Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/06/2003MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, October 6, 2003, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. September 15, 2003 5. Public Hearings None 6. New Business a. Street Right-of-Way Vacation (Karth Road, north of County Road D) b. South Maplewood Rezonings (F and R-1 to R-I(R)) c. Proposed Mixed-Use Zoning Ordinance d. Planning Commission Applicant Interviews 7. Unfinished Business 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations a. September 22 Council Meeting: Mr. Rossbach? b. October 13 Council Meeting: Ms Dierich c. October 27 Council Meeting: Mr. Rossbach 10. Staff Presentations 11. Adjoumment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2003 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. I1. ROLL CALL Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Tushar Desai Mary Dierich Jackie Monahan-Junek Paul Mueller Gary Pearson William Rossbach Dale Trippler Present Present Present Present Absent Present Present Present Staff Present: Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary II1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Roberts requested to remove item 6. d. Planning Commission Applicant Interviews because one of the applicants were unable to attend the meeting. Commissioner Rossbach added item f. 9. under Commission Presentations. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the agenda as amended. Commissioner Rossbach seconded. Ayes- Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Rossbach had a clarification to the minutes on page 7, in the sixth paragraph, under number 2. His intent was for number 2. to say the redevelopment zone could be only initiated by the city and not by a developer. Commissioner Dierich moved to approve the planning commission minutes for August 4, 2003, as amended. Commissioner Trippier seconded. Ayes- Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler Abstention - Rossbach Planning Commission Minutes of 09-15-03 V. PUBLIC HEARING -2- None. VI. NEW BUSINESS a. Easement Vacation (1280 Belmont Lane) Mr. Roberts said Mr. David Newburg, representing Wa and Cha Vang is asking the city to vacate an existing drainage and utility easement on the property at 1280 Belmont Lane. This easement is under a detached garage on the property Commissioner Trippler wondered if the easement diagrammed on page 6 of the staff report extended further south or does it end at the back of the property line? Mr. Roberts said he was not sure. Unfortunately this is one of the few plats that the city does not have a recorded copy of at city hall. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. David Newburg, representing Wa and Cha Vang addressed the commission. He said the applicants would like to get this easement vacation taken care of to clear up the title. Commissioner Rossbach moved to approve the resolution on page seven of the staff report. This resolution is for the vacation of an unused drainage and utility easement on the property at 1280 Belmont Lane. The reasons for the vacation are as follows: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The easement is unused. 3. The easement is not needed for drainage or utility purposes. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes- Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on October 13, 2003. Chairperson Fischer asked staff if there was any other way to get a copy of the plat? Mr. Roberts said if the city could get a copy of the plat as recorded with Ramsey County staff could do some further checking. b. Gruber's Power Equipment (1762 White Bear Avenue) Mr. Roberts said representatives of Gruber's Power Equipment at 1762 White Bear Avenue are proposing to purchase .258 acres of land from the adjacent Junior Achievement property at 1800 White Bear Avenue. They would use this land to expand Gruber's exterior storage area. Gruber's also wants to construct a 1 O-foot high meta! fence to screen the expanded storage area. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-15-03 -3- Mr. Roberts said on July 7, 2003, the planning commission tabled Gruber's and Junior Achievement's requests in order to allow Gruber's and Junior Achievement time to modify their plans to order to address the following concerns: 1 ) fence height not to exceed 10 feet to alleviate the need for a fence height variance; 2) extension of the parking lot lease agreement with Junior Achievement to one year; 3) painting the metal fence a two-tone color; and 4) the removal of 5 feet of Junior Achievement's parking lot to alleviate the need for a parking lot setback variance. Commissioner Dierich asked if the commission approves the outside storage is it just the outside storage that gets the CUP or does the whole lot get the CUP? Is the CUP reviewed annually or is there a set time? Mr. Roberts said a CUP is applied to the entire property for a specific use. The typical review time is after one year but that time frame could be shorter and could be longer. Commissioner Dierich asked if the city has ever denied a CUP? Mr. Roberts said yes only on an initial application. Commissioner Trippler asked on page 5, in the paragraph on exterior storage it states that it is clear that it would change the planned character of the proposed Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Area. Commissioner Trippler said it was not clear to him and he asked staff to clarify that. Mr. Roberts said to him it means based on the way the zoning ordinance is coming together and based on the Hillcrest Redevelopment Plan, the elements of the zoning code as proposed as an overlay district would not allow outdoor storage and that is part of the planned character of the new zoning code if it is adopted by the city council. Hopefully, that will be in place November 1, 2003. If that were the case, expanding an outdoor storage area would not be consistent with that plan and character. Commissioner Trippler said if the ordinance were tO pass then there would not be any outdoor exterior storage of any kind? Mr. Roberts said that was his understanding. Chairperson Fischer said what about the outdoor storage at the Super America gas station where they store and sell outdoor charcoal, salt pellets and windshield fluid? Mr. Roberts said the city would have to determine how much outdoor storage that exists already would be grandfathered in. - - Commissioner Trippler asked Mr. Roberts to explain what the term human-scale meant on page 6, number 6 in the staff report? Mr. Roberts said human-scale means the fence at 10-feet tall is too large and imposing. Human- scale means more friendly and at human sized level. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-15-03 -4- Commissioner Pearson said when the HRA began reviewing this ordinance he asked what this kind of zoning would do to existing businesses in the area that wanted to expand or remodel. On page 21, in section 2.03 in the last line, it states "the city may issue building permits for the expansion or remodeling of existing structures". He said if he had know that this would be so rigid and the city would take a chance of losing good functioning businesses he would've never supported it. He hopes this is something the city council does not make permanent. Mr. Roberts said section 2.03 is the language that is used for the moratorium, which is still in effect until the end of October 2003. It states Maplewood businesses can do interior remodeling but does not allow additions or expansions of space on the exterior. Commissioner Pearson said the paragraph says, "the city may issue building permits for the expansion or remodeling of existing structures." To him that means they should be able to expand Outdoor storage. Mr. Roberts responded that means expansion of existing structures but when you are talking about outdoor storage then you are talking about zoning code issues, which do not fall under building code issues. Chairperson Fischer asked if that meant a fence was not a structure? Mr. Roberts said yes it is but Gruber's also wants to expand to the east and have a larger outdoor storage area then they currently have and that is one of the catches. The moratorium is temporary and it will end at the end of October. Commissioner Pearson asked if the city council is going to look at voting to make this permanent? Mr. Roberts said the city council will be looking at the new Hillcrest zoning code, which the planning commission will review again within the next month to make a recommendation to take to the city council. Whether or not to include outdoor storage and more types of business is the process the city has been going through for the last few months. The ordinance with all the uses, setbacks, and densities, will be in one package to look at before going back to the city council. Commissioner Pearson said in his opinion this needs a lot of work. Commissioner Rossbach said regarding Gruber's, if you are going to plan on redeveloping and creating a different development scenario than what already exists then at some point you have to stop developing what is already there. So, the question is, when does the city stop allowing developing? Why should the city allow Gruber's requests, which involve several variances to the already existing ordinances? What is it that makes i.tso appealing to allow Gruber's to make_ these alterations and allow something that doesn't fit any of the other ordinances? Aren't the cities other ordinances important here? Commissioner Rossbach's opinion is the city has problems in other areas of the city. There hasn't been a rigid enough policy of how the city is going to guide development and now there is a hodgepodge of buildings that just don't look appealing. Commissioner Rossbach said if the city is going'to do a proper development they need to say these are the rules and then they need to stick with them. He believes the commission should at least know what the new rules are before the commission allows Gruber's to do anything. Let the new ordinance, be fully developed so the commission knows what they are giving up if they allow Gruber's to build. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-15-03 -5- Commissioner Pearson said his concern is that the commission would be looking at this new ordinance in such a straightjacketed manner that it would not be an accommodating use. Commissioner Desai said he understands the point Mr. Rossbach was trying to make that many of the zoning ordinances have not been defined yet but at the same time he looks at the need for the hardware store to exist in this community. They are doing a good business and the local community needs them. He asked how can the city work with Gruber's to make this work for everyone? He realizes there are variances but he wonders how can the city work with these variances along with Gruber's to get them in compliance with the variances to make everyone happy? It doesn't make sense to him to delay doing anything because of the moratorium and the Hillcrest Redevelopment Plan when the commission doesn't know if it would be 1 year, 5 years or 10 years before any redevelopment would begin. Commissioner Dierich said everyone that the city has had discussions with has said it will be a long long time down the road before the city would begin to look like the vision of the Hillcrest Redevelopment Plan. She said she wants the city to move in the direction of the redevelopment plan but the city has been told that density is going to prevent the city from moving in this direction. Her feeling is that Gruber's will have outgrown their location and will move by the time the Hillcrest Redevelopment Plan even begins. Commissioner Rossbach added that Gruber's has "already" outgrown their location and want to continue operating in a location they have outgrown and that is the problem. Gruber's wants the city to approve an expansion when maybe Gruber's should be looking for another location in the city to rebuild so they can expand their business the way they would like to. Commissioner Trippler said it doesn't seem that this is a huge investment for Gruber's that would tie Gruber's into "having" to stay put in order to recoup their investment due to the cost of the expansion. They have been a good neighbor and business to the city. Granting this request would make the eye sore of outdoor storage go away and make it look a lot better in the long run. If Gruber's grows anymore they will have to move someplace else. Maybe when Gruber's is ready to move the city will be ready to start the Hillcrest Redevelopment Plan even though that could be over ten years down the road. He really doesn't like to grant variances but in this case it could be a good thing. The city allowed Super America to rebuild when the city knew that area would be redeveloped. Commissioner Monahan-Junek agrees with the Hillcrest Redevelopment Plan and she doesn't see a timeframe on the horizon, therefore, she has a hard time turning Gruber's away for two variances. She doesn't think Gruber's is requesting too much. This is long term and Gruber's may outgrow their location and find a new location within the community. Commissioner Rossbach said a lot of the redevelopment that will happen in the area will be due to attrition and businesses will outgrow their site which will make land available that can be used as part of the redevelopment plan. He said commission members say they don't see a time line on the horizon but he thinks the time line is now. This is the beginning of the process and this is a business that is outgrowing their site. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to come forward and address the commission. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-15-03 -6- Mr. Matt Gruber, Gruber's Power Equipment, 1762 White Bear Avenue, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He said for some reason the lease is still a problem in the staff report and he wondered why. At the last meeting staff said they wanted to see a longer lease between Gruber's and Junior Achievement such as a year. Mr. Roberts said he thinks the problem is that the lease is still temporary. If Junior Achievement were to sell the property and the new owner wanted their land back, then Gruber's would run into a problem. Mr. Gruber asked why a four or five-year lease wasn't required compared to the one-year lease they already worked out? Mr. Roberts said it is a situation of should have, would have, and could have. If Gruber's had more property to expand they would not have to be leasing space from Junior Achievement. Mr. Roberts said a one-year lease is better than a month-to-month lease but staff still has concerns about problems in the future. Commissioner Monahan-Junek said she understood Mr. Gruber met with Ms. Finwall. She asked if he had a clear understanding that Gruber's is part of the redevelopment area and depending on what happens financially in a year or ten years Gruber's could've made this investment and it may not be long term and may end up relocating? Mr. Gruber said yes they understand that. But at the same time the city does not know the exact time line. It has been suggested that they have outgrown their location, which they agree with. However, it is easier and more affordable for them to stay where they are compared to buying another lot and rebuilding. He said he does not understand why their business is whited out on the Hillcrest Redevelopment Plan and there is no zoning ordinance for their property. Commissioner Trippler said the only variance that seems to be problematic is the five-foot parking lot setback. Commissioner Trippler asked why Gruber's was unable to reach an agreement with Junior Achievement regarding the parking lot setback? Mr. Gruber said an agreement was made. If that's what it would take to get this approved they would remove the five feet of asphalt and move it north to the five feet requested. He asked by law are they required to remove the asphalt? Commissioner Trippler asked if the commission were to not grant this variance then the setback would have to be there on the north side? Mr. Roberts said correct. Commissioner Desai asked if Gruber's agreed with the drainage and grading issues in the staff report? Mr. Gruber said yes. Commissioner Pearson asked staff if there were any problems currently with the drainage and grading on the site? Planning Commission Minutes of 09-15-03 -7- Mr. Roberts said he did not believe there was but Mr. Gruber could answer that. Mr. Gruber said no, there are currently no drainage or grading problems on the site. Chairperson Fischer asked if anybody else wanted to speak on this proposal to come forward and address the commission. Mr. Scott Carver, representing Junior Achievement at 1800 White Bear Avenue, Maplewood, addressed the commission on behalf of Gruber's Power Equipment. He only sees one variance that Gruber's and Junior Achievement is requesting, which is the parking lot setback. He said when they were here two months ago they asked the commission and staff what length of lease they would like to see and were told a one-year lease and that is what they put in place. As virtue of the lease he does not feel the setback is necessary because it causes an indirect drainage flow to the existing drains and causes Gruber's customers to have to walk another five feet. The city is moving the recommended parking further from the Gruber's building. He does not see that the variance is that big of a deal. If both parties are willing to do what it takes. He is disappointed that Ms. Finwall was not present at the past meeting and is not present tonight. Mr. Roberts came out to the site and met with representatives from Gruber's and Junior Achievement. To his knowledge Ms. Finwall has never come to the site. Ms. Finwall references in the report the difficulty of lowering a 10-foot-10-inch fence to 10 feet high. To lower the fence is basically a matter of unscrewing the metal panels, lowering them 10 inches and screwing the metal panels back on. He is frustrated that this has taken 14 months to get this done. He said both parties waited two months in the hope that they would get a different opinion from staff. Mr. Carver said they made the adjustments that were requested and the staff report has not changed from the previous report. Nothing in the staff report addresses the benefit of making these changes. One benefit is that by expanding the lot you have moved the semi trucks off of White Bear Avenue from loading and-unloading the supply. A second benefit is that it cleans up the front of the building and the look of the neighborhood. They are trying to put a 1/4 of an acre back on the tax role and he didn't think it would be this hard to do. Both Junior Achievement and Gruber's met with Ms. Finwall and she led them to believe that the time line before the Hillcrest RedeveloPment Plan begins from a staff prospective was one-to-three years. Mr. Carver said when he looked on the map he noticed the Junior Achievement building didn't exist and where their building is currently there was a road through the middle of the parking lot. Mr. Carver said Junior Achievement looked for 18 months for a building to move from Edina to Maplewood and he is not inclined to move out in the next 6 months. He said the only way to get more parking is to put parking behind the building and Junior Achievement or Super America own the property around it. Mr. Carver said that would require a driveway to be put in past the building to get to the parking lot and that would only leaves space for a 20-foot wide building so he doesn't_ know how that fits in with the vision of Hillcrest. Mr. Carver said Junior Achievement was not notified that Super America would be building an outbuilding behind their building and he thinks it looks like an outhouse. Junior Achievement has been trying to be a good neighbor and they don't seem to be getting anywhere. The city keeps talking about parking being an issue. He asked why it wasn't it an issue that the medical building across North St. Paul Road has patients parking in the Junior Achievement parking lot because they don't have enough of their own parking and the employees from the doctors office park in the video store parking lot. He realizes Gruber's is asking for a variance and that is why parking is an issue now. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-15-03 -8- Commissioner Rossbach asked Mr. Carver how would he suggest fixing the parking problem that the other businesses have due to lack of parking space? Mr. Carver said he didn't know the answer. Commissioner Rossbach said redeveloping the area may fix the problem of lack of parking. Mr. Carver said there is probably a good chance that redeveloping the area would fix the parking problems. Having just moved into the area he does not want to look at property that is not being maintained. One of the reasons Junior Achievement stepped forward was to improve the look and appearance of the Gruber's site. He wondered how the city sees a golf dome fitting in with the vision of the redevelopment plan. Commissioner Pearson said staff said leasing verses owning the parking lot space from Junior Achievement is really a catch 22. If Gruber's bought the property from Junior Achievement it probably wouldn't be compatible because it does not fit in with the spirit and intent of the property. Gruber's could spend a lot of money purchasing the additional property so they wouldn't need a lease and Gruber's could still be denied. Commission member Trippler moved to approve e~my the land use requests by Gruber's Power Equipment at 1762 White Bear Avenue and Junior Achievement at 1800 White Bear Avenue as follows: minor subdivision, Hillcrest Village moratorium variance, 5-foot parking lot setback variance, and conditional use permit for the expansion of exterior storage. The city is ap[~rovin~ e~these land use requests because: (changes to the motion are underlined and deletions are stricken) The city council has formally supported the Metropolitan Council's proposed Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan. This plan is based on smart growth principles, which help create livable neighborhoods where homes, jobs and services are linked by walkable streets. Gruber's Power.Equipment is located in the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan. An objective of the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan is to help guide changes within the area in order to create a village center with an active street life that mixes shops, workplaces, housing, recreation and civic uses, and avoids commercial uses that are not residential friendly, such as exterior storage. 3. There are no unique hardships or circumstances that warrant approving the 5-foot parking lot setback variance. Commissioner Rossbach asked to have the questions divided individually. Commissioners agreed to vote on each recommendation individually. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the minor subdivision. Commission member Pearson seconded. Ayes- Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler The motion passed. Planning Commission -9- Minutes of 09-15-03 Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the Hillcrest Village moratorium variance. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Pearson, Trippler Nay- Rossbach The motion passed. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit for the expansion of exterior storage. Commissioner Pearson seconded. The motion passed. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler Commissioner Rossbach moved to deny the 5-foot parking lot setback variance. Commissioner Monahan-Junek seconded. The motion failed. Ayes - Monahan-Junek, Rossbach, Trippler Nays-Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Pearson Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the 5-foot parking lot setback variance. Commissioner Desai seconded. The motion passed. Ayes- Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Pearson Nays - Monahan-Junek, Rossbach, Trippler This item goes to the city council on October 13, 2003. c. Proposed Swimming Pool Fence Code Amendment Mr. Roberts said staff is proposing that the city council amend the requirements for fencing around swimming pools to accept alternatives to fencing. The current ordinance requires that a four-foot-tall fence to prevent small children from accessing the pool without supervision surround- a swimming pool. If the fence is closer than four feet to the edge of the water, this fence must be at least six feet tall. Code allows a four-foot-tall fence around the yard to suffice for the pool fence. Commissioner Trippler asked staff to explain what a self-latching or self-closing gate is. Mr. Roberts said a self-latching gate is a gate with springs on it that automatically swings shut. The only way the gate door would remain open is if it was propped open. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-15-03 -10- Commissioner Rossbach said if the walls of the pool are four feet in height he is not sure how you can say it requires a self-closing gate around it. Mr. Roberts agreed that is not written clearly enough. Commissioner Rossbach said on page 2, in the second paragraph of the staff report it states the intent of the ordinance is to prevent a very small child or toddler from accidentally falling into a swimming pool. He asked where the intent statement came from? Mr. Roberts said the intent came from staff. Commissioner Rossbach said he thought the intent was to keep kids from intentionally entering a pool. He thinks the intent should be to prevent older kids from accessing your pool and swimming when you are not there. There has been discussion in the ordinance about having a non- climbable fence and that would be geared towards intentional entry and not for a small child accidentally wondering into the area. Mr. Roberts said staff is not proposing an amendment to the intent portion of the code. However, he said he agrees with Commissioner Rossbach's statements. Commissioner Rossbach said he thinks all pools should have a pool cover because having a pool cover would help prevent children from accidentally falling into the pool. Commissioner Dierich asked if this ordinance would allow a resident to put an in-ground pool in with only a pool cover without requiring a fence around it? Mr. Roberts said. yes. Commissioner Dierich said she doesn't agree with that. Many people leave their in-ground pools uncovered and not having a fence around it can cause an accidentally drowning. She believes the ordinance should require a pool cover for in-ground pool plus a fence around the pool. Commissioner Desai said he doesn't agree with the sentence in the staff report regarding the use of terrain and tree/shrub growth as a barrier around the pool in lieu of a fence. In his opinion shrubs do not provide a safe barrier to keep children from drowning. He asked staff what age group the intent is made for to keep out of the pool area with a fence? Mr. Roberts said he thinks the intent is for two groups. One is for young children and the second is for unauthorized people. He said if tree/shrub growth was to be the barrier for the pool the pool would need to be covered. Commissioner Trippler said he doesn't believe people will use a pool cover in place of a fence. People use the pool and they forget to cover it back up, therefore, leaving the pool exposed with no fence around it. In his opinion, saying you are going to use a pool cover in order to forgo the expense of building a fence around the pool is an easy way out. The city does not have the time or the manpower to drive around and make sure pools are covered and he has a real problem with that. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-15-03 -11- Commissioner Pearson said it all boils down to liability. He said in the event you have an accidental drowning in your pool your insurance company is going to make sure you as the homeowner have taken all reasonable steps to make sure nobody could gain access. Because of the liability, all homeowners should want to have a fence around their pool with a self locking gate and keep it closed at all times. Having a fence around a pool may be a requirement of the insurance company anyways. Commissioner Monahan-Junek said if she had an in-ground pool she would have a cover over the pool and a fence around it as a precaution because a fence makes it a little harder for somebody to get to the pool. Chairperson Fischer said she is troubled by the ordinance definition on page 4 of the staff report. It reads: Though not used for swimming, this definition includes artificial ponds constructed for landscaping purposes, which shall also be subject to the requirements of this chapter. She questioned how you could prevent a drowning in an artificial pond used for landscaping or drainage purposes? Commissioner Trippler said whether it's a landscaping or drainage pond, or a pool you only need 3 inches of water for someone to drown. To him if the intent is to keep a child from drowning a fence should be required around the pool. The ordinance cannot cover every situation and the city will do the best they can with the wording of the ordinance, however, he is troubled with the way the ordinance currently reads and said it needs a lot more work. Commissioner Rossbach said he would like to have the last paragraph deleted in the current ordinance on page 4 of the staff report. He would also like to have the last sentence deleted from the definition of the ordinance regarding landscaping ponds. Commissioner Rossbach moved to adopt the swimming pool fence ordinance amendment on page 4 of the staff report with the following changes to the ordinance: In Section 1 under the definition strike the sentence Though not used for swimming, this definition includes artificial ponds constructed for landscaping purposes, which shall also be subject to the requirements of this chapter. Also,..strike the bottom paragraph of the ordinance in Section 2, on page 4 of the staff report. Commission member Pearson seconded. Ayes- Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on October 13, 2003, VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VIII, VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-15-03 -12- IX, COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Mr. Trippler was the planning commission representative at the August 11, 2003, city council meeting. The two planning commission items discussed included the R-I(R) Rural residential zoning district, which passed ayes all and the Maplewood Office Park that passed ayes all. b. Mr. Desai was the planning commission representative at the August 25, 2003, city council meeting. The only item pertaining to the planning commission was the Hmong American Alliance Church, which was tabled until September 22, 2003, so questions of the city council could be answered. c. Mr. Mueller was to be the planning commission representative at the September 8, 2003, city council meeting; however, there were no planning commission items to review. d. Mr. Rossbach will be the planning commission representative at the September 22, 2003, city council meeting. The only planning commission item will be the Hmong American Alliance Church that was tabled for further discussion from August 25.2003. e. Ms. Dierich will be the planning commission representative at the October 13, 2003, city council meeting. Items to be discussed will be Gruber's Power Equipment at 1762 White Bear Avenue and the Proposed Swimming Pool Fence Code Amendment. f. Homeowner's Association discussion. Commissioner Rossbach said a resident from either Crestview Court or Drive commented that for more than 25 years there was a homeowners association that had covenants where he lives. In more recent times, someone built a shed and built it by the city's setback ordinances of a 5 foot rear and side setback. The covenants through the homeowner's association required a 10-foot setback so they were seeking some information on that. The information they received was that after 25 years the homeowners association and its covenants cease to exist. This raised a red flag for Commissioner Rossbach because the planning commission deals with association language in its recommendatiOn of developments. He thought it would- be nice to have staff do some further research into further information regarding this issue. Mr. Roberts said the city attorney reviews covenants and homeowner's association rules as part of the staff review of developments. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS None. Planning Commission Minutes of 09-15-03 -13- XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Street Right-of-Way Vacation Karth Road, north of County Road D September 22, 2003 INTRODUCTION Chds Cavett, representing the Maplewood Engineering Department and the adjoining property ownere, is asking the city to vacate a street right-of-way. This right-of-way is for Karth Road and is between the properties at 2191 and 2205 County Road D. This right-of-way, as shown on the survey on page six, is between the two preperties and has ddveway and accessory buildings on it. Please see the applicant's statement on page two and the maps on pages three through six. DISCUSSION Mr. Cavett is requesting the vacation because the city and the neighbore have no need for the right-of-way and because there is a garege in the right-of-way. Maplewood has no plans to develop or use this right-of-way for a public street and it is not needed for any utilities. There is, however, an existing driveway for the house at 2205 County Road D that is in the right- of-way. If the city vacates the right-of-way, the western loop of the driveway would be on the neighbors (2191 County Road D) property. The city should require the property owners to sign an easement agreement for this existing ddveway to ensure that it can remain and for their use of the driveway. This agreement is to be recorded with Ramsey County. RECOMMENDATION Approve the resolution on page seven. This resolution is for the vacation of the Karth Road right- of-way, north of County Road D. The reasons for the vacation are as follows: It is in the public interest. The city is not using the right-of-way for a public street. The right-of-way is not needed for street access purposes as the adjacent properties have street access on County Road D. This approval is subject to the property owners signing an easement agreement for the existing ddveway that is in the right-of-way. This agreement is to be recorded at Ramsey County. REFERENCE INFORMATION Application Date The city received the complete application and plans for this request on September 11, 2003. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a land use proposal. As such, city action is required on this proposal by November 10, 2003. P:\sec35-30/karthroad vacation.doc Attachments: 1. Applicant's Statement 2. Location Map 3. Property Line Map 4. Area Map 5. County Road D Plan 6. Site Survey 7. Vacation Resolution 2 Attachment 1 LAKE COUNI~ AVE. AVE. AVE. AVE.. BEAM COUNTY ~ COURT KOHLMAN EDGEHILL RD. CERVNS COPE AVE. c.,~' AVE. VIEW AVE. AVE. NORTH SAINT PAUL RD. O' 170'0' 3400' WOODLYNN ~ 1. CHIPPEWA ,., 2. BARTELMY L v / ~ ~'/i,, //'/t 5100' - LOCATION MAP Attachment 2 I - 694 · · · PROPERTY LINE MAP · 2205 '~'~'~ ]' ~*~ 2191 ~ ~ ~ r COUN~ ROAD D- -- -- : ".. I ~' I r~-~'" -¢--~-' · : · "w~ .~ H ................................. O.L. A ~ O.L A ~ ~ O.L A ~ O.L. A ~ O.L A ~ O.L A Attachment 3 2191 COUNTY ROAD D ~12 2226 2234 FARM 2170 AREA MAP 5 Atachment 4 DRIVE TYPICAL THIS $HE~I' PER u~o ~ ~ 21 91 2205 RAIN GARDEN LANDSCAPE DETNL A OHP ~ COUNTY ROAD D FARM ROAD FU~JRE PARK]NO TEL' 2226 PROPOSED VACATION COUNTY ROAD D PLANS 6 Attachment 5 .( T I I I EXISTING HOUSE 2205 PORCH Seuth |lne of Section 35, Town~htp 30, Range 22 COUNTY ROAD D PARCEL A-~ %?. $~.~ ~.c~o~.G ,.0.w. ~ ~ , -~..- 5~.25 .... .sg'4~'O~E C( PROPOSED VACATION SITE SURVEY Attachment 6 VACATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Chds Cavett, representing the Maplewood Engineering Department and the adjacent property owners, applied for the vacation of the following: The Karth Road right-of-way between the north right-of-way line of County Road D and the south right-of-way line of Interstate 694 in Maplewood, Minnesota in Section 35, Township 30, Range 22. WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: On October 6, 2003, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve the public vacation. On ,2003, the city council held a public headng. The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent a notice to the abutting property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. WHEREAS, after the city approves this vacation, public interest in the property will go to the following properties: Except the West 430.42 feet, the part lying southerly of Highway 694 of the SW ¼ of the SE (subject to roads), in Section 35, Township 30, Range 22 (PIN 35-30-22-44-0013) and The part lying southerly of Highway 694 of the SE ¼ of the SE % of the SE % (subject to roads) in Section 35, Township 30, Range 22 (PiN 35-30-22-44-0014). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described vacation for the following reasons: It is in the public interest. The city is not using the right-of-way for a public street. The right-of-way is not needed for street access purposes as the adjacent properties have street access on County Road D. This vacation is subject to the city keeping a utility easement over the vacated right-of-way. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2003. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Rezoning - South Maplewood Rural Residential (R-I(R)) Zoning September 30, 2003 INTRODUCTION On December 9, 2002, the city enacted a one-year moratorium on development of property in Maplewood from Linwood Avenue to the southern border of the city. (See the map on page seven.) The moratorium was a result of concerns about the land use and development of the remaining undeveloped or underdeveloped property in south Maplewood. The previous sewer system plan for this area showed urbanized municipal sewer between Linwood Avenue and Carver Avenue and undefined sewer systems south of Carver Avenue. Without a municipal sanitary sewer system, large lots with a minimum size requirement would be necessary to accommodate houses or properties with individual sewage treatment systems (ISTS). BACKGROUND On January 31, 2003, the city council authorized a separate Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Study of south Maplewood. This study was initiated to address land use and development issues in south Maplewood, focusing on the area south of Linwood Avenue to the city's southern border. Short- Elliott-Henddckson (SEH), a consulting engineering firm, has completed a report detailing the results of this study. We incorporated the results of the South Maplewood Sewer Study into the overall Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan update. On May 27, 2003, the city council adopted the 2003 Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan update. This sewer study included a detailed study of the sanitary sewer needs and availability for the part of Maplewood south of Linwood Avenue. (See the reference section on pages four and five for more information about this study.) In addition, this study recommended that the city study and possibly implement a larger minimum lot size for the areas of the city that will not likely have sanitary sewer for the foreseeable future. (This is primarily in sewer districts 10, 57 and 70 as shown on the map on page nine.) On August 11, 2003, the city council gave the proposed R-1 (R) zoning ordinance first reading. On August 25, 2003, the city council gave final approval the R-I(R) zoning ordinance. DISCUSSION Rural Residential Zoning District The adopted sanitary sewer study recommended that the city prepare a rural residential zoning district to add to the city code with minimum lot size, a minimum lot area, and the permitted and conditional uses. Such a distdct is for non-sewered single dwelling development. In December 1997, city staff surveyed 32 property owners in south Maplewood to help us in preparing the new rural zoning district. In this survey, we asked the owners for information about their property and for their ideas about creating a rural residential zoning district. The existing lots south and east of 1-494 range in size from 0.6 acres to 39 acres. Many of the residential lots are less than 3 acres in size. Because of topography and existing house locations, these lots are probably not large enough for the owners to subdivide them into additional building locations. Only three of those responding to our survey in 1998 said that they might want to further subdivide their property. These owners' properties were at least 7.5 acres in size. In addition, 17 respondents said they support the idea of the city creating a new rural zoning district. Many of the respondents wanted this zoning distdct to have a three or five-acre minimum lot size. 2003 Update After the city council approved the new rural zoning district in August, I surveyed the 73 owners of property in south Maplewood that the city might consider changing the zoning to the new R-I(R) designation. I received five replies to my survey. (Please see the survey comments and the letters on pages 11 through 16.) As shown in their comments, at least three of the property owners were concerned about the effect the zoning change would have on property taxes. I spoke to Ann Miller from the Ramsey County Assessor's office about the possible zoning change and its effect on property taxes. She told me that she cannot predict what, if any, effect the proposed zoning change would have on property taxes. Ms. Miller noted that the local tax rates and the value of the property (including the land and the structure(s)) is the biggest factor in determining the taxes for property. Rising home and land values increase the market values of properties. This then means the property taxes on those properties will rise. This is true for property anywhere in the city or county, regardless of the zoning of the property: She also told me that for properties without sewer and water, she treats the land value differently than for those with sewer and water. Finally, Ms. Miller said that each property in this area with larger amounts of land (greater than 2 acres) is reviewed by Ramsey County on a case-by-case basis to better determine the value of the property. The R-I(R) zoning distdct has a 2-acre minimum lot size and a minimum lot width of 120 feet and is for areas of Maplewood without sewer and water and with a semi-rural, very Iow-density residential lifestyle. The question now for the city to decide is, what if any, of the properties in the study area should have the R-I(R) zoning designation. There are at least three groups of properties in the study area that the city should carefully consider what zoning to place on them. The first of these are the two large (39-acre) parcels owned and used by Bailey Nursery's. The city has currently zoned these F (farm residence) and Baileys is using them as part of the plant growing operations. Since the F zone allows commercial farming, gardening, greenhouses and nurseries as permitted land uses, I am not recommending that the city change the zoning for the Bailey property at this time. Another group of properties that warrant special zoning consideration are those in Haller's Woods. The lots in this development range in size from 0.92 acres to 3.46 acres and the city has zoned this whole subdivision RE-40 (residential estate 40,000). This zoning distdct has a 40,000-square- foot (0.92 acres) minimum lot size and a minimum lot width of 140 feet. Since the city recently approved this 21-1ot plat and the zoning for it, I do not see a reason to change the zoning of the lots in Hailer Woods. A zoning change to R-I(R) would make some of the lots in the plat non- conforming, as several of them are less than 2 acres in area. The third set of properties that the city should carefully review the zoning for are those that now have an F or R-1 zoning and that are less than two acres in size. If the city changes the zoning of these to R-I(IR), the change would make them legal nonconforming properties. A primary purpose for the new R-1 (IR) distdct was to prevent over crowding and the subdivision of properties that are too small for additional houses and their drainfields. The city-code also requires each lot to have at least 60 feet of frontage on an improved public street. These smaller residential properties do not have enough street frontage or buildable to create additional lots. For the residential properties that are in the study area and that are at least two acres in size, the city should change the zoning to R-1 (IR). I have shown the properties that I am proposing for this zoning change on the map on page 10 and have listed them in the resolution starting on page 17. 2 RECOMMENDATION Adopt the zoning map change resolution starting on page 17. This resolution changes the zoning for several properties in south Maplewood to R-I(R) (rural residential) (with a two-acre minimum lot size). The city is approving this change because: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spidt, purpose and intent of the zoning code. 2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. 4. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. 5. The proposed zoning change would be consistent with the existing land use designation. 3 REFERENCE 2003 South Maplewood Sewer Study Study Assumptions Staff made several assumptions when preparing the South Maplewood Sewer Study. The following is a summary of some of these key assumptions: If municipal sanitary sewer is extended to serve the area, land uses at full development will correspond to the city's current Land Use Map. The projected sanitary sewer flows staff listed in the report are based on full development and on the Land Use Map. · Future densities of R1 land use will be 2.9 persons/unit and 2.8 units/acre. Because of topography and existing pipe size, future sanitary sewer flows from the Bailey property in Woodbury and Newport will need to be conveyed through Maplewood to the Carver Lake interceptor. · Future sanitary sewer flows from the Bailey property in Woodbury and Newport will be similar to those generated by typical single-family residential uses. It is important to note that the South Maplewood Sewer Study is only a planning document. In addition, the land use assumptions made above do not bind the city to any of these possible changes. Staff made the land use and sewer assumptions on a conservative basis to identify the maximum sanitary sewer flows that the land uses could possibly generate in each of the sewer districts. 2003 South Maplewood Sewer Study Conclusions Soils within the study area range from a sandy soil in the south to a sandy loam with some clay loam and silty clay in the north. The sandy soils are good for installation of individual sewage treatment systems (ISTS) whereas the clay loam and silty clay pockets may require the use of non-conventional systems. If properly maintained, evidence indicates that the life expectancy of an ISTS site is at least 25 to 30 years. Septic systems (ISTS) are a safe and effective soil-based method to treat household wastewater, provided there is enough soil area and the soil conditions are conducive to treatment. Septic systems treat sewage equal to or better than municipal treatment facilities when they are properly designed, installed, and maintained. Cities or areas with marginal soils, steep slopes, and wetlands will require a larger minimum lot size for lots with ISTS sites than thosewith good soils, few slopes and few wetlands. Minimum lot sizes for lots with ISTS sites typically range from 1 acre to 5 acres in size. Many communities use a minimum lot size in the range of 2.0 to 3.0 acres. 4 Gravity sanitary sewer can serve infill development in Sewer Districts 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, and 66. A gravity sanitary sewer can serve Distdct 70 and the sanitary sewer flows from the 240- acre Bailey's Nursery parcel in Woodbury and Newport. When the city or a developer extends municipal sanitary sewer to serve Distdct 70, the new pipe must be sized large enough to serve the 240-acre Bailey Nursery parcel. o The capacity of the Carver Lake interceptor is large enough to accommodate flows from all of the study area, as well as the 240-acre parcel in Woodbury and Newport owned by Bailey's Nursery. Connections to the Carver Lake interceptor will be allowed by permit from the MCES. The interceptor would be metered at the points where it enters and exits Maplewood. Any flow that enters the interceptor between these two locations will be billed to Maplewood based on the difference between the two meter readings. 10. In Districts 10 and 57, the existing terrain vades drastically and there are significant elevation changes. As such, the use of lift stations will be necessary to convey sanitary sewer flows from lower areas to higher areas. 11. Districts 10 and 57 have a relatively high cost-to-benefit ratio associated with the extension of municipal sanitary sewer to serve the districts. As a result, no near-term municipal sanitary sewer improvements are anticipated in these districts. 12. With the exception of Districts 10 and 57, it is anticipated that the rest of the study area could have sanitary sewer service within the next 20 years. However, before the city agrees to construct any municipal sanitary sewer extension, the city should prepare a feasibility study to identify pipe sizes, pipe alignments, construction costs, and other important project details. 2003 South Maplewood Sewer Study Recommendations Adopt the South Maplewood Sewer Study, Project 03-03, as part of the 2003 Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan Amendment. (The city council did this on May 27, 2003.) The city should establish a minimum lot size requirement of 2.0 acres for non-sewered residential areas in the city (subject to performance standards), including the study area. This would be pdmadly in areas with steep slopes and with pockets of marginal soils. The performance standards would be to ensure that the soils and conditions on any future lots would be such that the proposed lot could accommodate a house, driveway, a well and at least two drain fields. The city should change (if necessary) the future land use plan and zoning designations of properties to reflect the minimum lot size requirement (if changed) for non-sewered areas. The city should first consider those districts with a lower cost-to-benefit ratio for municipal sanitary sewer service before the districts that have a higher cost-to-benefit ratio. 5 p:sec 24-28/south Maplewood r-1 r rezoning.doc Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Sewer Distdct Map 4. Proposed Zoning Map 5. Survey comments from John Sjolander 6. September 11,2003 letter from Douglas Coombs 7. E-mail comments from Uyen Campbell 8. September 22, 2003 letter from Jim Kerdgan 9. Rezoning Resolution REFERENCE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL Rezoning: Section 36-485 of the zoning code requires that the city council make the following findings to rezone property: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. 6 Attachment 1 15 Il ~ LONDIN RAMSEY COUNTY CORRECTIONAl_ FACILITY 15 480S 16 1. HUNTINGTON CT. 2. OAKRIDGE LN. 720S ~ 480S -- 720S 17 1. CURRIE CT. 2. VALLEY Vl~'w Ct. 3. LAKe"WOOD CT. 960S 2. HIGHWOOD ® 17 NEW CENTURY ~ 3 ND,'~ CEN/1JRy LN 960S 18 18 1200S ~o×woo~ Lake 1200S 1440S 19 <[ t9 1440S 2O RAMSE 1680S WASHINGTON 20 1680S 7 Attachment 2 F F CARVER AVENUE RE-40 F NEWPORT Attachment 3 NEWPORT XX -- SEWER DISTRICT NUMBER SOUTH MAPLEWOOD SEWER DISTRICTS F F RE-40 RI(R) NEWPORT PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP (PROPOSED) At Cachment 4 (R) September 9, 2003 Together We Can Attachment 5 JOHN A SJOLANDER 1636 STERLNG ST S MAPLEWOOD, MN 55119-6104 NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY: RURAL RESIDENTIAL (R-I(R)) ZONING PROPOSAL WhatJs BeinR Proposed? The City of Maplewood recently approved an amendment to the city code that added a rural residential (R-1 (R)) zoning classification. This new zoning district allows single dwellings as the pdmary land use and has a two-acm minimum lot size. As written, the city intends to use this zoning designation for the areas of the city where it is not likely that there will be public sewer. Specifically, the city is now considering changing the zoning of much of south Maplewood (generally the area south of Carver Avenue) from F (farm residence) to this new zoning classification (R-I(R)). Please refer to the attached rural residential (R-I(R)) zoning ordinance and the enclosed maps for more information about this proposal. Why this Notice? The city staff wishes that you be informed about this proposed zoning change and seeks your input in any of the following ways: Mail your comments to me. Please write any comments you have below or on the back of this letter. I have enclosed a stamped, addressed return envelope for your use to mail in your comments. Please note that any letters and attachments that you send to the city are considered public information and city staff may use them in staff reports that go to the planning commission and city council. 2. Call me at (651) 249-2303 or e-mail me at Ken. Roberts(~cl.maplewood.mn.us. 3. Attend the city council meeting and give your comments. City staff will notify you of the city council meeting by mail once the city has scheduled it. Whether you mail or phone in comm/e~ts, please do so by September 22, 2003. KENNETH ROBERTS- ASSOCIATE PLANNER Enclosures 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. South Maplewood Sewer Distdct Map 4. Rural Residential (R-I(R)) Zoning Code SEP ? 2003 Comments: OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 11 651- 770- 4560 (OVER) CiTY OF MAPLEWOOD 1830 EAST COUNTY ROAD B MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109 lZ Attachment 6 September 11, 2003 Douglas Coombs 2700 Carver Avenue Maplewood, MN 55119 Kenneth Roberts Associate Planner/Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55119 Dear Mr. Roberts, Thank you for sending the information on the new (R-1 (R)) zoning proposal. I applaud your efforts ..... but I think it is a little to late. Let me explain where I am coming from .......... When I bought my property almost 20 years ago, I visited the city offices on more than one occasion to confirm I could build on the lot, building requirements, zoning, and what not. I was very pleased with what I heard. I bought the lot and built my home on it. One factor which I liked was that the city had a minimum lot size for the area. It was 3 to 5 acres if my memory serves me correctly. Years later housing developments appeared with smaller lot sizes. I was never told of the change in requirements. When I called city hall I was told the appropriate procedures and meetings took place and I had been welcome to attend (if I had known). The county tells me my property taxes are soaring due to the new construction in the area and the high costs of these new homes. To help cover these costs and hopefully make enough to make some improvements on my home I was going to sell off a lot. I was told there was a moratorium and that I would have to wait. Now I see that a 2 acre lot size will apply to me, but not the developments that snuck in or my neighbors across the street. If the city/county had not taken part of my land for the good of the public (watershed dike), I might have plenty of land to split off. I was not informed or included in the taking either. I found out when I came home to find all my trees gone and bulldozers blocking access to my home. Back to the proposal I received. If all the dark areas on the zoning map are zoned Farm, Why are only the properties to the South of Carver included? When I visited town hall I thought all properties south of Highwood or Linwood were included in the larger lot size requirements. From your sewer district map, I see I am in district 70. Will we be getting sewers? Don't some homes south of Carver already have sewers and cable TV ? I would like to take you up on your suggestion to attend the city council meeting, but your notice failed to provide time and place. Please let me split offmy 1 acre lot, as others around me have done! SEP 1 5 2003 Ken Roberts Attachment Page 1 of 1 7 From: Uyen Campbell [ucampbell@hfllaw.com] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 10:29 AM To: Ken Roberts Subject: Rural Residential (R-I(R)) Zoning Proposal Dear Mr. Roberts, Thank you for your letter of September 9, 2003 informing us of the Rural Residential (R-1 (R)) Zoning Proposal. My husband and I have reviewed the proposal and would like to offer the following comments. We strongly agree with the city's purpose to protect vegetaion and wooded areas, "to protect and enhance the character" of this area of the city. However, a 2-acre lot minimum may not achieve this purpose. Realistically, the most likely type of developer to come into such an area is the large home builder looking to sell these lots for a premium and putting large homes on the lots. We are concerned that a 2-acre minimum won't allow for enough area for a large home, well AND septic system. The result will be a lot of destruction of mature trees on the lot to allow for room. We are particularly concerned about the area west of Sterling Street, alongside Interstate 494. This heavily wooded area creates a natural sound and pollution buffer from 1-494 for wildlife and the neighborhoods east of 1-494. With the widening of the the interstate and anticipated heavier traffic, the wooded area is even more critical to serve this function. A 2-acre minimum accompanied by conservation easements or 3-acre minimums with conservation easements would come closer to achieving the city's purpose and intent in creating the zoning district while allowing development in the area. I hope the city council will consider our input. We do plan on attending any city council meeting regarding this matter and would greatly appreciate notification of the date and time of the meeting once scheduled. Thank you very much for your consideration and attention to this matter. Uyen Campbell 2564 Hailer Lane E Maplewood, MN 55119-6106 (651) 714-9742 Uyen Campbell HAUER, FARGIONE, LOVE LANDY & McELLISTREM, P.A. 5901 Cedar Lake Road Minneapolis, MN 55416 (952) 544-5501 Fax (952) 591-0682 14 Attachment 8 September 22, 2003 Ken Roberts City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 SEP 2 3 2003 RECEIVED Re: Proposed Rural Residential Zoning, South Maplewood Dear Ken: Thank you for providing me with information concerning the proposed rezoning of property in my area from Farm Residential (F) to Rural Residential (R-1 [R]). I have the following general comments concerning this matter: The rural residential zoning significantly reduces the development potential of property in the subject area. It is my understanding that presently a property owner in this area has the ability to construct approximately nine units per two acres with the F zoning (exclusive of topograPhic issues) and the R-I(R) zoning would allow only one unit for the same acreage. In essence, a rezoning to RI(R) reduces the value of the subject property from a development perspective. Last year the Ramsey County assessor's office revalued all of the large acreage property in south Maplewood. As a result of this process, the majority of properties on the south side of Carver Avenue had the property values increased approximately 100% for taxes payable in 2004. Part of the assessor's basis for this substantial valuation increase was the development capability of these large acreage lots. If a rezoning of south Maplewood to R-I(R) is approved, I would ask that city staff inform Ramsey County of the change to ensure that the reduction in development potential is reflected in the future property valuation. As relates to the above, I question the need to create a two-acre minimum lot size. It would seem that one acre should be adequate. The area adjacent to Carver Avenue has very sandy soil, which allows for smaller septic system drain fields. The'front setback and side setback requirements for the proposed R-I(R) zoning seem excessive over what presently exists with the F zoning classification. Because of the topography and wetlands in the subject area, it is difficult to facilitate additions and new construction without the constraints of increased setback requirements. 15 Letter to Ken Roberts, September 22, 2003 - Page 2 Because of the site topography in the subject area, if there is a rezoning to R-I(R), I would like to see something that would allow for the possibility of clustering development, i.e., through a PUD process. If a rezoning proceeds, it would probably be appropriate to include all property, both north and south of Carver Avenue, presently without public sewer service. In accordance with the intent of the R-1 (R) zoning, this would help to protect a very Iow density, semi-rural, residential lifestyle for the entire south Maplewood area. Also, this would eliminate a situation where some property owners perceive they are losing development opportunities while others are retaining theirs. In conclusion, in order to preserve future development options and flexibility, it is probably most advantageous to retain the existing zoning. I do understand, however, the logic behind the suggested change. If the area is rezoned, I would ask that the city take into consideration the points I have detailed above. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call at (952) 939-1355. St. Paul, MN 55119 Attachment 9 ZONING MAP CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood has initiated a change the city's zoning map from F (farm residence) to R-I(R) (rural residential).. WHEREAS, this change is for several properties in south Maplewood as follows: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 2510 Carver Avenue (PIN 24-28-22-13-0001) XXXX Carver Avenue (Vacant) (PIN 24-28-22-13-0002) XXXX Carver Avenue (Vacant) (PIN 24-28-22-13-0003) 2620 Carver Avenue (PIN 24-28-22-14-0002) 2670 Carver Avenue (PIN 24-28-22-14-0003) XXXX Carver Avenue (Vacant) (PIN 24-28-22-14-0010) 2700 Carver Avenue (PIN 24-28-22-14-0011) XXXX Carver Avenue (Vacant) (PIN 24-28-22-14-0005) 2730 Carver Avenue (PIN 24-28-22-14-0013) XXXX Henry Lane (Vacant) (PIN 24-28-22-32-0001) 1501 Henry Lane (PIN 24-28-22-32-0002) XXXX Henry Lane (Vacant) (PIN 24-28-22-32-0003) XXXX Henry Lane (Vacant) (PIN 24-28-22-31-0007) XXXX Henry Lane (Vacant) (PIN 24-28-22-33-0001) 1481 Henry Lane (PIN 24-28-22-31-0017) 1491 Steding Street South (PIN 24-28-22-31-0015) 1525 Sterling Street South (PIN 24-28-22-31-0016) XXXX Steding Street South (Vacant) (PIN 24-28-22-34-0001) 1615 Steding Street South (PIN 24-28-22-34-0002) 1635 Steding Street South (PIN 24-28-22-34-0007) 1645 Steding Street South (PIN 24-28-22-34-0008) XXXX Steding Street South (Vacant) (PIN 24-28-22-34-0006) 1675 Steding Street South (PIN 24-28-22-34-0005) 1636 Sterling Street South (PIN 24-28-22-43-0003) 1670 Steding Street South (PIN 24-28-22-43-0004) 1678 Steding Street South (PIN 24-28-22-43-0002) WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. On October 6, 2003, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve the proposed zoning map changes. 2. On ,2003, the city council held a public headng. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council conducted the public hearing whereby all public present were given a chance to speak and present written statements. The city council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described changes in the zoning map for the following reasons: 17 The proposed changes are consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. The proposed changes will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. The proposed changes will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. The proposed changes would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. The proposed changes would make the zoning of the property consistent with the existing land use designation. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2003. 18 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM Richard Fursman, City Manager Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Mixed-Use Zoning District City of Maplewood Along White Bear Ave., North of Larpenteur Ave. and South of Ripley Ave. September 30, 2003 INTRODUCTION Background October 27, 2002, the city council approved a one-year development moratorium for the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area so that staff could draft zoning and design standards based on the Metropolitan Council's "smart-growth" development principles. Over the last six months staff has been receiving comments and guidance from the planning commission and community design review board on the drafting of these principles. Staff has now compiled all comments into a draft ordinance, which staff is calling the mixed-use zoning district. This zoning district will allow for a mixture of land uses and is intended to promote the redevelopment of an area into an urban center with compact, pedestrian-oriented commercial and residential uses. The mixed-use zoning district could be implemented in the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area, as well as other areas of the city, such as the Gladstone neighborhood, where there is a need for redevelopment to create a revitalized, urban village setting. Timeline To ensure the city council reviews the proposed ordinance by the moratorium deadline of October 27, 2003, staff's goal is to present the mixed-use zoning district to the city council for their review at the October 27, 2003, city council meeting. Prior to the city council authorizing the rezoning of the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area to the mixed-use zoning district, staff will present the ordinance to all property owners located in the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area for review and comments. DISCUSSION The planning commission and community design review board commented on different areas of the proposed ordinance as follows: Planning Commission: · Uses · Parking · Subdivision Requirements · Density Community Design Review Board · Dimensional Standards · Design Standards · Landscaping · Lighting · Signs A brief summary of the planning commission's review topics follows: Uses Because there will be a mix of land uses in the new zoning district, both commercial and residential, it is important to ensure that there are no commercial uses that would cause negative impacts on surrounding residential properties. Therefore, staff recommends prohibiting the following uses in the mixed-use zoning district: adult uses and sexually oriented businesses, antennas which are freestanding and not located on existing structures, currency exchange businesses, drive-through sales and services, drive-up food or beverage windows, exterior storage, motor vehicle wash or maintenance garages, and pawnbrokers. Pre-existing prohibited uses would be covered by the city's existing nonconforming ordinance that would allow these uses to remain until such time as the use ceased for one year or more. In addition, the nonconforming use could be expanded if the city council approved a conditional use permit. The proposed ordinance allows for several variations of residential units including: single-family dwelling, double dwelling, townhouse, multiple-family, secondary dwelling, and mixed use. Originally staff recommended prohibiting single-family dwellings, but has since reconsidered the inclusion of single-family dwellings into the ordinance, especially allowing for detached townhomes, which would be considered a single-family dwelling. Secondary dwellings are defined as an owner-occupied, additional dwelling unit located within and subordinate to the principal dwelling on a single-dwelling lot. Secondary dwellings are limited to no more than 30 percent of the principal dwelling's total floor area, or 800 square feet, whichever is less, and would require a conditional use permit. The concept of allowing second dwelling units is three-fold. First, it creates additional rental income for a property owner, creating a more affordable home for both the owner and the renter. Second, it would create a separate unit for the owner's family member, i.e., handicapped or elderly family member. Finally, it would allow for higher densities that would help support the transit-oriented developments envisioned in the mixed-use zoning district. Parking The Hillcrest Village redevelopment area currently has several bus routes located in the area. The area will also benefit from the proposed Riverview Corddor bus route, which will be an express bus running from the airport to the Maplewood Mall (see attached bus route map on page 5). This route is still in the planning stages, but will be an important transit alternative for the area once it begins. One of the purposes of the mixed-use zoning district, as stated in the ordinance's purpose and intent statement, is to promote the redevelopment or development of an area into a mixed-use urban center with compact, pedestrian-oriented commercial and residential land uses that are Mixed-Use Zoning District September 30, 2003 2 within an easy walk of a major transit stop. Therefore, public transit, not private vehicles, will be emphasized. Because of this, developments located next to a transit stop will be allowed to reduce their required number of parking spaces. On-street parking will also be an important element in the new mixed-use zoning district. On- street parking located in front of a development may count toward the required number of parking spaces. The city's current ordinance prohibiting overnight parking will remain in place, as recommended by the planning commission. In addition, shared parking and parking districts will be strongly encouraged to ensure that developments do not overbuild parking facilities. Subdivision Requirements To create a cohesive neighborhood environment where all street and walkways interconnect, the subdivision requirements will require smaller blocks, sidewalks on both sides of the street, encourage the use of alleys, and discourage the use of cul-de-sacs. Density Increasing allowable densities within the city will be the biggest hurdle involved in the adoption of the new mixed-use zoning district. Currently the city allows densities as high as 16.3 units per acre for apartment buildings with 50 or more units. Density bonuses are allowed for underground parking, 25 percent open space, additional landscaping, and buildings higher than three stories. If all bonuses are utilized, the 16.3 units per acre could be increased to 16.5 units per acre. Within the mixed-use zoning district, staff originally recommended densities as high as 30 units per acre. Because of comments received by the planning commission, staff is now recommending allowing densities as high as 20 units per acre, with the same density bonuses as currently allowed, plus an additional density bonus for units that are built as affordable. The affordable aspect was recommended by a planning commissioner as an important element to the higher densities, but should be considered by all planning commissioners during review of the draft ordinance. Many variables are involved in requiring affordable units. In order to ensure that the units remain affordable, the city would have to undertake a new program, whether it is a land trust or other controls on the future sale or rents. While these programs can be effective, it would take an additional layer of policy and city cost and staff time for administration. The affordable aspect could also be written into a development agreement, or if funding from the city is requested, could be written into these agreements. If all bonuses as proposed in the mixed-use zoning district are used, the 20 units per acre could be increased to 20.4 units per acre. Following isa comparison of existing to proposed densities using an existing city development: Mixed-Use Zoning District September 30, 2003 Afton Ridge (Located on the Southeast Corner of Lower Afton Road and McKnight Road): This development has 4.22 acres in area and was developed with 40 townhome units. The density is 9.5 units per acre. Afton Ridge's density if developed with the city's highest existing allowable density (16.3 units per acre located in a multi-family building, i.e., apartment building): 68 units allowed Afton Ridge's density if developed with the city's highest existing allowable density plus all allowable bonuses (16.5 units per acre located in a four-story, multi-family building with underground parking, etc.): 70 units allowed Afton Ridge's density if developed with the new ordinance's highest allowable density (20 units per acre located in a multi-family or mixed-use building): 84 units allowed Afton Ridge's density if developed with the new ordinance's highest allowable density plus all allowable bonuses (20.4 units per acre located in a four-story, multi-family or mixed-use building with underground parking and all units built as "affordable"): 86 units allowed Higher densities will be an important aspect of making the redevelopment of an area into a transit-oriented development feasible. In addition, higher housing densities will help make more affordable and alternative life-cycle housing possible. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the planning commission review, comment, and make a recommendation to the city council on the attached mixed-use zoning ordinance. P:Hillcrest\10-6-03 PC Mixed Use Report Attachments: 1. Riverview Corridor Bus Route 2. Draft Mixed-Use Zoning Distdct Mixed-Use Zoning District September 30, 2003 4 Attachment 1 East Stations Alignment Downtown- .~-_'st' Paul Stations WeSt '-- Stations -- Interim Alignment RIVERVIEW CORRIDOR BUS ROUTE Mixed Use Zoning District September 30, 2003 DRAFT MIXED-USE ZONING DISTRICT September 29, 2003 Author's notes found in italics Attachment 2 Purpose and Intent: The purpose of the mixed-use zoning district is to provide areas in the City of Maplewood with a mixture of land uses, made mutually compatible through land use controls and high- quality design standards. With this district, the City of Maplewood intends to promote the redevelopment or development of an area into a mixed-use urban center with compact, pedestrian-oriented commercial and residential land uses that are within an easy walk of a major transit stop. The intent of the mixed-use zoning distdct is to enhance viability within an area and foster more employment and residential opportunities. The placement and treatment of buildings, parking, signage, landscaping, and pedestrian spaces are essential elements in creating the pedestrian-friendly and livable environment envisioned by the city in an area. To ensure these elements are achieved basic design standards are included in the district, which could be expanded by the city as a separate architectural overlay district for a particular area. Uses Type of Use Permitted (P) Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Prohibited (PR) Residential Uses Single-family dwelling Double dwelling Multiple dwelling Secondary dwelling P P P CUP Mixed Commercial-Residential Uses Multiple-dwelling residential and commercial Live-work unit CUP CUP Commercial Uses Adult uses and sexually oriented businesses Antennas which are freestanding and not located on existing structures Bakery/candy shop/catering, which produces goods for on-premise retail sale Bank, credit union Clinic Currency exchange business Drive-through sales and services Drive-up food or beverage window Dry cleaning, commercial laundry Exterior storage, display, sale or distribution of goods or materials Health/sports club Hotel/motel/bed and breakfast residence Indoor recreation Indoor theater Limited production and processing Liquor store PR PR P P PR PR PR P PR P P P P P P Mixed-Use Zoning District September 30, 2003 6 Type of Use Permitted (P) Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Prohibited (PR) Commercial Uses (continued) Motor vehicle convenience market Motor vehicle wash or maintenance garage Office On-sale liquor business Pawnbroker Publishing, photocopying, or printing establishment Restaurant Retail Small appliance repair CUP PR P P PR P P P P Accessory use customarily incidental to any of the above uses The city shall allow commercial uses similar to the above if they would not create a nuisance and if they are not noxious or hazardous. The city council shall review uses that are not clearly similar for determination of compatibility. Use definitions: Drive-through sales and service: An opening in the wall of a building designed and intended to be used to provide sales and/or service to patrons who remain in their vehicles. Drive-up food or beverage window: An opening in the wall of a building or restaurant designed and intended to be used to provide food and/or beverage sales, and/or food and/or beverage service to patrons who remain in their vehicles. (THIS IS ALREADY DEFINED IN OUR BC-M ZONING DISTRICT) Live-work unit: A dwelling unit in combination with a shop, office, studio, or other workspace within the same unit, where the resident occupant both lives and works. Standards and conditions: The workspace component must be located on the first floor or basement of the building, with an entrance facing the primary abutting street. The dwelling unit component must be located above or behind the workspace and maintain a separate entrance located on the front or side fa[:ade and be accessible from the pdmary abutting street. The office or business component of the unit shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the total gross floor area of the principal dwelling unit. A total of two (2) off-street parking spaces shall be provided for a live-work unit, located to the rear of the unit, or underground/enclosed. The size and nature of the workspace unit shall be limited so that the building type may be governed by residential building codes. An increase in size or intensity beyond the specified limit would require the building to be classified as a mixed-use building. The business component of the building may include offices, small service establishments, home crafts which are typically considered accessory to a dwelling unit, or limited retail associated with fine arts or crafts. The business component shall be limited to those uses otherwise permitted in the district that do not require a separation from residentially zoned or occupied property, or other protected use. It may not include a wholesale business, manufacturing business, commercial food service requiring a license, limousine business, or motor vehicle service or repair for any vehicles other than those registered to residents of the property. Mixed-Use Zoning District September 30, 2003 7 Motor vehicle convenience market: A place where gasoline, motor oil, lubricants, or other minor accessories are retailed directly to the public on the premises in combination with the retailing of items typically found in a convenience market or supermarket, with no minor motor vehicle repair or motor vehicle washes. Secondary dwelling: An additional dwelling unit located within and subordinate to the principal dwelling on a single-dwelling lot, designed for a single occupant or small family. Standards and conditions for such a unit shall include the following: A secondary dwelling unit shall be located within a single-family dwelling or above its accessory structure. In the case of an addition to an existing structure, the exterior finish, roof pitch, windows, eaves and other architectural features must be the same or visually compatible with those of the original building. The additional dwelling unit may not contain more than thirty percent (30%) of the principal dwelling's total floor area or eight hundred (800) square feet, whichever is less. There shall be no mom than two (2) dwelling units on a lot. At least one (1) dwelling unit on the lot shall be owner-occupied. The minimum lot ama shall be two thousand, five hundred (2,500) square feet greater than the minimum lot area required for a single dwelling in the district. Nonconformin,q uses: Uses that become nonconforming by adoption of the mixed-use zoning district would be covered under the city's existing nonconforming ordinance. In summary, any pm-existing conforming or nonconforming use that would become nonconforming by adoption of the mixed-use zoning district would be allowed to remain until such time as the use of a building or land is voluntarily abandoned and ceases for a continuous period of one year or more. In addition, the use may expand or intensify with the city's approval of a conditional use permit. Dimensional Standards Lot Size Per Unit Buildinq Type Density (Square Feet) Hei.qht (Feet) Single dwelling 6 units/acre 7,260 351 Double dwelling/ 15 units/acre22,904 35~ townhouse Residential garage n/a n/a Per Section accessed from alley3 44-114 Structure Setbacks (Feet) Front Side Rear 20 to 25 5 15 2O to 25 5 15 n/a 5 0/184 Residential garage not n/a n/a Per Section 20 to 25 5 5 accessed from alley3 44-114 Multiple dwelling 20 units/acre2 2,178 n/a 0 to 20 Os Os Mixed-use/residential 20 units/acre 2,178 n/a 0 to 10 Os 05 and commercial Commercial/including n/a n/a n/a 0 to 10 0s 0s structure parking ~No single dwelling, double dwelling, or townhouse shall exceed a height of thirty-five (35) feet, unless the city council approves a conditional use permit. Mixed-Use Zoning District September 30, 2003 2Density bonuses are allowed per Section 44-300. In addition, the net acreage for calculating density may be increased by three hundred (300) square feet for each affordable dwelling unit, as defined by the Metropolitan Council guidelines. 3Residential garages must be attached and recessed from the primary front fa(;ade (not including porches, bay windows, or other minor projections) by a minimum of eight (8) feet; or attached or detached, placed in the rear yard, and accessed by either an alley or a side-yard driveway. 4The required setback from an alley for a residential garage should be zero (0) or more feet if the garage door faces the intedor of the lot, and eighteen (18) or more feet when the garage door faces the alley. SThe zero (0) setback specified above is allowed except as otherwise specified in the building code. Side and rear yards of at least six (6) feet shall be required when a mixed-use zoned, nonresidential use adjoins a mixed-use zoned, residential use. Side and rear yard setbacks as specified in Section 44-20 (c)(6)(b) [additional design standards] when a mixed-use zoned, nonresidential use adjoins a non-mixed-use zoned, residential use. Off-Street Parking Placement of surface parkin.q: Surface parking must be located to the rear of a principal building, or an interior side yard if parking in the rear is impractical. Surface parking must maintain a ten-foot (10') setback to the street right-of-way when constructed on the side or rear of a building on a corner lot. Surface parking must maintain a five-foot (5') side and five-foot (5') rear yard setback, unless a nonresidential use adjoins a non-mixed-use zoned, residential use, in which case the required setback as specified in Section 44-19(a) [landscaping and screening]. The city may approve variances to the surface parking placement standard if a building has special needs and site constraints. In these cases, there should be good pedestrian connections between the sidewalk and building entrance, and the area in front of the parking lot should be well landscaped. Amount of parkin.q: The minimum amount of required parking spaces shall be as specified in Section 44-17 [off-street parking]. The maximum amount of surface parking spaces shall not exceed the specified minimum by more than ten percent (10%), or two (2) spaces, whichever is greater. If additional parking is desired, it must be placed underground, within an enclosed building, or in a tuck-under garage. On-street parking located in front of a development may count toward the required number of parking spaces. For retail, medical, service and office uses, if a transit shelter is provided on site, then the minimum required number of parking spaces may be reduced by five percent (5%), but not to exceed five (5) parking spaces total. For retail, medical, service and office uses, required parking may be reduced by the establishment of a parking district for the purposes of sharing parking within one shopping area (i.e., varying peak parking hours or availability of off-street public parking). The establishment of a commercial parking district to allow a reduction in parking required shall be subject to review and approval by the community design review board during the development's initial site plan review or subsequent - site plan changes. Retail, medical, service and office uses may participate in a shared parking agreement provided that it can be demonstrated that there will be adequate parking in combination with the other uses. In addition to the above-referenced allowances for parking reduction, the city council may authorize other reduced off-street parking requests through a special agreement. The reduction must be based on proven parking data for a specific development. Mixed-Use Zoning District September 30, 2003 9 Parking space size: 90-degree parking: 9 feet x 18 feet 45-degree parking: 8.5 feet x 18 feet Parallel parking: 8 feet x 21 feet Design Standards Extedor building materials: Exterior building materials shall be classified pdmary, secondary, or accent material. Primary materials shall cover at least sixty percent (60%) of all fa(;ades of a building. Secondary materials may cover no more than thirty percent (30%) of all facades of a building. Accent materials may include door and window frames, lintels, cornices, and other minor elements, and may cover no more than ten percent (10%) of all fac,,3des of a building. Allowable materials are as follows: Primary exterior building materials may be brick, stone, or glass. Bronze-tinted or mirror glass are prohibited as exterior materials. Secondary exterior building materials may be decorative block or stucco. Synthetic stucco may be permitted as a secondary material on upper floors only. Accent materials may be wood or metal if appropriately integrated into the overall building design and not situated in areas that will be subject to physical or environmental damage. All pdmary and secondary materials shall be integrally colored. Remodeling/additions/alterations: Remodeling, additions or other alterations to existing buildings (buildings previously approved and built with mixed-use design standards) shall be done in a manner that is compatible with the original scale, massing, detailing and materials of the original building. Original materials shall be retained and preserved to the extent possible. Additions to a nonconforming building must be constructed with materials required by this ordinance if the addition exceeds twenty-five percent (25%) of the floor area. Exterior remodeling or alterations to a nonconforming building must be constructed with materials required by this ordinance. The director of community development, if the extedor remodeling or alteration requires administrative review, or the community design review board, if the extedor remodeling or alteration requires design review, may authorize the use of other materials if the addition, remodeling, or alteration is deemed to be minor in nature and not visible from a public street. Building fac,,ade width: Any exterior building wall adjacent to or visible from a public street or public open space may not exceed forty (40) feet in width or less. New buildings of more than forty (40) feet in width are allowed if the building wall is divided into smaller increments, between twenty (20) and forty (40) feet in width, through articulation of the fac,,ade. This can be achieved through combinations of the following techniques, and others that may meet the objective: Facade modulation - stepping back or extending forward a portion of the fa(;ade. Vertical divisions using different textures or materials (although materials should be drawn from a common palette). Division into storefronts, with separate display windows and entrances. Variation in rooflines by alternating dormers, stepped roofs, gables, or other roof elements to reinforce the modulation or articulation interval. Arcades, awnings, window bays, arched windows and balconies. Matedal change: Material changes should not occur at external comers, but may occur at reverse or interior corners or as a return at least six (6) feet from external comers. Windows: Buildings containing office and retail uses shall maintain forty percent (40%) minimum window coverage on the first floor that faces a street or public open space. Windows must be placed at a pedestrian scale, at or near eye-level. Mixed-Use Zoning District September 30, 2003 10 Awnin.qs: Awnings must be properly maintained, and if in poor repair must be repaired or replaced in a timely manner. Metal awnings are discouraged unless the design of the awning is compatible with the building, as determined by the director of community development director (if the awnings require administrative review) or the community design review board (if the awnings require design review). Stora.qe/service/Ioadin.q: If an outdoor storage, service, or loading area is visible from adjacent residential uses, or a street or walkway, it shall be screened by a decorative fence, wail, or screen of plant material at least six (6) feet in height. Fences and walls shall be amhitecturally compatible with the pdmary structure. Model variety: Each single-dwelling or double dwelling development of one hundred (100) or more units must have at least four (4) models with three (3) elevations and material treatments each. For single- dwelling or double dwelling developments of less than one hundred (100) units, at least three (3) models with three (3) variations each are required. No street block should have more than two (2) consecutive single-dwelling houses with the same house model. Porches and entdes: Porches for all residential types shall be accessed directly from a street or pedestrian easement. Porches may extend six (6) feet into the required Setback. Front porches must have a minimum depth of six (6) feet clear and compdse a minimum of thirty percent (30%) of the width of a building's primary front fa(~ade (not including the garage) or ten (10) feet clear, whichever is larger. Porches, steps, pent roofs, roof overhangs, and hooded front doors or similar architectural elements shall be used to define all primary residential entrances. Exceptions: The community development director (if administrative review is required) or the community design review board (if design review is required) may consider exceptions to the above-mentioned design standards if they uphold the integrity of the guidelines and result in an attractive, cohesive development design as intended by this ordinance. Landscaping Landscape definition: Over story tree: Large deciduous shade-producing tree with a mature height over thirty (30) feet. Landscape requirements: All areas of land not occupied by buildings, parking, driveways, sidewalks, or other hard surface shall be sodded or mulched and landscaped with approved ground cover, flowers, shrubbery, and trees. Hard surfaced public areas, including sidewalks and patios, must include amenities such as benches and planters. At least ten percent (10%) of the total land area within the perimeter of parking lots shall include landscape islands. Each landscape island shall include at least one (1) tree as specified in Section 44-20(c)(8) [additional design standards]. Over story trees are required at regular intervals within the street right-of-way to help define the street edge, to buffer pedestrians from vehicles, and to provide shade. The over story trees shall be located in a planting strip at least five (5) feet wide between curb and sidewalk, or in a planting structure of design acceptable to the city. Lighting All outdoor lighting to be of a design and size compatible with the building, and as specified in Section 44- 19(c)(1 ) [outdoor lighting], except that light pole height maximum is limited to sixteen (16) feet. Signs Si,qn review: The community design review board shall review all signage on new buildings or developments to ensure that the signs meet mixed-use sign requirements and are architecturally Mixed-Use Zoning District September 30, 2003 11 compatible with the new building or development. In addition, the community design review board shall review all comprehensive sign plans as required in Section 44-736 [comprehensive sign plan]. All signage on existing buildings or developments (buildings or developments previously approved and built with mixed-use design standards) shall be reviewed by the community development director and shall be done in a manner that is compatible with the original scale, massing, detailing and materials of the odginal building. All signage on nonconforming buildings or developments shall be reviewed by the community development director and shall comply with the mixed-use sign requirements. Overall si,qnage: Allowable area of overall signage for each establishment is one and one-half (1 ~) square feet of signage per lineal foot of building or frontage on a street, public open space, or private parking area. Each wall shall be calculated individually and sign area may not be transferred to another side of the building. Wall signage: Wall signs shall not cover windows or architectural trim and detail. Proiectin.q si.qns: Projecting signs are allowed as part of the overall signage. Projecting signs may not extend more than four (4) feet over a public right-of-way, and must not project out further than the sign's height. Ground signs: One (1) ground sign for each building is allowed as part of the overall signage if the building is set back at least twenty (20) feet or.more from the street right-of-way. Ground signs must meet the following requirements: 2. 3. 4. Limited to six (6) feet in height and forty (40) square feet in area. Maintain a five-foot (5') setback from any side or rear property line, but can be constructed up to the front property line. Must consist of a base constructed of materials and design features similar to those of the front fac,,ade of the building or development. Must be landscaped with flowers or shrubbery. Prohibited signs: Signs painted directly on the wall of a building; reader boards located in permanent signage, except for reader boards advertising gasoline prices at motor vehicle convenience markets; signs which advertise a product and not a specific business. Temporary and directional si.qns: As specified in Sections 44-807 [temporary signs] and Section 44-891 [special purpose signs]. Sign illumination: As specified in Section 44-19(c)(1) [outdoor lighting]. Nonconforming signs: Signs that become nonconforming by adoption of the mixed-use zoning district would be covered under the city's existing nonconforming ordinance. In summary, any pre-existing conforming or nonconforming sign that would become nonconforming by adoption of the mixed-use zoning district would be allowed to remain until such time as the sign is destroyed or removed. In addition, the sign may be refaced to the existing size, but may not be expanded without a variance. Subdivision Blocks: Maximum block length of six hundred (600) feet. Right-of-way width: Subject to discretion of the director of public works and approval by the city council. Street pavement widths: Subject to discretion of the director of public works and approval by the city council. Mixed-Use Zoning District September 30, 2003 12 Alleys: Interconnected streets and alleys are strongly encouraged within the mixed-use zoning district. Alley right-of-way and pavement widths subject to discretion of the director of public works and approval by the city council. Cul-de-sacs: Cul-de-sacs are discouraged within the mixed-use zoning district. Sidewalks: Sidewalks are required on both sides of streets. Mixed-Use Zoning District September 30, 2003 13 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENT September 4, 2003 INTRODUCTION The planning commission has a vacancy created by the resignation of Matt Ledvina. I have attached a map of where the current planning commission members live, a map of where the candidates live and the candidate's applications. (See pages two through eight.) BACKGROUND The planning commission's rules of procedure state that the commission shall recommend candidates based on qualifications and by trying to have a representative geographical distribution of members. RECOMMENDATION Interview the applicant's for the planning commission vacancy and appoint a person to serve on the planning commission. This person would fill the unfinished term on the planning commission that would end on December 31, 2004. kr/p:m isc/pca p pt. 03.d oc Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Membership Map 2. Planning Commission Applicant's Location Map 3. Jeff Bartol Application and Resume 4. Roger Posch Application CITY OF MAPLEWOOD ~ County of Romsey, Minnesot~ 1EI50 ~'ost County Road ,q, Maplewood. Mn. ~ o (65~) 77o-~oo ~o9 ~GEND 2880N -- MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION ~Lorraine B. Fischer, Chair 1812 Fumess Street Maplewood MN 55109 Dale Tdppler 1201 Junction Avenue Maplewood MN 55109-3433 (~Paul Mueller 1820 Onacrest Court Maplewood MN 55117 OMary Diedch 2624 Promontory Place Maplewood MN 55119 (~ushar Desai 2937 Edward Street Maplewood MN 55109 (~William Rossbach 1386 County Road C Maplewood, MN 55109 (~ary Pearson 1209 Antelope Way Maplewood MN 55119 (~)Jackie Monahan-Junek 2430 Larpenteur Avenue Maplewood MN 55119 Attachment CITY OF MAPLEWOOD Caunb/ of Ramsey, Minnesota 1850 E.a~t Count~ Road 8, blaple~ood, Mn. (651) 770-4500 55109 LEGEND i. I ~ Io I ~ I" I ~ I ~ t, PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICANTS Jeff Bartol 2702 Pinkspire Lane Maplewood, MN 55119 Roger Posch 1583 County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 3 Af~achment 2 7 9 NAME Attachment GITY OF MAPLEVVOOD BOARDS AND COIVIMI$$1ONS APPLICANT INFORMATION FORM AUG 2 1 ADDRESS ,2.'702. PHONENO. Work: &:5'l- 3~1- ]o,-,,q Home: d,~/- 350- ,BE,9 8 DATE 1) How long have you lived in the City of Maplewood? ~ roon ii0 2) Will other commitments make regular attendance at meetings difficult? Comments: Yes No / 3) On which Board or Commission are interested in serving? (please check) Community Design Review Board Park & Recreation Commission ~ Housing & Redevelopment Authority V7- Planning Commission Human Relations Commission Police Civil Service Commission 4) Do you have any specific areas of interest within this Board's or Commission's scope of responsibilities? 5) List other organizations or clubs in the Community in which you have been or are an active pa~icipant: Why would you like to serve on this Board or Commission? ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: gull,i% ~oa','45, ¸6) THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS APPLICATION SHALL BE CLASSIFIED AS PUBLIC EXCEPT FOR HOME AND WORK TELEPHONE NUMBERS. S:\CTY_MGR~BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS APPLICATION doc 4141O2 Jeffrey A. Bartol jabartol~}comcast, net 2702 651-331-1044 , ... an opportunity to deploy 28 years of comPuter content management, file archives, database integration identifying production, automation and communication integrating, and maintaining user-friendly systems and vendor relations, marketing communications, and sales I seek a business environment that is challenging yet flexible; creative approach while committed to professional standardS, I believe strongly in incentive-based compensations, approach and exercise it with those that work with me and for me~/am ~[ corporations that function as smaller, intimate teams with a ~t IO the the opportunity to minimize bureaucratic obstacles. Over the last 28 years, I have reinvented myself several times and be~ve thi$is; industry. The company I work for must recognize this, support it.and ~n share this same commitment; exchanging information and growing' our economy, determine team success, and ensure the Integral was incorporated in December of 2000 by a group We were convinced, however, that the World Wide business tool; and that integration services and development be in demand. As the director of content management, I devel0~ opportunities in areas such as document management, couple years we've developed web-based business government, the DoD, defense contractors, and local cornel' ~ legal services and Iow-income housing regulations. Dudng the last two economically challenged have developed a reputation for project management and fixed pdce. ~ BdghTech was a small web-application developer and and success with the dot.corn and eCommerce Banta, I often outsoumed high-end technical problems instrumental in developing both Colorhouse's Rover and product development and marketing of what was to become Unfortunately, the dot.corn craze imploded; Bdghtechls product was woefully under-funded. After seven months; against a rapidly growing number of well-financed corn Vignette and over a hundred others. The Banta Digital Group is a division of the billion-dollar software development group, Banta Integrated Media high-end content management solution to be sold both: as a prepress and corporate marcom entities. HOwever, Since thelt was brought on board to basically recreate the same Iow-e Colorhouse as a stop-gap measure. In less than a we successfully addressed the internal worldlow, OP! sold to Banta's prepress customers for their DAM, The continued success of this lower-end solution, Image-Silte~ ~ stop selling services that competed with Banta's million-dolla~ Though relocating to Massachusetts to work with B-Media was Banta were limited This was a new position at Colorhouse that reported directly to l application and service of Digital Asset solution (MediaAssets) as well as a 1.4 terabyte laser disk jt solution could be successfully deployed in a prepress product; and then integrate that product with both the laser server and their existing OPI (prepress file workflow system). The decision was made to replace the "embedded image" ap~ of ~ open-ended, customizable Telescope by NorthPlains - a solution lhat all major platforms including SUN Solads. we also re FullPress by Xinet. We integrated both these products with:~ addressed the in-house workflow, job-tracking and archival I then worked closely with Colorhouse's marketing prepress customers. By working closely with lhe integrators, and outsource programmers - I was able to MediaWay was a relatively new company (established in digital asset management solution based on their own reported directly to the CEO and quite broad, and dudng these early years of asset designed and conducted vadous seminars and training accounts, ad agencies, printers, prepress and photo labs. channel, my responsibilities included iden~ng; selecting, t After each sale, I participated in the users, and assisted with database schema design, population Though the top salesman in '96, I did fall short of my fundamental flaws resulting in very difficult and list of reference accounts. 2 of 3 Jeffrey A. Bartol 6 651-331-1044 MicroFrame was a start up company in 1987 of five engineem, :~ bringing' yet fastest growing CAD VARs in the upper mid-west. product selection, market analysis and corporate level was on the software products with APIs sufficient to enough to justify development costs. The most frequently RDBMS's. Accomplishments included being the country's #1 CADD system to be used in storage rack and mezzanine layout and test for circuit logic and ladder diagramS for 3M, and:~:~ri ' solutions and services inciuding: FMC, TetraPak, Telex GIS was one of the first CAD VARs in the Twin the manufacturing, engineering and architectural Communities. and system integration. I developed one of the first architectural specification and was responsible for the sale and manufactufinQ firms including: Ellerbe Becket, KKE & Associates. FMC is a design and manufacturer for the federal government responsible for identifying needs and solutions for various Manufacturing) including: mechanical engineering, electrica element analysis, NC (numerical control), and tooling. scheduling and utilization, software testing, trouble-shooting As the CADD Supervisor for the largest architectural firm in ramifications and ROI for implementing one of the first supervised the initial operating staff and coordinated the was also responsible for:. maintaining system security company standard operating procedures, comprehensive library of construction details, symbols and Vadous CAD, CAM, FEA, Solid Modeling, Database Administrative classes - Over 1,000 hours between 1975 and hours of sales training including curriculum included the MasterMind Sales Training program offered available upon request.) Bachelor of Architecture, University of MinneSota Professional Associations include Amedcan Institute Engineers, AIIM, International Prepress Association, Printing Amedcan Advertising Federation (AdFed), and IDF-AIi~i Communications Association where I assisted in Production in the Graphic Arts~ - available upon request). speaker at conferences for most of these associatiOns. References available upon request. 3 of 3 Jeffrey A. Bartol 651-331-1044 NAME CITY OF MAPLEWOOD BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS APPLICANT INFORMATION FORM Attachment 4 ADDRESS /-~'7~ 2, PHONE NO. Work: EMAIL /'Z~?o~/Y ~ ZIP Home: FAX 1 ) How long have you lived in the City of Maplewood? "Z. ~ ,/,~,o~F~ 2) Will other commitments make regular attendance at meetings difficult? Comments: Yes No / On which Board or Commission are you interested in serving? (please check) A description of the duties of each committee is on back. Community Design Review Board ____.zPark & Recreation Commission ~Housing & Redevelopment Authority ¢/ Planning Commission ~Human Relations Commission Police Civil Service Commission 4) Do you have any specific areas of interest within this Board's or Commisison's scope of responsibilities?/U o, 5) List other organizations or clubs in the Community in which you have been or are an active participant: . 6) Why would you like to se~e on the Board or Commission? ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS APPLICATION AND ANY A TTACHMENT PROVIDED ARE CONSIDERED :" ': '-" PUBLIC INFORMATION. WORD/BRD&COMM' 04~02 8