Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/04/2007 MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesdav. September 4, 2007, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes August 21, 2007 5. Public Hearing None 6. New Business a. Executive Summary Report - South Maplewood Study (South of Carver Avenue) 7. Unfinished Business None 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations August 27 Council Meeting: Mr. Yarwood September 10 Council Meeting: Mr. Desai September 24 Council Meeting Mr. Walton 10. Staff Presentations 11. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, August 21, 2007 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Harland Hess Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Joe Walton Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Commissioner Robert Martin Commissioner Joseph Boeser Staff Present: Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director Ken Roberts, City Planner Tom Ekstrand, City Planner III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Trippler seconded. The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes - All Approval of the planning commission minutes for July 17, 2007. Commissioner Trippler had a correction on page 2, 3rd paragraph from the bottom, 3rd line down, remove the second "and insert" so the sentence reads, "... and insert 3nd insert "Planning Commission"...." Commissioner Trippler stated that the first paragraph on page 3 was a little confusing. Staff verified the numbers and changed the wording of that sentence to read, "He questioned the numbers in the draft budget compared to the C.I.P. because they appeared inconsistent with each other." Commissioner Trippler had a correction on page 5, 2nd paragraph from the bottom on the 6th line; replace "pointed" with "suggested that" so the sentence reads, "Commissioner Trippler pointod suqqested that the proposed..." Planning Commission Minutes of 08-21-07 2 Commissioner Walton had a correction on page 6, on the last line of the page; insert "forest" so the sentence reads, "...trying to save the forest canopy." Commissioner Yarwood had a correction on page 9, in the first line of the first paragraph and the first line of the 2nd to the last paragraph, Commissioner Yarwood should be replaced with Commissioner Hess. Chairperson Fischer had a correction on page 9, second paragraph, at the end of the 9th line, the sentence should read, "She voiceQ a concern..." Commissioner Walton had a correction on page 14, after nays, Commissioner Boeser said nay, not Commissioner Walton. The voting shall read that Commissioner Boeservoted nay. The following paragraph will start with, "Commissioner Boeser..." Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the planning commission minutes for July 17, 2007 as ammended. Commissioner Hess seconded. Ayes - All V. PUBLIC HEARING The Regents Senior Housing Development (Kennard Street & Legacy Parkway) (7: 11- 8:55) a. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Revisions b. Parking Reduction Tom Ekstrand introduced the proposal. The applicant is requesting that the city approve a proposed increase in the number of units from 120 units to 150 units and a reduction in the size of the memory care units from 580 square feet to 400 square feet, which is under the minimum 580 square feet required by city code for an efficiency unit for a multi-family residence. The Applicant is also requesting approval of a parking reduction to 145 parking spaces. With this proposal, the overall density ofthe Legacy Village Development would be under the approved limit of 618 units by 26 units. Staff does not find any problems with the overall density of the development. There is no proof of parking shown in the proposal. City staff is in favor of the proposed number of parking spaces and overall density. City staff also is in favor of the reduction in size of the memory care units. Chairperson Fischer confirmed that the proposed parking spaces meet the required 9.5 feet minimum. Chairperson Fischer asked how the parking variances compare to the proposal presented to the Planning Commission last week regarding the size of the units and the number of parking stalls. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-21-07 3 Mr. Ekstrand responded that there is a higher parking ratio with this development compared to the number of parking spaces the city approved for The Shores project on Frost Avenue. Commissioner Trippler pointed out that the parking spaces are labeled in the packet as 9 feet wide. Mr. Ekstrand responded that the revised map shows the parking spaces as 9.5 feet wide. Staff will have to review the parking stall size and verify the width. Commissioner Trippler stated that the Planning Commission has made it very clear that 9 foot wide parking stalls for mainly elderly residents is ridiculous and he will not vote for any proposal that has 9 foot wide stalls. He is also uncomfortable voting for the reduction in size of the memory care units to 400 square feet. The city needs to define specific requirements for room sizes instead of granting variances for special situations, which could possibly become reoccurring requests. Chairperson Fischer asked if there are any standards set for nursing home unit sizes and if there are any standards set by the state. Ken Roberts responded there are no standards set by the city, but the architect may know. If the whole commission feels strongly about the parking issues and unit sizes, then the staff would recommend that the commission should make a separate recommendation to the council to ask the council to direct staff to do research for possible code amendments. Chairperson Fischer asked if it is a correct assumption that everything proposed here is out of the wetland situation and meets the entire requirement for that. Mr. Ekstrand said yes. Commissioner Hess stated that he has similar concerns as Commissioner Trippler in regards to the parking stall sizes and the undersized units. There is a ten acre out-lot on the map for parking, Commissioner Hess asked if that was provided by the city or the developer. Mr. Ekstrand stated that out-lot was provided by the city and is already in existence, it is for the Sculpture Garden. Commissioner Martin asked how far this development is from the Myth Night Club. Mr. Ekstrand stated that it is about 2-3 blocks away. Commissioner Martin stated that he can foresee traffic flow issues with this development being so close the night club. It is a possibility the people may park in the Regent's parking area when attending the night club. Mr. Ekstrand stated that he does not foresee a problem and that this is far enough away that parking should not be a problem. This exact type of development was approved with the PUD in 2003, as far as the use concern, this has already been allowed. This meeting is just covering the proposed changes in density. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-21-07 4 Commissioner Martin stated that he also has similar concerns as Commissioner Trippler in regards to density issues. Mr. Roberts stated that most of the proposed parking will be underground in a secured facility. Commissioner Walton stated that this proposed development has a smaller amount of acreage but a similar amount of parking and number of units compared to the Shores. Commissioner Hess asked what the finished floor elevations of the building would be, as they relate to flood potential. Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director, stated that the entire storm sewer system for the Legacy Village area was a very complex plan and was developed as part of the entire plan. There was a very detailed analysis done on flooding potential and the overflow from the ponds. The last thing that was done was providing storm water overflow corridors, should an intensive rainfall occur. Commissioner Hess stated on Page 5, the last point under the Building Official's Comments, should read as, "The developer should shall have a preconstruction meeting with the contractor..." just ensure that the meeting does happen. Mr. Roberts said that staff will bring that to the Building Official's attention. Commissioner Yarwood stated that the applicant should provide some justification as to why the memory care units should be reduced to 400 square feet. He is hesitant to approve units in this city that are this small, in the case they may not always be used for senior housing. If the applicant is having trouble finding enough space for adequate parking space, then maybe the applicant should rethink the number of units in the development. Frank Janes, with Hartford Group, addressed the commission. This development was approved for a slightly different senior use last fall. Due to residential and housing market changes, we have re-Iooked over the project as a senior housing use. Hartford has a number of senior housing projects going on in the metro-area currently. After speaking with Mr. Ekstrand about concerns about the proposal before this meeting, Hartford Group made some revisions to address some of those concerns. Every parking stall above and underground is 9.5 feet wide. There are 102 underground parking spaces, and 45 surface parking spaces. This project would be a continuum care facility. This offers a number of different options to the residents of the development. The different types of units include independent, assisted care suites and memory care, which are categories of units to help define the services provided. The independent use is not an age restricted senior condo or apartment building. The independent units would occupy about half of the non-memory care units. This usually would attract an older demographic compared to other senior housing developments. The next level of care is the assisted living, which has more services provided including 3 meals a day. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-21-07 5 The care suites would have a 5-to-1 full-time staffing ratio for residents who require a high level of medical and personal care. These units are not considered nursing home units; however, residents would not be driving. The memory care, dementia, or Alzheimer's units provide services including an enclosed outdoor walking area. These residents would also not be driving and require a higher level of care and staff ratio. In regards to parking, this site is comparable to the Regents facility in Burnsville, which has 136 total units, with 92 underground parking stalls and 45 surface parking stalls. At anyone time the most spaces that are occupied at a time are 40 spaces. With this project, there are 150 total units, but the memory care and the care suites are taken out because those residents are not driving. Then there are 120 units, for which there are 102 underground parking spaces, and 45 surface stalls. This gives the facility 147 parking stalls for 120 units of potential drivers. From experience with past projects, there will still be plenty of parking spaces for the residents as well as staff and visitors. Regarding the proposed reduction in size of the memory care units, 400 square feet units is the size that is provided all over the market in the metro-area and in other areas. It is necessary to have a smaller unit because it has been found that the larger units tend to be more confusing and difficult for the residents to get around in. Hartford Group is confident that 400 square feet is an appropriate size for the unit. The sizes of the independent and assisted living units are much bigger, as they should be. The memory care and care suites are designed to be smaller on purpose and that is the norm. Commissioner Martin asked how much smaller can these rooms get. Mr. Janes responded that he cannot answer that but the project architect may be able to answer that more in depth. It is not possible that this facility could be used as a senior apartment building in the future because of the amount of parking and the facilities inside of the building, which include an industrial sized kitchen and other common space. This facility is too specifically designed to be converted for another use later on. Commissioner Martin stated that in other areas of the country, there are studio apartments that are smaller than this. Why is the developer not making these rooms smaller? Mr. Janes responded that those types of units would not be marketable. Commissioner Trippler Confirmed that the 400 square feet units are for both the 15 intensive care units and the 15 memory care units. Commissioner Trippler stated that in the given documentation, it only requests the reduction for the 15 intensive care units. Mr. Janes said that the commission has the original submission. Revisions have been made and city staff has those revisions. Commissioner Trippler asked if there is a restroom facility included in each of the intensive care units, if so, how large is it. Mr. Janes asked Tom Wasserman to address the commission. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-21-07 6 Tom Wasserman, the director of architecture with the Hartford group, addressed the commission. Mr. Wasserman went over the floor plans for the units. Typically, in other projects, room sizes range from 300-1000 square feet. The typical nursing home suite is between 250-300 square feet. A 400 square foot room is typically for 2 people sharing a space. Also, the residents in these memory care and care suites are usually short-term residents. The restrooms are a minimum of 6 ft by 8 ft spaces. The memory care and care suites residents will utilize the common space more than the independent and assisted residents. This helps in the healing process. Commissioner Yarwood stated that it is clear that there is no provision in the Maplewood code for this particular type of housing unit. Before the commission moves forward with approving a concept like this, the city needs to direct city staff to get a reference point as to how and if city code should accommodate these types of unit. The commission does not have the basis to approve a 400 square foot unit. Commissioner Desai asked what the average time a person spends in this intensive care unit. Mr. Wasserman said they can stay anywhere from 2-3 weeks to as long as a year and a half. The average is 3-6 months. Commissioner Pearson stated he is not concerned about the room sizes because he has had his mother and mother-in-law stay in assisted living before they died. Their final years were in a 12 by 14 foot room and he did not feel in any way that their dignity was compromised in any way. The City of Maplewood should try to have a variety of spaces for residents to choose from, which will fit their physical and financial needs. Commissioner Boeser asked if there is a health care professional that can speak to the issues of room size as for quality of life. Mr. Wasserman said there is none at this meeting. Also, addressing concerns of density on this 3 acre site, the size of this facility was determined at the beginning of Legacy Village project and there is also a 9 acre city park with walking trails, the Sculpture Park and the new city library adjacent to the site. Chairperson Fischer opened the discussion to the public. Don Shiek of 1601 Woodlynn Avenue addressed the commission. Mr. Shiek is concerned about the impact this proposal could have on the housing values in the neighborhood. He does not like the fact that the building is four stories, where the majority of everything is two stories in the neighborhood. Mr. Shiek requests that the building be lowered in height. Commissioner Walton asked for clarification on the height of the building and if this is in the scope of discussion. Mr. Ekstrand stated that this building has already been approved as a four story building. This is a story higher than city code states for an apartmenUmulti-family structure. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-21-07 7 Chairperson Fischer stated the Planning Commission is not looking at a new plan, but a revision on a previously approved plan. Commissioner Hess asked if there are any other four story buildings in the Legacy Village area. Mr. Ekstrand stated there are no other four story buildings, only two stories. Mr. Roberts stated the new medical office building is to the north of the Regents site and that building is about 2.5 stories. The office building is also at a higher elevation so the Regents will not look out of scale. Commissioner Trippler asked staff if there is any indication of an office complex being built in the future that is more than four stories high near this site. Mr. Ekstrand stated that another structure similar to the medical office building may be built to the east of the existing building. Judith Johannesen of Legacy Village addressed the commission. Ms. Johannesen expressed concern about the placement of the structure and that it is placed to close to the street. She feels that it will feel like a four story wall next to the street. Ms. Johannesen stated that she is concerned about the number of parking spaces on holidays for visitors and is afraid that overflow parking may come into the street. Ms. Johannesen urges the commission not to approve the building as a four story building. Commissioner Trippler if the building is scaled down to three stories, will it be any less obtrusive than a four story being that close to the street. Ms. Johannesen stated that her main concern is the fact that it will not fit the scale of the rest of the area. Ron Cockeral of 943 Century Avenue addressed the commission. Mr. Cockeral asked if the runoff will be retained on the site. Mr. Cockeral is concerned about park funding. He is also in favor of the fourth story but wants to know if the city has the necessary safety needs incase of an emergency. Mr. Ahl stated that there are requirements that have to be met for water infiltration and runoff. Rain gardens will be installed on the properly to aid in this. All of the water retention requirements have been met. The sculpture garden and park were developer funded on the site. These units will not help fund the parks. Mr. Wasserman stated that the building plans have been reviewed by fire safety officials and it is up to applicable codes. Patrick Sarver, the director of development with Hartford Group addressed the commission. Mr. Sarver went over the elevations of the building. He also stated that the building was encouraged to bring the building closer up to the road, to help create an urban front. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-21-07 8 Mr. Wasserman stated that this building has always been a four story building and was approved in the master planning as a four story building. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Yarwood stated that the height of the building is out of scope for what is before the board at this meeting. He is still concerned with the reduction in room size. Commissioner Yardwood would prefer to table this until an ordinance is in place that deals with these types of developments. Mr. Roberts stated that there isn't enough time to table this as this proposal has to go to the council by September. Mr. Ekstrand stated that it is possible to do research and bring that back to the commission at the next meeting to aid in this decision. This would just be information, not a code amendment. Commissioner Trippler stated that commission can make an amendment to the staff recommendation to say the units may not be less than 500 square feet. Commissioner Trippler stated that on page 5, under C, the date should be changed to read, "Approve the revised plans date-stamped August 20,2007...." Mr. Ekstrand stated that the Planning Commission is only supposed cover items A and B. Chairperson Fischer asked if the case arises that the use of this building changes, is there any way to have verbiage in the proposal stating that the city has the right to demand more parking be added. Mr. Ekstrand said that can be done. Mr. Roberts said that it may be in the original proposal. That will be verified before this goes to council and if it is not in the proposal it will be added. Commissioner Pearson said he does not have a problem with reducing the care suites and memory care units to 400 square feet. Commissioner Walton stated that this proposal asks for an additional 90 square foot reduction from what was already approved for the Shores. This creates a slippery slope of more reductions in room sizes and a line should be drawn. Chairperson Fischer asked what types of common areas are there. That would help make this decision on whether this size would be adequate or not. Mr. Ekstrand said that will be looked into. Commissioner Yarwood said the appropriate action to be taken would be to approve the same size units that were approved for the Shores which was no less than 490 square feet. Anything lower should be done by a revision to the city ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-21-07 9 Commissioner Trippler recommended adoption of the attached resolution to the revision to the previously-approved PUD concept plan allowing the Regent at Legacy Village senior building to increase the number of units from 120 to 150. This PUD revision also allows the reduction in the square-foot area of the intensive-care and memory care units from 580 square feet to 4GQ not less than 490 square feet. Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and because of the following reasons: 1. The proposed built-out density of the entire Legacy Village PUD will be less than that originally approved by 26 units. 2. The affect on the site itself should not cause an overcrowding problem since the residents on this site would not generate the quantity of traffic a normal multi-family development would. 3. The minimum floor-area requirement of 580 square feet was intended for typical "efficiency" apartments. The proposed unit sizes should suffice in this instance since they are for persons with limited mobility that need medical assistance. B. Approval of a parking waiver to provide 100 underground and 45 on-grade 9.5 foot wide parking spaces rather than the 300 required by ordinance. Approval is because the proposed senior housing complex would not generate the amount of traffic associated with typical multi-family uses. This parking reduction of -W9 155 spaces is subject to the requirements of city ordinance should the use of the building be proposed for a change to a higher traffic-generating use. Commissioner Pearson seconded the motion. Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Pearson, Trippler, Walton, Yarwood, Martin, Boeser Nays - Hess The motion passed. This will go before the city council on September 10th, 2007. Commissioner Yarwood motioned that the city council direct city staff to examine the ordinance for minimum square footage for assisted care and memory units to appropriately revise the city ordinance. Commissioner Pearson encouraged commissioners to tour local senior facilities in the area. Commissioner Martin seconded the motion. Chairperson Fischer made a friendly amendment that staff also research a parking amendment for senior facilities. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-21-07 10 Ayes - All The motion passed. This will go before the city council on September 10th, 2007. VI. NEW BUSINESS a) Gladstone Neighborhood Streetscape Study (Presentation by Kimley-Horn) Mr. Ahl stated this is not an action item. Staff is looking for reaction input from the commission. The intent of this presentation is to receive guidance so staff can come back to the commission in the fall with the overall designs for implementation for next year. Tom Harrington from Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. gave a presentation on his streetscape proposal. These projects are scheduled to start in the spring and fall of 2008. Commissioner Hess stated he favored the antique style light fixtures, but thinks a different light fixture might work better, one that is dated further back. Benches would also make a nice addition to the area. Commissioner Boeser favored the eco village. The historic element and the looking to the future element work well together. Commissioner Desai favored the historic look. He enjoys existing historic parks and thinks that this would make a good addition to the City of Maplewood. Commissioner Pearson stated he favored the historic look as well. If benches are placed in the area, some thought should be given as to where the shade will be so the benches are not always in the sun. Commissioner Trippler would like to see an incorporation of all three of the ideas, mixing the recreational, historic, and eco village use. Mr. Ahl stated another intention of this phase is to change to atmosphere of Frost Avenue to encourage the use of the listed speed limit. The currently the atmosphere makes it difficult to follow the speed limit because of how wide the street is. Once this happens, pedestrian traffic can be enhanced. Commissioner Trippler asked if it is still a possibility of turning Frost Avenue into a Boulevard. Mr. Ahl said the phase one concept never included the transformation of Frost Avenue into a boulevard. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-21-07 II Commissioner Walton stated that the people that live in that area should have input on this decision. He favors the historic plan but likes other aspects of the other plans as well. Commissioner Walton warned the architect about the use of public and to be sure to select pieces that will not lend itself to becoming defaced. He asked what types of potential art work has been considered. Mr. Harrington no specific type of art has been considered at this point. Commissioner Yarwood would also like to see a combination of the different plans. Commissioner Martin favors the eco village. Chairperson Fischer that safety of pedestrians needs to be considered as well. The discussion was opened to the Historic Preservation Commission. A representative of the commission spoke. The commission would like to capture the historic aspect of the neighborhood and area through signage and other developments, as proposed at this meeting. A possible idea would be to have information posted on what used to be on that site. The theme chosen for this area could also be continued throughout the entire city, to give identities to the communities in the City of Maplewood. Mr. Ahl said the input given at this meeting was very helpful and will try to combine these ideas to create a proposal to bring back to the council later this fall. b) Planned Unit Development Clarification - Saint Paul's Monastery (2675 Larpenteur Avenue) Mr. Ekstrand stated that the city council approved the PUD for the development plans for the Monastery site on May 14, 2007. This included a 40 unit seniors building, a 50 unit townhouse development, and the change in the Monastery building to be owned and house by the Tubman Family Alliance for their family violence shelter and residence, which has 37 housing units. Since that approval, there was a merger between Tubman and Chrysalis. At the June 11, 2007 city council meeting, the council questioned the impact that this would have on the neighboring area in regards to traffic. The Planning Commission is to discuss this matter and forward their comments to the city council. Chris Brinkman, the director of administration at Tubman Family Alliance, addressed the commission. After Tubman obtained the Monastery site, the organization was approached by Chrysalis, a non-profit which has chemical dependency and mental health services. There is no intention that this facility would be sufficient for the services that they provide. Tubman was asked to sign a confidentiality waiver until the merger was completed. That is why the city of not notified of the merger until after the PUD had been approved. The merger was completed on May 23,2007. Commissioner Yarwood clarified that the merger with Chrysalis does not have any affect on the activities of this facility. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-21-07 12 Ms. Brinkman said it does not. This merger would possibly reduce the amount of staff at the Monestary because some administrative support may move to Chrysalis' new building in Minneapolis. Commissioner Yarwood asked if the use of this site were to change in the future, would the city have any say in the terms of that use. Mr. Ekstrand stated that when the PUD was approved, it was approved with the types of uses that would be operated there. It was never specified that the intensity of uses should not exceed a certain threshold. PUDs are reviewed annually to see ifthere are any problems that may have come up that may need to be addressed. Mr. Roberts stated that the PUD has to follow the approved site plan. The activities within the PUD have to follow the conditions of approval as adopted by the city council. If any significant changes are made, then approval has to be made by city council. This is more a merger of administrative functions rather than a merger of functions at the site. Chairperson Fischer stated that the whole site is zoned for higher residential use. The number of units the applicant requested was less than half of what they could have requested. Commissioner Pearson stated that the initial application relied on a statement by the administrator of the Bloomington Tubman operation. Does Chrysalis work with them as well? And how does the Tubman group plan to avoid turning away people suffering from family violence if they are taking on this additional function? Ms. Brinkman stated the Bloomington office does not have any Chrysalis type services and the site in Maplewood will also not be changing the current services. This is just a merger of administration functions. This merger does not take away from any of the planned use. Commissioner Trippler stated this was a non issue. c) Executive Summary Report - South Maplewood Study (South Carver Avenue) Commissioner Trippler motioned to table this item to the next meeting. Commissioner Yarwood seconded the motion. Ayes - All The motion carried. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-21-07 13 VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a) July 23 Council Meeting: Mr. Pearson Commissioner Pearson stated the only issue with that meeting was the Keller Lake Service Station and the propane tank. The council stated the station owner had not violated any code. A motion was made and passed to compensate the owner and require the removal of the propane tank within 90 days. b) August 13 Council Meeting: Ms. Fischer Chairperson Fischer stated that this meeting covered the Shores proposal. The land use clarification had a 3-2 vote at and passed. The street right of way vacation was ayes all, the public easement vacation was ayes all, the preliminary plat was 4-1, the conditional use permit 4-1, and the design review approval was ayes all with revisions. There were a few items that were tabled to August 16. Mr. Roberts stated that a decision was made to start getting the details together on the South Maplewood Study. This will be going back to the council in 6 weeks. c) August 27 Council Meeting: Mr. Yarwood The items to be discussed are the public hearing and the first reading of the code amendment for the Planning Commission Ordinance and the Planning Commission rules of procedure. d) September 10 Council Meeting: Mr. Desai Commissioner Desai stated he will be there. The commission had a brief discussion on conservation easements. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS None. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:18 p.m. If one would like complete coverage of the meeting, a DVD copy of the meeting may be purchased from City Hall for $5. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner South Maplewood Study - Executive Summary Report South of Carver Avenue August 14,2007 INTRODUCTION The city recently received the Executive Summary Report for the South Maplewood Study as prepared by Schoell Madson. The purpose of this memo is to review this report and to get direction from the planning commission about what actions or changes, if any, they think the city should take for land use regulations and for future development for this part of Maplewood. BACKGROUND On October 9, 2006, the city council directed staff to start preparing a moratorium on development for the area of Maplewood south of Carver Avenue. (See the location map on page eight). The council gave staff this direction in response to a request from the planning commission. On November 13, 2006, the city council, after a public hearing, adopted a moratorium ordinance for the area of Maplewood south of Carver Avenue. This ordinance prohibits any new development or land divisions in the moratorium area until after the city adopts new land use regulations or until after the moratorium expires. On March 12, 2007, the city council authorized the hiring of Schoell Madson to continue the south Maplewood study for the city. DISCUSSION As part of the study of south Maplewood, the city hosted four neighborhood meetings. The first meeting was on January 29,2007, at the Londin Lane Fire Station. On Tuesday, March 13, 2007, the city held the second meeting in the Carver Elementary School gym. The city also held neighborhood meetings on May 10, 2007, and on June 4,2007, in the Carver School gym. The purpose of these meetings was get input from the public and the residents of the area and for staff and the consultant to share information and ideas as they became available. The city hired Schoell Madson, in part, to do an objective analysis of the entire study area. This included a listing of the existing conditions, a compilation of data, the location of existing utilities and drainage facilities. Schoell Madson then prepared two general concept plans for the area and findings for the area and the city. These start on page 11 of the summary report and include sections about transportation, parks, trails and open space, the Mississippi River Critical Area, archeological, the shoreland overlay district, infrastructure costs and land use/sewer planning. The consultants conclude their findings by stating, "the city is in the position where it can determine the best land use for this study area as the future plan can be any combination of land uses." In other words, the city, according to the consultants, may decide what type of land use paUem (and thus land use designations and zoning classifications) the city wants to implement for this part of Maplewood. 1 On August 13, 2007, the city council, during a workshop session reviewed the Executive Summary Report. The city received written comments about the study from one resident in the area. I have included these thoughts on page nine. During the regular council meeting on August 13, 2007, the council was to consider a request of the city manager to hire Schoell Madson to prepare the materials and information the city needs to finish the South Maplewood study. This work is to include the preparation of comprehensive plan amendments, land use map changes, new zoning regulations and possibly zoning map changes for some or all of the study area. All of these changes may be necessary to implement the policies and future land use and development patterns that the city council decides it wants for this part of Maplewood. Unfortunately, due to meeting time constraints, the council did not act on the hiring request. The council should consider the matter during the continuation of their meeting on August 16, 2007. RECOMMENDATION Direct city staff, the planning consultants and the city council as to what land use and development patterns (and thus land use and zoning designations) are appropriate for the South Maplewood study area. This could include the possibility that the land use and zoning designations for some properties are not consistent with each other (and that the city should make land use or zoning changes to make the designations consistent with each other) and possibly changes to the comprehensive plan or to the zoning code. 2 REFERENCE On December 9, 2002, the city council enacted a one-year moratorium on development of property in Maplewood from Linwood Avenue to the south em border of the city. The moratorium was a result of concems about the land use and development of the remaining undeveloped or underdeveloped property in south Maplewood. The previous sewer system plan for this area showed urbanized municipal sewer between Linwood Avenue and Carver Avenue and undefined sewer systems south of Carver Avenue. Without a municipal sanitary sewer system, large lots with a minimum size requirement would be necessary to accommodate houses or properties with individual sewage treatment systems (ISTS). On January 31, 2003, the city council authorized a separate Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Study of south Maplewood. This study was initiated to address land use and development issues in south Maplewood, focusing on the area south of Linwood Avenue to the city's southern border. Short- Elliot-Hendrickson (SEH), a consulting engineering firm, completed a report detailing the results of this study. Staff incorporated the results of the South Maplewood Sewer Study into the overall Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan update. On May 27,2003, the city council adopted the 2003 Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan update. This sewer study included a detailed study of the sanitary sewer needs and availability for the part of Maplewood south of Linwood Avenue. (See the reference section on pages four through six of this report for more information about this study.) In addition, this study recommended that the city study and possibly implement a larger minimum lot size for the areas of the city that will not likely have sanitary sewer for the foreseeable future. (This is primarily in sewer districts 10, 57 and 70 as shown on the maps on pages 10 - 12.) On August 25,2003, the city council adopted an ordinance amendment that created the R-1 (R) zoning district. Specifically, this amendment added the R-1(R) zoning district to the zoning code. This code requires a two-acre minimum lot size for residential properties where the city does not expect nor do they have sanitary sewer available to the property. 2003 South Maplewood Sewer Study Study Assumptions Staff made several assumptions when preparing the South Maplewood Sewer Study in 2003. The following is a summary of some of these key assumptions: . If municipal sanitary sewer is extended to serve the area, land uses at full development will correspond to the city's current Land Use Map. The projected sanitary sewer flows staff listed in the report are based on full development and on the Land Use Map. . Future densities of R-1land use will be 2.9 persons/unit and 2.8 units/acre. . Because of topography and existing pipe size, future sanitary sewer flows from the Bailey property in Woodbury and Newport will need to be conveyed through Maplewood to the Carver Lake interceptor. . Future sanitary sewer flows from the Bailey property in Woodbury and Newport will be similar to those generated by typical single-family residential uses. 3 It is important to note that the South Maplewood Sewer Study is only a planning document. In addition, the land use assumptions made above do not bind the city to any of these possible changes. Staff made the land use and sewer assumptions on a conservative basis to identify the maximum sanitary sewer flows that the land uses could possibly generate in each of the sewer districts. 2003 South Maplewood Sewer Study Conclusions 1. Soils within the study area range from a sandy soil in the south to a sandy loam with some clay loam and silty clay in the north. The sandy soils are good for installation of individual sewage treatment systems (ISTS) whereas the clay loam and silty clay pockets may require the use of non-conventional systems. 2. If properly maintained, evidence indicates that the life expectancy of an ISTS site is at least 25 to 30 years. 3. Septic systems (ISTS) are a safe and effective soil-based method to treat household wastewater, provided there is enough soil area and the soil conditions are conducive to treatment. Septic systems treat sewage equal to or better than municipal treatment facilities when they are properly designed, installed, and maintained. 4. Cities or areas with marginal soils, steep slopes, and wetlands will require a larger minimum lot size for lots with ISTS sites than those with good soils, few slopes and few wetlands. 5. Minimum lot sizes for lots with ISTS sites typically range from 1 acre to 5 acres in size. Many communities use a minimum lot size in the range of 2.0 to 3.0 acres. 6. Gravitv sanitarv sewer can serve new development in Sewer Districts 50. 51. 53. 54. 55. 56. 58. and 66. 7. A gravity sanitary sewer can serve District 70 and the sanitary sewer flows from the 240-acre Bailey Nursery property in Woodbury and Newport. When the city or a developer extends municipal sanitary sewer to serve District 70, the new pipe must be sized large enough to serve the entire 240-acre Bailey Nursery parcel. 8. The capacity of the Carver Lake interceptor is large enough to accommodate flows from all of the study area, as well as the 240-acre parcel in Woodbury and Newport owned by Bailey Nursery. 9. Connections to the Carver Lake interceptor will be allowed by permit from the MCES. The interceptor would be metered at the points where it enters and exits Maplewood. Any flow that enters the interceptor between these two locations will be billed to Maplewood based on the difference between the two meter readings. 10. In Districts 10 and 57, the existing terrain varies drastically and there are significant elevation changes. As such, the use of lift stations will likely be necessary to convey sanitary sewer flows from lower areas to higher areas. 11. Districts 10 and 57 have a relatively high cost-to-benefit ratio associated with the extension of municipal sanitary sewer to serve the districts. As a result, the city does not now expect any near-term municipal sanitary sewer improvements in these districts. 4 12. With the exception of Districts 10 and 57, it is anticipated that the rest of the study area could have sanitary sewer service within the next 20 years. However, before the city agrees to construct any municipal sanitary sewer extension, the city should prepare a feasibility study to identify pipe sizes, pipe alignments, construction costs, and other important project details. 2003 South Maplewood Sewer Study Recommendations 1. Adopt the South Maplewood Sewer Study, Project 03-03, as part of the 2003 Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan Amendment. (The citv council did this on Mav 27.2003.) 2. The city should establish a minimum lot size requirement of 2.0 acres for non-sewered residential areas in the city (subject to performance standards), including the study area. ~ citv did this with the adoption of the R-1(R) zonina district in 2003.) The city expects to use this designation primarily in areas with steep slopes and with pockets of marginal soils. The performance standards would be to ensure that the soils and conditions on any future lots would be such that the proposed lot could accommodate a house, driveway, a well and at least two drain fields. 3. The city should change (if necessary) the future land use plan and zoning designations of properties to reflect the minimum lot size requirement (if changed) for non-sewered areas. (The city did chanae the zonina of several properties in the area to R-1(R) in 2003 after the citv created the new zonina district.) 4. The city should first consider those districts with a lower cost-to-benefit ratio for municipal sanitary sewer service before the districts that have a higher cost-to-benefit ratio. Other South Maplewood Reference Information R-1(R) Zoning The intent of the R-1(R) zoning district, as adopted by the city council in 2003, reads: "Maplewood intends to protect and enhance the character of areas of the city that, because of topography or other factors, do not have, nor does the city expect to have, municipal sanitary sewer or water service. To allow for and to protect a very low density, semi-rural, residential life style, the city creates the R-1 (R) zoning district. This zoning district is for the areas of Maplewood that are not suitable for suburban or tract development because of topography, vegetation or other factors that make the installation of municipal sanitary sewer unlikely. The city finds the most suitable use of these areas is single dwellings on large lots. Such low-density residential development will lessen grading and soil erosion and will help protect ground water, vegetation and wooded areas. The lots and parcels in the R-1 (R) zoning district are generally much larger than those in the R-1 (single dwelling) district and those with municipal sanitary sewer and water." Ideally, the land use designation and the zoning designation that the city places on each property would be the same or at least consistent with each other. This, however, is not always possible. A primary reason that the designations the city gives to a property are not always the same is that the land use categories in the comprehensive plan are not the same as those the city has in the zoning code. (See the lists on pages 13 - 15.) 5 An important matter for the city to consider is to define consistency between the R-1 (single dwellings) land use plan designation and the R-1(R) and F (farm residence) zoning designations. In other words, if the city has designated a property R-1 on the land use plan, is it consistent with that designation if the zoning of the same property is R-1 (R) or F? All three of these designations are for single dwellings, but the allowed density and minimum lot sizes between the three are quite different. Development Topography, property ownership, the existing street pattern and the availability of public utilities will all affect how and when development will occur in the southern part of Maplewood. These are all factors and considerations that staff will review when studying this part of the city. Lot Sizes The issue of minimum lot sizes came out of the city council's review of the Haller's Woods plat in 1997. Several neighbors near Haller's Woods thought the city had a 5-acre minimum lot size for non-sewered lots. However, both the zoning code and the comprehensive plan do not have a 5-acre minimum. In fact, the 19 residential lots along sterling Street near Haller's Woods range in size from 0.84 acres to 9.7 acres, with an average lot size of 4.05 acres. For lots that do not have public sanitary sewer, the code requires a minimum lot size large enough to fit the house and two on-site sewer treatment systems. This usually means a minimum lot size of at least one acre (43,560 square feet) to fit every1hing on the property. The zoning code also requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet for single dwellings in the R-1 (single dwelling) and F (farm residence) zoning districts. In the RE-40 (residential estate) zoning district, the minimum lot size is 40,000 square feet while the R-1(R) zoning district requires a two-acre minimum lot size. Staff contacted several cities in the area to see what they use for a minimum lot size for non- sewered areas. The survey showed a range of 22,000 square feet in White Bear Township to a 5- acre minimum for new developments in Grant. The minimum lot sizes for non-sewered lots in other cities are 30,000 square feet in Oakdale, 1.5 acres in Cottage Grove, 2.5 acres in Inver Grove Heights and 3 acres in Woodbury and Newport. Rural Residential Zoning District The sanitary sewer study, as adopted by the city council, recommended that the city prepare a rural residential zoning district to add to the city code with minimum lot size, a minimum lot area, and the permitted and conditional uses. Such a district is for non-sewered single dwelling development. In December 1997, city staff surveyed 32 property owners in south Maplewood to help us in preparing the new rural zoning district. In this survey, we asked the owners for information about their property and for their ideas about creating a rural residential zoning district. The existing lots south and east of 1-494 range in size from 0.6 acres to 39 acres. Many of the residential lots are less than 3 acres in size. Because of topography and existing house locations, these lots are probably not large enough for the owners to subdivide them into additional building locations. Based on the information from staff and from area property owners, staff prepared a new rural residential zoning ordinance. This is the R-1 (R) zoning ordinance adopted by the city council in 2003. The ordinance has a 2-acre minimum lot size and a minimum lot width of 120 feet. The city intends this zoning district for areas of Maplewood without municipal sewer and water and with a semi-rural, very low-density residential lifestyle. 6 The city, after creating the new R-1(R) zoning district, then changed the zoning for several properties south of Carver Avenue to R-1(R). These are shown on the property line/zoning map on page 17. I have marked with an x on the land use plan map (page 16) and on the property line zoning map the properties with an R-1land use designation that the city has zoned R-1(R) and F (farm residence). These may be the properties that the city could consider having an inconsistent land use and zoning designation. p:sec 24-28/moratorium - South study Summary - 2007 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. August 6,2007 letter from Jim Kerrigan 3. June 2003 Sewer District Map 4. April 2003 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Map 5. South Maplewood Sewer study - 2003 6. Table 4 - Maplewood Comprehensive Plan 7. Table 5 - Maplewood Comprehensive Plan 8. Section 44-9 of Maplewood Zoning Code (Zoning Districts) 9. South Maplewood Land Use Map 10. South Maplewood Property Line/Zoning Map 11. 2006 Moratorium Ordinance 7 Attachment 1 I"',"""" -..::~_ N .I~r ~-::/;;-/ \,. \1\\ "1 ", 1'/ I I I ~-----------=~=~ r="==-..:... ="=_~-:;';:_=_;:;:;_=__=u"-__, I I I I I I I I I \ I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L CJ;>-EN :5P-f'r<:E C,'~ "dO I I I J I I , , , c"' 11 " II " I' " " r~.....-) I ....::;-=11 \1 1:1 II \1,1 \:\~-\ '\:~! "I, II II I L'I \ \"::"" I _ ____ '" l \'^ I .__.~_,..~___-,1:::=.:!..__ l I i ~:::j '~" \1'1 J " ~: ,!] ......1 "'-ll ~l ~ II'r'-'''''''~~''' \..... l' ~-"''-~~~:;:''''^ () \(\ II '<<, ~/'/- \I \ II "'<\, j/ 11 --:.:z~d.F 11 ~^! I' I) 11 <iP " (-.,.,p II ....] " I ~_-> I f4~~'''---o-~~.-C~~;'\1 I." I I I I I - -" ",-, ",--.~, - t:' ~:J.t.;? .~~~.=~"""" -- ~J f''''''""~ I , I / I I '-__.I , '1 I, IJ I ,).~'LC,"-',-.!:/,(- 8 11 N LOCATION MAP Attachment 2 August 6, 2007 Jim Kerrigan 2620 Carver Avenue Maplewood, MN 55119 Greg Copeland City Manager City of Maplewood 1830 County Road BEast Maplewood, MN 55109 cc: Tom Ekstrand Dear Mr. Copeland: I recently received the Executive Summary Report of the South Maplewood Study. Based on my initial review I think Schoell Madson has done a good job of identifying the various relevant issues. At all of the neighborhood meetings the clear message from the neighborhood has been a desire to keep the areas' future development low density. Unfortunately, only two concept plans are detailed in the study, with neither one realistically addressing this option. Based on the existing zoning and land use designation it appears that all the property in the study area is shown at a higher density, except for a portion of the Bailey Nursery property. Presently, all of the buildable properties in the study area are zoned R1-R, rural residential, or F, fann. R1-R requires 2 acres per residential unit The F zoning does not allow for any residential subdivision until the subject property is rezoned. From what has been expressed by the neighborhood at the recent public meeting the desire is to also keep future development of these fann zoned areas as low density, (i.e. R1-R density). Concept 2 proposes all of the property in the study area (exclusive of a portion of the Bailey Nursery property which is for the most part located in the City of Newport) would increase in development density. The present R1-R properties would increase by 100-400% (1 unit per 2 acre to approximately 1-4 units per acre). At previous public meetings I have especially voiced my concem over the idea of rezoning various properties on the North side of the study area to an R-1 density (10,000 sq. ft. lots). By allowing such a density approximately 105 units could be built on these properties. Under the existing R1-R zoning the maximum number of units that could be constructed would be approximately 12 housing units. Even if the zoning was increased to the same density as the existing Haller's subdivision (40,000 sq. ft. per unit) the maximum number of units would be 24. 1-2 acre lot requirements are commonplace in many communities throughout the Twin Cities. I think if you took a poll of the neighborhood a clear majority would not want to see a 4 unit per acre density on any of the properties. Besides increasing density in the neighborhood it also opens the door for future councils to legitimize an expansion of the R-1 zoning in this area. I am sure developers are arguing they need to increase density to make a project financially feasible or that they have some legal right I would not agree with either of these arguments based on the fact that the existing zoning dassifications have been in place for several years. In the end, the City Council with recommendations from it's board and commission will need to take action on the future development of the study area based on the desire of the neighborhood and what is felt best for Maplewood as a whole. In conclusion, I appreciate all the effort that the Council and staff have made to involve the neighborhood in this process. I would ask that you provide a copy of this letter in the staff reports to the City Council and various boards and commissions in their review of the matter. Best Regards, 9 Attachment l J- ~ ~ ~ ~ Carver Lake 'J I.....(W) Newport .J VN E zoo '2S EXHIBIT 1 5E WE f2 /.J IS-rf2/LT /YrtTp 10 SOUTH MAPLEWOOD SEWER STUDY AREA ....~ l....'.Attachment 4 i i ~ ~ ~-' V\ ~- ~ ~ Q ~ ~ A PI2 /L 2~() 3 EXHIBIT 3 Lo(Y}P;2E/{EN6fVE.. SEU/Ef2.. I'L-AN uPDilTE 11 Attachment 5 0'00 s o CI '" D . o ~ -~~ I.......... ....._'6fT -- _llf-_.....", 50 LJTH mAPLE. woaD 5E WE-K :5ruQ Y - 7003 12 EXHISIT Z '-' CARVER LAKE ~ ~ ()[) ~ ~ TABLE 4 NEIGHBORHOOD LAND USE PLAN LEGEND Residential Land Uses RE-40 RE-30 RE-20 R-1 R-1S R-2 R-3L R-3M R-3H Residential Estate (40,000-square-foot lot areas) Residential Estate (30,000-square-foot lot areas) Residential Estate (20,000-square-foot lot areas) Single Dwelling (10,000-square-foot lot areas) Single Dwelling (7,500-square-foot lot areas) . Single and Double Dwellings Multiple Dwellings (4.4 - 6.3 units/acre) Multiple Dwellings (4.9 - 7.0 units/acre) Multiple Dwellings (8.4 -12.0 units/acre) Commercial Land Uses LBC NC CO BC(M) BC Limited Business Commercial Center Neighborhood Commercial Center Commercial Office Center Business Commercial (Modified) Center Business and Commercial Center Industrial Land Uses M-1 Light Manufacturing M-2 Heavy Manufacturing Community Service Land Uses OS Open Space P Parks S School C Church W Public Water Facility CEM Cemetery FS Fire Station G Government Facility L Library CH City Hall c: (/7Y/ P;2 E !IE- (\/ :5 I V E:.- rmN 13 Attachment 6 Attachment 7 TABLE 5 ESTIMATED PERSONS PER DWELLING UNIT AND PLANNED MAXIMUM DENSITY OF DWELLING UNITS R-3L R-3M R-3H People/Gross Acre (aporoximatel 11.9 13.3 22.8 Type of Dwelling People/Unit' Planned Maximum Density (Units per gross acre) Single Dwelling' 2.9 4.1 4.6 Double Dwellings' 2.2 5.4 6.0 10.4 Townhomes 2.2 5k 6.0 10.4 Manufactured Homes 2.0 6.0 6.7 11.4 Apartments (34 units/bldg.) 2.4 5.0 5.5 9.5 Apartments (5-9 units/bldg.) 2.2 5.4 6.0 10.4 Apartments (10-19 units/bldg.) 1.9 6.3 7.0 12.0 ~~ Apartments (2049 unitslbldg.) 1.6 7.4 8.3 14.3 Apartments (50+ units/bldg.) 1.4 8.5 9.5 16.3 ---0 Apartments (1-bedroom senior) 1.1 (Based on bedroom mix.) Apartments (2-bedroom senior) 2.0 (Based on bedroom mix.) Apartments (3-bedroom senior) 2.5 (Based on bedroom mix.) Notes: (1) From the 1990 census. (2) The City shall determine the maximum allowed density by the minimum-lot areas in the zoning code. The City shall determine the maximum number of units from Table 5 If minimum-area lots for each unit are not platted. The City may allow reduced minimum-lot areas in planned unit devetopments (PUDs) where the overall PUD project does not exceed the maximum allowed density. (3) The City intends to review the density figures in Table 5 after each federal census. /717 !lEf'/S/VE CC77Y1p~G riffN 14 ~ 44-8 MAPLEWOOD CODE Sec. 44-8. Violations. Attachment 8 Any person violating a section of this chapter, including violations of conditions established concerning variances or conditional use permits, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be punished in accordance with section 1-15. Violations of this chapter can occur whether the city or state requires a permit for a regulated activity. Each day that any violation continues shall constitute a separate violation. (Code 1982, ~ 36.8) Sec. 44-9. Zoning districts. The city is hereby divided into the following zoning districts: F Farm residence district -/ R-1 Residence district (single dwelling) R-1S Small-lot single-dwelling district - R-2 Residence district (double dwelling) -R-3 Residence district (multiple dwelling) R-E Residence estate district ~- NC Neighborhood commercial district CO Commercial office district BC Business and commercial district LBC Limited business commercial district BC(M) Business commercial modified district SC Shopping center district M-1 Light manufacturing district M-2 Heavy manufacturing district (Code 1982, ~ 36-9) Sec. 44-10. Zoning map. , "-0 r' rl/ 'l--':~ ' \. , j2 -I (12) 12 Iff- If L- i2 E.15 I DEf\../III1L (a) Generally. The boundaries ofthe districts designated in section 44-9 will be shown on a map, and the map is hereby made part ofthis chapter, which map shall be known as the zoning map of the City of Maple wood. The map shall include any zoning changes recommended by the planning commission or the city council. Before the map is finally approved and adopted by the city council, the council shall hold an open public hearing pursuant to at least, ten days' published and posted notice. Publication shall consist of at least one notice in the official newspaper of the city, and posting shall be in three prominent places within the city. All interested persons shall be heard at the hearing or any adjournment thereof. After the hearing the city council shall adopt the map; and all notations, references and data shown thereon are hereby incorporated by reference into this chapter and shall be as much a part of this chapter as if all were fully described. The map shall be kept up to date as provided in subsection (c) of this section. ZONiNG CDDE- CD44:20 15 Attachment 9 /-,>-- V- I I I \ \ \ \ Y / (/ UJ b '~ _ ~ IT \ ?l- - n....::t..':J f /' L[ I I ~V '\ Vi ~ I. W / r- '\" /' ):: 0//1 ~I~[::- / / : :: I 'H -\ \ / ( / / /~ 11 / ~/ r ~! d'~~~\~ ~ 1 B/~ >-- - "\: Open space/ m R- I I II .~ ') I l ~ ~ -.J I I U, ~ ~~[J f ~~ /(; 'f- J'C:;~~ / Y 0: j If 'f ~ Open 1'-:><- f- \"1 y- ~ \~ ) J- S \ '0 I)'" pace " ~M~~ / ~ \ ~~/ /~~ ~ \ 'f -{.. /'/- --"x \ />C X y:. \L! \ 1\ I r' Open Space f ~ r1 'f 'j... 'f- y; , I / 1- J~L/ _J( )( / )( / 1- ~ X~ 1- ~ 'I- ~ '/ )\::7 Open Space os f LAND USE MAP 16 Attachment 10 ZONING MAP 17 Attachment 11 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE PLANNING PROCESS AND FOR DEVELOPING LAND USE AND ZONING STANDARDS AND LAND USE PLANNING FOR THE AREA SOUTH OF CARVER AVENUE IN MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA The area under consideration in this ordinance (hereinafter referred to as the "South Maplewood Study Area") includes all the land south of Carver Avenue in Maplewood (refer to the South Maplewood Study Area map for the location) that the city has zoned F (farm residence) and R- 1 (R) (rural residential). The Maplewood City Council ordains: SECTION 1. PURPOSE 1.01 The City of Maplewood is currently conducting a study that includes land use, zoning and planning components for the area south of Carver Avenue. 1.02 The objective of the study is to review existing and planned land uses and zoning designations and the existing natural and constructed features in the south Maplewood study area. From this information, the city may make changes to the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance or the land use plan in the area to create better-planned and constructed developments and neighborhoods. 1.03 In addition to the study, the city may need to revise the city's zoning ordinance, zoning map, land use map and comprehensive plan because of the following issues: Land use Minimum lot sizes Public utility availability (including sewer and water) Building setbacks Open space connectivity Existing city and county public land uses Mississippi River Critical Area Mississippi National River and Recreational Area (MNRRA) Metropolitan Council Requirements and Land Planning Guide Book Pedestrian flow and safety Parking Historical features Topography Wetlands, ponding and other water features Storm-water systems and management requirements Housing density Financial impacts on the city Street patterns and traffic flows Watershed District Requirements MnDOT Highway and Traffic Plans Preservation of the existing life-style 18 1.04 There is a need for the city to do these studies so that the city staff and the city council will have current and relevant information before considering or making any changes to the city's comprehensive plan and to the city's zoning ordinance, zoning map and land use map for the area south of Carver A venue. SECTION 2. DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT STUDY; MORATORIUM 2.01 The city council authorizes the city staff to do this study. City staff shall coordinate this study with the planning commission, other government agencies, property owners, interested citizens, the city council and any other entities that may provide input to the study. 2.02 Upon completion of the study, city staff will present the study and its results to the planning commission for their review and recommendation to the city council. 2.03 A moratorium on development in the south Maplewood Study Area is adopted pending completion of the study and/or the adoption of any amendments to the city's zoning ordinance, zoning map, land use map or comprehensive plan as the city deems necessary because of the study. The city will not approve any new development, subdivision or bUilding permit for a new building, except for those parcels that are two acres in size or smaller and now of record. during the moratorium period. Maplewood may issue building permits for the expansion or remodeling of existing structures, for accessory structures or for one new principal structure on an existing lot of record where the owner does not subdivide the property. SECTION 3. TERM 3.01 The term of ordinance shall be for one year or until the city council adopts amendments to the city's zoning ordinance, zoning map, land use map or comprehensive plan as the city deems necessary because of the study or the city council takes any action that directly affects the study or the ordinance. SECTION 4. VARIANCES 4.01 The city council, at their discretion, may grant variances from this ordinance based upon a determination that a proposed subdivision or development would be compatible with proposed land use and zoning, and that such proposals would keep with the spirit and intent of this ordinance. The procedures to be followed in applying for a variance from this ordinance shall be in accordance with state law on findings for variances and shall include the following: a. The applicant shall file a completed application form, together with required exhibits, to the Community Development Department. b. The application for a variance shall set forth special circumstances or conditions that the applicant alleges to exist and shall demonstrate that the proposed subdivision or development is compatible with existing or proposed land use and zoning. 19 c. The city will submit the application to the planning commission for their review and recommendation to the city council. d. The city council may set, at its discretion, a public hearing before making a final determination on the requested variance. e. The city council may impose such restrictions upon the proposed subdivision or development as may be necessary to meet the purpose and intent of this ordinance. SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE 5.01 This ordinance shall take effect after the city publishes it in the official newspaper. The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on November ,2006. Mayor Attest: City Clerk 20