Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/02/2007 MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesdav, October 2, 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 a. September 4, 2007 b. September 18, 2007 5. Public Hearings 7:00 Conditional Use Permit Revision - Salvation Army (2080 Woodlynn Avenue) 7:20 Lot Area Variances and Lot Division (388 Viking Drive) 6. New Business a. South Maplewood Study - Rose Lorsung - Schoell Madson (South of Carver Avenue) 7. Unfinished Business None 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations September 24 Council Meeting Mr. Walton October 8 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler October 22 Council Meeting: Mr. Martin November 12 Council Meeting: Mr. Hess 10. Staff Presentations a. Start time for October 16 Meeting -6:00 or6:30? b. Reschedule November 6 Meeting (Election Night) - Monday, November 5?? c. Senior Housing Study Update 11. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, September 4,2007 I. CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chairperson Desai called the meeting to order at 7:03 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 Present Absent Present Present Present Absent Present Present Present Staff Present: Ken Roberts, Planner III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Trippler seconded. The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes - Desai, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood, Martin, Boeser Approval of the planning commission minutes for August 21, 2007. Commissioner Trippler had a correction on page 3, fifth paragraph from the bottom, line 1; insert "original developer to the" so the sentence will read, "... provided by the oriqinal developer to the city and is..." Commissioner Trippler had a correction on page 3, sixth paragraph from the bottom, line 3; insert the word "a" and change "parking" to "park" so the sentence reads, "...map for 9. park~, ..." Commissioner Boeser had a correction on page 10, paragraph 4 under section a, first line; replace Commissioner Boeser with Commissioner Walton. Commissioner Trippler had a correction on page 10, third paragraph from the bottom, line 2; change the word "currently" to read "current" and remove "the" so the sentence will read, "The currently the atmosphere..." Planning Commission Minutes of 09-04-07 -2- Commissioner Hess had a correction on page seven, paragraph 10, line 4; the word "incase" should read "in case". Commissioner Boeser had a correction on page 11, the first line of the first paragraph; replace "Commissioner Walton" with "Commissioner Boeser". Commissioner Hess had a correction on page 11, first paragraph, line 3; insert the word "art" so the sentence will read ".. .about the use of public art and to be sure to..." Mr. Roberts had a correction given to him by Chairperson Fischer. Chairperson Fischer had a correction on page 13, under section b, first paragraph, line one and two; reword the sentence to read, "The city council vote on the land use clarification fIaEh:I was 3-2.vote 3t 3nd p3ssod." Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the Planning Commission minutes for August 21,2007. Commissioner Hess seconded. Ayes - Desai, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood, Martin, Boeser The motion passed. V. PUBLIC HEARING None. VI. NEW BUSINESS 1. Executive Summary Report - South Maplewood Study (South of Carver Avenue) Ken Roberts, city planner, went over the report. The city recently received this report as prepared by Schoell Madson. The Planning Commission is to review this report and decide 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. On November 13, 2006, the city council adopted a moratorium ordinance for the area of Maplewood that is south of Carver Avenue. This ordinance prohibits any new development or land divisions in the moratorium area until after the city adopts a new land use regulation 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. The city hired Schoell Madson, in part, to do an objective analysis of the entire study area. Schoell Madson then prepared two general concept plans for the area and findings for the area and the city. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-04-07 -3- 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 pattern (and thus land use designations and zoning classifications) the city wants to implement for this part of Maplewood. Staff recommends the Planning Commission direct city staff, the planning consultants and the city council as to what land use and development patterns (and thus land uses and zoning designations) are appropriate for the South Maplewood Study area. This could include the possibility that the land use and designations for some properties are not consistent with each other (and that the city should make land use or zoning changes to the make the designations consistent with each other) and possibly changes to the comprehensive plan or to the zoning code. Commissioner Trippler asked why the R-1 (R) zoning doesn't appear in either attachment 8 or 6 in the land use. He questioned why city staff doesn't recommend changes to the land use. Mr. Roberts stated that the list he is referring to is the current listing in the comprehensive plan, not the zoning codes. The zoning codes are listed on page 15. Commissioner Trippler asked why the R-1 (R) is not listed on page 15. Mr. Roberts stated that it is handwritten on the page. There is not an updated copy at this time. Mr. Roberts stated R-1 (R) was a main point in discussions which questioned if it is inconsistent to have R-1 (R) as a zoning category but not include it in the comprehensive plan or the land use plan. When the city adopted the R-1 (R) zoning code in 2003, the city did not amend the comprehensive plan because it was thought at the time that R-1 (R) is a type of single-family land use, which is listed in the neighborhood land use legend. A possible point of discussion for the commission is if the commission and the city are happy with the R-1 (R) designation and where it currently is. If the commission is happy with the designation, should the city amend the comprehensive plan, both the text and the map, to add R-1 (R) to be consistent with the zoning maps? Commissioner Trippler stated the commission is supposed to be updating the comprehensive plan for the most recent update, and is hoping that these issues could also be resolved. He does not believe the Planning Commission has the information to do that. He asked if city staff would hire someone to aid in making those amendments. Mr. Roberts stated that at the first council meeting in August, the same meeting that the council agreed to hire Shoell Madson to complete the South Maplewood Study, they also considered proposals from Shoell Madson to update the parks, trails, and open space amendments to the comprehensive plan and to help staff update the entire comprehensive plan. The council tabled an action on those two items, in part to get proposals from other firms. Commissioner Martin asked how increased density in the area around 494 would affect traffic patterns in the whole south Maplewood area. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-04-07 -4- Mr. Roberts stated that is a concern expressed by the neighbors. This is a concern that the consultants will help city staff address. Commissioner Hess stated he would like to see this area (south of Carver Avenue) stay rural. Mr. Roberts went over the existing sewers in the area and how future sewers might be involved. Commissioner Hess asked what the average age of the existing sewers are in this area. Mr. Roberts stated there is a large variety of ages due to older and newer homes in the area. Commissioner Yarwood said he is encouraged to hearthat the Metropolitan Council won't restrict the density of this area. He would like to preserve the lower density feel of this area. He favors concept 2. Commissioner Yarwood questioned some of the sizes of the designated lots. Mr. Roberts stated he assumes it is because of the access to the sewer. Specific reasons for these designations would have to be explained by the consultants, who were not able to attend this meeting. Commissioner Trippler likes that south Maplewood is different than north Maplewood and would like to see this rural setting remain. He recommends that the city council change the ordinance to make R-1 (R) stand on its own. He recommends that the wording be changed to state that the R- 1 (R) zoning is a rural-residential landscape that the city wants to reserve. This area mayor may not have sewer, now or in the future. This would maintain the rural setting even if sewer were extended to this area. Mr. Roberts clarified what area of the report should be changed. Mr. Roberts then confirmed that some language should be added to the land use plan and the comprehensive plan as well to reflect this change. Commissioner Desai stated that all areas in this plan, which are already classified as R-1 (R), should be kept as such to maintain the rural setting. Commissioner Hess asked if Woodbury had any plans for expansion that would affect the sewer plans. Mr. Roberts confirmed and went over possible development plans and how those would affect the sewer system. Commissioner Pearson asked if there is a concern about Bailey Nurseries annexing their land in Maplewood to Woodbury in the future just for the sake of higher density development, if the property should ever be sold for development. Mr. Roberts stated that anything is possible, but any type of development would have an effect on the sewer system, which would have to be done in cooperation with Maplewood. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-04-07 -5- Commissioner Yarwood asked if the consultant is making any considerations for commercial liability of these developments. Mr. Roberts stated that is the type of question the commission can send to the consultants so they can start analyzing those issues. Commissioner Boeser stated he also is in favor of keeping this area rural. He asked if Woodbury has any kind of comprehensive plan that addresses the area near south Maplewood. Mr. Roberts said they do. Commissioner Hess confirmed that this moratorium is planned to be finished by November of 2007. Commissioner Hess questioned some of the areas that showed no change in the Comprehensive Plan and Mr. Roberts clarified. Mr. Roberts went over possible future sewer plans. The Planning Commission can recommend parameters that state what they think are best for the city. Commissioner Hess questioned grading issues if the Copar Developers plan to tie into the Dorland Road sewer system. Mr. Roberts stated that their engineers had prepared a plan that would not require a lift station for their sewer. The city engineers are comfortable enough with that plan, to a point, that it was recommended for approval. That plan was studied under an EAW. Commissioner Yarwood asked if this required any kind of recommendations by the commission. Mr. Roberts stated it is up to the commission to decide on what they want to do. Commissioner Yarwood stated he understands that the commission neither favors concept one or two but would rather edit the zoning within the comprehensive plan. Commissioner Martin stated the commission will need to see more studies on the traffic flow patterns that affect this area, both existing and projected. Commissioner Trippler made a formal recommendation, in the form of a resolution, to the city council that the: 1. South Maplewood area retain the lowest density possible. 2. Make the ordinance, land use, zoning maps, and comprehensive plan consistent with each other, specifically about the R-1 (R) designation. 3. Clarify that R-1 (R) is retaining rural characteristic or designated for areas that do not and may not have sewer. 4. Re-zone the areas in south Maplewood currently zoned as farming to R-1 (R). Planning Commission Minutes of 09-04-07 -6- Commissioner Pearson seconded the motion. Mr. Roberts suggested a friendly amendment be added to include Commissioner Martin's concerns about traffic flow studies. 5. Traffic studies be done to analyze the impact on traffic flow. Ayes - Desai, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood, Martin, Boeser The motion passed. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. August 27 Council Meeting: Mr. Yarwood Commissioner Yarwood attended the city council meeting. The changes to the city ordinance proposed by the Planning Commission were approved unanimously. Commissioner Yarwood stated he left the meeting at 10pm and the meeting was only half way through the agenda. Mr. Roberts stated the meeting adjourned at 11 pm. b. September 10 Council Meeting: Mr. Desai The items to be discussed include the second reading of the code amendments about the Planning Commission and the Regents Senior Housing Development, which was discussed at the last Planning Commission meeting. c. September 24 Council Meeting: Mr. Walton There would be a Planning Commission meeting before this date to get an update to Commissioner Walton to see if he will need to attend. The items to be discussed may possibly include the South Maplewood Study. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS None. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:19 p.m. DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 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 Present Present Present Present Present Present (7:04) Present Present Present Staff Present: Ken Roberts, City Planner III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Desai seconded. The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes - All Approval of the planning commission minutes for the meeting of September 4, 2007 will be considered at the next meeting due to the minutes not being finished. V. PUBLIC HEARING None VI. NEW BUSINESS a) Discussion on Conservation Easements (Ginny Gaynor) Ken Roberts, city planner, introduced the item. The city is studying the idea of using conservation easements as a method of protection for some of the city owned properties. Specifically, there are fourteen spaces that are identified as potential properties for having the use of conservation easements placed on them. The city council will be considering this idea at their next council meeting, Monday, September 24,2007. City staff and the city council are requesting that various boards and commissions give recommendations on the idea of using conservation easements as a protection method for these sites. On August 14, the city hosted Planning Commission Minutes of 09-18-07 2 a joint meeting of the planning, parks and recreation, and the environmental and natural resources commissions which had a presentation about conservation easements by Sarah Stromen, who is with the Minnesota Land Trust. That discussion will be continued this evening. Conservation easements are permanent and site specific and would provide clear direction to limits for the use and non-uses on a particular property. City staff is looking for recommendations from the planning commission on what type of protection method, if any, should be used for each of these properties. These recommendations will be passed onto the city council. On Monday, September 24, the city council will be reviewing an update from Ms. Stromen on what some of the costs would be to write, implement and enforce conservation easements on some, if not all, of the sites listed as neighborhood preserves. City staff has not seen that final document which will be presented to the city council. Mr. Roberts noted that Ginny Gaynor, city naturalist, is here to help answer questions. Commissioner Hess asked if there are any other options for protecting these properties. He is concerned about the permanence of a conservation easement. He also questioned if the city has ultimate control over the parcels. Mr. Roberts stated the city will retain ownership if a conservation easement is placed on it. The land trust would then oversee the easement and check the enforcement of the easement by visiting the site. To change the easement, it would take a court action. Mr. Roberts pointed out there are some options listed in the packet that would be more flexible but would still show that the city wants to ensure that these properties remain protected. Commissioner Martin asked for clarification on what will be presented to city council at the next meeting. Mr. Roberts stated that the second proposal will be actually writing and starting to prepare conservation easements for some, if not all, of the fourteen neighborhood preserves for the city. This will specifically address the cost and give a timeline of that process. Commissioner Martin asked how the planning commission is supposed to give a recommendation when the city council will have more information than the commission. Mr. Roberts stated staff and city council are looking for recommendations on the use of conservation easements as a tool, not the cost. Commissioner Martin stated he would like to see the proposal before giving a recommendation. Chairperson Fischer stated the joint meeting ended recognizing that there were several possibilities that might be utilized to create a solution to some of the perceived problems. Commissioner Trippler stated he is concerned that the council is asking the planning Planning Commission Minutes of 09-18-07 3 commission to decide whether or not this is the right tool to use if the commission has not looked at any other options available. Mr. Roberts stated the planning commission could make a recommendation to the city council requesting that they give the commissions more information on the issue. Commissioner Walton asked if Ms. Gaynor would speak on if there are any other options available. Ms. Gaynor stated she is here to answer questions on conservation easements and the open space sites. If the commission feels that there is a lack of information and it cannot move forward, then the commission should request more information on if there is enough protection on the open space sites and then move forward from there. The conservation easement should only be used when the city wants to protect the site permanently. There are some sites that are owned by the city that should be permanently protected. Chairperson Fischer stated when the council was looking over the open spaces in the city, there was an extensive study done which evaluated all of the open spaces owned by the city. She would like to know if the city still has a copy of the original criteria and site listings. This may aid in this decision. Ms. Gaynor stated the document is available. The whole open space and neighborhood preserve system needs to be reevaluated to make sure that it is doing what the city needs it to be doing. Commissioner Trippler asked why this is taking place and why it is taking place now. Has there been any attempt to develop any of these properties? Mr. Roberts stated he thought this discussion was triggered by the early Gladstone Master Plan that showed 3 or 4 acres of the savannah as a potential development site. He said he was not aware if the city has been approached by anyone requesting to develop any of these open spaces. Commissioner Trippler stated if city staff feels that there is a specific parcel that is extremely valuable to the city, then the commission should focus on protecting those parcels. He does not feel that all fourteen sites should be locked into a conservation easement unless they have significant value to the city. Commissioner Boeser stated the commission should look at whether or not conservation easements are a tool that can be used at all. Very specific criteria for the use of the conserVation easement should be written out that would clarify what types of land should be considered for this process and then go through the process of identifying those properties. Commissioner Yarwood stated he is concerned about protecting important pieces of properties in the city but does not feel qualified to judge whether or not each one of these properties should be protected. He would like to have each one of these parcels brought before the commission individually and have a public hearing to make that decision. Commissioner Pearson stated he would like to have seen some suggestions from staff for Planning Commission Minutes of 09-18-07 4 tonight's discussion on this tool and other possible tools that can be used to protect these properties. He stated concerns about the types of restrictions that would come with the use of an easement in regard to public use of the property. If a property was already voted on by citizens on the protection of that property, then the council should not have the right to change the protection. Mr. Roberts stated city staff is not at a point to suggest which properties should be considered for the conservation easement. The city council is looking for recommendations on whether or not the city should even consider using easements as one of the tools for protecting open spaces. Once that decision has been made, then the city can look at each individual property and decide whether or not an easement should be placed on that property. The city will have the right to write the specific details of requirements of the easement. Commissioner Desai asked for clarification on what phase 1 of this proposal was. Mr. Roberts stated that phase 1 was hiring Ms. Stromen to do an initial analysis and work with Ms. Gaynor to identify the parcels and start putting a work program together and have the joint meeting. Phase 2 is finding out what it will take to start implementing easements. Commissioner Desai asked if the city council has already decided that this is the direction the city council wants to go in order to try to protect the open spaces. He questioned why the city council has directed the staff to go to this step before looking at other options because an easement should be a last resort. Mr. Roberts stated the commission could point out to the city council that other options should be investigated before considering a conservation easement. Chairperson Fischer stated the commission should also point out the challenges that come when trying to write the specific restrictions for the sites. Commissioner Boeser stated the conservation easements can be structured in such a way that can be as restrictive or as non-restrictive as necessary for each property. Commissioner Yarwood stated that if the question is whether or not the commission believes a conservation easement should be an option as a tool for protection, then the answer would be yes, but this is not a one size fits all solution. He also asked for staff to look into what other cities and communities do in order to protect their open spaces. Ms. Gaynor stated t the City of Maplewood is the first city in the region to attempt to put a conservation easement on the open spaces in the city. She then went over what other areas have done to protect their open spaces. Ms. Stromen has worked with other communities to put conservation easements on parkland. Chairperson Fischer asked for clarification on which open spaces would be considered for this process. Ms. Gaynor stated the only sites in the neighborhood preserve are the spaces being considered for this process. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-18-07 5 Commissioner Hess asked if there is any extra funding that would be involved in trying to preserve these sites. Ms. Gaynor stated the funding in terms of the easement process will be in the proposal which will be brought to the next city council meeting. That will include all of the upfront costs of writing and implementing an easement, all of the legal and survey work necessary and a lump sum cost of management and enforcement of the easement. That number will be made known at the next council meeting. She does not know how the proposal will present the breakdown of the costs. Commissioner Walton agreed with what Commissioner Pearson said about protecting the land that has already been voted on by residents. He then referred to a book he had that was published by the Minnesota Land Trust which gave options to protect open spaces. He questioned if the city has to pay taxes on these properties. Mr. Roberts stated no. Most of the described options in that book are for private land owners. Commissioner Pearson asked what would happen if the county decided they had an imminent use for a property and wanted to go through an imminent domain process on that property. Mr. Roberts stated he did not know and that the city attorney and Ms. Stromen would have to answer that question. Commissioner Trippler stated there are 3 things he would like staff to take to the city council. He would like the city council to direct staff to look at all of the tools that are possible for the purpose of ensuring that properties are maintained for their current use into the future. While looking at those tools, they should focus on what the benefits and the negative aspects of each tool and what are the costs associated with each tool. He would ask that the city council act more cautiously with use of conservation easements. He also would like to have each site considered individually and to have a public hearing for each site. Commissioner Desai stated staff should also investigate if the other tools have been used in the past by other cities and if those tools were found to be deficient, did the city eventually lose the use or protection of that land? Commissioner Yarwood asked if there is any requirement that each of these would have to go through individual public process in order to place a conservation easement. Mr. Roberts stated there is not, but there would be a public hearing to consider a development plan for a site. Commissioner Yarwood recommended the city ordinance be modified to require a public hearing process for each site, if a conservation easement is considered a tool to protect the property. Commissioner Pearson added that the public hearing be held in addition to a referendum if the city wants to do something different with the site other than preserving. Commissioner Martin asked how the other commissions feel about this topic. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-18-07 6 Mr. Roberts stated not all of the commissions have discussed this yet, and the ones that have, he is not sure of the outcome. Commissioner Hess added that the jurisdiction of Ramsey County and the state should be verified. Commissioner Walton asked what the process is if a developer wants to develop a city-owned piece of property. Mr. Roberts stated the developer would have to convince the city council to sell the piece of property, which would require a public hearing. Ms. Gaynor stated it would require 3 public hearings and a 4-1 vote in order for the city to sell a city-owned property that was purchased through the $5 million referendum. A conservation easement can also be written to allow some flexibility on the use of the land. Commissioner Trippler motioned that the planning commission recommend to the city council: 1. The city council should proceed more cautiously and slow the process down. 2. Direct staff to look at all of the possible tools that could be used to achieve the goal of trying to protect these open spaces. In looking at those tools, they should identify the costs, the benefits and the negative aspects associated with those tools. 3. Each individual site to be considered for a conservation easement or any of the other tools should go through individual public hearings and should be discussed by each of the following commissions: the environmental commission, the community design review board, the planning commission, the parks and recreation commission and the historic commission. 4. Should look at whether there are any court rulings that have affected any of the tools that are being proposed and what the outcome of the court rulings were. 5. Staff should look at what the county and state rights are relative to imminent domain or in using any of the pieces of properties in question with or without the easement. Commissioner Pearson seconded the motion. Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood, Martin, Boeser Nays - Walton The motion passed. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-18-07 7 VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a) September 10 Council Meeting: Mr. Desai Mr. Desai attended the meeting. The two items discussed included the code amendment to the planning commission, which passed unanimously, and the Regents Senior Housing Development, which passed with a 3-2 vote. Staff is also directed to research room sizes for senior developments and number of parking stalls and widths. b) September 24 Council Meeting: Mr. Walton Mr. Walton will attend this meeting. The items to be discussed include conservation easements. c) October 8 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler Mr. Trippler will attend this meeting. d) October 22 Council Meeting: Mr. Martin Mr. Martin will attend this meeting. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS There will be a PC meeting the first week in October. The meeting will have two public hearings and there should be some preliminary discussion on the next findings of the South Maplewood Study. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 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 Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Conditional Use Permit Revision-Salvation Army Day Care Facility 2080 Woodlynn Avenue September 25, 2007 INTRODUCTION Request The Salvation Army, located at 2080 Woodlynn Avenue, is proposing to expand their adult day care services to include child day care. To do so, they are requesting a revision to their existing conditional use permit (CUP). The city code requires a CUP for day care facilities in F (farm residential) districts. Refer to the applicant's letter and the attached maps. BACKGROUND December 22,1986: The city council approved a land use plan change from R1 to C (church), a CUP for the Salvation Army Church and for the adult day care facility. Subsequent annual CUP reviews followed. October 8,2001: The city council approved a CUP revision for the applicant's expansion plans subject to all construction following the approved site plan and construction starting within one year. October 14,2002: The city council reviewed this CUP and moved to review it again in one year. October 13, 2003: The council moved to review the CUP only if the applicant proposes a change or if any problem arises. DISCUSSION Proposal The proposed child day care operation would operate Monday through Friday, 2:30 p.m. to 6 p.m. and all day when school is not in session. The program would occupy two classrooms on the first floor and three on the second floor. The applicant would use the gymnasium for recreation and has no need to add an outdoor recreation area. The proposed facility would be licensed by the state for up to 55 elementary and school-aged children. The adult day care facility was originally licensed for up to 38 persons. This is still accurate. Parking Parking was a concern raised by some neighbors. Staff doesn't feel that there will be any parking issues. All day-care participants are transported to and from the site by parents or busses. Therefore, parking for the center is only needed for the employees and guests. The church requires one parking stall per four seats. There are 225 seats within the church, for total required parking of 57 stalls. There are 86 existing parking stalls. Two of them are handicap accessible. The parking is more than adequate for the adult day care center, the proposed child day care use and the church. Assistant Fire Chief/Fire Marshal's Comments Butch Gervais commented that the applicant already does adult day care and the building has a complete fire protection system with alarm and smoke detections. They are in compliance with Mr. Gervais' requirements. CUP Revision Summary The proposed child day care addition to the existing adult day care operation would not cause any negative impact on this neighborhood. There is substantial parking available on the site and there would be no exterior change to the building or premises that would affect the neighbors. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached resolution approving a revision to the conditional use permit for the Salvation Army Church, located at 2080 Woodlynn Avenue, to expand their adult day care facility to include child day care. Approval of this CUP revision is based on the findings required by the ordinance and subject to the following conditions (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. City staff The director of community developmont may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed addition of child day care shall be started within one vear as required bv ordinance. The prnposed construction must bo substantially startod within one year of souncil appr-eval or the permit shallllesome mill and 'leid. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit revision in one year. 2 CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the 60 property owners within 500 feet of this site for their comments. I received eleven replies. Seven were in favor, one was opposed and three neighbors had miscellaneous comments/concerns/questions. In Favor 1. A service needed in every community. Best wishes in your endeavor! (Paul and Shirley Moriarty, 2987 Beebe Parkway) 2. I think it is an added benefit to the community. Affordable day care is a better alternative to children at home alone. I commend the Salvation Army for "seeing a need" and stepping forward with a plan. Thank you. (William and Pamela Mund, 2994 Beebe Parkway North) 3. We are happy to hear of this new service to families in the area. We endorse plans for this pre school. (Carla Rekstad, Village on Woodlynn) 4. The owners of Forte, LLC support Salvation Army. Our only concem is that enough supervision be provided to ensure integrity of neighborhood for residents and businesses. We approve adding child care at Salvation Army. (Forte, LLC, C/O Welsh Companies) 5. Thank you for the correspondence regarding the Major's application to extend the church's permit to allow for child care. I am not a member of the church but live quite close and have visited for occasional events. I am happy to hear that the church is looking to provide more services to our community. From what I can see in their permit application, enrichment to our youth and families in our community will benefit from this extended service. (Jessica Hagg, 2981 Frederick Parkway) 6. I have no problem with the Salvation Army wanting to add child day care to their existing adult day care facility. I think it would provide a great option for parents who may not want their kids to stay home alone after school hours. Thanks. (Jerome Hogness, 2049 Lydia Avenue East) 7. Refer to the attached em ail response from John Weis, owner of the Sibley Cove Apartments. Opposed Sorry. This area is so congested "NOW" anyway. Why get it worse than what it is. With all the apartments that have come up on Ariel now, and Beam Ave too. When is all this gonna come to a halt, do you know how busy White Bear Avenue is? "NO" (Cyndi Erickson, 2109 Lydia Avenue East) 3 Miscellaneous Comments, Concerns and Questions 1. Would they have enough parking? Would kids be allowed to wander the neighborhood? Will there be an outdoor playground? (Joe Commerse, reply by telephone, no address given) 2. My concern is the extra traffic on a daily basis. I want to be able to come and go from my home without getting in an accident. Also, I do a lot of walking in the neighborhood and extra traffic is more chances for a driver (distracted by cell phone, day care pick up running late) to hit me. There are too many close calls as it is-with stop lights. I understand affordable day care is hard to find. I just am expressing my concerns. (Laura and Paul McLean, 2065 Woodlynn Avenue East) 3. This letter is written to express the concern of Plaza 3000 Shopping Center regarding the proposed Child Day Care facility. Plaza 3000 Shopping Center is a 125,000 square foot shopping center on a commercially-zoned property. Currently we have The Rock Nightclub as a tenant. It is our intention to continue to have The Rock Nightclub or another restaurant with liquor located in the shopping center. It is important to the owners of the shopping centers that any new permitted uses on an adjacent property not hinder the future uses available to our shopping center. Thank you for your consideration. Please call with any questions regarding this matter. (Thomas M. Schuette, on behalf of Azure Properties, owner of the Plaza 3000) 4 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 3.5 acres Existing Use: The Salvation Army Church and adult day care facility SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Woodlynn Avenue, Birch Glen Apartments and Woodlynn Ponds Town Homes South: Single dwellings East: The Village on Woodlynn Town homes West: Ariel Street and the Plaza 3000 Shopping Center PLANNING Land Use Plan: C (church) Zoning: F (farm residential) APPLICATION DATE We received the complete application and plans for this proposal on August 31, 2007. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications. A decision on this request is required by October 30, 2007. p:sec2n\Salvation Army Day Care 10 07 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Land Use Plan 3. Zoning Map 4. Site Plan 5. Applicant's Narrative dated August 29, 2007 6. Email from John Weis dated September 13, 2007 7. CUP Revision Resolution 5 Attachment 1 --------~-------------- ---~--- ~--- ~-~--- ------------- ----- ~- --~ ~~ 0: a: o <;>'?- \l-~'" MAPLEWOOO BEAM AVE - -- - I- - ~ " i~@~. rum ~l~~ o u " DR ~ <( '" Of lD ~ ~ ! >1- '" ~ w a: << LYDIA AVE ~ " " 0: w ~ ~BffiB1E~ MAPLE VIEW '" w ~ ~ lD W l- i: ;: RADATZ AVE rTTITl'1 LOCATION MAP '" w I- - - 6 I- <f) ~ w ii' <( () Attachment 2 os L-------_) WOODlYNN AVE ~L;J~~1J C'-I c;::j ;;:j ~ C'-I LYDIA AVE @7~2~ " ~ o I '" <f) I (J o~ ~5~2~ ~1 i 2~ o w go 2~ ~ [ [ [ LAND USE PLAN 7 t; ~ '" ~ ~~ Attachment 3 WQODl YNN AVE C> rrtm '" FI [~l~ l I r _JSALVATION ARMY R1 @~ '" '" LYDIA AVE c, a5 ~ ~1 i o '" a: a f Mdplewood Heights Park ZONING MAP ~3~2~ ~~2~ '" 12'7 '" ~4#r1 frl3 0f; olJ [ [ [ [I [ 8 ..,; l{l ..J W 12 <. WOODL YNN AVE. 'Jt1-o' snuOll .-.--.-.-.--.-.-.- I.. , ~ i I -d Il' i~ =C~ .1 o. II }Ii i SALVATION ARMY CHURCH . . AND ADULT DAY CARE -- I \ IT \ I \ . \ ,... \ " '----" .------------------------------- SITE PLAN ._._.1 l Attachment 4 ,,. ~".l"nNC st'TIIAl:W L._._ i i i ! I i i i i i i i !~ !~ !1Il I. '1 !ll !: !1> I" i i -i I :=Ii I =r J ~ I 2IT ''''.,NG 5(11401 I I I I I I I I {J N 9 Attachment 5 Shaw Clifton General August 29, 2007 Kenneth Baillie Territorial Commander Mr. Tom Ekstrand City Planner City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Major Daniel Sjogren Divisional Commander Majors Don & Judy Tel<autz Corps Officers Dear Mr. Ekstrand, Conditional Use Permit The Salvation Army 2080 Woodlynn Ave. Attached you will find our application for the change of use permit for our building; the check for the permit cost, and the certified list of property owners with in 500 feet of our property. The Salvation Army, an international movement, is an evangelical part of the universal Christian Church. Its message is based on the Bible. Its ministry is motivated by the love of God. Its mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and to meet human needs in His name without discrimination. The Salvation Army has been serving Maplewood, for more that 16 years, offering may services to aid and better our community. One of the services that has become much needed is affordable child care and after school care for low-income and working parents in our community. In order for us to provide this community service it is necessary for us to change our occupancy permit. The after school program will operate Monday through Friday 2:30 pm - 6:00 pm, and all day on days that school is not in session. The program will occupy two class rooms on our first floor and three on our second floor as well as use ofthe gym.. We will be licensed by the State of Minnesota and care for up to 55 elementary and school aged children. We will be governed and apply all the rules and regulations to be a state licensed program. 10 The Salvation Army Lakewood Worship & Community Center We are not planning at this time to change or add to our present building for this program, nor will this program cause a deviation in the property values safety, health or general welfare of the owners or occupants of nearby land. This program will have little or no changes to any of the environments out side of our building, this program will not involved any use of any thing that could be considered dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property around us. The start ofthis program will have no effect on the natural or scenic features of our property or property around us. We fully expect this new program will provide child care and after school care to our community to add to the improvement to the needs of the people we serve in Maplewood. Our after school care program will provide child care as well as tutoring to help students with math and reading skills. Our staff of tutors will help students with home work and computer skills to help them become better more proficient in their studies. The after school program in also the most affordable program in the community which will give parents an option from their children staying at home alone after school hours. I look forward to an approval by the city and our advancement of the services we provide to the citizens of Maple wood. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me. 11 Page 1 of 1 Attachment 6 Tom Ekstrand From: John Weis [JohnWeis@MWFProperties.com] Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 10:25 AM To: Tom Ekstrand Subject: Salvation Army Child Day Care Proposal Mr. Ekstrand, I am the representative for the owner of Sibley Cove Apartments located at 1996 County Road D East. I recently had the chance to speak with Major Tekautz regarding his proposal. He informed me the after school program would provide affordable child care and after school care. In addition, the program would offer tutoring in math and reading. Not only would this program be a benefit to the community of Maplewood, it would also be a major benefit to the Sibley Cove Apartments. Sibley Cove is an 80-unit apartment building, 40 of those units being "workforce" housing. Those 40 units are reserved for tenants earning 50% of the area median income. The rents are kept at affordable levels for the residents as long as there income qualifies. There are a lot of hard working parents in this development that would benefit greatly from an affordable after school program. Obviously the affordability and tutoring aspects of the program are major benefits. Also, Salvation Army's location is very close in proximity to Sibley Cove. Considering these features, I feel there would be a high demand for this program from our residents. That opinion has been confirmed by Eve Bjork, Sibley Cove's on-site resident manager. I sincerely hope the City of Maplewood looks favorably upon this application, just as myself and Sibley Cove does. I look forward to the Sibley Cove residents having yet another great amenity offered in the City of Maplewood. Thank you for your time, please feel free to contact me with any further questions. John Weis MWF Properties, LLC 7645 Lyndale Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55423 TEL 612.243.4637 FAX 612.243.5010 9/13/2007 12 Attachment 7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, The Salvation Army applied for a revision to their conditional use permit to expand their adult day care facility to include child day care. WHEREAS, this permit applies to 2080 Woodlynn Avenue. The legal description is: NW Y. of the NE Y. of the W 165 feet of the S 368 feet of Section 2, Township 29, Range 22, and also that part of NW Y. of the NE Y. of the W 527.26 feet of the E 263.63 feet of the S 320 feet lying south ofWoodlynn and E of Ariel all in Section 2, Township 23, Range 22. (Property Identification Number: 02-29-22-12-0043) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On October 2, 2007, the planning commission held a public hearing to review this request. City staff published a notice in the paper 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 also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff. 2. The city council reviewed this proposal and considered the planning commission's recommendation on ,2007. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and those in attendance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approved the above- described conditional use permit revision to allow the addition of child day care at the Salvation Army Church because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 13 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to compliance with the following conditions (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. City staff Tho director of community dovolopmont may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed addition of child dav care shall be started within one year as required by ordinance. The proposed construction mlJst be substantially startea within one year of cOlJncil apprO':al or the pormit shall bocomo nlJlI ana 'mid. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit revision in one year. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on ,2007. 14 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANTS: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner Lot Area Variances and Lot Division Jason MacDonald 388 Viking Drive September 21, 2007 INTRODUCTION Project Description Jason MacDonald, representing MSA Investments, is requesting that the city approve two lot area variances to create a new lot for a new single family home. The requests are for the property on the south side of the house at 388 Viking Drive. The city code requires lots for houses to be at least 75 feet wide, to have at least 10,000 square feet of area and that they have a side yard setback of at least ten feet. Requests The property now has 18,316 square feet of lot area. The applicant is requesting city approval of two variances to create a lot with 8,814 square feet of area and a lot with 9,502 square feet of area. If the city approves this request, then the applicant would split the property to create the new lot south of the existing house (that would front on Lark Avenue). (See the applicant's statement and the maps on pages six through 11). DISCUSSION Section 44-106 of the city's zoning code states that "the minimum lot area in an R-1 residential zoning district shall be 10,000 square feet. The minimum lot width at the building setback line shall be 75 feet." As I noted above, the applicant is requesting that the city approve the division of the property to create two lots with less than 10,000 square feet of area - one lot would have 8,814 square feet and the other would 9,502 square feet of area. This proposal, if the city approves the proposal, would create the new lot south of the existing house (fronting on Lark Avenue). In order to comply with the state land use law, the city council is required to make two findings before granting a variance: (1) Strict enforcement of the city ordinances would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property. Undue hardship means that: (a) You cannot put your property to a reasonable use under city ordinances. (b) Your problem is due to circumstances unique to your property that you did not cause. (c) The variance would not alter the essential character of the area. (2) The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. In reviewing the criteria for approving a variance, staff finds that the situation requiring the variances in this circumstance is a problem that the current owner did not cause. However, having one house on an 18,316 square-foot lot is a reasonable use of the property. In addition, the proposed variances and the creation of a new lot with a new single dwelling in this location would change the character of the area. It also is staff's opinion that the proposed variances would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance as having another house on this property could cause crowding in the area and could lead to storm water drainage problems. Staff does not see a compelling reason for creating two lots from this property by the city granting these variances. True, the property owner did not write the city code that requires lots of a minimum size and area. This, though, is not basis that would constitute a "hardship" under the code. The applicant's other reason for approval is that size of the proposed lots would be in character with the size of the other lots in the area. There are lots of this size, or even smaller, along Arkwright Street. Similarly, however, most of the other lots exceed the 10,000 square-foot minimum lot size requirement. The lots on Lark Avenue range in size from 10,000 square feet to 23,087 square feet. It would not be in the character of the area to create a new lot of 9,502 square feet along Lark Avenue. City Engineer's Comments Erin Laberee, the Assistant City Engineer, has reviewed this proposal. I have included her comments on page 12. As Erin notes, the potential for flooding and property damage is always a concern of the city when considering requests such as this. A serious concern of city staff and with some of the neighbors with this proposal is the low nature of this site. Because of the topography of the area, the vacant area in question occasionally ponds with water. There is limited storm sewer in the area and there is nowhere to discharge any storm water that collects on the property. SUMMARY The variance request for reduced lot areas are relatively minor. However, city staff has several concerns with the proposal, including its potential to make the drainage problems in the area worse by adding another house and impervious surface to the neighborhood. The proposed new lots would require lot area variances of 498 square feet and 1,186 square feet. The development of the property with lots of 9,502 square feet and 8,814 square feet would not be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and would be visually noticeable. RECOMMENDATION Deny the request for two variances for the creation of the new lot for a single dwelling south of the house at 388 Viking Drive. These would have included having a lot with 8,814 square feet of lot area and another lot with 9,502 square feet of area. The city is making this denial because: . There are no circumstances that are unique to this property that justify the proposed variances. . Of the inability of the applicant to prove a specific hardship for this variance request that meets state law requirements. 2 . The creation of two lots from this property would make lots that are not in character with the size of the existing lots in the neighborhood. There are other small lots, but there are many more lots in the area that are larger than 10,000 square feet. . The proposal to construct a new house on the vacant part of the parcel has a significant possibility to create or to add to known storm water drainage problems in the area. The back (south part) of 388 Viking Drive is low and would require substantial fill for a new home site. Filling for one additional home site on the property could compromise the existing storm water runoff and drainage that occurs on this lot. 3 CITIZEN COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 48 properties within 500 feet of this site. Of the nine replies, three were for the proposal and six were against. For 1. The narrow lot also has a low grade. Careful planning with drainage considerations will be needed for the sake of the homes next to this property. We are some distance to the east, so none of this really affects us, so we say go for it. (Asplund - 431 Lark Avenue) 2. Approving the variance and having a dwelling on the new lot would actually improve the character of the locality. It looks strange as it is with fencing splitting the two lots. We recommend that the variance be granted. (Phillippi - 407 Laurie Road) 3. I do not feel the lot variance to divide the property should pose any problems. Advance notice of the invasion and trespassing of the survey team would have been the appropriate thing to do. (Mayette - 396 Viking Drive) Against 1. Too crowded. (Selander- 358 Lark Avenue) 2. We are against splitting that property. The city several years ago put in drainage pipes because of water flow problems. We do not want to have to deal with this again. The lot would be substandard contrary to your own code. (Lang - 366 Lark Avenue) 3. This lot is the low spot on the block where water runs off. Building would affect water flow from yards. Did the city place drainage lines into this lot several years ago? I am not in favor of granting a variance for lot split. (Tomaszewski - 367 Lark Avenue) 4. We are concemed about the water flow since that area is the lowest in the area. Our basement has been flooded on a few occasions of heavy rain. (Lopez - 375 Lark Avenue) 5. This lot is used as a drainage culvert for the block. The city installed the drainage area and we all paid an assessment for this. The lot would need a lot of fill to make it at the right level and then it will cause the neighboring houses to have flood. (Schmidt - 376 Lark Avenue) 6. Please see the e-mail message from Mike Busse of 384 Lark Avenue starting on page 13. Comments None 4 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Existing Land Use: Single-Family Home SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Single-family home East: Single-family homes on Arkwright Street South: Single-family homes on Lark Avenue West: Single family homes PLANNING Existing Land Use Designation: Existing Zoning: Single Dwelling Residential R-1 (single dwelling residential) CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL State law requires that the city make two findings before granting a variance. These are: 1. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. 2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Undue hardship, as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under the conditions allowed by the official controls. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not created by the landowner, and a variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Application Date The city received the application for this variance request on July 6, 2007. City staff discovered however, that the application and plans were not complete. The applicant submitted additional information to the city in August 2007. As such, city staff determined that the application was complete on August 30, 2007. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for any land use proposal. The 60-day requirement on this proposal ends on October 26, 2007, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. P/sec8/388 Viking Drive Variance - 2007 Attachments: 1. Applicant's Statement 2. Location Map 3. Area Map 4. Aerial Photograph 5. Proposed Site Plan dated July 5, 2007 6. Engineering Comments dated September 20, 2007 7. E-mail message dated July 31,2007 from Mike Busse 5 Attachment 1 388 Vikinl! Variance Reauest Jason MacDonald - 612.986.4246 Purposed Variance: I am submitting this application to request a lot are variance to allow the parcel located at 388 Viking Drive to be split into 2 lots. The current lot size is 75 X 254.18 Ft on it West side and 75 X 234.01 Ft on it Ease Side, consisting of 18316 ft2. The existing land use is a single-family house with attached garage located entirely on the northern portion of this parcel. The southern portion is currently used as a fenced in yard. I am proposing splitting the lot so as to allow 2 single-family dwellings, consisting of 8,814 ft2 to the north (Existing house) and 9,502 ft2 to the south (future house). Background: Surrounding Land & Uses: North - Viking Drive, with its substantial right of way. North of Viking Drive is Hwy 36. East - (Northern half oflot) 396 East Viking Drive - a single family dwelling with a lot area consisting of 8,675 Ft2, and (Southern half oflot) 2255 Arkwright Street - a single family dwelling with a lot area consisting of8,675 ft2. Both are Zoned R1 and planned Residential Low Density. (This was once 1 parcel consisting of 17250 ft2, but was granted a variance in 1980 to separate into 2 separate parcels. South - Lark Street. Across Lark street there are single family dwellings (R1). West - (Northern half oflot) 380 East Viking Drive - a single family dwelling (R1) and (Southern half oflot) 379 Lark Street - a single family dwelling (R1). The city has approved several lot area variances similar or great than being request by the applicant, including the one located just East (396 Viking Drive) by Joseph Pilarski. This situation regarding this property and the variance request is unique in that there are very few dual frontage lots in the area, or the city of Maple wood for that matter. There are some lots that are of similar square footage (1800 ft2+), but many of them have larger frontage space. Although the square footage of northern part of the lot would be substandard, the actual green space around the property would be in far excess of the required 10,000 sq. ft. The reason being is that the right of way for Viking Drive is much larger than surrounding streets. So even though the northern lot will only have 8814 ft2, the amount of actual green space is 30%+ greater given the 20+ft between Viking Drive and where the lot line begins. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT 6 With the requested variances, the new proposed lots would meet all other zoning requirements, ifi'when construction of a single family residence would commence on the newly created southern lot. Findings Required by the Zoning Code: The property cannot be put to Ii reasonable use under the conditions allowed by the official controls and strict adherence to the regulations of this zoning ordinance would cause undue hardship. The applicant is requesting a reduction in the mmnnum lot size (minor sub division) to allow for the future the construction of a single-family house the southern lot. Without the variance, this lot could not be split into 2 parcels, and no house could be built on the southern lot. An 8,814 ft2 (and 9,502 ft2.) lot for a single-family home in this neighborhood is a reasonable use of the property and that strict adherence to the minimum lot size creates a hardship on this property. The circumstances are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and have not been created by any persons presently having an interest in the property. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms Qf the ordinance. The subject parcel is pre-plated as city lot with dual frontage. This is very rare in the neighborhood. In fact there is not another 75 ft wide parcel in 500 ft2 surrounding this parcel that has such characteristics. The conditions upon which the variances are requested are unique to this parcel and have not been created by the applicant and in fact were likely created prior to the standards establishing the current minimum lot area in R1 zoning districts. The granting of the variance will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance and will not alter the essential character of the locality or be injurious to the use or enjoyment of other property in the vicinity. Granting the lot area variance will be keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance and will not alter the essential character of the surrounding area. The surrounding area has a mix of single-family dwellings, with several lots substandard (minimum lot area) by the district R1 standards. The proposed variance will not substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire,. or be detrimental to the public welfare or endanger the public safety. Granting the minimum lot area variance would likely have no impact the congestion of area streets or fire safety, nor would the proposed future structure on this currently vacant lot be detrimental to the public welfare or endanger the public safety. 7 Attachment 2 \ ,) .-/ LITTLE CANADA -- -- / \, ~) / -.---/ ;t"-.}p#::~Z~G'!!W4<~Y':~O~:~~~~-~~~,,,,:l_:::-,----.,. ' <_ ." ~a _ - 0.. -- .-' -~ ~ _ _..__~_:""_~-:::::::,-~~\.~ ,/ /;,::: "" ""._rr::,---" --,< . --~._~:--_..-._,__ _""..'-- ,., / //'/- ~~ (--1 "-~-'-.'-.,::~~.'--'~-~~~~':"- -- - - -;:=--.-- L I // IJ I rrr-:;- -~~7 --~'-. ......_--:-:."-,.-~->-~ '" - -~ g+ /// II I- I - ~~-,-~~~~::.::- ~ ~ , :: 'i ~ -==- ' I \1 I .=.;:.~~, II / ~ - ~ I. -'+"-::- I I // (-~~ .---.- (-- -I If! ~ --\d........ ~~~' , .../ I' " V jl II,' ',I '~"""~ I) / I ' I II ! --.-' "::--.':'~ 1- '...... ",t;7 :: i\ ~:----\ ~ -', ( I II II ~ l ~ I,,' I II I ~'~ I II II r./ I) II- :: It ~ .~ ll"" ~ I ~,'1fJ .~~~ 11- ( __. :tAoR.tE:RD; { -":;':::j // ~-</~ _ ~I I " I f -I~ ,"I b~ il-l , ':'.o-i ,'~",~ '~,i ,-- ,-- d '''' r.' - . , f--" 1l1! ,', ",:, ~ll ltl II rl\r{':' f-- f--ii I~ !if--!i \ I !!~ j I~:=:::," E Jl ~ JL __ ~~ .::V~~ -,i' I 'I Ii -Ii I :JI I[ II II 1: - 'I' "-'i e- ~ " " I!!- , ! I 11- _ r, ~ I" i_ \.1 _ i i 5 _ I J I: II I [Iii "1 _:: ~- I -II I!I 0' I ~ i - ~ ~~c:--=-_-.c::-H uL ~':C___-=-_________-=: i ~. : ~ Ll- II II Jl II II II II II II II II Iii I \ ~.=::=--=--=--.:.-::=-=-=--=-. 1,1 1,1: ! g I I 11 ~ II II II II I\,!: I( \~---=-~-~~:.:_~.:=..:-..:-.:;', ":-..::::--.:----- -----=--~~-::..~- -:..---=--=----=-, r=--=--=-=-=--=- -=-} ~ 1\ fI)l H II II II ~I ~ II II II m I ~ \: /;;~-----=-~' I Iii ~ I I W : I ! ~~\ I ~ 11 p;j II t 1 \1 II J I ~ II 0._", II II II ~ I,! il___.._-- J~Aj! \ I I I ~---:---'----:.::;r I 11 ,I ,fIJ:KIb71 I I III - \ LITTLE CANADA lL: "-~-I1-~ =-. j) I Q,! J : , , , , , , , , , , , , II , 11, '1 i , , II I I ~, I i\~ ) 11 i I !\\ li~~ ii~~ --"" I~__- ~.::::--::...--::\ r----:.:--:=--::-=---::..-..::-.:..---:-.::.---~ II I " , " , " , " , " , :1 " " " I' " " " \I " Edgerton Park . LOCATION MAP 1J 8 N Attachment 3 --...;' LITTLE CANADA -- ~~- ---~---~--~--- --- ---....~-~--"'---- __n_~ --"---~ " ./" i !' l , , I I ( { I I , I \ I : I " I " I I 1 I " I I I I : \',. I i /'--- -- --- -- ----.- --.- --- -- --- - --- .-- ------ __LARKAIl!', ('-- --- ----- --- --- -- --- -- --- ---- I I to"<l" I I to to "<l" ! 1 r-.... CD \ I -c- N (t') i i · ~f;,= Ii if 0 ~!iB'bI I\\)J~ @B'jl I J 'I I D I I I D ! j '" 0 0 i!ii\ 2 !il DJ D" II i;21J 0 ~I I I I i I ~I ~FP ~.;!ill I;!i~ ~5,! ~ lli1 kD;;llI~ II to tl) r-... co 11 0 -c- N -M ~ ',t C\') (Q M (Q )1 "=t -<r::t -<r::t-<r::t I "-- --- -- --- ---- -- --- -- --- -- --- --- -- --- -- --- -- ---, "..-- -- ----- ---- --- -- --- -- --- -- --- ---' --- "'.. I _,,__~_~________________________~___~_~-_~--~l!.~~ I ,/ ~1 II d Vi II n 1 I ~ L1 [lJ ~~-'\: --;'1 D ~ I I ! I l-c':::-', I ,/"" P~OPOSE,D ~OT D1~~ION [] I I! Sl~: [J5 i i : I / o [] c;:] ~ I Cd [~ "<l" LD to C') C') C') ~ GJ ""<l" LD N "<l" ~I C') "<l" oq r-. C') ""<l" c!J D (-----~-- ---.-----~~--~J (------0-----..-- i ~~0S ~g! ( ~Q I L..ifJ c ~ IH 1;Sj I 1001 ! Jt1. P1D31~! 2W 9 1f N AREA MAP Attachment 4 10 11 N AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH Part of the West Half of Lots 1 and 8, Block 20, DAWSON'S SUBURBAN ACRE LOTS, lying South of Trunk Highway No. 36, Ramsey County Minnesota 919.3 920.0 '''F Proposed Legal Description l1SE. NO 3% Parcel A; Area:::: 8,814 sq fd: ... That part of the West Half of Lots 1 and 8, Block 20, ~ 919.4 DAWSON'S SUBURBAN ACRE LOTS, lying South of trunk q ~ Highway No. 36, Ramsey County, Minnesota according to the ~ (3 tecorded plat thereof and lying North of the Following C\l (/) described line; commencing at the Southwest corner ot said ~ ~":;':~cf"" Lot 8; thence North 00 degrees 23 minutes 48 seconds West 918.b assumed beating along the West line of Said Lot 8 a distance of 127.19 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be herein describe; thence North 89 degrees 52 minutes 31 seconds East 75.00 feet to the East line of the above described property and there terminating. r PROPOSED LOT DIVISION Fa, JOHN OLIVER CONSTRUCTioN Property located in Section 8, T ownsrup 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota '0= 918.05 '0 917.95 'o;"ING DRIVE 9/8.49 ~ .. R.!:.;:~":';' <j"00.44.72 :-. .20'55' ow> '0= 9/8044 '0= 916041 mspkJ20 39/9'b 918.5 , , : < 916.7 24.3 .<-!) /1SE. NO. 380 F=d'::':r) o..of'l*'>1 .~ ~ ,~ 12.1 ~. , , , . . .'~ . ","" I -:;'5.5q3.5~ 2.9 q -,- .~. .; a ,.; . 919.1 ,17.8 11.7 ~= ,-- O'''......,tcfm" " - ,F"""",""""'" 0./'_ , .~ '.911)./ 5.4 I1SE.II<>.3lJ8 I-S.FR G.n 2919.3 ..>~ 0"" ,M"W nJ 917.3 ",,'l 9/8.6 /XJl5nNG GARAGE 917.8 EXSISTrNG """'"' /115.4 ___________&114 ----;,3.4 , ~O.2'='''''''''' W.IHJ.lJ'+''''~ _.~ ~:::~~~ -- 1.;4'e.,.uJlJm. _____BI2----- "";,i1l.3 PROPOSED LOT DIVISION j j ~ ~ 919.3 /1.4 , , , , '. 910.". 911.5 ~~., \ , , : , 9/1.$ . , , \ {, : , , 'I:' I , , " (~', : 14. , : \ ~ , =~IG.O \ No 6"fnnt 8'/rwt,' 10"lnnt \ 0.1;1'&0. I \"" '9117 9117, 9123 \,', ~ :', *. i~V' ~",r= ,-'------~ 912.5 113.1 I "'~. ,I ,,",-CMlN 1/w...O.-'I' ,I t~c-::; \1. ~ .........If.5'" (,(0>,.",,-/' F""""'O.."......,/ ,.. N e.S'07'44" e _0.2':' / "'/DO""""'" 91;.3-' 91. 7-5-Ge-----5I8.-S- - __.e14;3 .--/ " -W--'tl_wJN"TW_W_'w--=w=W_V1.:....w--'tl---w--W--'tl--::"J-~"-W-"!.T ff L_',6------------------------ .--,,~' ed'!Jb>t ':d'!Jbit Itdqblt SIG.5G 9/7.3-'1 SM.25 r 518,3 ). ~ ~ 10"t,.,.., 911.2 ~3/2, 9/0.8. o , 1IW1.'J'rcp 912.3~~\ 9/0.7 ,~, HSE NO. 2255 5/2,4 .9/1./ .-J o."'W,,,,/ 14.4 '-' t1~". N". 379 ,. 915.8 9/4.6 .915.5 9Wc",."",.oflo'" LARK AVENUE Attachment 5 xOOO.O Denotes Exlsllng Elevation @oenotesproPOSedEleVallon ~oenolasSurfaceorainllge NOTE: Proposed grades are sUbJect 10 rasulls 01 soij tests. Proposed building informallon must be checked with approved buildlng,plan and developmenl or gradIng ph:1n before excaveilon and conslruclion. Proposed glildes silown on_",is survey era interpolalionsofproposed'contourslromlhe drainaga.gradlnijandfordeveJopmenlplans. Proposed Top of Block Proposed Garage Floor Proposed Lowast Roor Type of Building Existing Legal Description fJ/9.0 Area:::: 18,316 1 , 1 j ! 1 J Parcel B: Area:::: 9,502 sq fd That pant of theWest half of Lot 8; Block 20, DAWSON'S SUBURBAN ACRE LOTS, Ramsey County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof and lying South of the following described line: Commencing at the Southwest comer of said Lot 8; thence North 00 degrees 23 minutes 48 seconds West assumed bearing, along the West line of said Lot 8 a distance of 127.19 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be herein described; thence NOlth 89 degrees 52 minutes 31 seconds East 75.00 feet to the East line of the above described propenty and there terminating. Easement for dog kennel and landscaping use: Area:::: 384 sq Ed That part of the West Half ofLat 8, Block 20, DAWSON'S SUBURBAN ACRE LOTS, Ramsey County, Minnesota according to the recorded plat thereof described as follows; Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Lot 8; thence North 00 degrees 23 rrUnutes 48 seconds West assumed bearing along the West line of said Lot 8 a w:itance of127.19 feet; thence North 89 degrees 52 minutes 31 seconds East 51.30 feet to the Point of Beginning of the easement to be herein described;:thence continuing North 89 degrees 52 minutes 31 seconds East 23.70 feet to the Eastline of said West half of Lot.8; thence South 00 degrees 23 minutes 48 seconds East along,said 'East line 17.90 feet; thence North 88 degrees 42 minutes_55 seconds West 14.78 feet; thence North 00 degrees 13 minutes 35 seconds East 3.63 -feet; thence N01:th 89 degt:ee3 31 minutes 00 seconds West 8.83 feet; thence North 00 degrees 55 minutes 10 seconds West 13.76 feet to the Point of Beginning and there terminating. SITE PLAN 11 j-5-()7 11 N Attachment 6 Page 1 of 1 Enl!:ineerinl!: Plan Review PROJECT: 388 Viking Drive PROJECT NO: 06-14 REVIEWED BY: Erin Laberee, Assistant City Engineer, City of Maplewood DATE OF REVEW: September 20, 2007 The property owner at 388 Viking Drive is proposing variances and a lot split. The Maplewood Engineering Department has the following comments: Drainal!:e 1. The portion of the lot that the owner wants to build on is in a very low area of the neighborhood. Several backyards in the area drain to this low area. The home directly to the west of this site also sits very low. In the past, this area has had flooding issues. In the early nineties, the city installed an outlet pipe to help drain this low area to the storm sewer under Lark Avenue. 2. The property owner is proposing to fill in a portion of the low area. The project engineer has provided the city plans showing the construction of a rainwater garden on the property to compensate for the filled in area. City staff has concerns that a future property owner may fill in the required rainwater garden. Such filling could create a flooding problem. 3. As noted above, the city installed a storm water outlet pipe to help drain the existing low area. If the city approves the variance requests and the proposed lot split, the city require the owner to install a secondary storm water outlet to help drain the low area. The additional drain would be in place to help remove storm water from the area in the event that the current flared end section gets plugged or otherwise could not handle the storm water on the property. 4. Overall, city staff has concerns that if the city approves these requests and the owner builds a new house in this location that a future property owner may not adhere to the requirements set by the city. If such a chain of events were to occur, the city could become responsible to correct flooding or other problems that might occur. 12 Page 1 of2 Attachment 7 Ken Roberts -"'_._----------~----~--_._--~-"-----,~-~.,--_._-_._------ From: Mike Busse [mike_busse@msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 31,2007 1 :29 PM To: Ken Roberts Subject: 388 Viking Drive variance Attention: Mr. Ken Roberts City of Maplewood Hello Ken, My name is Michael Busse. Together with my wife Janet, live at our residence, at 384 Lark Avenue, Maplewood. This letter represents response to an invitation to do so with regard to the survey sent out to area residents. It regards request for variance input concerning the rearmost property addressed at 388 Viking Drive. We appreciate being included. Citizen involvement for this process is important because sometimes facts of the matter can and sometimes do get lost. In any event, citizens may be able to bring some light to clarify the issue. Even though some have moved on, there remain a few homeowners that are acutely familiar with the property at 388. It offers a number of memories, but.... storm water history stands alone and more vivid. In a nutshell, because surrounding geographical areas leading to our specific part of the neighborhood include many square blocks, we know that they all deliver runoff to the immediate lower streets here and partially to the subject property. Naturally, there then is the means for continual water and flood history to establish itself. (Unsure by who, but the area, was mentioned to be one of Maplewood's lowest points) This is an existing condition and follows the natural lay of the land. While living here during the last 32 years, we have actually looked out in wonder, seeing the huge volumes of water accumulate in the street and sometimes in the lot just across our street. As the City knows all too well, there have been monumental (monumental to us) drainage problems for the area and particularly at both 388 Viking and 379 Lark. If one looks at the pavement down toward the pump house on Lark, it can be seen that every year it buckles and breaks up. Needs to be patched because of water pooling over the top of the street during storms. The road does not have a crown. The two addresses we have concern with are 388 Viking Drive and 379 Lark. They have had numerous bouts with water drainage. So much so, that during and after major, major rain storm events, the area has been known to become lake like..... totally overwhelmed. At 379 Lark, the basement completely flooded, too many times to count actually. Water would run in from all across the back side, in through closed windows and over foundation wall sill plates. We're talking flooded. Actually knee deep on occasions. So much water inside not draining anywhere, that trash pumps from the rental were required every time. The yard next door would need to be equally pumped, just to rid standing water there and to regain control once again. Water eventually would pump out of the lot and relieve 379 somewhat. On one occasion, one side of the foundation at 379 Lark completely caved into the basement after a 7/31/2007 13 Page 2 of 2 storm event. Mason's had to be called to come and completely rebuild it. As mentioned, because 388 Viking is so low, it takes on migrating water from several adjoining neighboring yards and also many others beyond those. A visual survey will verify this. This lot is and always has been a natural drainage path destination. Nature made it so. But some years ago, a storm water culvert was installed by the city on this private property at 379 Lark Ave. I'm not sure how their involvement came about to take from the general fund and spend on private property, but the extensive project (approx. $150,000) was placed there as a means to help control and relieve area watershed going to the lot. Thankfully it helped. It works fairly well, but not in every case. We have seen it on occasion get very well challenged and there has been standing water from watershed after the more severe rain storms for a period of time. Also, notably, it seems that when the pump house circuits fail, (at corner of Lark and Mc Menemy) there can be a problem with drainage in this whole residential neighborhood. Not sure, but maybe because of the low land area, hence the need for the pump house. I personally have called the City many times on weekends to try to get someone sent out to rectify the alarm that sounds to reset the pump motor after storms. That's what we were told to do if we ever hear it. It also has a flashing trip warning beacon on a post top near the pump house. Regarding the variance, it remains fact that we are not against sensible development, but feel very strongly that in considering past water history, coupled with the fact that this property does not meet Maplewood's minimum standard, building there would exasperate an already well known problem. We know that it would put unfair burdens onto properties adjacent. The decrease of pervious space once after a new house was there, even more so would increase those burdens. If the city is willing to gamble that the culvert will defend the storm water runoff issues, then it must not be aware of what happens during the major storm events. The culvert helps, but what about during heaviest rains and coupled with diminished drainage space. Furthermore, what about potential debris clogs to the culvert? 379 Lark homeowner was asked to keep it visually monitored. Will he or others bear unnecessary consequences if he fails to do so. A good bet, that even a 25 year rain might well flood the culvert area if pervious space is decreased and a few sticks or leaves get in the way. Watershed protection is not ever completely guaranteed and in this case, because engineered drainage can fail, surely it would be a bad gamble. Also, one would ask, is there or could there ever be a public safety concern with anyone caught around the culvert while it drains a historic storm event. There are more of those monumental type storms of late. Finally, there are still other questions to ask if a building is approved for the lot. What size? Placing a small building onto a small lot possibly destabilizes area home values. One also asks where any potential children at the new address would hang out. Around the culvert, or in the street. Again, safety logically becomes the focal concern. I have an interesting idea... I do not know the owner of the property, but why not the city buy this land from that owner and then use it for a small neighborhood play park. Our kids are all grown and away, but this could be a win, win for the neighborhood, the city and the owner. Just a thought. Respectfully submitted by Michael and Janet Busse 7/31/2007 14 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE OF REPORT: DATE OF MEETING: RE: Maplewood Planning Commission Rose Lorsllllg, Senior Planner Schoell Madson Inc. September 24, 2007 October 2, 2007 South Maplewood Study OVERVIEW The City of Maplewood passed a moratorium on November 13, 2006 in order to study the existing and planned land uses and future zoning for all parcels south of Carver A venue. The City then hired Schoell Madson this year to begin the phase one portion of the study which involved the public input component. The City conducted a total of four community meetings where all the issues outlined in the moratorium ordinance were discussed by the City and interested citizens. From these meetings and additional research, Schoell Madson prepared an Executive Summary and reported back to the City COllllcil for further consideration. On August 16, 2007 the City COllllcil authorized Schoell Madson to begin phase two of the study which includes updating the land use map and text and the implementation items including a Comprehensive Plan amendment and new zoning. APPROACH The Executive Report established the findings of phase one of the study. There were two major topics of interest that arose from the first phase, one being the fUture land use as it relates to the availability of sewer, and the protection of natural resources. LAND USE: DENSITY In order to detennine the land use of any parcel that is in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA), the regional planning requirements first need to be examined. The Metropolitan Council writes and enforces said policies so Schoell Madson reviewed the policies and how the City's l\IUSA area compares with the current requirements for density and se\Ver. Upon review of this infonnation, it was determined that the Maplewood has developed at a density that exceeds the current requirements that have been established for this decennial Comprehensive Plan review. This density requirement is 3-5 units per net acre of developable property. The net acre requirement was also elaborated on during our community meetings. Maplewood currently computes density in the l\IUSA area on a gross calculation. For instance, if a preliminary plat comes in under the R-l land use and had 5 acres of land, the City would calculate the number of lots allowed to be 21 (4.3 units per gross acre). The Metropolitan Council requirements are to calculate under a net calculation so if the parcel had any areas that were "not developable" including slopes over 18%, water or wetlands etc, those areas would be deducted from the 5 acres of gross property before computing the final number of units allowed. Under this example, if the 5 acres had 2 acres of slopes over 18%, the final number of units allowed would be 13 (4.3 units per net acre). South Maplewood: Opening Discussion fW The other policy that the Metropolitan Council has related to land use is the overall required density for parcels in the :MUSA area. The Metropolitan Council has this policy because they provide the sewer service to each City within the 7-county metro area and have a financial stake in the efficiency of the service they provide. Installing and maintaining sewer service is very expensive so therefore they require 3-5 units per net acre (with a minimum of 3 units) as an average within the entire :MUSA area. This is computed city-by-city. Maplewood is entirely within the :MUSA area so the calculation, in order to know where the City stands for this requirement, is based on the density of all development in the City (note: because this is a new requirement of the Metropolitan Council, they only ask that the City calrulate the units by plat for all those developed since the year 2000). While this ne\\' requirement sounds concerning, it should not burden this process or any future land use change in the community. The reason for this is partially due to the fact that when staff computed the net density in the :MUSA since the year 2000, the City was over 6 units per net acre and also due to the fact that the City is nearly entirely developed. Revised Develooment Framework 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Population 30,954 35,258 37,500 38,100 39,300 Households 11.496 13,758 15,600 16,500 17,500 (Units) The chart above shows the Metropolitan Council's requirements for total households and population for the upcoming Comprehensive Plan forecast. From the chart you can see that the Metropolitan Council is only expecting 4,042 additional people moving into the City by the year 2030. What this means is that the land use designations for the upcoming land use plan in tenns of density per net acre, only needs to accommodate up to 39,300 persons. In looking at the land use patterns outside of the study area, we see that there is a considerable amount of redevelopment under higher densities (Gladstone and Legacy Village as examples). A good amount of the required new residential units for the new Comprehensive Land Use Plan will thusly be accounted for outside of the study area. This information is very important as we look at new land use designations for the South Maple\\'ood study area and will help in implementing any strategies related to the second topic of interest that arose from the work during phase hvo: protecting the area's natural resources. . r Ii; C> Z :; '" UJ >- "'~ l_ ."'ll..o...t'-.gR.....,.nt...- .'''''It.poracnm.....,m } M,,!,l,wood Current Land Use Map ...glo.,.....R...k1.nt...__ {~~r-...~f~ -.; if ...g.. Olo.IIlng Jt_nllaI' ."wnlt.por_......lmlln __ntwntol.- lQ,OOlIoq,n._ v'" '"<v~ A -~ South Maplewood: Opening Discussion 2 fW NATURAL RESOURCES Because the study area is highly undeveloped, Schoell Madson reviewed the ground cover using aerial photography and studies that had been done by the watersheds (wetlands), county (Minnesota Land Cover Classification System- MLCCS) and state (DNR for the Critical Area). The focus for the study in terms of natural resources was hvofold: 1) Study what is rurrently protected by ordinance (wetlands, slopes, trees, public waters); and 2) Study what ground cover can't be developed due to the physical constraints and the requirement of the net calrulation for density. - ..-- .- .---- - -....----- .-.-.....- .-.--....-- .-.--..---.- .-.---...- --- .:a__, --. The outcome of the study produced several maps that show both the location and type of natural feature but also what is not developable. Schoell Madson recognizes the City's interest in protecting natural resources which is evident with the recent tree and wetland ordinances as well as the shoreland and critical area ordinances. Due to the area's significant natural resources, specifically maple basswood forest (deforestation and disruption of wildlife area/movement), fish creek (and the surrounding slopes-erosion and water quality issues) we felt the need to research and map a "greenway corridor" through the study area and into adjacent communities (Schoell Madson conferred with Newport and Woodbury, Newport is interested in connecting to the corridor, and Woodbury already has one that extends east and south of Carver Lake for which parcels have an Open Space land use designation). The corridor has several functions. Firstly, it identifies geographically where the natural resources (and wildlife) are which is helpful to residents and developers alike. Secondly, land use designations and policy can be implemented for the parcels that fall within or partially within the corridor. Finally, the area can become a key element of the Open Space component of the Comprehensive Plan's Parks, Trails and Open Space chapter. This concept has been implemented in Maplewood before but wasn't partnered with a greenway corridor; the policy was to map and purchase parcels with significant natural resources or for passive and active recreation (city parks and open spaces). Many communities (Woodbury, St. Paul, Lake Elmo, etc) and counties (Ramsey, Washington, Dakota etc) in the area have already adopted a greenway corridor and have begun restoration projects and protection measures. For instance, the DNR partnered with Metro Greenways and Embrace Open Space (hvo non-profit organizations doing this type of planning) to create an, "Envisioning Conservation Corridors" map of the seven county metro area (see attochment). Please review the DRAFT greenway corridor on the top ofthe next page. South Maplewood: Opening Discussion 3 fW CZI'-'__ -- -- ----,- -, ..----- u_.__.._ --.--..--- --.--..---.- -......---..-- --- .---, --' -- ---- Note: If the City chooses to implement a greenway corridor, Schoell Madson suggests the preparation of a Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) mapping study in order to correctly map where all the natural resources are in the study area. In order to prepare a draft, Schoell Madson relied on orlhophotography with flights in the year 2005, therefore inaccuracies are assumed. PROPOSED LAND USE CHANGES With conservation design principles for properties vvithin or partially within the greenway corridor, the proposed land use changes are as follows: 1. Create a "Residential Cluster Development" RCD Land Use designation a. Density: 12,500 square foot lots ------- 65,000 square foot lots (3.5 units per net acre) (1.5 acre lots) 1. Policy: Parcels in the RCD district would have be subdivided/designed and clustered (see attached pictures) arolllld the natural resources. A1lovving varying size parcels vvithin the development allows the developer some flexibility in tenns of housing product and location of the right types of housing produce vvith proximity to natural resources, viewsheds, access, infrastructure etc. 11. Clustering the lots allows for open spaces vvithin the development that can be used for a variety of purposes to suit the residents (trails, restoration, park etc). 111. Clustering allows for areas to be put into permanent protection via a conservation easement. 2. Create a "Fann" F Land Use designation South Maplewood: Opening Discussion 4 fW a. Density: 1 unit per 10 gross acres (parcels in a "holding district" may be calculated on a gross acreage), ISTS Septic Subdivisions only. 1. Policy: Use this district (note: city has Fann zoning but no land use district) for purposes of a holding zone, determine land use when more appropriate (VVoodbury develops commercial, O\Vllers want to develop) 3. Keep the R-l Single-Dwelling land use designation and density of 4.3 units per net acre over certain portions of property where access to infrastructure, current development exists llllder same designations and natural resources are less ablllldant. 4. Keep the RE-40 land use designation over the Haller's Woods property, 40,000 square foot lots. 5. Keep the OS Open Space land use designation and density of 0 units per net acre (preservation cOllllty-owned property). The map above (and attached) references the parcels that Schoell Madson has designated to the four land uses vvithin the study area. Note that the majority of parcels that surrolllld the greenway corridor and shoreland overlay areas are vvithin the new RCD-Residential Cluster Development land use designation. The area on the west side of Interstate Highway 494 and south of Carver A venue have remained vvithin the RI-Single Dwelling designation and finally, the Bailey Nursery property has been put into a urban reserve holding designation we are now proposing as F-Fann. Note: Discussion ofwning to follow. As noted earlier in the memo, when detennining land use for an area, the regional density requirements need to be evaluated. This is even more important when the decennial South Maplewood: Opening Discussion 5 fW Comprehensive Plan update is due to the Metropolitan COllllcil. Schoell Madson calculated the gross and net acres for each designation area and then computed the minimum and maximum number oflots that could be built as a result of the new land uses. We also took into accollllt the existing homes and general population per household (2.3 used). The calculations of added units and population are sho\Vll in the chart below: Gross Net Desi~nation Parcels Acres Undev Acres LU Des~ OS 6 76.1 76.1 0 "' FARM 2 77.02 6.5 70.52 1u/10ac ReO 37 187.6 53.1 134.5 3.5u/a-1.5aclots RE40 21 35.83 "' "' 1.1u1a R1 40 55.65 10.4 45.25 4.3u/a Totals 106 432.2 146.1 250.27 "' Min Min Max Max Min Max Existing Existing Total AVG Desianation O"n Units O"n Units poo poo Homes poo poo OS na na na na 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.00 FARM 10aclot 7.05 10.00 7.05 16.22 16.22 0 0 16.22 ReO 1.5aclot 201.75 3.5u/a 470.75 464.03 1082.73 28 64.4 773.375 RE40 1.1u/a 21.00 1.1u/a 21.00 48.30 48.30 21 48.3 48.3 R1 4.3u/a 194.58 4.3u/a 194.58 447.52 447.52 38 87.4 534.92 T'&t"3.ls - 424.38 - 693.38 976~O7. 1594.77 87 200'1 1372.82 na na The Metropolitan COllllcil expects arolllld 4,000 new residents to the City by the year 2030. As you can see from the chart above, the expected number of new residents for the entire study are is arolllld 1,400 or roughly 35% of the total population expectation for the City. Schoell Madson believes that this is a reasonable number of residents for this area due to the unique characteristics and development trends (larger lots vvith larger homes and open spaces). PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION In order to implement these new land uses, modifY the existing ones (Land Use chapter) and introduce a greenway corridor (Parks, Trails and Open Space chapter) in the community, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment would have to be completed to the Metropolitan COllllcil after a supermajority vote of the City COllllcil. The policies for the RCD district vvill be discussed in both the Land Use and Parks Plan, which vviil include the general implementation strategies for the overall policy. Note: Discussion in recommendation section to follow. After that, the official controls would need to be added or modified to marry the zoning and engineering requirements vvith the land use policies. This would include: . A Rural Cluster Development zoning district (key is flexibility): o Requirements for design o Incentives for protection/permanent protection o Incentives for infrastructure (sewer, water, roads etc) . Sewer (more incentives) . ISTS (only llllder certain stipulations-group system preferred) o Incentives for low impact engineering South Maplewood: Opening Discussion 6 fW . Swales . Stonn water treatment trains . Rainwater gardens . Less impervious surfaces . Minimal grading/protection of conditionally-buildable slopes . Elimination ofR1R two acre zoning. The new zoning for RCD better accomplishes the goals of sensitive design, natural resource protection and infrastructure implementation. . Modification of the Fann zoning to discuss the density of one unit per ten acres and only llllder an IS TS design. . Minor modifications to the Shoreland and Critical Overlay districts MORATORIUM DEADLINE The moratorium officially ends on November 13, 2007 but the Statute does allow for a l20-day extension for those land use studies that meet a certain criteria in tenns of timing of implementation strategies. As noted earlier, the City is embarking on the decennial Comprehensive Plan update to the Metropolitan COllllcil with an expected completion date of Spring, 2008. The City has two choices for the implementation of the final proposed land use changes: 1) Complete a Comprehensive Plan Amendment after public hearings and supennajority City Council vote (likely late this year), or 2) Extend the moratorium for an additional 120 days and put the changes in the complete Comprehensive Plan update. RECOMMENDATION Schoell Madson recommends the continued review of the greenway corridor and proposed land use changes by the Environmental and Natural Resources Commission, Planning Commission and City COllllcil. Schoell Madson further recommends extending the moratorium 120 days to March 12, 2008 in order to complete the Comprehensive Plan and implement the final proposed changes, with zoning to follow. PROPOSED SCHEDULE October 2nd: Environmental and Natural Resources Commission, Planning Commission October 8th: City COllllcil holds public hearing and passes moratorium extension resolution October 16th: Environmental and Natural Resources Commission (with Jennifer Haskamp, project manager for the Parks, Trails and Open Space Comp Plan update), Planning Commission November 26th: City COllllcil workshop December 10th: City COllllcil workshop Feb-Mar, 2008: Public Hearings for Amendment ATTACHMENTS 1. Proposed Land Use Map South Maplewood: Opening Discussion 7 fW 2. Current Land Use Map 3. Current Zoning Map 4. Natural Resources Map 5. DRAFT Greenway Corridor Map 6. "Envision Conservation Corridors" Map 7. Cluster Subdivision Literature South Maplewood: Opening Discussion 8 fW Park Single Dwelling Residential- 4.3 units per acre maximim I- en C) z - ..J 0:: w I- en Single Dwelling Residential- 4.3 units per acre maximim Maplewood Planned Land Use Attachment 2 parcels w ~ ~ ::) I- Z W U Maplewood Planned Land Use Level 1 PLUSE_DESC _ Heavy Industrial _ Light Manufacturing _ Business Commercial _ Business Commercial - Maplewood SC _ Business Commercial Modified D Commercial Office _ Limited Business Commercial _ Neighborhood Commercial _ Residential High Density (8.4-12 units per acre) _ Double Dwelling Residential D Residential Medium Density D Single Dwelling Residential D Small Lot Single Dwelling Residential (4.4-7 units/acre) D Residential Low Density (4.3 units per acre max.) D Residential Estate - 40,000 sq. ft. D Residential Estate - 30,000 sq. ft. D Church _ Cemetery _ Fire Station _ Institution/Schools _ Library _ Government (Golf Course) _ Open Space (Golf Course) _ Open Space _Park D Water D Water/Utility _ Government _City _ Railway D Vehicular Right-of-Way N Attachment 3 Legend DiJDOOmi sanitarywater _n n -- stormpipes sewerpipes ........ MCES Sewer Int parcels _ structures zoning cityzoning CJf CJr1 _ r1 (r) CJ re40 99 Sewer Dist. D o Attachment 6 Key ISANTI The Twin Cities region is a treasure trove of natural areas. Generations of private and public conservation efforts have created our system of parks, trails and greenways. As the region grows, a strong conservation ethic must steer our course in the future. Without it, our irreplaceable natural areas can become hemmed-in and fragmented, lessening their ability to provide recreational opportunities, serve wildlife habitat and protect our water resources. WRIGHT This map presents a vision of conservation corridors that may guide both resource stewardship and development to assure a healthy balance between the two. Conservation corridors are continuous bands of protective vegetation that surround and connect our region's wetlands, lakes, woodlands, parks and prairies. MCLEOD Z en Z o u en . ... :s: ~ Conservation Corridors Priority areas for private and public restoration and preservation efforts. Communities and natural resource experts identified the conservation corridors through a process led by the Metro Conservation Corridors Partnership. oJ' _ Publicly Owned Natural Areas Larger parks and preserves that contain natural plant communities and animal habitat, including regionally significant ecological areas. 1. (... ~ j ~ - '...".... .. .., ~ - Search Areas for New Regional Parks Regionally Significant Ecological Areas The seven county metro area's most important plant and animal habitats, as defined in a recent scientific assessment. LE SUEUR - Urban Areas RICE o N A 5 Miles Conservation Corridors preserve and connect... ,.. ~- Anoka Sand Plain Natural Areas The prairies, oak savannas, forests and wetlands, extending from the north metro to 51. Cloud, are home to a vast array of wildlife. ... z o z > j' :5 Ii -\ "' _ i;(".!:: .~. '". . . .l.; '.1 i:'.- ., . .~. " .0"0/.\1' _. ,. .~.,::;. "~ "':-'l<il'<1 !'"'' "":':,.,-. .~ ' ',"f';;'" .lit. :'.- .' l"j,(' :<)"'. .... . '\':1 ~'.'. . I.,.... , ,,>; , - .~~.. .~ ~ .....~., ';>'., "~, -. i~ :,' "I;";. .~~ 'r;,~~<:,w.~. :"",,.i'~.;';~ "". ' ....1-.. ~.. 'tl . ,~, . ~""". '''1' \?i >,...., ..,: :-~ i:.!.........,,'. *1'....,..~ or . . .-. .'. -. ;:'~...,. .'l'-.\,}C. ~ I: ~\f~::J:i;"'" 1 ;;ht",~... '/l';.~'m; ~ ~' tt";.t~~'~'{tI'~.~f.~~l~~-~'i\\r~~~~;:.: :.... . . ii..' if." .__. ':'''4:- _ "~':..'...: :. '" _. ..'.':; ,'" :;' If< ..~. .,_(>.... ~" '" . ....;~~ .. _~ "';"'; ". ., ~ ., \" ~~'m' ... -!!?i~' ~'."., \. "". ~. .J" ..'t~!. .;~l".. " . 11.11 .~..~- I . I" ~,...,. .,.";"".",,,. . ""~ . '!."'~,!ol ~~l' .' '.. '. ~";":"'." ';'\1~:~(:' .; ,_. ., l,; '..>If :>"',' . _. .. '., ~'. ...... '~':"~ '. ;. '. ., "~~;;.' <"oC ;.~,..;;.~ __~,,;:;.- .. '. . ""',, --:;:t~,[ '~"''''' ''''"''' 'y T 'fr.~' .~. ~ ft...">""&" ",," " ~', (-F.. '.' .. Big Woods The Maple-Basswood forests, located south of Anoka Sand Plain and west of the Mississippi River, harbor woodland species and a carpet of spring flowers. z > ~ I , o .~ Waterways Plant communities along the bluffs, floodplains and banks of rivers and their tributaries protect water qua lity and provide food and shelter for migrating species. z o z > ~- ~ S .'JI' Prairies and Savannas Grassland species thrive in the south metro region's open vistas of undulating prairie and sheltering oak groves. ct -.. -:~. .~. ~ ,""l;1Oi<"'_~"':';~t 't > .,., " ~i _". "".~" ",' , -.- > :,;:...("} "3'~, "':'i'~'i'''~~~..' '.; " .11\ ,/:1 ',' ~., ;J.= ",. \ ~ .',....., 1;i';;. ~-!..'. .r'.~v.t" . .,,'" , ". h- ~ .. "-;;'.:"," ,"1, ~f' '.l"".J '.. . <r~. :...~.,,::t." 'JI ,. ."., '{'. ." ". ..! '&.l' .;. '; 'k' . :. ;\-".:' , . .'~<t~"":- .\ - \:'. l~. " ',', . .... . ....... . ""1_ " ~,.~, . ..". '. )... '~';', ~. ~ < \: '" or,.., ~.~... ......... _ '.. :7 _. ~~. ... ....._ ~,)~. , o i Side-oats Grama Urban and Suburban Greenways Parks and trails with native plantings bring natura I beauty into the heart of city neighborhoods. o 1; :l I- C/) Z Cl - C/) W o I- Z w :E a. o ..J W > W o > W ..J ..J ~ X - o a: u r: C/) w J: I- f' f.:...... "jll"'" ._d:.r..~_w -"'-1' ......k'S!'. , .i>>iJl~ '~Z"" ".~' . . " :: ............- ,'L I . ~_k>", :~~':'A-:":'{_.';.,:':_:~~:'___~"~,,, ,~ ,J..,:., 'I',. '. '., '. .'. . '-'. ~ . , - ",'., ',.'..' .\.". "1' ,'. . '1' ~. ''.'-'-'" .-S;-,',: .,',' . .._"x:..\. ',J-'L:. '."..". . ,-'t. -~t: ~ ;.::,:~l:' -" _:: :l~ .,': ~'.': :\lJ7"......!. ..... .'w....--..:.:.:! -~~~:-~', :~.':-~-:..:: , . . .'. ..~ f .;.-......... \:', ~ (\. .... :.:.. .:D" . : ~.\ .. ....""' - .Cr '-.....,.,... .-:-" , ~',~ -". '_'-:_":'Y'l.. _ . =>. j~ o ~.Ql .!!! :::I ~ Cl~O '!:'iij:::" [;ECQ t'iwll; 0" _ -" 0' -<>: .....l::E ii'~ e E_- 0._. .,S!-E:ii ~:::c: .. ' c"~ ...~3: Ql III e Ul2Cl -=clii u.- c VI Q.l.2 ::Irn'"!:"'Ot Vj"C"'CO) '-0."'00) Ql 0 Ill..... > 5..01 . (iia..!:'5 III iii C 15 >."'0 ~ :.;:-;::0<( l:..!!!E= Ql :::I E III ><">0"'0 l: 'E <..> c o III <..> III U ComO::: Attachment 7 ..... -elll '- C C Q) l/) Q) Q) Ill."!: w..c E....- IJ> .!:::! E Q) a.OQ)Q.l l/):::I..l:: o l/):5..1::"'O '-..... 1::1- ~~~;:E"*~~~ Q) III "'C Q) :::I 0 III "'C Cllll..cu >.lll a. liilJ1.!: E I:: III W IJ> IJ> I::N E..... Q) _.;::~ I:: o >>:::1 Ill-oti Ill..... Q) .-- 1J>..e-o III > a. "E"iii 1::......- '- '- 20 Q)UOIJ>..e.....Q)1ll >.0.. U ~.!!! :5 iij -0 ::: I:: z. Q)-:::I '- U Q) 0 IJ> o_.....iijQ)I::'-E ~15~~~-;;; ~~ ffi IJ>- I::"iii u..... IJ> U III Q)Q)Q)'-Q)I::Q)u"iii mOlE:::I..e Q) IJ> Ill._ l.: '- a.iij.....~:::I 0"E ti..!!!OI::.....IJ>~.....1ll ..:! -0 W - III ~::l:: d)'ti = Q) > Q)-o..... OlN..c _ N Q).~ I:: IJ>.;;::.- :::I Q).w -0 t) 0 0 ,IJ> IJ> ~ I ~.!:~E ~.!: Ol ..cE:.;::;ti"iiiooQ)1:: 1ll.j2 I:: 'i5 E.......Q t>.~ -.- Q) IJ> IJ> 1lI III Q) <1= I:: I:: Q) ."!:- IJ> Q) :::I Ill..e Q) E 1::..... Q) -..e............e=1ll0'- Q) U Q) Olt-~c....... a. -E:.c~:.5qjo.....::::t~ I:: 3: III III U -:ii.....:.c 0I:::c[i..!!!2E>-~ 1::.- ..... a.0 = III -'"2=_- a.1ll1J>- c..E 2.g.!!! 2~ [i."!: Q)~Ill-o~~~1::5 ..e III ~ I:: a..1:: Q) ~_ t- a.OlIllIJ> a.-o_o - " " E c. o " > " o ~ " - '" :J U '" :J '" ~ ~ (ij " .Q - " " > " o U " .........~ CII l:: ...... Q,) J:: CI.l ~ E~~~ - Q.e" tnVl U 0 tn"=-g -ccco n:s Q,)"5>>"CO...J ... > CO"E co :aCClliij'iij:; ..... :;;:;;0:: . ~ IJ> ~Q)o Q): IllUO ..e4=Q)_Ill..... -;;;~ u.8 g-~ ~ >>..... III III > 0 I:: a. Q) 1::..... ~ '-.- (f.l > Q) III iij ~ ti IJ> :.;::; a...e..... .... Q)..... I:: III 0......- Q)-o:ii~EIJ>2.g g-I::-o02Q)~..e U Q).w -o"iii E IJ>"S IJ><I=Q) :::IQ)_ -0 0 '-~~ IJ>..... Ol I:: I::....."iii..c I:: III I:: III '- ~ U III 0 Q).c -.a l.: 0 [i U t> III ~ I:: ~..!!!':i:i13-o Q)E 2.- III '-.- I:: ..eiij. a.~ III '- Q).~ -E cii Ill. -0- 0 ::: ~ IJ>.~.!!!-=;;- I:: ~ o ....._ ~ Q).....- 5o..!!!.- >>1:::::Itil::~=E "5 Q)rn:::lQ)a.1ll1ll . IllEQ)-EIJ>IJ>-1:: Q) a.-~ a.", Q) 5.~ ..0 o "iii- ...2 l.:.~_ t) Q)w'-Q)Q)2iij=Q) ..e > :::I U >. > Ill..... I- Q) iij..!!! Q) ......;:: E e -0 I:: a.O..2 a.1J> a. " -o~ :?:1J>1ll .!:215 IJ> >>."!:-a Q) ..... IJ> Q) Q)_ 1::.- Ol I:: Q) -0 a. e"iii.-.~ III Q)'-I::Ill:::lU-O-o~ E.j2 III U 0 0.. Q) !: U a.Ol:t.{g:t~i::::..e1ll ..2.!:.1:: I:: ,-'- Q)"!: Ol ~ i::::.m..!!! Q) w:t 3:.!: Q) Q) l.: Q) i:::: Q) '-0. ~~.!: -0 IJ> a._ Q)."!: ~ III Q) _..0 IJ> IJ> IJ> III E :t :s...{g g: ~.S!.m ti ~ U Q) I:: Iii a. 5 Q)-O ..!!!=..!!!>oti:UQ)~ a...e W >>......- E..... ..e 3: 3:= 1J>..e2 '-Ol U IJ> III a. ,-.- III I:: III -:::1- 0 IJ>_._ o m :t.!!!~ IJ> III 5 ~ '- '- a.> Ol_ :::I ::illl 0 '- g.!: o~ U lll~liio"iii~"E:::Ig '-:.;::; a.L-......::; Q) iij 2.w Q)"iii.:-_..c e I:: 2 ~ I:: 2.S! IJ> IJ> Q) Ol..2 _Q)IJ>Ol~Illa.I::Q) U ~-o-~ .a..eo'ij; IJ> Q) IJ> I:: 0 III um._:::I F~..!!!~~51.8iii~ c c .0 >-.~ ~c. IJ>= U ti>>..!!! o::!: a. U'- - . .o~ 5 -0 I:: _c_ U _ u 2. . -~. ~ gJ E -"0 .!:'QI Q)..e W >-- - ~c . c . C . E -.0. U ~ 0 Ol.....W C ~> .1:: I:: Q) 2.0-0 . 0 ~ O~ . O~I:: (/) >- ro _ 52Q) ~ "'OQ)..c ........ cowl-Q)4- 2t5 .:5 0 ..cCCC5 ~Q)Q)OQ) 5: OJ E (/) -s; "'05: 0...-0"'0 Q)........ocoQ) -E~~2t5 =(/)Q)c2 - Q)",o.(O........ BDlOJEJIl cco..c 0 Q)-E.......Q)c E=:5:5:J CO-o 0 O)af Q) c~c.;;:: r.n ::oro:J.Qt) "00 (/) 0 CO CO g (/)6..c(/)~iJ Q).-........ Q) CO c ot5'-E :J ~ Q) Q) 0 C 0 ct..cco..... (:CO'+-5:; roO..cOO(/) (f)()(/)........__ COQ)Q)CCUCO '- '- Q) '- -goroE~2 C: E ~ Q) ro_(/) Q)..c () 0) c........ (/) ~ c ~;;::: a3 ~SE!t:'--E o...--=.~ CO 20... (/)"m"'O Q) Q) 0 TI l:; ill ~ .~ ill c co > co '- > oo~o..2i~ 0................... (/) 2 ~ ro o - ";:: E 4- ~ Q) 0... 0 22..02.::: .~ co co...(/) 0.. c co 0... Q) o G:i () co () .............wcc 0...:::;::: "'0 .- E! 0...........--0 (/) rou:i~2iJ w::Q C"w E o Q) .- E .- co Q) :J ~-o..oE .!:!2 0) Q) E.x .0 ~ 0) E co (/) -- ro E c~~~........ 0"'0 (/)........ co (/) "'0 "'0 0)"'0 ~ C C .~ ~ .- co co 5: co .....: (/)(/) O-Q) ........::::c.J!2= o.....c ..QCQ3CO-o(5 Q) 25: -6 C c ::0 () '- Q) co co .~ li.ill Co ~ Q) "- co.r:::oc ~ ~ 5: (/) (/) 0 OJ c o ..c.Q 4-;; ~ro c .- 4- 0 .0 :JO) 0"-0 ill 8 .~ 4- (/) ~ ~ a3 ........ Q) 0 c 5: co c (/).,C........(/)co 5: :J~(/)Q)Q)O(/)o o5~o...Ero-G:i_ ro G2cQ).2 c ~ :s C Q) Q) :S () 5: "6J '- 2 :5 :5 -0 co g "<:: o en Q) . - C Q) E 0 4-"W..c C co..c 0 Q) (/) c 5: co . -I- ..c ..c cO........"'o. ........ o () i.n- C Q) Q) co '- :;:::;Q)c~G:i~Q)o ~"'O.!2 0 tt:: 0.....0 c- Q)~o....~O(/)>-o :ggQ)o~~rot5 ~ .- .;;:: C 0... E is oC~oEoQ)(/) () Q) Q) ro (/) 0) () ";:: c E ..c -0 Q) c ~.2.. co 0... ~ C .;;:: t5 (/) ro t..Q o...roc Q) C 0 OQ)EEQ)(5Q)o 0... > 0 0,- 0...- ~ ~ 0 ~ "~ 0... 0 ro c :il ~ 0:;:::; ro c"w '- - ro Q) a3 .ill~:s cE-o (/) '- 0:: Q) ro 0... c :J<( OLOoro oroo:m:SUi-2 (/) '- 4-"_ > Q):J>->CQ):J Olo:: ro "= ...- -0 0 ro ~ Q) -(/) _........ '- c ..c '-"~ C :JQ)ro........Q)~o 8 C Q) "~ w "~ :E cro:gro~~~ Q)Eccooro c ill ro"m C=.J::; ";:: 0.... Q) E ro ro 0 0... '- '-c........ Q) Q) ro 0 0 ro Q) :J E (/)........ 0... 0 ~ OJ c Q) ~ E (/) (/) "- li Q) Q) ro ro ro c "0 c t- ~ 4- 6 Q) "~ Q) -....: <( 0 ill "01 E D- 0 .ill Q) 6 E Q) g-'-E 0 C::e:;:::; o::Ui.ill~~~o'- Q)>~2~Q)0...~ ~~o(9oO::roo (/) :J o ." ro > <C U~ we -0 W wE ~ C>- 00 D=Ui !:!2 5) ~O Co Q) O-t) ~ :J ~O E- C>-~ o :J Qjet: >.<:: w OJ o :J ~ 0 0-,= Wf- OJ(/) 1'J W c:.;:::::; ~ "w ~ c W W 0-0 " 8 , g -, $ ;; t; .. N p...-.,...to.Jd ...'in~).l"'cl ~ ~ (/) ,-Q) Q)Q)e 0, .=..c co 0.. ro co.~ c: (/)........ (/) (/) Q) O..c "c: ~~ ~~~~:~ ~~ c:JQ)rocu..cQ).........,C"-a1J .!2"'O E Q) L()................"w ~.2 c: c: o...25'-4-1U2c5(/)5{lJ . 0..0"'0 O..c o...Q) -:JODl "C -..c Q) >......... "'0 (/) C c: s::: -0 t5 ~ -0 ~ Q) 0 0 1J "c: racQ)Q)(/)Q)ro"--..oI.::.C: ..Jcu-ro........cTI_o..... m{lJ Q1-::;".J::;2Q):J4-ro2~s- _!:....(/)o.."'O(30L()(/)(/)oQ -9~~-oQ)C(/)(/)~c:r:o ....~-c(/)OEE()Q) ::J _"- co co () '-........ Q)"'O E Q) (ij ..c.8 - ..0 (/) Q) ........ L- 0 0 .~ > c ........ 4- ro :J ........ co () ;:;::::: 17- tE :J..c o..........c.~"'O co L() ""- 0 C) 0 .Q) Q) co........ Q) Q) .- ('\J ...-:.. s:::u '- 0)-0 >-0)> (/)(0 O)-o~ '2: -0 ro jg 0 ~ co .~ Q) c .~ c: QI Co ..c a3 ..c I- c -5 E .Q ill ..m tn :> 0.. () (/)w....... co co :J ~ U5 C '" 0> co '- .- > (/)"'O:J (1J ... .....Q)..cc"'OQ)(/)"'O_,<:;::- 0.. I 0) 0.......... :J co..o CO CO () < ~ N o N ~ ~ ~ o ., o <> 1! , r 'jj ~ 5 <!- ~ c W W ro W i:D1 :.;:::::;-0 (fJ II! c ro ::=-55c ~ Q) ~ E.<::U o..f- ::c gee.) W W ~ > W 0 w~~ U OJ ro ~ W W Q)..c Co t)~ :JW> -aro () co Q. co 4-_"'0 ro~~ c 0 .- Q) 0 2: WU W D1~g- ro~(/) ..:::. co of c OJ~ we ro a ro (/) ro.<:: ro .8~~ c W ro o E Q) ~ ~ () co (ff.!2 ~wC>- (/) .<:: OJ Wac E '- ";:: ~ 8-~ . -g 10 lIlroOJ '" U E (/)' 0 o ~ 0 :I:8-E ."uo QI (/)-~ 1: 5.QJ '" 0 W 'i:"'O C o .~ co >'5 :!: . ~ l:C>- ::::J E ~ E ~ .Q E:;;:-o 00 c 01-2 ." . - ~ ~ c ~ ~ '" "'i ~- ~ 5 !' -, ,- , , .~ %- "' ;- " , .l-.~ ." ~'! ~!& 11. g ~ <t~K '" " '" :J - o :>. J:: u ~ '" ~ " J: " . " o -g U .!!! III c Cl C (1)- l/) C Q) C Q)~ ~ 3: ~"5 ell!! . -c..Q.!!! Ul-Ci c=-'=C- III Ill"'" Q)..l:: V> ~~"E ~ Q) y,- III :;::;1ll1llC,9Q) :~ >>"5.. ..!: t) a. >- c-E III ~ I-'::.~ Q)U "Ill :c 0 [i.o m ~ l/) Q) 0 l.... Q)l....l/)lll ,-ell/). ..2.a>>IllQ) Iii ~:~ -~ ~ -.J::;:::IQ,lQ. o l/) E IJ> >-l.... ~ C ~ Q) E 0 Q) l......l:: 0 Q) a. ~O<">Eo Q)"'C III 0 Q) :.c c"'C..l::.~ Q)lll~lllt) ..l:: (1)- O..l:: III .....wl....C). lllCllll:::ll.... ::S: 1ll"'C 0 Q) o l.... Q) l.... ~ ..cllll......l::lll lJ>C)w.....- _ _t)"'Clll .E:t..:!~c .~E U"iii:; ..... o.!!!"E Q) ~Iiii.iii.=!::! E-E-EEE lllQ)= "'Ow l.... E Q) C a. ~a.g-lll~ 'i5..Qq:;~1ll Q) ~ > c l/) ~t- Q) [i 3:1i:i "'C. 0 a. < , ! o " ~1' ~ ",'OJ! r>g,g ~r! ~_! w " . .~ ~- "iii-E " 0 w.!!! w~ w_ .- 0 I 0 - 0 :;;~ 0- " " .~ ~- o. ~~ .8.5 00 ~- ~~ rnt) .!:!"C g;ti - . I " 15 ~ ~w o. IllE . > -:;:; 00 z-lllnj "C ~."!: o.~ .~..l:: III "~~ E " "'C Q)- 0 00. ""~ " ~" . w 0 ~ow .!:w"'C III g-~ E w"iii"iii " " " .00 ..ciiiiii t-oo ~J ~ . K''W oj.. Ii '- vd ,. .,;.... ." ,'-'-", . " :$ . '" - ~~ 0:;; ~- w w .....:.c 0_ 0" -. ~> 00 "- -0 E" "- " 0 _0 " 0 o 1i :c " ~ o . o " E . ~~ 00 iij"iij 00 ~.iii ~ E .~ w" ~ 0 ~.:;; ." 50 w :;; w~ <5 " o 2:3 " 0 >~ ":s..lll " .0 ~- - w ~o 0" 0- ,,~ .0 "," III c: o :;::: c.. o Cl c: ';:: CIl - III ::::J () c 1:!u Q) Q) E 2: CLQ) o (/) ill ~ >CL ~ .~ ill Q) U5 "i:: :J ~ OCL O-g :il '" NU .- C (/) 0 UCL CO) '" C ~~ >."x t) Q) ~ c c '" iI!.c Q)~ ~ 5: U Q) '" " Q)~ > (/) ~ c (/)~ 5: 0 .3~ (/).0 ~roa.i Q)~ro -"'~ -ro>!!!.. c w ~ '" 0 :J o..E-ro Q) Q) C .c.c(/) I-I-~ ~ Q) Q).c ~~ (/)'-~ :J 0 ._ -~-'< " Q) ~ .c,,'" "",CL '" CL~ W(/)C . C.~ ~ .Q ~ E 10 > o Q) C ..coS g~(J) 0"'0 .~ ~CU lOCOS ....... 0) 2 . ;5.~ 0.. ill ..0 ill - > ro..c~~ ~"'>- E ~o..~ o (/) > .;::rowt5 g~E~ "0:1 (/) "'0 ro c c c "- co 0 :J Q) '-:.;::::::; 0 > (/) () '- 0 o...croQ) :J,2Q)"c o ~~ .......cro-o Ol.g:J c c..c () co .- 5: .= >- U ,,~ ~ c-2 2 Q) Q) Q) co 17.i~~(/) :J 0)........ 0) o co if) .~ Q)!-;"': () '-1:';::::c co Q).C ~ (/) () :J C Q) co E Q) E(/)Eu o co 0 c I..coco c u.- "'c& ~ '" Q) o2~~ Co 0.. c:.=.- (/)........ ill oou..c(/)(Uo ........:.;::;=Q)co..cco ....... co 5:..c 0.......... @- co 0 Q):::-ro2 ill D....c co ..c .Q a3 U5o+-'Q)........Q)O'" :J()~cE>o o .~ (/) -0 Q) jg ro Q)Q)ro2U5 c ..c..c~ro>-go I-........>:Jw :.;:::::; . ..c .3 ]5 := .~ TI (/)0) COrnu ~ :J ~ of';:; '- co :J 2 ro- co "'0 '- ..........c..cTI Q)O ro...............-oo..c(/) 2 C CD"E :; ~ 0 Q)Q)cQ)Q)oli :66Q):S-EE- ()o..()c=o~ .~ E Q).- (/):t::: :J ........ > '-.- 0........ (/) 0.- Q)......."O:J uOQ:)........ro () >- '- (/) ..c Q) .- .=....... o..~""""..c en Q)"c ill ()~~ co E:J-cQ)gco= >- E .- 0)- (/) co ..0 E c Co G:i Q:i E "'00 co - >........ (/) Q) () Q) Q) 0 (/) :> +-'........(/)..cc~> .~ c co I- co ()..Q c co () . (/) Q) ro Q)t(/)cQ)..c '- 8. E .Q -0 I- .8 .B! E........ O):J . Q) ~ ._ c ~ 0 2 0) -0 C ":-_ Q).~"w Co ~ro~:5ro-Q)>. (u(/):J4-Q)..c_ (/)Q)1Oo.............c '- ro Q)........ co ..c Q) 2 '- 4- 2 Q) ~.o ~ ~.g 15 :S 0 tt= ........>co "-:J o .~ .0 ..c '0 :S (/) -0 -oc~ Q) Q).- co t5 ~O)_ Q) 0) Q) Q) C (/) C C 0 _- 0...-:;: w C :52 -6 .m .~ .<:: .x ocQ)........-o-oQ) 2="-~=-0(/) Q)>->-"-CO........-O -c..o::;:::::;oEQ)co .- 0) ~ .m (/) E; 2 ~ .~ .g E Q) ~ >- - 4- ..c "-- E ~.c E ........ CD ~ "- 0 0) 0 Q)........ Q) .2 -0 .00 .::: C: ro .<:: ........c........cuQ)Q)'+;- OC004-(/):OQ) cO)c=oco<3 o c = :.;::::::; ........ .- >- -0:52.3" (/) Q) >.g (/)- Q):O CO..o ........ co 0) ,,-.- Q) ~ 5: .~ co ~ ..0 0 E.ill CD ~ 0 >-.!:!2 B-~ ~ ~ .~ ~ sg Q) 00 ..c "- 0)4- > co Q) 0 c 0 Q)4-ujo........=..:::.:::: -o(/)"-C:JO,,- "- := Q) .- 0 >- 0 Q) ~ w (/) ;;::::: .g 5: w........:J -~..oQ) :J-o<3~-o,,--c <3 c -0 ..0 .~ Q) - coco........>co .~ (/) E .- Q) c 0) .c.c"'o-o:>oc ................ (/) c >.- .:;: co -0 :J co 0 O)..Q > 0...0 CO _I~o 2coQ)(/)+-'coo Q) co -E ..c Q) .00 ........ Q).<:: o.........g c ~........ l:;w..oclt::CO(/)g (/)Q)..cOOl:;C Q) -0 .Q) Q) -0 ..c .Q ~ ..cQ)Q)oc~roco ........ 0... C C co 5: :J (/) .cO)":::'::::-1= ~ (/)- (/) ~ Q) "-"-'-'_,,-(/)0 :J 0 Q) C 0 Q) Q) C 0" Q)"- Q) 0........ E '" ..c +=:; 4- o.....c (/) ........ 5 Q) ~ Q) 0 ~ 0 .~ ........C-o-o(/)O(/)-o Q) :0 '" Q) roW >~-o '" " C 'C '" ~0Q) a3 Q) 0 E .;;:: ~ c: t5.~ (jj ~1" f5 ~ ~ CD ~.ill '" (/) (/) 8~~ ::oc .2.~ ~ ", 5: 0 i'5f-O .5 co C CD(/)E <tQ)0) :g .~ -+....;>..c a3 2 ~ ~~S o ~ Q) 0 - "-..c ~ Q):J........ Q) ::::. 0 (/) C Q) 0 Q) C a C -0 co c: co ~ Q. .QJ!:: g ro V) 0._ 0 (!) CL~ 0 Qo-- Q) l:; -E 0 ()Q)Q)4- "':;; E (/) QQ)o...Q) U)..c02 c:........- :J Q) E ~ 0 QOQ)(/) O,J::-o~ MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Planning Commission Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Senior Housing Unit Size and Parking Study September 19, 2007 INTRODUCTION On August 21, 2007, the planning commission reviewed The Regent at Legacy Village senior housing proposal. At that meeting, they discussed the fact that the city's multi-family residential unit-size requirements do not include the types of senior housing we have seen proposed with recent projects. These are housing units such as assisted-living units and memory-care units. The planning commission also questioned the validity of our current parking requirements as they apply to these housing types. The planning commission requested that staff seek direction from the city council to have staff study these matters and prepare an ordinance amendment regarding unit sizes and parking standards for the commission's consideration. Staff discussed this issue with Greg Copeland, the city manager. Mr. Copeland directed staff to provide data to the planning commission for discussion at one of the upcoming planning commission meetings. REVIEW STATUS Staff is in the process of compiling and reviewing data for presentation to the planning commission and will have it available for discussion at an upcoming meeting. p:ord\Senior Housing Requirements PC Update 9 07