HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/21/1990 43
MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 21, 1990
7:30 P.M.
1830 EAST COUNTY ROAD B
MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes: May 7, 1990
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Public Hearings
a. 7:30 P.M., 2280 Stillwater Avenue
Plan Amendment
Rezoning
Conditional Use Permit
b. 7:45 P.M., Rolling Hills Mobile Home Park
• Plan Amendment
Rezoning
6. Unfinished Business
a. Comprehensive Plan - Land Use Classifications
7. Visitor Presentations
8. Commission Presentations
a. Council Meetings: May 14
b. Representative for the May 31 Council Meeting: Gary
Gerke
9. Staff Presentations
10. Adjournment
1
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 EAST COUNTY ROAD B, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
MAY 7, 1990
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Axdahl called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Commissioner Roger Anitzberger Present
Commissioner Lester Axdahl Present
Commissioner Richard Barrett Present
Commissioner Robert Cardinal Present
Commissioner Sue Fiola Absent
Commissioner Lorraine Fischer Present
Commissioner Gary Gerke Present
Commissioner Dennis Larson Absent
Commissioner William Rossbach Present
Commissioner Marvin Sigmundik Present
Commissioner Brian Sinn Present
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. April 2, 1990
410 Commissioner Fischer moved approval of the minutes of
April 2, 1990, as submitted.
Commissioner Sigmundik seconded Ayes -- Barrett,
Cardinal, Fischer,
Gerke, Rossbach,
Sigmundik
Abstentions -- Axdahl,
Anitzberger, Sinn
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Fischer moved approval of the agenda as
submitted.
Commissioner Barrett seconded Ayes -- Anitzberger,
Axdahl, Barrett,
Cardinal, Fischer, Gerke,
Rossbach, Sigmundik, Sinn
5. NEW BUSINESS
a. Easement Vacations: Gall Ave. (North Suburban Co.)
Secretary Olson presented the staff report for the
requested vacation of four unneeded utility and
drainage easements.
.• Maplewood Planning Commission -2-
Minutes 5 -7 -90
Commissioner Fischer moved the Planning Commission
recommend approval of the resolution that vacates four
public utility and drainage easements on Lots 2 and 3,
Block 1, of Maplewood Meadows. Approval is in the
public interest because:
1. The City does not need the easements for current
or proposed utilities or drainage facilities.
2. The property owner dedicated new easements.
Commissioner Rossbach seconded Ayes -- Anitzberger,
Axdahl, Barrett,
Cardinal, Fischer,
Gerke, Rossbach,
Sigmundik, Sinn
The motion passed.
b. Preliminary Plat: Flicek Addition
Ken Roberts, Associate Planner, presented the staff
• report for this requested seven -lot single - family
subdivision along Kohlman Lane.
Commissioner Anitzberger asked staff whether this •
property is part of the shoreland area. In response
Mr. Roberts said this proposed plat property is in the
shoreland area and does comply with the ordinance
requirements.
Commissioner Fischer asked staff whether Kohlman Lane
is the City's longest cul -de -sac. Staff responded that
to his knowledge it was the longest at approximately
1800 feet.
Commissioner Rossbach asked staff to explain the
requirements of the tree ordinance. The commissioners
discussed these requirements with staff.
Bernard Flicek, the applicant of this proposed
preliminary plat, commented on his plans for preserving
trees on the property and discussion with the
commissioners on this subject followed.
Chairman Axdahl asked for comments from the public and
one person commented on the soils in this area.
411
Maplewood Planning Commission -3-
Minutes 5 -7 -90
Commissioner Cardinal moved the Planning Commission
recommend approval of the preliminary plat, subject to
the developer completing the following conditions
before final plat approval:
1. Approval of final grading, drainage and erosion
control plans by the City Engineer. The erosion
control plan shall address the recommendations of
the Soil Conservation District and the Ramsey -
Washington Watershed District.
2. The grading plan shall include a proposed building
pad elevation and contour information for each
home site. Housing styles shall be illustrated
which minimize grading on the lots so tree
preservation is maximized. The City Engineer may
approve deviations from the grading plan, if the
intent of the overall approved grading plan is
followed.
3. Approval of a tree plan by the Director of
Community Development. No grading or construction
may begin until the Director approves this plan.
This plan must show the trees over eight inches in
diameter that the developer intends to remove or
retain. The plan must also show where the
developer will plan replacement trees.
Commissioner Sigmundik seconded
Commissioner Rossbach amended the motion to include:
4. Require soil borings be done on Lot 7, 6, and 5 in
the proposed building pad areas before final plat
approval.
Commissioner Anitzberger seconded Ayes - - Anitzberger,
Axdahl, Barrett,
Cardinal, Fischer,
Gerke, Rossbach,
Sigmundik, Sinn
The vote to amend the motion passed.
Y
Maplewood Planning Commission -4-
Minutes 5 -7 -90
The Commission then voted on the motion.
Ayes -- Anitzberger,
Axdahl, Barrett,
Cardinal, Fischer,
Gerke, Rossbach,
Sigmundik, Sinn
The motion passed.
c. Variance and Lot Division: 1860 Sterling St. (Welch)
Secretary Olson presented the staff report for this
requested lot division and lot -width variance to divide
one lot into two lots.
The applicant Nancy Welch was present and explained her
request. Bruce Beck, the applicant's attorney, also
spoke in favor of this requested lot division and lot -
width variance.
Commissioner Fischer asked for the history of the
• approval of a cul -de -sac on this property. Staff said
a number of different plans have been proposed, but
none have been presented to the Planning Commission or
City Council for approval. Staff said that by doing
the first lot division, it made later attempts to
develop the property more difficult.
Commissioner Rossbach moved the Planning Commission
recommend denial of the variance and lot division
because:
1. The variance would not be in character with the
area and would reduce the privacy of adjacent
homes.
2. The property owner has not adequately demonstrated
a hardship to her property which was not created
as of her own actions.
Commissioner Anitzberger seconded Ayes -- Anitzberger,
Axdahl, Barrett,
Fischer, Gerke,
Rossbach, Sigmundik,
Sinn
Nays -- Cardinal
The motion passed.
l
411 Maplewood Planning Commission -5-
Minutes 5 -7 -90
d. Code Amendment: Motor Fuel Stations
Secretary Olson presented the staff report.
Bill Hentges, vice president of the Hentges Company,
spoke in favor of amending this ordinance.
Commissioner Anitzberger said that he has received
information from the Environmental Protection Agency
that in the next ten years their requirements will
become more stringent for underground storage of tanks
and will require underground monitoring systems.
The commissioners discussed with Mr. Hentges at what
depth tanks and piping are buried at and compared the
different types of underground storage tanks.
Commissioner Fischer moved the Planning Commission
recommend approval of the ordinance requiring all new
or replacement underground or above ground fuel storage
tanks shall meet the standards of Minnesota Statutes
Chapter 116 and rules promulgated thereunder. In
addition, plans for installation shall be approved by
the State Fire Marshal's office and shall have a UL
listing appropriate for its use.
Commissioner Cardinal seconded Ayes -- Anitzberger,
Axdahl, Barrett,
Cardinal, Fischer,
Rossbach, Sigmundik,
Sinn
Nays - -Gerke
The motion passed.
e. Land Use Classification
Secretary Olson presented the staff report for the
proposed change to replace the land use classifications
in the Comprehensive Plan with the City's zoning
district classifications.
The commissioners discussed the advantages and
disadvantages of implementing this change in the
Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Fischer asked staff
to investigate what other metro cities use the same
411 designations and if they have problems. The Commission
agreed to refer this item to staff to investigate and
to be placed on a future agenda for reconsideration.
Maplewood Planning Commission -6-
Minutes 5 -7 -90
6. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
7. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS
a. Council Meetings: April 9 and 23
Commissioner Rossbach reported on the April 9 meeting.
Secretary Olson reported on the April 23 meeting.
8. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
Secretary Olson reported on future agenda items.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:29 p.m.
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager
• FROM: Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Conditional Use
Permit Termination
PROJECT: Lincoln Park Manor Seniors Building
LOCATION: 2280 Stillwater Avenue (Section 25 -29)
DATE: May 9, 1990
INTRODUCTION
The City Council asked staff to find out if the Lincoln Park
Manor Seniors Building is going to be built. The Community for
Affordable Senior Housing (CASH) proposed to build this project
on the Beaver Lake Lutheran Church property at Stillwater Avenue
and McKnight Road. If the building is not going to be built, the
Council asked if they should rezone the property from R -3,
Multiple Dwelling back to R -1, Single Dwelling.
BACKGROUND
The City Council, on June 27, 1988, changed the land use plan for
this site from C, Church, to RH, Residential High Density and RL,
• Residential Low Density. The Council also changed the zoning
from R -1, Single - dwelling Residential to R -3, Multiple - Dwelling
Residential. The City made these changes to allow the
construction of an 86 -unit senior housing project.
DISCUSSION
The project developer told me that they are planning to build
this project in Oakdale. The Federal government would not fund
this project in Maplewood. They consider Maplewood to be a low -
priority city for senior housing grants. They classify Oakdale
as a high - priority city. Section 36- 446(a) allows the City to
terminate a conditional use permit when the use is no longer in
effect.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Approve the resolution on page 7, amending the City's land
use plan for this site from RL, Residential Low Density and
RH, Residential High Density to C, Church. The reasons for
this amendment are as follows:
a. The City previously amended the Plan for the
construction of a senior housing project. The
•
developers now plan to construct this project in
Oakdale.
[1/ b. The Church is not planning on selling the land to
another developer.
c. The RH, Residential High Density designation would
allow a nonseniors project to be built.
•
2. Approve the resolution on page 8, rezoning this site from
R -3, Multiple Dwelling to R -1, Single- Dwelling Residential
for the reasons required by City Code.
3. Approve the resolution on page 10, terminating the
conditional use permit to build a 42- foot -high senior
building. The City is terminating this permit because the
developers plan to build this project in Oakdale.
go /memol0.mem
Attachments:
1. Existing land use plan
2. Proposed land use plan
3. Existing zoning map
4. Proposed zoning map
5. Plan amendment resolution
6. Rezoning resolution
7. Conditional use permit resolution
411
410
2
• i - ../.. .
. i; Rm 1. .
BM S "
_ ' Y
ea
_ Rnl ' C '
.. major m ---� o Maryland Ave.
irt - - - .- major col actor , J
•, "1' ii � IRI ,,,,I I - Stillwater Road
ea •1 d - I — . t it,si ' ,�4 1�'` % •
to �� '�a10 j I i ��� I � ! ,
�1 1 ., ; mi orconector Harvester
( tl �� III'
I ��' � Ti ,
• Ay Rlji T ` . I ' i
0
�E �\ 4- • a r QS SC
A `% I
e,' . Ill � `- I u
�' l ••�J =.�me or cr d Minnehaha
1 _ , il k .. ir
. , ,.., :1
R
,. _... ..., =,
PR -- S , - 1-SC,
h.
li • ma or colle ctor � ctor _ Conway
. : t , n, it .. . 1
i I
J
1 / 1
. O
Beaver Lake
NEIGHBORHOOD LAND USE PLAUI
lil
(Existing) N
3 Attachment 1
. 1
• •
• 1 . • • .
' % A 1 � 6 Rm
'1 � �' S
Rm� =
eu J - R� I a.-LSC m _ .�
O. [ . . - major collector
s � o !�' � ° fll
Maryland Ave.
u Il lll I:1 R ' ' 'RI �1. 1\i Stillwater Road
__ SC cu
• \,\
' t
. 1111-41 0/
MI* L° j , , m oreo l e et o r i, Harvester
' . I Lit =
.fil Hill. 'T:s •j s i li
• RI •1 .• r -
y,^ � y` O
OS
... SC
���.a....-ni or +rtes+ .. d
Minnehaha illir!!!!!!!!!1
, .
r. I g.
1 ! .:I Ri
. IR s 1 s — i
1
JL v:
- -yam t .. - , .
i • •ma Or collector Conway
_L.
N / ■
• LAND USE PLAN
(Beaver Lake Neighborhood) 4C)6'
(Proposed) N
■
4 Attachment 2
• ♦ \
L ' 1n_ •• t5 1 nv 4. • •o.L •.y• av ..� _
• _� I
1 A ! —,- - C A S C _.. —AVE -11tH y v _ _ - _ —__r _ _ ...CMS _J•��Y
2L 52.i R r
_ 24 40.4 M
,.' »•.r) 1. � IAr..l3 136.13' ISj.3 153.31 13.3 • 37 r 135 101.5 15.1.55 PM 4T•) 3) 'r
LL ll / Z ) 117 I
In
•
ost Is
1 o 6> s II ^! O n
. 0 O
• e 1 7 Y 6 i C v
• 1 N ( / /��A 0) f ; ^ { � c!) 101.9• - 1 L ` F ` .
U y (9) �9) a J N u a) N 6 5t 1
X A e � is�.><e1 .1
m f5. 1 1 nl
V p 56 ) �,Sf. _ ® 3 w ( (Z5.) Y 0) .06 1
I wo I. I, L`r�7LJ N
1
.ta°• ° 135.* 136.1! I • 151.3 906.6 ` „ Y •�•.1 •
Q ^� 9 p 5 1.62sc• I% n u 11 A
p t a .
(CS2 • 6 A 6/) (8) 6 a; • r
1 0 .1 • s (S) • .a • y
if J 0
• 1 33 . 1' 1
40.6 40.6 ' /�• M t...
a �. R3
III
uN •
so
IL
i ,c1 „,,
0,
., , •
p
1
fi
t � •
9 WOO I J�D •
NI 3 J •
— 114 � (c • v^a s•e•z - 4k 0 •
Doc 30 it ■ e a t �t �r � �� ii i �4 • SOac. // SO +�s 90ec i
rc QM � p 1):
,
_ e4'° 4. ez as / (.4t) 044
—
1 0...) 4 oo c•E.Weltion 1 �� 043 I.C'F.
—
•
rte” o i-
r
Z. nc. 4) „ c
• _ � 0.3) 5 R36 Az) . s� • • N,� _.
w 2 5 �♦' MEI O leo 4
� -,� 111 / � n tae_ -r_ _ + 1 _.
r
PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP
O
0 (Existing)
N
5
Attachment 3
L • • 14. •• 15 1 u L- .*-.o.t -- •.L•._u... • _.i _
"
C A S C — A
f - , - ��- '2ta.?z , _�„Y_� •,�
1 i' _ _ _. __
?•� •d1�• i�a.1D 131.1 p..4.4. n 37
. .,, 1sa�' 153.)l 3.3 a� 101., lslss 1 al..rf 1 i
.,
el 71
0 V.
o
> Q if. Q J tO T 3 ,n lg y, f1 ' W r3 0^ r ` •
01 E 81 4 ( 4 0 r. 1.1.7. 1l) j S
• ., I r
� L3.+ . 136.13 136. 1• 153.3 fi r �. bo6.6t` -- ` r „ ' • y s :�
nAc9 �, ° 1.62sc. % ^ v
Q clL)r 0
C1 1 t ‘1, C of 5 t. Pa.J ' 0: LL saw
cn
w
. to • ; (S) 4 � • n . - ,
33 0
A M
• 1
•
II G1'•
. 1
/ R3
A
�.
,
t,
;R L . • • 1 •
li C I
l b
9 0' CO
I7J
N ,a5 (� � S C
` VAC. t•.• /L • _
1,oc.,12 1)0;14 T 11.■•• 14 Q
a ®
�' i b P) .SOdt. 0.20 ®nn 1 , }. , �ie ®a* ra
'° ' 11110111.Poir � ((47-) 044 S f O #, .9aac / nM 4, II:
o • /z G;'
E 4 00 c,E,N.% on
l e ap
N 1 r
.0")
r
� • 2.35 wc. () ( y o
R .._.r =
A 2 5 (3)`� S ' I, O,' 4
z e1
_. (;» C• .7N /
re. /.. LOO (4.1 'W,
r. r 5
r 1 .
PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP .O
• (Proposed)
N
6 Attachment 4
•
•
411 PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the City initiated an amendment to the City's
• Comprehensive Plan from RL, residential low density and RH,
residential high density to C, church.
WHEREAS, this amendment applies to the easterly part of 2280
Stillwater Avenue.
WHEREAS, the history of this plan amendment is as follows:
1. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on May
21, 1990 to consider this plan amendment. City staff
published a notice of this hearing in the Maplewood
Review and sent notices to the surrounding property
owners as required by law. The Planning commission
gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and
present written statements. The Planning Commission
recommended to the City council that the plan amendment
be
2. The City Council discussed the plan amendment on
, 1990. They considered reports
and recommendations from the Planning Commission and
City staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve
the above - described plan amendment for the following reasons:
a. The City previously amended the Plan for the
construction of a senior housing project. The
developers now plan to construct this project in
Oakdale.
b. The Church is not planning on selling the land to
another developer.
c. The RH, Residential High Density designation would
allow a nonseniors project to be built.
Adopted on , 1990.
Attachment 5
411
7
REZONING RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the City initiated this rezoning from R -3,
Multiple Dwelling to R -1, Single - Dwelling Residential for the
property located at 2280 Stillwater Avenue.
WHEREAS, this rezoning applies to the easterly part of 2280
Stillwater Avenue. The legal description is:
Beginning at the northeast corner of said Tract A; thence
South 81 degrees 50 minutes 00 seconds West, along the North
line of said Tract A a distance of 40.42 feet; thence South
0 degrees 04 minutes 19 seconds West, parallel with the East
line of said Tract A, a distance of 216.17 feet; thence
South 46 degrees 24 minutes 30 seconds West, a distance of
357.67 feet; thence South 48 degrees 26 minutes 55 seconds
East a distance of 228.00 feet to the South line of said
Tract A; thence North 89 degrees 46 seconds 18 minutes East,
along said South line, a distance of 127.93 feet to the
Southeast corner of said Tract A; thence North 0 degrees 04
seconds 19 minutes East, along said East line, a distance of
619.26 feet to the point of beginning.
WHEREAS, the history of this rezoning is as follows:
1. The Planning Commission reviewed this rezoning on
411 May 21, 1990. They recommended to the City Council
that the rezoning be
2. The City Council held a public hearing on
1990. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood
Review and sent notices to the surrounding property
owners as required by law. The Council gave everyone
at the hearing an opportunity to speak and present
written statements. The Council also considered
reports and recommendations from the City staff and
Planning commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve
the above- described rezoning for the following reasons:
1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit,
purpose and intent of the zoning code.
2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or
detract from the use of neighboring property or from
the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of
the property adjacent to the area included in the
proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded.
3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and
• conveniences of the community, where applicable and the
public welfare.
8 Attachment 6
411 4. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon
the logical, efficient, and economical extension of
public services and facilities such as public water,
sewers, police and fire protection and schools.
Adopted on , 1990.
•
9
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION
IIM WHEREAS, t he City is initiating the termination of
a conditional use permit to build a 42- foot -high senior building.
WHEREAS, the permit applies to 2280 Stillwater Avenue. The
legal description is:
Beginning at the Northeast corner of said Tract A; thence
South 81 degrees 50 minutes 00 seconds West, along the North
line of said Tract A a distance of 40.42 feet; thence South
0 degrees 04 minutes 19 seconds West, parallel with the East
line of said Tract A, a distance of 216.17 feet; thence
South 46 degrees 24 minutes 30 seconds West, a distance of
357.67 feet; thence South 48 degrees 26 minutes 55 seconds
East a distance of 228.00 feet to the South line of said
Tract A; thence North 89 degrees 46 seconds 18 minutes East,
along said South line, a distance of 127.93 feet to the
Southeast corner of said Tract A; thence North 0 degrees 04
seconds 19 minutes East, along said east line, a distance of
619.26 feet to the point of beginning.
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as
follows:
1. The City Council approved this conditional use permit
111 on July 11, 1988.
2. The developers told the City that they plan to
construct this project in Oakdale.
3. The Planning Commission discussed this termination on
May 21, 1990. They recommended to the City Council
that said permit be
4. The City Council held a public hearing on
, 1990. City staff published a
notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding
property owners as required by law. The Council gave
everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present
written statements. The Council also considered
reports and recommendations of the City staff and
Planning Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council
terminate the above - described conditional use permit. The City
is terminating this permit because the project is now planned for
Oakdale.
Adopted , 1990.
Attachment 7
411
10
IT
22 Stillwater Avenue
MAY 151990 Maplewood, MN 55119
May lam, 1990
. _ _ _ _ '
s . ran Juker
Member, Maplewood City Council
Maplewood City Hall
1830 East County Road B
Maplewood h•N 55109
Dear Ms. Juker:
Would you please read this note during the public
hearing on Monday, hay 21, 1990 referring to 2280
Stillwater Avenue, (Beaver Lake Lutheran Church) as
I will not be able to attend the hearing.
I would certainly hope that the Maplewood City Council
would terminate the conditional use permit for a 4 2 -foot
high seniors' building and would change Toning from
R -3 to R -1.
The land use plan is valuable only if it is followed
on a long -tern: basis and not changed on the spur of
the norent. I would concur with a change in the plan
to Church, especially if this represents long -term
• planning and adherence will be assured.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
William P. Robbins
cc: Mr. Geoff Olson, City Planner
EI
II! MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager
FROM: Kenneth Roberts, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Land Use Plan Amendment and Rezoning
LOCATION: West of Century Avenue, south of Chicago and
Northwestern Railroad tracks
APPLICANT: City of Maplewood
PROJECT: Rolling Hills Mobile Home Park (Section 24)
DATE: May 17, 1990
INTRODUCTION
The City Council, on January 8, 1990, tabled a proposal by staff
to rezone the Rolling Hills 2nd Addition Mobile Home Park to R -3,
multiple dwelling. The Council requested other zoning
alternatives. The City has planned this development for RM,
residential medium density use. This classification allows for
multiple dwellings, mobile home parks and small -lot single - family
homes. If the Council decides to change the zoning to R -1, they
should also change the land use plan to RL, residential low
density. (Refer to the maps on pages 6, 7, 8 and 9.)
BACKGROUND
October 25, 1982: The City Council approved a conditional use
permit for the Rolling Hills 1st Addition Mobile Home Park.
May 9, 1983: The City Council rezoned the northern portion of the
Rolling Hills 2nd Addition Mobile Home Park from M -2, heavy
manufacturing to F, farm residential. The Council also rezoned
the Rolling Hills 1st Addition from M -2 to R -3, multiple dwelling.
Council took no action on rezoning the parcel that is currently
zoned M -2. At that time, it was the site of a recently burned
single - family home. The M -2 zone was left in place by the Council
to give the property owner the maximum flexibility in use. This
was because the owner did not have any plans for the site.
May 11, 1987: The City Council approved a conditional use permit
to develop the Rolling Hills 2nd Addition Mobile Home Park.
November 16, 1989: The Council requested a study of properties
which have inconsistent zoning and land use designations.
January 8, 1990: Staff recommended rezoning the 2nd addition to
R -3, because the existing zoning is inconsistent with land use plan.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
Plan Amendments
Plan amendments require no specific findings for approval. Any
amendmen €, however, should be consistent with the City's land use
41! goals and policies.
II!
Rezoninqs
Section 36 -485 of the City Code requires the following findings
to approve a rezoning:
1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and
intent of the zoning code.
2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract
from the use of neighboring property or from the character of
the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to
the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately
safeguarded.
3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and
conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the
public welfare.
4. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the
logical, efficient, and economical extension of public
services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police
and fire protection and schools.
ALTERNATIVES
110 1. Amend the land use plan to RL, residential low density and
rezone to R -1; single - family residential.
2. Rezone the site to R -2, double - dwelling residential.
3. Rezone the site to R -3, multiple - dwelling residential.
DISCUSSION
Rezoning this property would not affect the mobile home park. The
zoning will determine how the property owner, if the mobile home
park ended.
The property owner is in opposition to an R -1 zoning. He would
like to develop the property with some type of multiple - family
dwellings if the mobile home park ended. He does not, however,
intend to stop using the property as a mobile home park. (Refer
to the letter on page 10.)
An R -3 zoning would maintain the property's value without damaging
surrounding properties. The area to the north is developed with
railroad tracks and a NSP propane storage facility. A highway
with heavy traffic is to the east. To the west is an apartment
development. The property to the south has double dwellings and
single dwellings on smaller lots. The City should avoid reducing
property values unless it is for a public purpose. •
41!
2
•
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Approve the resolution on page 12 which changes the OS, open
space designation in the north end of the mobile home park on
the land use plan to RM, residential medium density. The
reason for this change is that this area has developed as
part of the mobile home park.
2. Adopt the resolution on page 13 which rezones the Rolling Hills
2nd Addition Mobile Home Park, from F, farm residential, and
M -2, heavy manufacturing to R -3, multiple - dwelling residential.
The findings required by ordinance are the basis for this
approval.
3
•
REFERENCE
Site Description
Area: Approximately 58 acres
Existing land use: Rolling Hills Mobile Home Park
Surrounding Land Uses
North: Railroad and NSP Property.
East: Century Avenue and single - family homes in City of Oakdale.
South: Cave's Century 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Additions zoned R -1,
F (PUD) and R -2.
West: Beaver Creek Apartments.
Planning
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
Low Density Residential (RL) - "This classification is primarily
designated for a variety of single - dwelling homes. An occasional
double dwelling may be allowed. The maximum population density is
411 14 people per net acre" (page 18 -29).
Medium Density Residential (RM) - This classification is
designated for such housing types as single - family houses on small
lots, two - family homes, townhouses, and mobile homes. The maximum
population density is 22 people per net acre.
Open Space (OS) - This land use classification is designed to
provide land use areas throughout the community which act to
complement all other land uses by providing a reasonable balance
of open space in relation to urban development. Within this
classification there are a number of specialized land use
activities which can be further classified. These include: Parks
and playgrounds, natural drainage courses, cemeteries, public and
non- public school grounds, golf courses, lakes, pedestrian
trail -ways and scenic drives, and environmental protection areas,
encompassing wetlands and flood plains.
ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS
F, Farm Residential - This zoning allows any use permitted in a
R -1 Residential District. Mobile home parks are permitted with a
conditional use permit.
R -1, Single Dwelling Residential - This zoning allows single -
family dwellings, public parks and playgrounds. Golf courses and
the storage of commercial vehicles are permitted with a
• conditional use permit.
4
411
R -3, Multiple - Family Dwelling - The only uses permitted are
• multiple dwellings, including double dwellings and any use
permitted and conditionally permitted in the R -1 District, except
single - family dwellings.
M -2, Heavy Manufacturing - A building may be erected or used and
a lot may be used or occupied for any lawful use.
Attachments
1. Land Use Plan (Existing)
2. Land Use Plan (Proposed)
3. Property Line /Zoning Map (Existing)
4. Property Line /Zoning Map (Proposed)
5. Letter dated March 1, 1990 from Richard Gabriel
6. Plan Amendment resolution
7. Rezoning Resolution
SBZONINGC
•
5
/ 1
.4.1 ;# Larpenteur
. • '• jr .
■
. I--m -i 11. r l r ...L L
1 I 1 r n lin 1 1 / .
/� - .0 • 1�> ',' : x • ROPOSED CHANGE
a .:
- ,,. 1 - /I /4- " flakikWridi : I
�� .}'ti:.,.,j•,•' "'2:. Ski •. >.; +. h '� d011 : Pi.::::::*114k;:.:.;::::::::::%;::::ti;t1 •
„ j, 410 - Ft Il l nu
r R ' S 0- -�
°*— cnalor collector . ..j... l ia ry 1 a��d Ave . lip
R m . � i � ' �c tit Sti 1 lwa ter Road
•
:0- • - 0 i SC
1
— 0 I* GJ .-- P r ? . a Wo /44/
S, : - - 1 . : . •
• , .. r , t S. # ‘0%%. ` • , w .- .
1
U4' JL _ ; , ' • , mi or Harvester
( 44- ' i - - .' "` I 1 ! -.I ! i I'I� ` RL = LOW- DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
C _ r 1 1I R( C RM = MEDIUM - DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
Q o RH = HIGH- DENSITY RESIDENTIAL r.a fO
a L � i j 1 ' ' • �- E OS =OPEN SPACE
P = PARK
S = SCHOOL
LSC = LIMITED SERVICE COMMERCIAL
4
1 / 1
,:,,...
LAND USE PLAN 4 1:::1
EXISTING N
6 Attachment 1
/ \ • — - —. Larpenteur
• U i �. , I . mg
MIlltm .
f ,r r� I
. . i r. ow ,
1111111 , •
—
. I I, ' i" ,• r •
I ' Y i /4. ..■ • 4 P lib 0 S
. 1•0°.''. . „.•'<°<:‘ / ...o;
Cr.° i
•
• z ki ii, 401 6 ' . . . . ...■ ■ r .
IV
1111 Rm '
fp -4 ,..
cli 4 Rill �1 \ ^ {JM - LSC . , m •
-L - - '� maJOr collector � """"1 C=2
Maryland Ave.
'Ji ' i 0111;, I 1 •' c to
_ Q RIB 1Ri �_ 4 Sti 111,4a ter Road t.
i — --1 . B '''. T&
co
, = - 0S — . = -� - 7.- 0 4 4 CI° .
.>. J Lt t 4 L ; , to n ector; :
1 .1 ••, 1 II: l • ^ RL = LOW- DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
,— Lem C .,
_
C I '; I R RM = MEDIUM- DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
1 - - R DJ p s r • . .: RH = HIGH - DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
C -- IIi • 1. E OS = OPEN SPACE
P = PARK
S = SCHOOL . •
LSC = LIMITED SERVICE COMMERCIAL
•
... .
LAND USE PLAN O
(PROPOSED) N
7 Attachment 2
r
1
1 ,,, ..•_1 II I .
•
1
- . N. S. P. +
. /
�/�
_ I S /
w.„, /
.....
;(0.v:. v,: j :y } : , : � :: : :v:.: {}:f:•:: ri4{r }:rr ,'f.,ir!::i : ?•r n z •
iJr ?r:r:
. "'iii.. 2? • (: : : 'if . '• •:•f •:{ r: +rv1 • v f {, 4 .:: f..
•
. .f :;'2: to ti it •: :':S:' �.. }:? }. . <.,: :44 :: ';': i :• : : : : :: : ;:x • { : `,
Y :y. i} :, .{ fv :. ; :: {n:rr ., : i.. r . I
4S 0 .: rk? k::: i:;; C• r •... {; :.: : : . } ' : ;i�i52' } ; • ?; ; ?; ::;x;::t::: < : :•:f:. :•',�' •:, U)
♦ �,. ::ti'.vv'n,'; :::{:•• �••:.:•:•. ': • {v{ •�.4}i•':+ {:. • {::::. i'y"'..a {•Y' - :1
• ♦♦ • � •f ` . }:: {►: + { +••. ;• • 7:;fi :r:•};�•.i: ;,f?9u •i,;v:+F4?,'c``•i%•;`,;::; t•`•::%:::' ::''.'• 1
►♦ .� : .' ? � {::i:`fi ? i r{ °f:S a:; >:: i?.: } : >.•.q {:v :: :::iF %#: {:r:, {, ::4r xt
/- 01 !: f,;:•>: Gr :.n:re.. ?•':8:::•i *. ?::{ i.} ? : :i :: .�}. i:4:, +.c„ ',
— ,/ .. / i E i =i f A i 00 r fi c ei k* i i it iik#: —
::: {•.:..: • , rn:.,* r:}: s ' ^ .:; n, :
( / ^�� i AREA OF PROPOSED CHANGE
:YT T • { ' : ::: ' 4 :: ':, {•.. %,ti :•{ ? % :3r�' ,f• 5: ; }•: {: :• .i . is v : .
y {,,C,'r. .,, i ' v t a: 7 S : : 70 .. i : Y?u . : r{•{c; 's :i g i::,• {r' ;;:> I
{' >:::Iiii :::: : ' .. ::: }ii.',t,{: rA:ii ' :{:r : :1;v:.; 2?. .i: l':f " -• {t:
r :;;;:i**::::::::::•..0%;:.:.:.:0f 'i :i::f • .},fY..r•.. :4 . v f . ; ; �V f . ��;r . , • •y •, . }•:: i,'h.. ?: : kr•r{:::.•0 :i }:N-.: ;;i:'•• ?•:6#..F 0 : :�: ::i;r :i: s
PU ::i:f:':; :r ' ,. }: •. i g::: '+t x .; :: tr }.: .: :i0,,;'.�.5.. • •..{o ` : I— •
•
( + • L:::i:::::.`i sr:r,:. •: 3::r`.:? }t:in:.r #'.it; .' f.} .o:: xt# •f::.rf, •'{:: :�f:S { iti}ii:: i:tv :v't':':� $t;, +•:� rf:✓^ �+: ? % >>'}''v�v�; {: :F ' i
• • ■2'•.'•: i:: t} : >{ > : r•.. �; {•n�i,�k y{S4i }R.^:{; u r; •. �• f.;, , c
: { %: i': Y.`: k • . : ' . ( y' r'' + kf< •,. # ., ,t : : i y .•. ^•:•., >k. :'. ^` V
• <"'"'"'
F i.. : }.„.. :4 ,:..:S.:: : „:.....:. t „„A :r. ;::} f.':;„k:•'{.{i}E� : •:t •; ... O
{ :::fit
,� ' �:r:i:itir:::�::!:• : {.n {;,” i'?. t. �} f:}{>,:•. :
: Y?.'} i••:•; Gx{?: i::{:: t:! a: }; ?:;.,;•:.} {.,�•,;i,t; :,:?�`
r': : rr:•: : ?:i {:;i';� {:v{i :.i . ..:,.v /:{r .•:::riititii•::: .... .}. :•.: i., , :.i :i :i'i:..• ...:
F = FA R ``' >`' :: <:,L.:• ::• ;•r:i:.: :. f . i. : : {;{ spa..#t:%rS :::• {.rc :.: {•:• { {•`:^ v::•:•.•:;S:.rii:> itr;v::i
M RESIDENTIAL .: t{ r::<: t:: t::: r::: tt':.:; it:::: t::;: >::::: >::i:< >::::::�:::�; { : I .
Ve R1 = SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ` °� ° °` "�� v
R2 =SINGLE &TWQ- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 1 ° _r ,�` ••o„ ' "
f, ,. z P • R3 = MULTIPLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL "o -' � . rte'. '�' l 2 - (• "'
M.-1 = LIGHT MANUFACTURING " i , :(.,,: • 1a
•
M -2 =HEAVY MANUFACTURING • ill "<- " I . le • v „ „, ' _ , .
PUD =PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT . .• - -
w
y4• , :u . ;3 Q z • : . if” 1 3 • R3 —
PUD o . ., ,.� 1 II
•
Is _ , v : )•a I : al .. n i! : a:{6.:sUP.YI_. ..... _Ain.:
1 Q
•
J
•
PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP
0 .
r EXISTING
N
8 Attachment 3
It.statimi"....atual
. 1
I
- .
.. Ellin 00.
( *3
•
. ..: ,----
-
log'. —
. . - *°....‘• !
: 1
M 1 .
1
.. 101,.c,
1
1 •••••1111. ■
,
, • i
0 0.4 Z ;
• 5.10ar..• I 0 *
;I H
• . .... 0
OTP i 0
■•
0 ' f . ) ri‘ ei ••••••
N Z •
•
c
I I •
i)
.. < i
3 ;
•• • . i
..
,...
••••,--„ .,
,,• .
., .
..- .•-
coi
--
/ /1 • ,.,.— •
,------- R-1
(
- . ,
. .... .
..... , . • '
....-' , -
.
.
.
.,....
.• .
. .
PU • c-,5,,, .
•;.: i•-- ...1
r z <
•
0
,.=
0 ,,,
,'
:,. 0 1 u ..,
• ,,„,„,,, :.:
........,
_ ... (..P!‘„ e .,' (\II
...,•37' F ...
I: 7
- ,...•" '... - I--
—
F . FARM RESIDENTIAL : ..,',,. .., ..„ , ,...•,, V ,: . . - .....,":7 ':, ° 1 ,..,, - ..,,-
. _ . .11.....•a. • =I.__ ___ ±.
. __ _ _ _ lirwirgr _rxr•inkit
.....
R1 • SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ,
:-'- ,,z
l'''''" " '-4--1 ' • '
R2 . SINGLE & TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ig _ "; ;_i_a T F12 K", ,V, • • . ! (40
f . . : ......... , I : !•,. 2 ?...i.::' z . lk 0 - . . , 1
• R3 . MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 9 .1 N L 0 7;...
. • • _ ... , t. ,,,,j
1 ..1:- ".' i ,,,), ,( v.., )0 M/
M . LIGHT MANUFACTURING i A : : ' ,, - :..f. ' 1
• • ,'°•'----. °, ''''' - 4 !.): • f.
. :".D .!4- ....
— "
• . . J. ,, ,:A , - , 0. ...."0
M-2 . HEAVY MANUFACTURING
. - • . - : — :',,D - .7.: iimi ,,.,
Q. :
i 2
PUD • PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT : i kfa; ';', '2' • 1 R3
t .,.....,-- -„z•ff„. • -2 i :: • 2 :, —
1.•27 Li ';,,,, te ■ 7 e••) La ....4 a z o - q ..;'. 6 ' 0
PUD :747.0:-2, Q•.), ° ..1.: • . • • u. :7(.1*. /I Z •
o.. • .... ''' 6 ' ... : V' • " . '
• , ).,
A ft • II • 111 WNW 111111•1•111111111111/if Z
' 3 .7.‘ ' _ ,_,_. . , • . • • • .. E • .., - AVE.
, -2.21 7
• '...• ' It 1 . ••" ,' 2.7? ■ 43> 12; ' ''") () ....) (.0.- , F ... i'% • 1
' ' . .1 Q ■ 4'; ' :,'::: - 7:,”<-,........- . ; 21 . 22 . .2' a. ;• : 4 : ,...1„, 0 1:11 ..: .t1--- ...., ...1i;. ,.:
. .
k. •
PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP
1111
(PROPOSED) N
.
9 Attachment 4
•
I THE LAW OFFICE OF U l=J IS __ 1 I
MANSUR, O'LEARY AND GABRIEL, P.A. !'
SUITE 200 MAR 5
ONE WEST WATER STREET MAR
1110 S AINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55107 I - __ J 1 )
(612) 222 2731
(612) 223 511a S
EDWARD N. MANSUR •
DANIEL B. O'LEARY
MARY S ARRIGONI
RICHARD J. GABRIEL
WILLIAM R. SPACE VALERIE J DRINANE
CHARLES M COCHRANE March 1, 1990 GERALDINE A BORICK
SUZANNE WELLS SABATH•
Mr. Geoff Olson
Director of Community Development
City of Maplewood
1830 East County Road B
Maplewood, MN 55109
Re: Rolling Hills 1st and 2nd Addition
Our File 87 -207
Dear Mr. Olson:
Your letter of February 21, 1990, to Richard Pearson has been
directed to my attention for response. The property presently has
three zoning classifications, R -3, multiple dwelling, M -2, heavy
410 manufacturing, and F, farm residential.
The City has proposed that this zoning classification be changed
to R -1, single - dwelling residential. Such a change would be
inconsistent with the present use. I am aware of the fact that a
conditional use permit has already been issued and that Mr.
Pearson's use of the property would be grandfathered in. It can
be expected that the mobile home park use will continue on into
the foreseeable future. It is, therefore, inconsistent that the
City at this time zone the property R -1.
It would be Mr. Pearson's desire that the property be zoned M -2 to
allow maximum possible use of the property in the event the mobile
home park use was discontinued. However, Mr. Pearson is cognizant
of the City's desire that this property be devoted primarily for
residential use. In light of the present use of the property it
would appear to be most appropriate that the property be rezoned
to R -3. If, in fact, the property is to be used for residential
purposes it would most likely be utilized for residential
multi- family dwellings such as apartments, duplexes or town homes.
The property at present supports a relatively high density
residential use and should be classified consistent with that use
for zoning purposes. The R -3 zone classification would also be
consistent with the R -M medium density land use designation of the
property.
It is Mr. Pearson's primary request that the property be zoned
10 Attachment 5
Mr. Geoff Olson
0 March 1, 1990
2
M -2, however, if the City intends that this property be used for
residential purposes only in its land use planning, then it should
be zoned R -3.
Very truly yours,
MANSUR, O'LEARY & GABRIEL, P.A.
Richard J. Gabriel
RJG:gab
cc: Mr. Richard Pearson
53/372
•
i
•
11
PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood applied for an amendment to the
City's Comprehensive Plan from OS, Open Space to RM, Residential
Medium Density.
WHEREAS, this amendment applies to the northwestern portion of
the Rolling Hills Mobile Home Park 2nd Addition.
WHEREAS, the history of this plan amendment is as follows:
1. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on May
21, 1990 to consider this plan amendment. City staff
published a notice of this hearing in the Maplewood
Review and sent notices to the surrounding property
owners as required by law. The Planning Commission
gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and •
present written statements. The Planning Commission
recommended to the City Council that the plan amendment
be approved.
2. The City Council discussed the plan amendment on
, 1990. They considered reports
and recommendations from the Planning Commission and
City staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the
above - described plan amendment for the following reason:
This area has been developed as part of the mobile home
park.
Adopted on , 1990.
Attachment 6
12
REZONING RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood applied for a rezoning from F,
Farm Residential and M -2, Heavy Manufacturing to R -3, Multiple -
dwelling Residential.
WHEREAS, this rezoning applies to the Rolling Hills Mobile Home
Park property located west of Century AvenueSouth of the Chicago
and Northwestern Railroad. The legal description is:
That portion of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 24,
Township 29, Range 22 lying southeasterly of the Chicago and
Northwestern Railroad right -of -way.
WHEREAS, the history of this rezoning is as follows:
1. The Planning Commission reviewed this rezoning on
May 21, 1990. They recommended to the City Council
that the rezoning be approved.
2. The City Council held a public hearing on
1990. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood
Review and sent notices to the surrounding property
owners as required by law. The Council gave everyone
at the hearing an opportunity to speak and present
written statements. The Council also considered
reports and recommendations from the City staff and
Planning Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the
above - described rezoning for the following reasons:
1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit,
purpose and intent of the zoning code.
2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or
detract from the use of neighboring property or from
the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of
the property adjacent to the area included in the
proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded.
3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and
conveniences of the community, where applicable, and
the public welfare.
4. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon
the logical, efficient, and economical extension of
public services and facilities, such as public water,
sewers, police and fire protection and schools.
Adopted on , 1990.
110
Attachment 7
13
MEMORANDUM
•
TO: City Manager
FROM: Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan - Land Use Classifications
DATE: May 1, 1990
INTRODUCTION
I am proposing that the City replace the land use classifications
in the Comprehensive Plan with the City's zoning district
classifications. I am proposing this change for several reasons:
1. Using one set of classifications for the land use plan and
another for the zoning ordinance is confusing. The public
rarely understands the difference, even though the City
tries to explain it at public hearings. People understand
zoning better than land use plans. If the City Council
approves this change, the City could describe the land use
plan to the public as a future zoning map.
2. Most of the land use classifications are too vague. This
causes two problems where the City Council has not yet zoned
property for its long -term use. First, it is difficult to
decide which zone goes with which land use classification.
• As a result, we cannot advise the public of the specific
uses that the City would allow a developer to build.
The second problem is that the Courts may allow the most
permissive zone that fits under a vague land use
classification. The City may want a more restrictive zone.
Identifying the future zone on the land use plan will avoid
this problem. As an example, the City could zone a
property shown for LSC, limited service commercial use on
the land use plan to BC(M), business commercial modified,
LBC, limited business commercial (offices) or NC,
neighborhood commercial. The property owner may want a
BC(M) zone, while the City wants an LBC zone. It may be
difficult to defend a denial of the BC(M) rezoning in court,
since the rezoning would be consistent with the land use
classification.
Changing the land use classifications to zoning classifications
should be easy. Most of the land in the City already has its
long -term zoning or there 'is a one -to -one relationship between
the land use classification and a zoning district. As an
example, a property zoned for BC, business commercial use would
also have a BC use on the land use plan. A problem may occur
where a property does not have a long -term zoning and there is
more than•one choice for a zoning district. The City would have
to determine what the long -term zoning should be. There are four
411 such areas. One area is planned for LSC, limited service
commercial use. (Refer to the map on page 3.) There are five
different zones that the City Council can choose from. The other
• three areas are planned for RM, residential medium density use.
(Refer to the maps on pages 4 -6.) The Council could rezone
these areas R -2, double - dwelling or R -3, multiple dwelling. I
would notify these property owners of the changes when I schedule
the public hearing for the adoption of whole Plan. The chart on
page 7 compares the current land use classifications with the
zoning districts. The third column shows the proposed land use
classifications.
I called Ann Hurlburt, the head of local land use planning at the
Metropolitan Council. She told me that she would approve the use
of the same names for the land use classifications and zoning
districts. She was not aware of any other City that uses this
approach. Many cities, however, have a one -to -one correspondence
between their zoning districts and land use classifications.
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize staff to replace the land use classifications in the
City's land use plan with zoning classifications. Staff will
bring back the specific changes for approval with the update of
the Comprehensive Plan.
• go /memo4.mem
Attachments:
1. 4 land use maps
2. Land Use and Zoning Classification Chart
•
2
• 1
••
` • � .6 r
1 Q ►
Ik 1 . IR .
AI C . -A ♦. • , .:.1
es if
,, 9C
r I OS .
•
i \ C SC ormm,
jil R N
-.4 1.: '4F
. )11. • ; ; ..:.,,:.,,....,...::: •
•
I, 111116., .."ftlield6 4.I..agallb I g I '
4...
./,
- •A /MI (sr . • i
R L. Qoc
iv—
• •
•
�;• L
444 '''' O. orosal■ „,,,,,
,40 111■1111•111
�-,► -
. . i 1.4* p• 1
-�
•
.
•
CD
•
r
•
1 l ■
HAZELWOOD
O
. NEIGHBORHOOD LAND USE PLAN
N
3 Attachment 1
i
•
am
Is 1
•
•
r r
0
GEM
it�tohanp. E
Ask_ . • • 1 art•rlat
�risi �i$ �fT'1ir�r..
• • • - • • ; j • • • • • • • • • • • • • i_ •- • • • •
A •, : v {3:::: x :, 4: ; a l �¢ rr r
{ .+k'• r: } {y}?i i; fi: { a i s , •{�:} +::�. {. {. {: ; . +.,.{ •: • i �„'
i r' 11 1. IND MI
• ' �►r■
....� 1. igi �,.,
Lydia
• • • • i ' i $ c • M • • O S $ 5 1
Ilk P • ri . ii
L' f to: ' 'm ewl!!
j I 1 I . ..411
L ..
Be r _ �_ ' • • • • • • • • • • •.• • • • .
,.:
..., .
1
O ,
t i .
MAPLEWOOD HEIGHTS
NEIGHBORHOOD LAND USE PLAN N
4
1
•
.. • •• qui • ! . t 1
A ao f
1
- . Interchan • e �- _ • a jor coitecto • s 1 WI
,rt•l ■� • 1 —
, 1 r ____.....,
, , _ is �J It
. .•
:. x k m •
,
i '
• ne
r NI 14 � • :0111 *MN = = _Ni =_
MIN 1111Z I
1 MA
/ am 0 • me I Mil =
Pleb •
• • M
• _ . � �•
en
ii , pi ini-. ......11
, 4,. 1. II
•
36.... — -a. arena,
interc1an a major t
• • enteur
• Parkside
NEIGHBORHOOD LAND USE PLAN
n
N
5
_________
. / 1
, . . V adnais N g ht • L':: - .. - - ' :.
41,
• - interchange , 1
vial
• . , P y : � ' * "-.,...„ .` ...,. p ♦ ...r., •••T ,„,,.•...' .t • , ` •
e iRtli * t
.. :. - rH .
' :RH: 1 . - ..... i: .... .
Lam•
..... O - w • • -. •
A
0. 4 v 4/
t_
MP ' !' . . RI ..::,::::.:: 0 ..
..::::::..,
.::::::::::: •.. ._
..::::::.:::: . . ._ _ . 4: •.,..,„.
c. . .
•
I
/ r•
- 4- ' et, :::::::g:::. • 17 i .
•
° _ minor arterialE i � -i...: . irr 4k. -
f j i �� ..
. • ,
. . •, 4 f 4 . •
/ �' • •� '
J
4 .
1 r 1
Kohiman Lake
NEIGHBORHOOD LAND USE PLAN •
• = N
, ..°., .
6
LAND USE AND ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS
Current Land Use Current Zoning Proposed Land Use
OS F OS
C, S, M, P, W F or R -1 C, S, M, P, W
RL F or R -1 R -1, OS or R -3L
RM R -3 or R -2 R -3M or R -2
RH R -3 R -3H
LSC LBC, CO, NC, LBC, CO, NC,
BC(M), M -1 BC(M), M -1
SC BC or M -1 BC or M -1
RB BC(M) BC, LBC, BC(M)
BW M -1 M -1
DC BC BC
DR M -1, M -2 M -1, M -2
KEY
Land Use Zoning
OS = open space F = farm residential
C = church RE = residential estate
S = school R -1 = single - family
M = municipal facility R -2 = double dwelling
P = park R -3 = multiple dwelling
W = water facility NC = neighborhood
'RL = residential low density commercial
RM = residential medium density LBC = limited business
RH = residential high density commercial
LSC = limited service commercial CO = commercial office
SC = service commercial BC(M) = business commercial
RB = residential or business modified
BW = business commercial BC = business commercial
DC = diversified commercial M -1 = light manufacturing
DR = development research M -2 = heavy manufacturing
R -3L = low density multiple dwellings
R -3M = medium density multiple dwellings
R -3H = high density multiple dwellings
7 Attachment 2