
9
8
F,
m
P.
-
n
R
G•
C.
l
~
n
o n ro
G
O
4
nC.
ro
W.
y
n
w
n O
w
O rn�bq
W
Ro
p
o
ro
p-
�
w
t`'
n 0
p p nn
O N O � io ry
tr
0.. Q
CL
a
C
n
O
O
0
a
O
0
O til
rp n
O
0
z"
O C.
w N
w
� O
n y
C R
.n- a
O G
Q
P
w r)
0
� a
R w
w n
� n
n
w
o'
m n
a
a "a
a
w
n
a
X
n
•o
C
C
A
9
0
w
m
r x
0
d a y C n G m•
a. °,.o x m�a
7 n v
n O w
G O n F M Q w ra
G ry
n P. '.nY
R
G• w n n n n
0 0
R. W O ro
n O g wF
' N p
O'
^ R w a n
O O G. n
10
o
w^ a o o 0
P• o �' �' '� R R '
Y .
r O .
ro n rtJ' �
� n �
W N i-+
E
M
N
N
N
p
0
rt
x
a
c
n
�
P
w
p
o-
rt
O
s
n
ro ry
Y pp S
rt
ro
0
p
O
p
O
w
O
G
E
a
n
N
`C
a
5'
a
5.
w
R
ro
0
a
O
c
a
d
�2
h � �
O �
O' W
n n pG'
N � �
O
W w E
n
rt ro
0
n
v Uq
w
r S
ry
a
b w
O p'
w
d p '
n
p'
a�
ti
(U
0
M
G
p
N
O
�-n
b
O
n
w
h
a
0
E
rt
'O
O
rt
5
0
2
m
rn
m
i
�s
cg
W
N
A
o o
w
C.
p w
W
ro
Fi
n
c
n
!�
n
O w
' nrv
n
'O
G
°z
�a
w
5
0
2
m
rn
m
i
�s
cg
Attachment 4
ORDINANCE NO. XXX
DRAFT 8 (April 19, 2011)
AN ORDINANCE TO THE MAPLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING
RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS (Wind, Solar, Geothermal)
Changes proposed by the Planning Commission during the January and
February 2011 reviews are underlined if added and stricken if deleted.
Changes proposed by the City Council during the March 7, 2011,
workshop are shown in italics — underlined if added and stricken if deleted.
The Maplewood City Council approves the following addition to the Maplewood Code of
Ordinances. This ordinance creates a new renewable energy ordinance which will be placed in
the Environment Chapter (Chapter 18) of the city code.
Section 1. Scope.
This ordinance applies to the regulations of on -site renewable energy systems within the City of
Maplewood, Ramsey County, MN. The ordinance focuses on wind turbines, solar photovoltaic
systems, and geothermal ground- source heat pumps which are located on the site for which the
generation of energy will be used, with excess energy distributed into the electrical grid.
Section 2. Purpose and Intent.
It is the goal of the city to provide a sustainable quality of life for the city's residents, making
careful and effective use of available natural resources to maintain and enhance this quality of
life. Cities are enabled to regulate land use under Minnesota Statutes 394 and 462 for the
purpose of "promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community."
As part of this regulatory power, Maplewood believes it is in the public interest to encourage
renewable energy systems that have a positive impact in energy conservation, with limited
adverse impact on the community. While Maplewood strongly encourages increased energy
conservation and improved energy efficiency, the city also finds that increased use of
appropriate renewable energy systems will be an important part of improving urban
sustainability.
The renewable energy regulations are intended to supplement existing zoning ordinances and
land use practices, and ensure these systems are appropriately designed, sited and installed.
These regulations are in place to balance the need to improve energy sustainability through
increased use of renewable energy systems with concerns for preservation of public health,
welfare, and safety, as well as environmental quality, visual and aesthetic values, and existing
neighborhood social and ecological stability. With these regulations, Maplewood is concerned
that renewable energy systems, particularly wind energy systems, be designed to minimize the
negative impacts on bird and bat species which are vulnerable to mortality from these energy
gathering machines.
Section 3. Wind Energy Sources and Systems
a. Definitions, Wind Energy Sources and Systems
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Section, shall have the
meaning provided herein, except where the context clearly indicates otherwise:
Feeder Line. Any power line that carries electrical power from one or more wind
turbines or individual transformers associated with an individual wind turbine to the point
of interconnection with the electric power grid. In the case of interconnection with the
high voltage transmission systems the point of interconnection shall be the substation
serving the WECS.
Front Yard. A front yard is any part of a yard located between a structure and a street
right -of -way line. A corner lot shall have a front yard on each street frontage.
Ground mounted WECS. Freestanding WECS mounted to the ground with footings or
other apparatus.
Large WECS. A WECS of equal to or greater than 100 kW in total nameplate generating
capacity. The energy must be used on -site with excess energy distributed into the
electrical grid.
Property Line. The boundary line of the area over which the entity applying for WECS
permit has legal control for the purposes of installation of a WECS. This control may be
attained through fee title ownership, easement, or other appropriate contractual
relationship between the project developer and landowner.
Rear Yard. A rear yard is the yard that is opposite and most parallel to the front yard.
Roof Mounted WECS. A WECS utilizing a turbine mounted to the roof of a structure.
Side Yard. A side yard is any yard between any part of a structure and the side property
line.
Significant Tree. Significant Tree means a healthy tree measuring a minimum of six (6)
inches in diameter for hardwood deciduous trees, eight (8) inches in diameter for
coniferous /evergreen trees, twelve (12) inches diameter for softwood deciduous tree,
and specimen tree of any species twenty -eight (28) inches in diameter or greater as
defined herein. Buckthorn or others noxious woody plants as determined by the city not
considered a significant tree species at any diameter.
Small WECS. A WECS of less than 100kW in total nameplate generating capacity. The
energy must be used on -site with excess energy distributed into the electrical grid
Tower. Vertical structures that support the electrical generator, rotor, and blades, or the
meteorological equipment.
Tower Height. The total height of the WECS, including tower, rotor, and blade to its
highest point of travel.
Wind Energy. Kinetic energy present in wind motion that can be converted into electrical
energy.
WECS. A Wind Energy Conversion System which is an electrical generating facility
comprised of one or more wind turbines and accessory facilities, including but not limited
to, power lines, transformers, substations and metrological towers that operate by
converting the kinetic energy of wind into electrical energy. The energy must be used on-
site with excess energy distributed into the electrical grid.
Wind Energy System. An electrical generating facility that consists of a wind turbine
associated controls and may include a tower.
Wind Turbine. A wind turbine is any piece of electrical generating equipment that
converts the kinetic energy of blowing wind into electrical energy through the use of
airfoils or similar devices to capture the wind.
Zoning Official. Zoning official is any person designated by the city manager to
administer and enforce the city's zoning code.
b. WECS Districts
Large WECS Districts.
(a) Ground and Roof Mounted Large WECS shall be allowed with approval of
a conditional use permit in the following zoning districts and land use
designations:
(1) In all properties located in commercial zoning districts (Heavy
Manufacturing, Light Manufacturing, Business Commercial,
Business Commercial Modified, Limited Business Commercial,
Commercial Office, Neighborhood Commercial, Shopping Center).
(2) In all properties located in multiple dwelling residential zoning
districts (Multiple Dwelling Residential and Multiple Dwelling
Residential Townhouse) for purposes of shared WECS energy
production among the residential dwelling units
(3) In all properties approved as a planned unit development for
pu rposes of shared WECS energy production a mong the
(4) In all properties guided as Government or Institutional in the city's
Land Use Designations of the Comprehensive Plan.
(b) Ground and Roof Mounted Large WECS shall be prohibited in all
properties guided as park or open space in the city's Land Use
Designations of the Comprehensive Plan.
Small WECS Districts.
jLal Roof Mounted Small WCES shall be deemed permissible in a ll zoning
districts.
(b) Ground Mounted Small WCES shall be deemed an accessory structure,
permissible in aN the following zoning districts and land use designations:
L!
f51 In all properties -guided as park in the city's Land Use
Designations of the Comprehensive Plan.
jqj Ground Mounted Small WCES shall be deemed an accessory structure,
permissible in double or single dwelling residential zoning d istricts if the
following neighborhood consent requirements are met.
The applicant for a ground mounted small WCES must obtain written
consent of seventy -five (75) percent of the owners or occupa of real
es tate located within double or single dwelling residential zon districts
located within one hundred fifty (150) feet of the outer boun daries of the
premises for which the ground mounted small WCES is be ing installed.
Co nsent is also required where a street separates the premis for which
the -ground mounted WCES is being requested from other ne ighborin_a
property if it meets the distance requirements specified above. Such
written consent shall be required on the initial application only.
C. Placement and Design
Ground Mounted WECS.
(a) Height
El
(1) Large WECS shall have a total height, including tower and blade
to its highest point of travel, of no more than one - hundred twenty
five (125) feet.
(2) Small WECS shall have a total height, including tower and blade
to its highest point of travel, of no more than sixty (60) feet.
(b) Placement
(1) Be located entirely in the rear or side yard (not including side
yards on corner properties where the side yard is adjacent a
street).
(2) Have a minimum setback distance from the base of the monopole
of one and one - half 0 ''/2) times the height from any property line,
public right -of -way, electric substation, transmission line, dwelling,
or other WECS.
(3) Have a minimum setback distance from the base of the monopole
of six hundred (600) feet from any property guided as park or
open space in the city's Land Use Designations of the
Comprehensive Plan.
(4)
(5)
(c) Number
(1) Large WECS. One (1) large WECS shall be allowed on a single
lot of one (1) to five (5) acre(s). All other larger parcels will be
limited to one (1) large WECS per five (5) acres of land area.
(2) Small WECS. One (1) small WECS shall be allowed on any a
(d) Design
(1) Tower Configuration. All ground mounted WECS shall:
a) Be installed with a tubular, monopole type tower.
b) Have no guyed wires attached to the tower or other
components.
Have a minimum setback distance from the base of the monopole
of one -fourth (%) mile or one thousand three hundred and twenty
(1,320) feet from any bluff.
C) Have no ladder, step bolts, rungs, or other features used
for tower access to extend within eight (8) feet of the
ground. Lattice -style towers shall have a protective barrier
to prevent unauthorized access to the lower eight (8) feet
of the tower.
(2) Signs. A WECS operator is required to provide a single posting,
not to exceed four (4) square feet, at the base of a WECS
prohibiting trespassing, warning of high voltage, and providing the
emergency contact information for the operator.
2. Roof Mounted WECS.
a. Height
Large roof mounted WECS shall have a total height of not more than
twenty -five (25) feet, measured from the top of the roof to the blade tip at
its highest point of travel.
Small roof mounted WECS:
1) All small roof mounted WECS: Shall have a total height of not
more than twenty -five (25) feet, measured from the top of the roof
to the blade tip at its highest point of travel.
2) Residential Installation: In addition to the twenty -five (25) foot
height restriction for the small roof mounted WECS, the height of
the WECS and the structure on which it is attached must not
exceed the maximum height allowed in the residential zoning
district for which it is installed.
b. Placement
Roof mounted WECS must be erected en above the roof of a building or
structure. The mounts associated with the WECS may extend onto the
side of the building or structure.
C. Number
(1) Large Roof Mounted WECS. The maximum number of Large
Roof Mounted WECS shall be approved through the conditional
use permit process.
(2) Small Roof Mounted WECS. No more than three (3) roof
mounted Small WECS shall be installed on any rooftop.
d. General Standards
The following provisions will apply to all WECS erected under the provisions of this
ordinance:
1. Noise: Have a maximum noise production rating of fifty -five (55) dB fifty (50)
dBA and shall conform to this standard under normal operating conditions as
measured at any property line.
2. Color: Be white, light gray, or a neutral tone which is shown to protect birds and
bats and all surface finishing shall be non - reflective.
3. Over Speed Controls: Shall be equipped with manual and automatic over speed
controls to limit the blade rotation within design specifications.
4. Lighting: Have no installed or accessory lighting, unless required by federal or
state regulations.
5. Intent to Install: Prior to the installation or erection of a WECS, the operator must
provide evidence showing their regular electrical service provider has been
informed of the customer's intent to install an interconnected, customer -owned
generator. Off -grid systems shall be exempt from this requirement.
6. Signs: The placement of all other signs, postings, or advertisements shall be
prohibited on the units. This restriction shall not apply to manufacturer
identification, unit model numbers, and similar production labels.
7. Refflevalf of r N s' t rees s h a g b Fe moved w ith the i s t a ll a ti o s
14C= ,
7 6. Commercial Installations: All WECS shall be limited to the purpose of on -site
energy production, except that any additional energy produced above the total
on -site demand may be sold to the operator's regular electrical service provider
in accordance with any agreement provided by the same or applicable
legislation.
89. Feeder Lines: Any lines accompanying a WECS, other than those contained
within the WECS' tower or those attached to on -site structures by leads, shall be
buried within the interior of the subject parcel, unless there are existing lines in
the area which the lines accompanying a WECS can be attached.
9 48. Clearance: Rotor blades or airfoils must maintain at least 20 feet of clearance
between their lowest point and the ground.
1044.
11. Warnings: For all large WECS, a sign or signs shall be posted on the tower, -
transformer and substation warning of high voltage. Signs with emergency
contact information shall also be posted on the turbine or at another suitable -
point.
12. Energy Storage: Batteries or other energy storage devices shall be designed
consistent with the Minnesota Electric Code and Minnesota Fire Code.
13. Environmental Standards: The applicant of a Large WECS shall provide the
following information in the application to minimize impacts on the environment:
(a) Natural Heritage Review by the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources.
(b) Lands guided as park or open space in the city's Land Use Designation of
the Comprehensive Plan that are located within one (1) mile of the
project.
(c) Conservation easements and other officially protected natural areas
within a quarter mile of the project.
(d) Shoreland, Mississippi Critical Area, Greenways, wetland buffers, wildlife
corridors and habitat complexes.
(e) All significant trees impacted by the project.
e. Abandonment
A WECS that is allowed to remain in a nonfunctional or inoperative state for a period of
twelve (12) consecutive months, and which is not brought in operation within the time
specified by the city after notification to the owner or operator of the WECS, shall be
presumed abandoned and may be declared a public nuisance subject to removal at the
expense of the operator.
Section 4. Solar Energy Sources and Systems
a. Definitions, Solar Energy Sources and Systems
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Section, shall have the
meaning provided herein, except where the context clearly indicates otherwise:
Building- Integrated Photovoltaic System. An active solar system that is an integral part
of a principal or accessory building, rather than a separate mechanical device, replacing
or substituting for an architectural or structural component of the building. Building -
integrated systems include, but are not limited to, photovoltaic or hot water solar
systems that are contained within roofing materials, windows, skylights, and awnings.
Ground mounted Panels. Freestanding solar panels mounted to the ground by use
of stabilizers or similar apparatus.
Photovoltaic System. An active solar energy system that converts solar energy directly
into electricity. -
Roof or Building Mounted SES. Solar energy system (panels) that are mounted to the
roof or building e€a strYGMre using brackets, stands or other apparatus.
Roof Pitch. The final exterior slope of a building roof calculated by the rise over the run,
typically, but not exclusively, expressed in twelfths such as 3/12, 9/12, 12/12.
Solar Access. A view of the sun, from any point on the collector surface that is not
obscured by any vegetation, building, or object located on parcels of land other than the
parcel upon which the solar collector is located, between the hours of 9:00 AM and 3:00
PM Standard time on any day of the year.
Solar Collector. A device, structure or a part of a device or structure for which the
primary purpose is to transform solar radiant energy into thermal, mechanical, chemical,
or electrical energy.
Solar Energy. Radiant energy received from the sun that can be collected in the form of
heat or light by a solar collector.
AeWe Solar Energy System (SES). An active solar energy system that collects or stores
solar energy and transforms solar energy into another form of energy or transfers heat
from a collector to another medium using mechanical, electrical, or chemical means.
Solar EneFgy System (SES). A deviGe wh provides fGF the GGlIeGtiGn, StOFage and
Solar Hot Water System. A system that includes a solar collector and a heat exchanger
that heats or preheats water for building heating systems or other hot water needs,
including residential domestic hot water and hot water for commercial processes.
Zoning Official. Zoning official is any person designated by the city manager to
administer and enforce the city's zoning code.
b. Districts
Asti 'e Solar energy systems (SES) shall be allowed as an accessory use in all zoning
districts.
C. Placement and Design
Height
(a) Roof or building mounted SES shall not exceed the maximum allowed
height in any zoning district. For purposes for height measurement, solar
systems other than building - integrated systems shall be considered to be
mechanical devices and are restricted consistent with other building -
mounted mechanical devices.
(b) Ground mounted SES shall not exceed the height of an allowed
accessory structure within the zoning district, or ten (10) feet in height,
whichever is greater, when oriented at maximum tilt.
2. Placement
(a) Ground mounted SES must meet the accessory structure setback for the
zoning district in which it is installed.
(b) Roof or Building Mounted SES. The collector surface and mounting
devices for roof or building mounted SES shall not extend beyond the
3. Coverage
Ground mounted SES may not exceed the area restrictions placed on accessory
structures within the subject district.
Visibility
(a) SES shall be designed to blend into the architecture of the building or be
screened from routine view from public right -of -ways other than alleys.
The color of the solar collector is not required to be consistent with other
roofing materials.
(b) Building Integrated Photovoltaic Systems - Building integrated
photovoltaic solar systems shall be allowed regardless of visibility,
provided the building component in which the system is integrated meets
all required setback, land use or performance standards for the district in
which the building is located.
(c) Ground mounted SES shall be screened from view to the extent possible
without reducing their efficiency. Screening may include walls, fences, or
landscaping.
d. General Standards
1. Notification. Prior to the installation or erection of a SES, the operator must
provide evidence showing their regular electrical service provider has been
informed of the customer's intent to install an interconnected, customer -owned
SES. Off -grid systems shall be exempt from this requirement.
2. Feeder lines. Any lines accompanying a SES, other than those attached to on-
site structures by leads, shall be buried within the interior of the subject parcel,
unless there are existing lines in the area which the lines accompanying an SES
can be attached.
3. Commercial. All SES shall be limited to the purpose of on -site energy
production, except that any additional energy produced above the total onsite —
demand may be sold to the operator's regular electrical service provider in —
accordance with any agreement provided by the same or applicable legislation.
4. Restrictions on SES Limited. No homeowners' agreement, covenant, common
interest community, or other contract between multiple property owners within a
subdivision of Maplewood shall restrict or limit solar systems to a greater extent
than Maplewood's renewable energy ordinance.
10
Maplewood encourages solar access to be protected in all new subdivisions and
allows for existing solar to be protected consistent with Minnesota Statutes. Any
solar easements filed, must be consistent with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 500,
Section 30.
e. Abandonment
A SES that is allowed to remain in a nonfunctional or inoperative state for a period of
twelve (12) consecutive months, and which is not brought in operation within the time
specified by city officials, shall be presumed abandoned and may be declared a public
nuisance subject to removal at the expense of the operator.
Section 5. Geothermal Energy Sources and Systems
a. Definitions, Geothermal Energy Sources and Systems
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Section, shall have the
meaning provided herein, except where the context clearly indicates otherwise:
Closed Loop Ground Source Heat Pump System. A system that circulates a heat
transfer fluid, typically food -grade antifreeze, through pipes or coils buried beneath the
land surface or anchored to the bottom in a body of water.
Geothermal Energy. Renewable energy generated from the interior of the earth and
used to produce energy for heating buildings or serving building commercial or industrial
processes.
Ground Source Heat Pump System (GSHPS). A system that uses the relatively
constant temperature of the earth or a body of water to provide heating in the winter and
cooling in the summer. System components include closed loops of pipe, coils or plates;
a fluid that absorbs and transfers heat; and a heat pump unit that processes heat for use
or disperses heat for cooling; and an air distribution system. The energy must be used
on -site.
Heat Transfer Fluid. A non -toxic and food grade fluid such as potable water, aqueous
solutions of propylene glycol not to exceed twenty percent (20 %) by weight or aqueous
solutions of potassium acetate not to exceed twenty percent (20 %) by weight.
Stormwater Pond. These are ponds created for stormwater treatment. A stormwater
pond shall not include wetlands created to mitigate the loss of other wetlands.
b. Districts
Ground source heat pump systems (GSHPS) shall be deemed an accessory structure,
permissible in all zoning districts.
11
C. Placement and Design
Placement
(a) All components of GSHPS including pumps, borings and loops shall be
set back at least five (5) feet from interior and rear lot lines.
(b) Easements. All components of GSHPS shall not -encroach on
easements.
(c) GSHPS are permitted in stormwater ponds.
Design
(a) Only closed loop GSHPS utilizing Minnesota Department of Health
approved heat transfer fluids are permitted.
(b) Screening. Ground source heat pumps are considered mechanical
equipment and subject to the requirements of the city's zoning ordinance.
General Standards
Noise. GSHPS shall comply with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency standards
outlined in Minnesota Rules Chapter 7030.
e. Abandonment
A GSHPS that is allowed to remain in a nonfunctional or inoperative state for a period of
twelve (12) consecutive months, and which is not brought in operation within the time
specified by the city after notification to the owner or operator of the GSHPS, shall be
presumed abandoned and may be declared a public nuisance subject to removal at the
expense of the operator.
Section 6. General Ordinance Provisions
a. Interpretation
In interpreting this ordinance and its application, the provisions of these regulations shall
be held to be the minimum requirements for the protection of public health, safety and
general welfare. This ordinance shall be construed broadly to promote the purposes for
which it was adopted.
b. Conflict
This ordinance is not intended to interfere with, abrogate or annul any other ordinance,
rule or regulation, statute or other provision of law except as provided herein. If any
provision of this ordinance imposes restrictions different from any other ordinance, rule
or regulation, statute or provision of law, the provision that is more restrictive or imposes
high standards shall control.
12
C. Severability
If any part or provision of this ordinance or its application to any developer or
circumstance is judged invalid by any competent jurisdiction, the judgment shall be
confined in its operation to the part, provision or application directly involved in the
controversy in which the judgment shall be rendered and shall not affect or impair the
validity of the remainder of these regulations or the application of them to other
developers or circumstances.
13