The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03/04/2008 AGENDA MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesdav, March 4,2008 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. February 19, 2008 5. Public Hearings 7:00 Code Amendments - Procedures, Public Hearings, Applications and Initiation 6. New Business a. 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update - Land Use Designations (Also - PC members - please bring your completed Land Use Plan Exercise and Goals and Objectives Worksheet to the meeting.) 7. Unfinished Business None 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations February 25 Council Meeting: ?? (was to be Mr. Martin) March 10 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler March 24 Council Meeting: Mr. Yarwood April 14 Council Meeting: Mr. Desai 10. Staff Presentations a. March 18 Meeting(s): 6:QOJoint Meeting and 8:00 Regular Meeting b. Special PC Meeting: Mareh 25, 26 or 271? 11. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2008 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the rneeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Cornrnissioner Harland Hess Cornrnissioner Gary Pearson Cornrnissioner Dale Trippler Cornrnissioner Joe Walton Cornrnissioner Jererny Yarwood Cornrnissioner Robert Martin Cornrnissioner Joseph Boeser Present Present Present Present Present Absent Absent Absent Present Staff Present: Ken Roberts, Planner Torn Ekstrand, City Planner III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Cornrnissioner Pearson rnoved to approve the agenda as presented. Commissioner Hess seconded Ayes - all The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. January 29, 2008 Commissioner Trippler rnoved approval of the minutes of January 29, 2008 as presented. Commissioner Pearson seconded The motion passed. Ayes - all b. February 4, 2008 Commissioner Trippler moved approval of the amended minutes of February 4,2008 deleting under New Business "and SWOT analysis results" from the second paragraph, changing language in the fourth paragraph to read "clarification of the differences between the requirements for a developed community as opposed to our former status as both a developed and developing community," changing "parochial" to "private" and eliminating number five and adding "Commissioner Trippler requested the address for the new Maplewood Library be included." Commissioner Pearson seconded Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Walton, Martin Abstention - Boeser The motion passed. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-19-08 -2- V. PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 p.m. Conditional Use Permit - Xcel Energy Electrical Substation (1480 County Road D) Planner Ken Roberts presented the staff report regarding the proposed by Xcel Energy to changes the existing electrical substation. Mr. Roberts explained the proposal is to add another transformer and electrical distribution feeders to the existing site. Chris Rogers was present representing Xcel Energy and spoke on the need for the changes to their electrical substation due to overloads on the system frorn the added growth in the Highway 61 and Bearn Avenue commercial and residential areas. Mr. Rogers clarified that there will be three new feeders with this project. Comrnissioner Hess questioned whether any feeder lines would be added. Mr. Rogers responded that feeder lines would be added and referred this to Caroline Peterson for additional information. Caroline Peterson, substation engineer for Xcel Energy, explained the feeders will be brought out of the station underground, but she did not know if they would continue underground from there. Mr. Hess responded that he hoped this excavation of the underground lines could be coordinated with other ongoing development in the area. Commissioner Boeser said he thinks the roads in this area have been completed, but the parking lots are not yet done. Commissioner Fischer asked Mr. Rogers if there was any problem with any of the conditions of the staff recornmendation. Mr. Rogers replied no. The public hearing was opened for comments from the public. Elizabeth Sletten, 2747 Clarence Street North, said she has asked the city for a copy of the conditional use perrnit related to the wood chip site on the Xcel Energy site and she has not received it. Ms. Sletten referred to the Ramsey County compost site on Beam Avenue that was closed by the city council in 2000. There were no further comments from the public; the public hearing was closed. The commission discussed this wood chip site as opposed to the past Ramsey County compost site. Commissioner Fischer asked staff if there are odors coming from other sites in this area. Staff responded that he has not personally received any complaints. Commissioner Boeser mentioned that he has lived in this area for the past two years and has not smelled any strange odors in that area. Cornmissioner Trippler moved to adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit for Xcel Energy to have and expand the electrical substation and related electrical system operations and a wood chipping and transfer operation on their property at 1480 County Road D. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the ordinance and is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction and activities on the site shall follow the site and project plans as approved by the city. City staff may approve rninor changes to these plans and the city council must approve major changes to the approved plans. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-19-08 -3- 2. Any fence over six feet tall requires a building permit issued by the city. The city building official will require the subrnittal of a structural plan for the proposed fence approved by a registered engineer with the building permit materials. 3. Xcel Energy must start the installation of the new transformer and associated site work within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 4. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Comrnissioner Pearson seconded The motion passed. Ayes - all VI. NEW BUSINESS a. Concept Plan Review - Legacy Village PUD Changes (Kennard Street and County Road D) 1. Rental Town House Site (Legacy Parkway - Kennard Street to Hazelwood) 2. Retail Site (Flandrau Street and County Road D) City planner Tom Ekstrand gave a brief presentation explaining that representatives of the Hartford Group wish to discuss with the corn mission alternative use and design ideas for the undeveloped areas of Legacy Village. Mr. Ekstrand said this item has been brought before the commission for discussion only and staff will not need a recommendation this evening. Mr. Ekstrand introduced Frank Janes of Hartford Group. Frank Janes addressed the corn mission and explained that Hartford Group is looking for informal discussion with the commission regarding the possible alternative use and design for the undeveloped area of Legacy Village. Mr. Janes explained to the commission the Hartford Group's possible commercial site developrnent revisions. Mr. Todd Geller of Victory Capital Corporation explained that this corporation currently owns and manages about 600,000 square feet of retail, industrial and office space. Mr. Geller said Victory Capital Corporation expressed concern with the back of the building on County Road 0, but did move forward with a purchase agreement. Mr. Geller explained the following design concerns with the building rear facing County Road 0: 1) signage on both sides of the building, 2) delivery and loading in the front of the building, 3) security issues due to the parking lot being shielded from County Road 0,4) trash collection from the opposite side of the parking lot frorn the building, 5) car traffic lighting disturbance, 6) existing design does not allow for a drive-through, 7) facade is designed with four fronts of glass rnaking a restaurant or coffee shop use with a kitchen or storage in the back nearly irnpossible. Commissioner Desai said he does not have a problem with this design of flipping the building and feels it may be an improvement for the neighboring town homes. Commissioner Hess said he also feels the revised retail/commercial design makes sense. Mr. Janes explained that the style for the proposed building would be very similar to the approved plan. Comrnissioner Pearson questioned how the delivery and loading is proposed for the new design. Mr. Janes explained that the new design is not perfect due to grade constraints, but the new design allows for deliveries in the area of the drive-through. Comrnissioner Pearson suggested that an area for the trucks to pull off of the roadway for deliveries should be considered. Mr. Pearson also was concerned about the poor soils in the area where the hotel would be located. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-19-08 -4- Patrick Sarver, director of development for Hartford Group, said the current design allows two 12-foot travel lanes and a 6-foot parking aisle along the southern part of Village Trail East. Mr. Sarver explained that Hartford felt these areas could be used for delivery parking for short periods of time. Cornmissioner Boeser said that he likes the design of flipping the building, but was not in favor of parking the trucks in front of the townhomes. Mr. Boeser said he does not like the entry on Village Trail East, because that allows commercial traffic to use that road. Mr. Boeser suggested blocking off Village Trail East completely to control comrnercial traffic in the residential area and having entrances on both County Road 0 and Flandrau. Mr. Sarver responded that in order to be sensitive to the private drives in the area, the commercial drive and Village Drive East were positioned to handle the Ashley Furniture truck traffic for deliveries. Mr. Sarver said that Ashley Furniture has legal access to these roads. The commission discussed the traffic congestion in this area with Hartford Group's representatives. Cornrnissioner Trippler was concerned that the continuity of the design of the Legacy area be rnaintained and encouraged the developer to preserve the established design. Mr. Trippler did not feel that fiipping the building would irnprove the truck access or parking for deliveries. Mr. Trippler agreed with Mr. Pearson that there may be poor soils in the proposed site of the four-story hotel location. Cornmissioner Pearson mentioned the need for recreational facilities in the residential part of the development. Mr. Janes thanked the commission for their comments on the comrnercial proposal and proceeded to explain plans for the residential development. Mr. Janes explained that due to the current housing market, townhornes are no longer a viable product and therefore, the developer is instead proposing to build a rental apartment building. Mr. Janes said that the developer proposes to retain as many of the existing trees as possible. Commissioner Boeser cornmented that the plans for the childcare facility are a good choice for that area, but he does not think the plan for a four-story hotel fits in with the surrounding area. Mr. Boeser said that with the proposed hotel and apartments buildings and parking lots, he is concerned with maintaining the existing trees on that site. Mr. Boeser questioned the developer about plans for maintaining the overall look of the development. Mr. Janes said there is a two-acre parcel in the residential part of the project that will be dedicated to the city for development of a children's play area. Comrnissioner Trippler encouraged the developer to rotate the childcare facility ninety degrees to align the facility east and west on County Road 0, with the parking lot located south of the facility. Staff commented that this rnight move the play area from behind the building and negatively locate it to the street side of the building. Mr. Trippler said he would like to see the hotel building limited to three stories and suggested the four-story hotel be revised to three stories to better the fit the style of the neighborhood. Mr. Janes thanked the cornmission for their cornments and said that they would make revisions to the plans. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-19-08 -5- b. 2008 Cornprehensive Plan Update 1. Land Use Plan Exercise 2. Goals and Objectives Worksheet Planner Ken Roberts explained it is now time to begin preparing for updating the land use plan. Mr. Roberts presented copies of land use plan information to the cornmission. Mr. Roberts asked the cornmissioners to complete the Goals and Objectives Worksheet and Land Use Plan Exercise and return them to him at the March 4 commission meeting for discussion. Commissioner Trippler asked staff to clarify some color designations on the neighborhood use map given to the commissioners. Mr. Roberts clarified the color designations and mentioned he will mail a better copy of the 13 neighborhood maps to the commissioners in the coming week. Commissioner Fischer questioned the map colors used for different multiple uses in the area east of Beebe Road, between Holloway and Ripley. Planner Roberts said staff would review this area. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Elizabeth Sletten, 2747 Clarence Street North, spoke regarding EPA concerns with the old compost site on Beam Avenue. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS Chair Fischer noted the invitation to attend the Maplewood Historic Preservation Commission meeting on February 21. . February 11 Council meeting: Commissioner Pearson reported on this meeting. . February 25 Council meeting: Not needed. . March 10 Council meeting: Cornmissioner Trippler will attend. . March 24 Council meeting: Commissioner Yarwood will attend. Commissioner Trippler submitted a New York Times article called "Caution - Signs Ahead for Gadget Laden Cars" to be forwarded by staff to the city council. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Planner Roberts notified the commission of the City Anniversary Party - February 23, 2008 at the Maplewood Community Center. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. MEMORANDUM DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner City Code Amendments - Procedures, Public Hearings, Applications and Initiation February 21,2008 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION Request Staff is proposing that the city council amend various sections of the city code about procedures, public hearings and applications. There are several sections of the code that the city should revise to clarify the city's practices and procedures for processing conditional use permits and for design - related applications. To be consistent with the recent practices of the city, the city council needs to change the code about procedures and public hearings and about the functions of the community design review board and the planning commission for design-related matters. Reasons for this Request There are several parts of the current city code that are not consistent with the practices and procedures of the city. The council should change the code to make it consistent with the practices of the city. BACKGROUND In 2007, during the city's review and discussions about prohibited signs and dynamic display signs, the city attomey noted some inconsistencies in the city code between the code language and the practices of the city. These differences were especially noticeable for the roles and responSibilities of the planning commission and the community design review board. The proposed code amendments should make the recent city practices for processing conditional use permits and df;lsign-related applications consistent with the city code. DISCUSSION As I noted above, there are several sections of the code that the city council needs to change to have them consistent with the practices of the city. I have listed each of the areas of proposed change in the proposed ordinance amendment. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the proposed ordinance amendments for Section 44-1096(a), Section 44-1096(b) and Section 44-1161 starting on page two. P:com_dvmtlordlprocedures Code Amend memo - 2008 Attachment: Proposed Code Amendment Attachment 1 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE MAPLEWOOD CITY CODE ABOUT PROCEDURES, PUBLIC HEARINGS AND APPLICATIONS The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances: Section 1. This amendment changes Section 44-1096(a). (Additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out.): Sec. 44-1096. Procedure. (a) After an application for a conditional use permit or a conditional use permit revision has been submitted to the citv. the citv plannino staff !liFEl€lter ef seml'lulRity !le'/elepmeRt shall prepare a report and recommendation and submit that report it to the planning commission and community design review board, as appropriate, for their consideration and recommendation. a F8semmeR!letieR te tl1e €lity €lel;lR€lil. The planning commission and community design review board shall make a recommendation or take action on the application, as reQuired, within 60 days of their respective hearing or meetino when the respective oroup considers the application. dates, liIRless aA 8ntsAsieA is appmve9 iR '.vritiRg by the appliesflt. City staff shall forward the +Ae staff report and planning commission's and community design review board's recommendations or actions to the city council for their consideration. The citv council shall onlv consider such applications after receivino the comments and recommendations of the plan nino commission. The citv council will make the final decision about all conditional use permit applications or revisions. sl1alltl1eR BelGw.'8FEle!l te tl:le €lily €l9l;lR€lil. The citv shall process all such applications or revisions to meet the reQuirements of state law 15.99. (commonlv known as the 60-dav rule) as mav be amended bv the State of Minnesota. Section 2. This amendment changes Section 44-1096(b). (Additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out.): (b) The planning commission shall hold at least one public hearing on each application for a conditional use permit. Citv staff Tl1e !lir9G!9r ef semml;lRity Eleyelepm9Rt shall have a notice of the hearing published in the official newspaper at least ten days before the hearing. In addition. city staff also shall mail a copv of the hearino notice Tl:le !lire€lter sl:lall alse €lBl;lSe a Reti€le t9 \le maile!l to each of the owners of property within 500 feet of the boundary lines of the property upon which such use has been requested. City staff shall mail the hearino notices wRiGA R9tieell aF8 te ee maileEl to the last known address of such owners at least ten days before the date of the hearing. Such notice shall include the date, time and place of the hearing and shall describe the conditional use request. Failure of property owners to receive notice shall not invalidate any of the proceedings in this section. Section 3. This amendment changes Section 44-1161. (Additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out.): Sec. 44-1161. Initiation generally. An amendment to this chapter, including an amendment to the zoning map, may be initiated by the city council, the planning commission, the city staff or by petition of affected property owners, who are hereby defined to be the owners of the property to be rezoned. An amendment not initiated by the planning commission shall be referred to the planning commission for study and for a report. 2 The city council shall not take action on anv proposed amendments to this chapter. includina zonina text chanaes and zonina map chanaes. until after thev receive the recommendation about such a proposal from the olannina commission. BAa may Ret se aetedwpSA By the sity G8YASilwAtil it Ras F8G8i':e9 tRe r-GGGmmeAoati9A sr wAtil 69 €lays Rave elapseEl Wem tRe €late sf Fefef8AG8 sf tRe amef-lGmsAt ',NitR€H,tt a rspeR BY iRe plaAAiAg semmissisA. The plannina commission shall refer all desian-related applications and matters (includina. but not limited to. architectural desian. site lavout. landscapina and sian matters (includina sians. off-site sians. billboards and comprehensive sian plans)) to the communitv desian review board for their review and recommendation. SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall take effect after the city publishes it in the official newspaper. The Maplewood City Council adopted this ordinance amendment on 3 2030 Comprehensive Plan City of Maplewood MEMORANDUM To: From: Subject: Date: Acting City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner Comprehensive Plan - Land Use Designations February 27, 2008 INTRODUCTION Attached to this cover sheet is a report from city planning staff and MFRA discussing land use designations. Specifically, this report discllsses generalized land use, future land use and the City's designations. The intent of this report is to provide an understanding of the philosophy of the land use designations and what the city could do to serve Maplewood, its residents, and business owners in a better manner. RECOMMENDATION Please review the attached report and materials and be prepared to discuss them during the March 4, 2008 planning commission meeting. Please contact Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner, at 651-249-2302 or Tom.EkstrandClllci.maplewood.mn.us or Ken Roberts, Planner at 651-249-2303 or Ken.RobertscivcLmaplewood.mn.us with any questions or comments. .FHA Cln'OFJiAI'LE1FOOD 2n~n 2030 Comprehensive Plan City of Maplewood Generalized Land Use Generalized land use is a broad classification system to organize current land use in a specified area. It typically describes what type of use is on each individual parcel. The Metropolitan Council issues a generalized land use map for each community within the Twin Cities. Maplewood's generalized land use is shown on Figure 1. The Metropolitan Council categorizes land use into 10 broad categories with 12 more sub categories. The 10 broad categories are: . Single Family Residential . Multifamily Residential . Commercial . Mixed Use . Industrial . Institutional . Parks and Recreational . Agricultural . Other (Undeveloped/Open Water) . Transportation The Metropolitan Council has routinely developed generalized land use data for the Twin Cities region to support its statutory responsibilities and assist in long range planning for the seven-county, Twin Cities metropolitan area. The Metropolitan Council uses land use information to monitor growth and to evaluate changing trends in land consumption for various purposes. The Council uses the land use trend data, in combination with its forecasts of households and jobs, to plan for the future needs and financing of Metropolitan services (Le. Transit, Wastewater Services, etc.). Also, in concert with individual local units of government, the land use and forecast data have been used to evaluate expansions of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). In 1997, acknowledging that land use data collected and maintained at the county and city level are collected at different resolutions using different classification schemes, the Metropolitan Council worked with local communities and organizations to develop a cooperative solution to integrate the Council's land use interpretation with a generally agreed upon regional classification system. By 2000, the Metropolitan Council expanded their Generalized Land Use Classification system to include 22 categories, but had refined how they categorized land (removing all ownership categories) to reflect actual usage. Data for individual communities is based on the politically recognized municipal and township boundaries for the given year. Over the years, some communities have grown in area through annexations (e.g., Belle Plaine), while others have diminished (e.g., Minneapolis). Some communities have been completely dissolved into neighboring communities (e.g., Chaska Township into Chaska), some have "partnered" (e.g., Norwood- Young America). These changes contribute to changes in total land use numbers for changing communities. If any community's land use table shows zero total acres for a given year, it means that it has been incorporated into another neighboring community. tlFRA cm'OF,lHPLElI'OOD 2n?n Figure 1 2005 Generalized Land Use Maplewood Approximately 1 inch equals 1.56 miles when printed on letter size paper 2005 Land Use Classes ....~R .. nffII _Farm51l!ad DseasllTla'/vaCal'On Ds-m~eF..m'Iy,OI.!tlchef;l ~SlngleFamlly,AItal:hell a.J1I1 ",,,,,.-- fM _MtJU.-Famlly El MarutacluredHouslrgPark a...t.JJIl~_' .. Relallal'ldOlherCommerclal ~omce -- ~MIxEd-U5eR€S1(jenlJaI _Mlxeo-Uselndusb1~ . MlKe!l-UseCommen:lal - 1III'r1lustr1a1aOOUUllly fft""i-- ".....,... r- _Palk,ReCreanm,orpreserve _Golf - D'i:~CLjIUral ... Al:llllilles J--4ft.J.I.....1 ~21ln5tllullonal - DundeveloPecl ~OpenWaler iir:::hwaJ ~MaJ(l"RaI!way BAirpIl1IXAirstrip Land UBe Data Source.: 2005 MARKHURD I>Briallmagery _ 2000 Generalized Land Use Delineations . The Lawmnce Group's Road Qlnwrline Data 2005 ParoBl DB/IJ from aD S9vsn Mt1lro(JOfif.an Countfes. Internet R9sources _ RMlme DirectOri9S . Field Checks . Commun;!y RJedback -:;~::::::'::=~ County Boundary - Apli1200G . - . - City and Township Boundaries ~ Apli12006 -- -TI..G.Junl'!2006 -+--+- Railway -- MNOOT,2001 A C')1:!Hf'I1 2030 Comprehensive Plan City of Maplewood The accuracy of the land use data in general has improved, but it also is important to understand that 'improvements' in data accuracy also contribute to apparent changes in measured land uses between inventory years (following 1997). These changes in land uses may be due to delineation that is more precise or realignment or changes in the land use categories (i.e., renaming or restructuring) than actual land use change. Metropolitan Council does not specifically survey the rights-of-way of minor highways, local streets, parking lots, minor railways, or other utility easements. The area occupied by these uses is included with the adjacent land uses, whose boundaries are extended to the center line of the adjacent rights-of way or easements. The Council also does not attempt to survey wetlands or other lands not suitable for development (i.e., steep slopes), therefore these land types are not part of the land use categories. The accuracy of the land use data from the Metropolitan Council is suitable for regional planning purposes, but one should not use the data for specific site plauning or for engineering work. Future Land Use Future Land Use classifications aim to guide land use into the future. Future Land Use may or may not reflect the current land use on a particular piece of property. If the city desires to have certain areas of the city with different land use as redevelopment occurs, then the sought after and appropriate future land use category should be applied. Typically, a Future Land Use map consists of residential, commercial, industrial, civic, parks and recreation, and institution categories. For residential, most cities in the Twin Cities use low, medium, and high designations since that is how the Metropolitan Council measures density and how they determine compliance with the regional systems. Again, the intent of a future land use map and its categories is not to reflect current land use, but rather show what the city desires for land uses as the city moves forward. A city usually categorizes Future Land Use in broad categories. To this end, a city should look at areas within its boundaries and decide what, in general, the land use should be. If an area is desired to be single-family homes with generous yards, then it should be guided Low Density Residential. From that designation, the city will need to put in place the zoning districts that work to regulate the building of homes within that area. If the city desires to have an area with a commercial focus, then the city should guide that area Commercial and put the zoning designations and regulations in place to regulate the design features of any buildings. Any time the City wants to change a Future Land Use designation it must request a Comprehensive Plan Amendment with the Metropolitan Council. This gives the Metropolitan Council final authority on any Future Land Use changes. This is so that they can make sure the City and its plans comply with the regional systems adopted by the Metropolitan Council. The city should only use the plan amendment process for major changes in land use - for instance re-guiding an area from Medium Density Residential to Commercial. It should be a goal of the city to keep minor land use changes at the city level. This keeps the final land use authority with the City Council. tlFRA cm'OF,;L4PLETI'OOj) 2n!1n 2030 Comprehensive Plan City of Maplewood Maplewood's Future Land Use The zoning on a piece of property provides the legal right to certain uses on the land. The comprehensive plan provides the framework for reviewing zoning requests and changes. The zoning ordinance prescribes the specific uses and the minimum or maximum performance standards within certain classes of uses. Termed zoning districts, the City has adopted numerous districts that regulate residential, business, and other land uses within the City. The City's Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use designations give the legal rational for its Zoning Districts. The City of Maplewood's Future Land Use map is show in Figure 2. Maplewood currently has 25 land use classifications. The classifications are: . Small Lot Single Dwelling . Limited Business Commercial . Single Dwelling . Business Commercial Modified . Double Dwelling . Business Commercial . Low Multiple Dwelling . Church . Medium Multiple Dwelling . Cemetery . High Multiple Dwelling . Open Space . Residential Estate (30,000 sqft) . Park . Residential Estate (40,000 sqft) . City . Mixed Use . Government . Light Manufacturing . Fire Station . Heavy Manufacturing . School . Neighborhood Commercial . Library . Commercial Office Maplewood has more future land use categories than most other cities in the area and the designations are more specialized than those in most cities. It also should be noted that the Residential Estate (30,000 sqft) category is not currently being used anywhere in the City. Currently, the City's Future Land Use categories match the City's Zoning Code districts. While this has functioned in the past, it does require any zoning changes go through the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process that requires Metropolitan Council approval. In general, the city should only use the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process for significant departures from the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. It may not be necessary or correct to require a land use plan change, for example, when rezoning a parcel from single dwelling to double dwelling. Not following the Metropolitan Council's prescribed procedure for Comprehensive Plan Amendments would make any City action to change its comprehensive plan illegal. This does not mean that the City has to give up any regulatory control for land use, as this control should be coming from the City's Zoning Code. Also, a Comprehensive Plan amendment takes some of the land use authority away from the City as the Metropolitan Council has the final say of approval. A broader system of Future Land Use classifications would provide the City with flexible land use controls, while keeping the Met Council out of non-major land use decisions and keeping land use regulatory powers with the city through the Zoning Code. IIFRA em"OF ,lL--\.PI.ElI'QOD 2n~n Figure 2 )r\J, "".. ....~.p ~~.......,,~ "'..............." "'.....~ ,... '.w 0 "'0 . ... c,o MN Maplewood Land Use Map As of May 24tt1, 2007 Residential ClassifICation Small Urt: Single Dwelling r:::J Single Dweling Double Dwelling Low Multiple Dwelling _ Medium Multiple Dweling _ I-fgh Multiple Dwelling Residential Estate (30,000 sqft) Residential Eshde{40,OOO-sql't) Commercial Classification ~ Mixed "". Ught Manufacturing _ Heavy Manufacturing Nelgbhomood COTmnel"c1a1 11II Commercial Office Umited Business Commercial Business Commercial Modified _ Business Commercial _Church _Cern....,. Public Classification Open Space. Pm City .. Government III rue station School library Mississippi River Critical Area I IOC: i-!~,,~!:Y , ~j.<"--".1'1" ]1) "i" Ll ' ! ,\.. !O L......____:_ i~--~ Q~:'- (;, I "I, . 9'"" !~~:;,J'. "'I~~-l I '';3 , , . ~--,--- 2030 Comprehensive Plan City of Maplewood Examples of Other Cities To give an idea of how other cities in the metro area classify future land use, here are a few examples. Woodbury Woodbury has 15 Future Land Use Categories, including 5 residential categories. The 5 include, low, medium and high density and also two estate categories that work to guide lmique residential area within the City. There commercial categories work to separate commercial areas by its function - places to work, places to shop. IIIf Oly 03ntre Ma::Iium Dmsily rlfl Open Space (Pubic I Private) Q \/llage Germ lDN 03mity PlJ:JIlcl S mi'Publc Hgh Dena\y rV Mked Use if Pacesto Shop Paces to Work RJral Egme UtJan Eaate UtJan Resave GatEMeY IMlta- Features Roseville Roseville has 19 Future Land Use Categories. Its residential areas are guided with the low, medium and high categories. Roseville has 4 commercial districts that attempt to guide the different types of commercial uses in the City. The most unique is the Shopping Center designation with guides the Rosedale Mall area. This is an area that has qualities not duplicated anywhere else in the city. Comprehensive Plan Future land Use Designations Residential Public / Institutional LR - Low Density Residential CH - Church MR -Medium Density RssJdential C- Civic HR- High Density Residential IN -Institutional CommercIal S - School L~2:__D LB - Limited Business III B - Business . BP - Business Park Ui,j::;:-~-;M@ SC - Shopping Center IndustrIal RR - Railroad CEM - Cemetery P-Park GC - Golf Course Right of Way w- Water Poodng Loko I-Industrial Future Twin lakes Parkway .FIIA cm'OFM':~I'LEIFOOD 2n!1n 2030 Comprehensive Plan Apple Valley City of Maplewood Apple Valley has 11 Future Land Use Categories, including a category specifically for Right-of-Way. The other categories are pretty straight forward and get to basic use and <- a particular piece of property. Also shown below is how Apple Valley's Future Land Use Categories feed into its Zoning Code Designations. The Low Density Future Land Use designation directly supports the Residential Zoning Designations. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Figure L-3 - 2020 Land Use Map DESIGNATIONS: ACilEs:P.ER.CKNT: .0.0."- LD_1.owDen:rity(O.6UnitslAcre) 4,671.1 41.71% "MD_MedinmDenslly(6-12UnitslAcre) 597.1 5.33% = IID-IIigh.Dc:nsil)'(l2+Uni1slAcre) 147.9 1.32% NS _ Neighborhood Service 39.5 035% _ C _ Commercial 449.3 4.01% INDvlndostrW 96.5 0.86% ~ MIX-MiKCdUoo 7&9.3 7.05% ~ lNST-lnstiwtional 460J 4.11% _ I'-I'ark 1,546.6 . 13.81% W _ WalerfPond 476.4 4.25% Right-of.WIlY 1,926.0 11.2% TOTALS; 11,2000 101),(10% 1\1 Temporal}' Sal1d& C'l11lveT OVerlay t.l!tFRA City of APPLE VALLEY Figure L-9 - Zoning Designations OESlGN..I\TI01\S: ACRli8: l'BRCE-'lT: "RCllident;lll; UR-l-SingleFamily4O,OOOSq.Ft o R-2-SingleFamily18,000 Sq. Ft DR-3-SiJ!!!:1cFamilyll,OOOSq.Ft nR-4-8inglcFlIIIlily(RC'lClVOO) Fl R--CL.R...nJenl.ial Clu.~tw: EEl R_5_Twui"lUllilyI5,UOOSq.H 263.8 142.4 2,745.2 0.00 173.9 44.2 2.63% J.27% 24.51% 0.00% L......% 039% \tfulliple f<amily (A,R,c): LJ M_l ~ 34 Units/Acre 0.00 O.OO'J1j U M-2-3-SUnitsfAcre 25.8 0.23% EI M-3-3-6UnitslAcrc 136.3 J.22% D M-4_6_8Unils!Ac[(l 81.7 0.73% f?EI M_j_6-10Lnils/Acre 29.1 1126% IBm h.i-6-6--12Lnits.iAc.re B.O 0.74% a M~7-12-20Un;Wi\llTIl 137.9 1.2.1% R M--1\-12~2411nil"-'i\cr" H2.? 0.14% BI1Sincss: o KCC~Kc:ighborhoodCunvenieJlceCenter 9.7 0.09% EI LB &-LB-J _ Lil:nitedBusiness 36.3 0.32% III GD&:GD-I-GWIIIDusiness 26.0 0.23% II'lII RD_RctailDusincss 1l4.8 1.03% . sc - ~gional Shoppq Center 0.00 0.00% III VB - Vistor Businas 0.00 0.00% fudustrilll: EJ .liP - Bu'line'!S P~lfk ~ l_l_limil<:dJuduslrial B T_2_{kn"",lTndnsb'ia1 0"'"" o PD- Planned Dwelopment EJA-Agricultural IllilI SG. Sand & Gravel ~P-Instimtional EKistingLakCS/!'Qnlb URigh\--<If-Way TOTALS: NSH-ShorellludDi5tricl 34.2 0.31% 72.0 0.64% 185.2 1.65% 2,.517.0 22.47% 209.0 1.87",,0 539.3 4.82% 1.170.6 10.45% 413.4 3.69% 1,.926.0 17.20% 11,200.0 100,00% cm'OF"L-iPLEll'OOD 9n9n 2030 Comprehensive Plan City of Maplewood Conceptual Ideas City Staff and MFRA have been working together to design a system of Future Land Use Categories that would serve the City of Maplewood more effectively. The aim of this process was to design a system that allows the City more flexibility, keeps land use authority with the Planning Commission and City Council, and does not create non- conforming properties. Figure 3 illustrates a potential system of classifying Future Land Use for this Comprehensive Plan. This potential system is to start a discussion with the Planning Commission on what it would like to see for land use categories. City Staff and MFRA believe that a system with the same intent as the one shown on Figure 3 would serve the City, its residents and property owners better, while also keeping the regulatory power that Planning Commission and City Council currently have. The conceptual classifications on Figure 3 work to group the City's current Future Land Use categories into fewer, more broad categories. The conceptual system below would have 11 categories that would guide future land use for residential, mixed use, industrial, commercial, government, parks/open space, and institutional uses. These Future Land Use designations would support the City's current Zoning Districts, meaning that there would be no non-conforming uses in result of adopting a system similar to what is shown. At the Planning Commission's March 4th meeting please come prepared to discuss the conceptual system shown on Figure 3 as well as any other ideas you may have to effectively guide future land use in Maplewood. .FHA cm'OFM:-lPLEII'OOD 2nl.1n It'l 'r:: Q g,o 1;l (,.) R ~ i .~ '" ilJ .... ~ Q g,o .... I".l !"I t'.;' ~ \ol?i b<<l i (il ~ bO ".l:lbll..... ~. :E ~ III .Ii:: ~ ~ ,1::: IV ~ ..-. ,$ .p.. .~ ~ "=1 ... ;:4 ~ -..ut ~\ lEI > ~ o ;S ...:I '(11 .if: rJ~!>Q..1 . , ~ , Ill! ''1.'''' isl 411 ~J ~! ~"l ~. , ,thl lTJi , tl .- "" Q ~ .... a l:;;,l ~ - l:l ;.; .... ~ ;: a ~~~'1.'r~~' " ... ..,.. !l '" "" I'" = I i!! = I ~ 1Il I 11 '!:l '", .... I Q'I ,f,;IJ.. I.... ~ II .g Iii i II A A II ~ ~..' ll~i ~ II.... . I t<, C") CI> ... ::) m - IL. Q o o i:r M , <P 1q; '11\ Iil ~ 1:1 -ll 'il lJ:l "1 , , I , i b<ll ~I i'QJ! :;:1 Ql q;;l :a 8 Q o o o~ '<t' , <I> ~ .,,'" If.l ~ <'" Iii 't:l w"'"" ~ ~ bl) .S ~ :.>- IS '" ~ .~ iZI <h' oS 1 I I ! bg != ''''" l:~ '(I.) l~ . ..... l,w I- I bO i.a ltll ! ; i ! L '" j.Ul P 't:l ~ "'" ,Sf El ~ ~ 13 "="1 ~ .... 1;l0 ;::.l ,.----, I I i~i I'~s I I,,,,, ! I. l I~ i ifii 1 fe1 :~ I lie. ~ i;:;; i i (I,i , .':x: ' ! ,', j 1 i j I I ,"~_._..J ~! n II I ' ,. I !! II I ! II i"'" I i qSl;i3 I ~ i,~. I+:: ;~. (i 1. ........ iD ii Iii) I ,I <I> ,., 'I ';,,::~: w ,,0 j;... I ! i r'l HZ I 1!...... I I Ii j II Ii i' i !i , " L~-J l~ -~ i '0 t~. Sl I"" ......bl.. ..... :....;::.j " , I I 'i1l '1fl :e ] ,"! -e I~ I bt I ';;l ~ IV ~ 10 ! '" "....oil IS '-' i~ , t ~ $l , I 0 0 I~ ~ u Ji 19. lc:-. 'l;;l lCU '-' .~ I~ 8 ~ I I . VI l:9 18 .n fc~ '" <:) ~ .S ~ 8 'd I '" 19 i !m ..- I.a !Xl' <I> Z ; VJ I~ ~ i~ ,.!.il l:;J p.. IJ.l ~ P-< iZI i=l a o j , , , , , I I i I fJ- l,g 'u I ~. ... ~ a lJ) u I L~ L-i