HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/06/1994MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
September 6, 1994
7:00 P.M.
City Hall Council Chambers
1830 East County Road B
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes: August 15, 1994
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Unfinished Business
a. Commercial Property Study
6. New Business
a. Shoreland Ordinance
7. Visitor Presentations
8. Commission Presentations
a. August 22 Council Meeting: Mr. Frost
b. September 12 Council Meeting: Ms. Martin
9. Staff Presentations
10. Adjournment
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 EAST COUNTY ROAD B, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
AUGUST 15, 1994
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Axdahl called the meeting to order at 7 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
CommiSsioner
Comrmssioner
Comnussioner
Cornnussioner
Commissioner
Cornrmssioner
Conumssioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Lester Axdahl
Lorraine Fischer
Jack Frost
Gary Gerke
Kevin Kittridge
Dave Kopesky
Mary Martin
Gary Pearson
William Rossbach
Todd Sandell
Marvin Sigmundik
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
IV.
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Absent
Present
August 1, 1994
commissioner Fischer moved approval of the minutes of August 1, 1994 as submitted.
Commissioner Sigrnundik seconded Ayes--Axdahl, Fischer, Frost, Gerke, Kittridge,
Kopesky, Pearson, Sigmundik
The motion passed.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Abstentions--Martin
Commissioner Martin moved approval of the agenda as submitted.
Commissioner Fischer seconded
The motion passed.
Ayes--Axdahl, Fischer, Frost, Gerke, Kittridge,
Kopesky, Martin, Pearson, Sigmundik
Planning Commission
Minutes of 8-15-94
-2-
VI.
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. Street Vacation: Beebe Road (Section 14)
Secretary Olson presented the staff report and answered questions from the
Commission.
Commissioner Martin moved the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
resolution which vacates the 1973 road easement for Beebe Road. The City should
vacate this easement for the following reasons:
1. It is in the public interest.
2. The City does not need this easement.
3. The street is not centered on the easement.
4. A new easement was dedicated in 1988.
The developer shall record this resolution with the final plat.
Commissioner Pearson seconded Ayes--all
The motion passed.
B. Commercial Setback Ordinance
Secretary Olson presented the staff report and answered questions from the
Gommission.
Commissioner Martin moved the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
ordinance which changes the setback requirement between a commercial use and a
residence planned for commercial use.
Commissioner Fischer seconded
The motion passed.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
Ayes--all
Chair Axdahl thanked Roger Anitzberger for his service on the Planning Commission,
particularly for serving an additional fourteen months after submitting his resignation.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 8-15-94
VII. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS
A. August 8 Council Meeting: Commissioner Pearson reported on this meeting.
B. Representative for the August 22 Council Meeting: Commissioner Frost
Co
Commissioner Frost explained that he is seeking the Commission's endorsement for
appointment from Ramsey County to the Metropolitan Watershed District. He said he
will also be seeking endorsement from the City Council.
Commissioner Kittridge moved the Planning Commission endorse the appointment of
Mr. Frost to the Metropolitan Watershed District, and further recommend that the
City Council endorse Mr. Frost.
Commissioner Pearson seconded
Ayes--Axdahl, Fischer, Gerke, Kittridge,
Kopesky, Martin, Pearson, Sigmundik
Abstentions--Frost
The motion passed.
VIII. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
Secretary Olson suggested that due to the Labor Day holiday, the Planning Commission
reschedule their first meeting in September for Tuesday, September 6. The Commission
concurred.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
City Manager
Director of Community Development
Commercial Property Study
August 30, 1994
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ........................................................ 3
BACKGROUND ......................................................... 3
1992 Commercial Study ......................................... 3
The 1993/1994 Study ................................. : ......... 3
DISCUSSION ........................................................... 4
Problem One--lntra-City Land Use Conflicts ........................... 4
Woodbury 1-494/Lake Road Interchange ............................ 5
Century Avenue and Stillwater Road ............................... 5
Century Avenue--Minnehaha Avenue to Brand Street .................. 6
Ariel Street--Highway 36 to Eleventh Avenue ........................ 6
Planning Commission Recommendation on Problem One .............. 6
Problem Two--Blighted Homes Near Commercial ....................... 7
Planning Commission Recommendation on Problem Two ............... 10
Problerfi Three--Inadequate Buffering of Single Dwellings ................. 10
Screening .................................................. 10
Setbacks from residential property ................................ 11
Planning Commission Recommendations on Problem Three ............. 11
Problem Four--Bothersome Types of Commercial Too Close to Homes ...... 12
Fast-Food Restaurants ........................................ 12
The Methadone Clinic ......................................... 13
Check Cashing Businesses ..................................... 13
Heliports and Helistops ........................................ 13
Gun Shops ................................................. 14
Planning Commission Recommendations on Problem Four ............. 14
Problem Five--Controlling Nuisances from Commercial Uses .............. 14
Noise ..................................................... 14
Trespassing ................................................. 14
Visual Impact ................................................ 14
Traffic Infiltration .............................................. 16
Planning Commission Recommendations on Problem Five .............. 16
Problem Six--Transition Zones ..................................... 17
Planning Commission Recommendation on Problem Six ................ 18
Problem Seven--Commercial Spread Along Major Streets and Into Residential
Neighborhoods .............................................. 18
Planning Commission Recommendation on Problem Seven ............. 19
Problem Eight--Nonconforming Commercial Uses ...................... 19
Nonconforming uses .......................................... 19
Don John .................................................. 20
Solutions ................................................... 20
Planning Commission Recommendation on Problem Eight .............. 22
Intensity of Commercial Uses .................................... 22
Off-street Parking Requirements .................................. 22
Regulating Businesses Near Residential Neighborhoods With a Conditional Use
Permit ................................................... 23
Floor Area Ratios and Lot Coverages .............................. 25
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................... 25
REFERENCE ........................................................... 27
CURRENT COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL POLICIES .................. 27
MAPLEWOOD'S COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS ................... 27
NC (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District ...................... 27
Commercial Office (CO) ........................................ 27
BC (Business Commercial) Zoning District .......................... 28
LBC (Limited Business Commercial) Zoning District ................... 28
BC(M) (Business Commercial Modified) Zoning District ................. 28
SC (Shopping Center) Zoning District .............................. 28
M-1 (Light Manufacturing) Zoning District ........................... 29
LAND USE CHANGES FROM COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL AND VICE VERSA29
INTRODUCTION
The City Council directed the staff to initiate and coordinate a commercial property
study. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between commercial
and residential zones and the control of the intensity of use of commercial property.
BACKGROUND
1992 Commercial Study
On July 13, 1992, the City completed a study of all of its commercial zones. As a result
of this study, the City Council passed an ordinance that changed four commercial
zoning districts--the BC (business commercial), BC-M (business commercial modified),
SC (shopping center) and M-1 (light manufacturing) districts. The ordinance made the
following changes:
1. Updated the permitted and conditional uses and created consistent wording
between districts.
2. Prohibited motor fuel stations and maintenance garages within 350 feet of a
residential lot line.
3. Required a conditional use permit in the BC district for buildings or outside uses
within 75 feet of a residential building.
'l'he 1993/1994 Study
On March 1, 1993, the Planning Commission prepared a proposal to the City Council
for a commercial property study. (See the proposal on page 32.)
On March 22, 1993, the Council approved the Commission's proposal. The Council
directed the staff to initiate and coordinate a commercial property study to evaluate the
relationship between commercial and residential zones and the control of the intensity
of-use of commercial property.
On April 19, 1993, the Commission identified a list of 33 problems to study as part of
the commercial property study. The Commission sent these problems to the HRA and
Community Design Review Board (CDP, B) for their review.
On July 6, 1993, the Commission received the comments from the HRA and CDRB and
approved a final list of 28 problems. '
3
On September 7, 1993, the Council considered the Commission's list of 28 problems.
The City Council directed the Commission to focus on the first eight problems. These
problems were about how to protect single dwelling neighborhoods from commercial
uses. The eight problems are discussed later in this report.
On May 16, 1994, the Planning Commission referred three recommendations from the
commercial property study to the Community Design Review Board (CDRB). These are
recommendations 1-3 on pages 11-12.
On May 24, 1994, the Community Design Review Board (CDP, B) recommended against
the three recommendations from the Planning Commission. The Board briefly looked at
the Chanhassen landscaping ordinance. (See the ordinance starting on page 35.) The
Board did not consider it or make a specific motion about this ordinance. The Board felt
that their current landscaping policies were sufficient.
On June 6, 1994, the Planning Commission discussed the commercial property study
with the City Council. They talked about the nine recommendations that the Planning
Commission had prepared to date. It was the consensus of the City Council that the
Planning Commission study intensities of commercial land uses and ways to classify and
regulate development based on that intensity of use.
DISCUSSION
On September 7, 1993, the Council asked for a study on eight problems. These eight
problems were about protecting single dwelling neighborhoods from commercial uses.
The following discussion is about these eight problems. The last section discusses
controlling the intensity of commercial uses.
Problem Onc lntra-City Land Use Conflicts
The City should determine if there are intra-city land use conflicts at the City's
boundaries. An example is the effect of a proposed 1-494 interchange in Woodbury on
traffic and development in Maplewood. Another example, the area of Century Avenue
and Stillwater Road.
We identified and studied the following four potential areas of intra-city land use
conflicts:
4
Woodbury 1-494/Lake Road Interchange
Woodbury started work on the 1-494 and Lake Road interchange in August, 1994. They
expect to finish the project in late 1996. Lake Road will intersect Century Avenue north
of Linwood Avenue. (See the plan on page 47.)
I have attached the Vista Hills and Highwood Land Use Plan Maps from the Maplewood
Comprehensive Plan. (See pages 48 and 49.) These neighborhoods are closest to the
new interchange. The Vista Hills map shows the land west of Century Avenue and north
of Linwood Avenue as open space. The County Correctional Facility is using this land
for farming. The Highwood Land Use Plan Map shows the land south of Linwood
Avenue for single dwellings. Both land use plan maps show Century Avenue as a major
arterial street. Woodbury has planned and zoned most of The property on Century
Avenue, south of Linwood Avenue, for single dwellings. They are planning the balance
of the frontage for office and high density residential land. Their plan is compatible
with Maplewood's plan. (See Woodburfs Land Use Plan and Zoning Maps on pages
50 and 51. The zoning map shows the new interchange.)
Woodbury expects the traffic to increase on Century Avenue, north of Lake Road. This
part of Maplewood has the County Correctional Facility and its farm land. The
interchange would not affect this land since the City is planning the County land for
open space.
Maplewood has been concerned that the traffic from this project will negatively affect
the houses on the west side of Century Avenue and add more traffic to Linwood
Avenue. The Lake Road intersection with Century Avenue has been designed to
minimize this problem. Lake Road will not directly connect to Linwood Avenue. Traffic
from or to' Lake Road must make three tums to drive between Linwood Avenue and
Lake Road. (See the drawing on page 47.) Time will tell if traffic becomes a problem.
Since the interchange is under construction, the only action for Maplewood is to
consider changing the land use plan. I do not see any reason to consider a change now.
Century Avenue and Stillwater Road
The Century Avenue and Stillwater Road intersection does not have any intra-city land
use conflicts. The existing and planned land uses in both Oakdale and Maplewood are
compatible. The land is nearly all developed. There is a vacant site on the southeast
comer of the intersection. Oakdale is planning this site and the existing commercial
businesses near this intersection for commercial land uses. (See the Oakdale
Comprehensive Plan Map on page 52.) Maplewood has planned and zoned the land
near this intersection for commercial land uses as well. (See the Maplewood Land Use
Plan and Zoning Maps on pages 53 and 54.)
5
Century Avenu~ehaha Avenue to Brand Street
There are a variety of land uses on the west side of Century Avenue, between
Minnehaha Avenue and Brand Street. The uses include the Holiday Station Store, the
A&W Restaurant, the Dairy Queen, the Dege Garden Cente~; the Underwater Caverns,
eleven houses and two vacant lots. Maplewood has planned and zoned this land with a
variety of designations. These designations reflect the existing land uses. (See the maps
on pages 55 and 56.)
Oakdale has planned the land across Century Avenue from this part of Maplewood for
commercial uses. (See the Oakdale Comprehensive Plan Map on page 57.) The existing
land uses in this part of Oakdale include a Freedom Center Station, two strip centers, a
restaurant and office buildings. Maplewood is planning residential uses. Thus, there may
be a conflict between land uses. Howevex; Century Avenue creates more of an impact
on these homes than the commercial uses in Oakdale. These homes are in a similar
situation to the homes on White Bear Avenue, north of Larpenteur Avenue. An option is
to ask Oakdale to change their land use plan to single dwellings. I do not recommend
this. The commercial land uses in Oakdale are appropriate given the traffic on Century
Avenue and the high density residential to the east.
Ariel Street--Highway 36 to Eleventh Avenue
Ariel Street between Highway 36 and Eleventh Avenue is the border between North St.
Paul and Maplewood. Apartments and town houses are on the North St. Paul side. In
Maplewood there are two houses and undeveloped property on the southwest comer of
Ariel and llth Avenue. (See the Property Line/Zoning Map on page 58.) Maplewood
has planned most of this area for single dwellings and the part on the south side of
llth Avenue for office uses. (See the Land Use Plan Map on page 59.)
The City's land use plan states that changes in differing types of land use should occur
along rear lot lines. As such, the City may want to consider allowing multiple dwellings
along Ariel Street, particularly south of the planned commercial on llth Avenue. Before
the 1983 update of the Comprehensive Plan, the City was planning the land between
llth Avenue and Highway 36 and Ariel Street and White Bear Avenue for high density
residential development. The City has received an application to make this change.
Planning Commission Recommendation on Problem One
The Planning Commission did not recommend any changes.
6
Problem Two--Blighted Homes Near Commercial
Single and double dw~llln~s around commercial uses are becoming blighted. An
example is the homes west of Duluth Slxeet on County Road C. The City h~n zoned
th~m commercial. This discourages property owaers from rn~intalnlng these homes.
This problem has two parts. The first part is whether there is a problem with blighted
houses near commercial uses? On February 11, 1994, we did a windshield survey of
houses near commercial uses. The maps on pages 60-63 show the general locations of
these homes. The maps on pages 64-85 show the property line/zoning maps for these
properties. We wanted to see if blight or maintenance was a problem. We found no
wide-spread problem. A few houses needed paint or minor repairs. These houses,
howeveg were an exception, not the rule. The number of houses needing maintenance
or repair were no more than in other neighborhoods of a similar age. The main reason
for maintenance problems was age rather than proximity to commercial uses.
The second part of this problem is about properties with homes that the City has zoned
commercial. The maps on pages 66, 67, 69-71, 74 and 84 show examples of such
properties. Our windshield survey did not find an unusual problem of unmaintained
homes.
We surveyed the owners of homes that have a commercial zone. We asked the owners if
they would be fro; object or have no comment about rezoning their property to
residential. Of the 23 surveys we sent out, we received thirteen responses. The owners
of twelve properties wanted to keep their commercial zoning and one property owner
(1210 County Road C) wanted residential. We received the following comments:
l object to changing the zoning of my property because we have commercial on all
three sides and we would just as soon stay as we are. (Patwell, 1927 Radatz
Avenue E.--map on page 67.)
My property is bordered on the east by a McDonald's restaurant and a strip mall
across the street is a Holiday gas station and store, a large repair garage and
storage lot for their vehicles, and on my west side is a fourplex. With all of the
commercial and R-3 properties around me, it has lost value as a residential (single
home) property. Therefore, I would prefer that it remain zoned commercial.
(Moritz, 2708 Minnehaha Avenue E.-map on page 84)
I object to changing the zoning of my property because it's too late now; we are
completely exposed to commercial property. (Peltie~; 2497 Maplewood Drive
N.--map on page 71)
7
w
I object to changing the zoning of my property because the location better fits a
commercial use and resale would be impossible. (Lurid, 2411 Maplewood Drive
N.-map on page 71)
As owner of this property, I want to go on record as being opposed to anything
that would prevent my property from being zoned commercial. This property was
purchased as an investment with the intent of eventually building a commercial
building on it, and the property is priced accordingly. In addition, the properties
along both sides of Highway 61 in the immediate vicinity are commercial
properties. There is no reason why my property should remain residentially zoned.
(Brooksbank, owner of property at 2889 Maplewood Drive N.--map on page 69)
e
I object to changing the zoning of my property because of its location on the
frontage of Highway 61 and the possible change of its value. (Slomkowski, 1075
Pierce Butler Route)
I object to changing the zoning of my property because I would not want to invest
more money in a house 100 years old. (Zuerche~; owner of 2911 Maplewood
Drive-map on page 69)
Since 1986, we have had two appraisals and one market study done on our
property, all with the same conclusion, saying the best use of this property would
be commercial. In the past, your office has come to the same conclusion. In
addition, we now have a new frontage road 25 feet from our property with the
improvement project on County Road C, increasing traffic by double, thus making
our property less attractive residentially and enhancing it commercially. If our
zoning changes, it will not only decrease our property value but decrease our
marketability. (Sorenson, 1215 E. County Road C--map on page 70)
I object to changing the zoning of my property because value of property would
drop. Taxes and house payment would go up. (Graham, 1224 E. County Road
C--map on page 70)
10. I object to changing the zoning of my property because of my business. Need room
for equipment. (Langness, 1227 E. County Road C--map on page 70)
11.
I object to changing the zoning of my property because it is not in my best interest
in the future-- (property value or home-based business). (Hanson, 1230 E. County
Road C--map on page 70)
12. I want it residential. (Munch.w, 1210 E. County Road C--map on page 70)
13. I object to changing the zoning of my property because do not want the taxes to be
any higher. In regard to rezoning, we have had no business for the last 15 years or
8
more. At that time, the flash floods ruined my back property. It killed fruit trees,
raspberries and blackberries and garden land and did at least $3,000 damage to
business properly. You keep raising my taxes, but 1/2 of my property isn't of any
use to me. I would be willing to sell some of the back property if someone had use
for it for commercial properS. (Nienas, 1706 Parkway Drive E.--map on page 74)
We wanted to know the effect on property taxes of changing the zoning of a house
from commercial to residential. We talked to Kent Smith in the County Property
Records and Revenue Department. He told us that such a zoning change would not
change the property taxes if the lot is too small for a commerdal use or standard size
for a residence. (See his letter on page 85.)
There are five options the City could consider to improve the maintenance of homes in
and around commercial uses:
1. Increase the City's enforcement of the housing code next to commercial uses.
The City only enforces the housing code when we get a complaint.
2. Offer financial aid through grants or low-interest loans for home remodeling.
The State already offers a low-interest loan program for low- to- moderate-income
residents for home improvements. The State also has a grant program for families
with incomes below $10,000 per year. The City may want to supplement these
programs.
3. The City could buy up substandard homes, fix them up and resell them or demolish
them and sell the lot to a builder.
The staff is exploring this option. We have identified five or six houses that would
be the most likely candidates. Only one of the houses is near a commercial district.
4. Increase the enforcement of the maintenance code for businesses next to
residences.
The City Code requires businesses to maintain their properties in at least as good a
condition as when originally built. Keeping surrounding businesses looking good
may encourage adjacent homeowners to improve their properties. The City only
enforces this code when we receive a complaint.
5. Rezone properties that the City has zoned commercial or industrial but the owners
are using for residential purposes.
9
This option would probably not be effective. The City changed the land use plan
from commercial to residential for the homes on White Bear Avenue, between Frost
Avenue and Larpenteur Avenue. The maintenance of these homes has not changed.
For now, housing maintenance is no more of a problem in and around commercial uses
than in the rest of the City. The problem may appear worse because the homes are
more visible. Most of the problem homes that we are aware of are in residential
neighborhoods, rather than next to commercial areas. We are not recommending any
changes. We should watch these homes and act in the future if housing maintenance
becomes more of a problem. The City should explore the removal or rehabilitation of
substandard homes. These homes may or may not be around commercial buildings.
Planning Commi-~sion Recommendation on Problem Two
The Planning Commission did not recommend any changes.
Problem Thmc Inadequate Buffering of Single Dwellings
There is not enough buffer between R-1 (single dwelling) and commercial or multiple
dwellings. (The Commission excluded mixed use planned unit developments from this
problem.)
Buffers between different types of land uses are to protect less intense (single family)
land uses from more intense (commercial or multiple-dwelling) land uses. Owners and
developers can do buffering with screening or larger-than-normal setbacks.
Screening'
Pages 87-90 show the City's landscaping, screening and setback standards. The
requirements include at least a 20-foot-wide landscaped yard between single or double
dwellings and other land use types. Landscaping does not always mean screening.
Landscaping may only be grass and low bushes. The Community Design Review Board
can require more landscaping if they feel it is needed. Screening means: a fence, berm,
landscaping or combination of these three that provides at least an 80% opaque screen.
The City only requires screening where:
1. The light from automobile headlights and other sources would be directed into
residential windows.
2. There would be exterior storage of goods or materials that could annoy or
endanger property owners.
3. Mechanical equipment on the ground or roof would be visible from public streets
or adjoining property.
10
4. A parking lot is next to a single or double dwelling or the City is planning the
property for single or double-dwelling use.
The Code allows the use of a screening fence, a planting screen, a berm or a
combination of these for screening.
Setbacks from residential property
The City Code requires commercial and multiple dwellings to be at least fifty feet from
a residential property line (Section 36-28[c] [6]). A developer must increase this setback
to a maximum of 75 feet for buildings exceeding 25 feet in height or having an exterior
wall with more than 2,000 square feet of area that faces a residentially-zoned property.
The Code allows the City Council to approve a conditional use permit for additions
within a required setback. (See Subpart (7) on page 89.)
Planning Commission Recommendations on Problem Three
Change Subsection 36-27(a) of the City Code. This section requires a landscaped
yard of not less than twenty feet in width. Landscaping could mean just grass. The
Commission recommended that the Council change this subsection to require trees
or shrubs in addition to grass.
Staff Comment: The Community Design Review Board (CDRB) recommended
against this change. The CDRB's main concern with this recommendation was the
lack of flexibility in the wording. The neighbors may not need or want screening. A
compromise solution would be to require trees or shrubs in addition to grass, but
allow 'the CDRB to waive the requirement where the adjacent owners object.
Change Subsections 36-27(c) and (d). They require that owners or developers
satisfy screening with a screening fence, planting screen, berm or combination
thereof. If the owner or developer uses fencing, the Commission recommended that
the City require trees or shrubs on the residential side of the fence.
Staff Comment: The CDRB recommended against this change. The current
ordinance already allows the CDRB to require landscaping in addition to fencing.
Some neighbors may prefer not to have landscaping with the fencing, particularly if
they feel that the landscaping may become a maintenance problem. There may be
other cases where existing vegetation may screen the fence and new vegetation is
not needed. The CDRB should have the flexibility to deal with individual situations.
A compromise solution would be to require landscaping with the fencing, but allow
the CDRB to waive the requirement where the adjacent owners object.
3. Change Subsection 36-28(c)(6). This subsection requires a minimum setback
between residential and commercial property. The Gommission recommended that
the Council increase the minimum setback from $0 feet to 75 feet. The ordinance
requires a larger setback for large and tall buildings. The Commission is
recommending that the Council increase the maximum setback for large and tall
buildings fi.om 7S feet to 100 feet.
Staff Comment: The Commission's main concern with this recommendation has
been with tall or large buildings next to residences. The CDRB feels that requiring a
larger setback for all commercial buildings may be too restrictive. The Board noted
several smaller commercial buildings, such as Rainbow Cleaning Systems on Duluth
Street or the veterinary clinic on Cope Avenue that would not need a larger
setback. They are compatible with residences. ! recommend a compromise--leave
the minimum setback at 50 feet, but increase the maximum setback for large or tall
buildings fi.om 75 to 100 feet. This would not keep the current fifty-foot setback
for small and Iow buildings but would require larger setbacks for large or tall
buildings.
Problem Four~rsome Types of Commercial Too Close to Homes
Bothersome types of commercial, such as fast food, are too close to single dwellln~.
These commercial uses create nuisances, such as litter-
For the purposes of this study, ! am defining "bothersome types of commercial~ as
those that create a nuisance to adjacent homes. Controlling such uses is a function of
the zoning ordinance. The Planning Commission reviewed all the types of commercial in
the zoning ordinance and recommended that the City Council make the changes shown
on the chart on page 91. I have singled out the uses below for discussion because the
Commission spent more time discussing them than the other changes.
The Commission used fast food as an example of a bothersome commercial use. The
City limits fast-food restaurants to BC (business commercial) zones. The City requires a
conditional use permit for a BC use that would be within 75 feet of a residential
building. One of the main reasons for this permit is to assure that the commercial use
would be compatible with any surrounding homes.
The ordy residences next to fast-food restaurants are on Minnehaha Avenue and Radatz
Avenue. The house on Minnehaha Avenue is west of the McDonald's on Century
Avenue. The City rezoned this house from a residential zone to a commercial zone. The
zoning change was to allow McDonald's to expand their parking lot. After the City
rezoned the house, McDonald's decided not to buy the property. There is a house on
the north side of Radatz Avenue that is south of the Kentucky Fried Chicken and Burger
King. The City has zoned and planned this house, like the one on Minnehaha Avenue,
for commercial use. I do not know of a problem with the two situations just described.
12
The Methadone
The neighbors around the White Bear Avenue methadone clinic consider the clinic to be
a bothersome use. The neighbors have given the City a list of complaints. None of these
complaints violate City ordinances. The staff prepared an ordinance that would have
required a conditional use permit for clinics that primarily treat chemical dependency.
This was done at the City Council's request. (See the staff report starting on page 92.)
The Planning Commission recommended against this ordinance. The City Gouncfl passed
a moratorium to give the City time to finish this commercial property stud3t
Check C'~nshing Businesses
Saint Paul is working on a zoning code ordinance amendment. The new ordinance
would allow check cashing businesses as a permitted use in commercial districts ff they
were at least 100 feet from a residential district. Saint Paul found that check cashing
businesses had significantly higher police calls than other financial businesses, such as
banks. Neither Saint Paul nor Maplewood license these uses. However; the State does
license them. The Commission recommended that we add check cashing businesses as a
permitted use in commercial districts if they are at least 350 feet from residential
districts.
Heliports and H~llstops
The Planning Commission asked the staff to investigate rules for the location of
heliports. I contacted the Metropolitan Council and Saint Paul. The Metropolitan
Council has a model ordinance that recommends allowing heliports as a conditional use
in any zoning district. Saint Paul has definitions for heliports, helistops, private
heliports 6r helistops and public heliports or helistops in their Zoning Code. They define
a heliport as a place for the landing or takeoff of helicopters (including maintenance
and fueling). A helistop is a place for one helicopter to land or take off, but does not
include maintenance or fueling operations.
By conditional use permit, Saint Paul allows private helistops as an accessory use for a
hospital. A condition for a hospital helistop is that it must be at least 250 feet from a
residential property line. Saint Paul also allows public and private heliports and
helistops at an airport with a conditional use permit. They require that a heliport or
helistop at an airport be at least 1,000 feet from a residential property line. Saint Paul
requires all heliport and helistop applicants to do noise studies and to follow the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations. The noise study is to find out if the
heliport or helistop will meet the State noise regulations. Saint Paul will only allow
heliports at an airport and not at a business. Saint Paul only allows helistops at airports
or hospitals, not at businesses. 3M told us that they do not have or plan to have a
helistop.
13
The Commission recommended that the City change heliport to helistop since we do not
have an airport or plans for an airport. They also recommended that we define helistop,
limit them to hospitals and prohibit them within 350 feet of residential districts.
Minnesota Pollution Control and FAA regulations would appl~
Gun Shops
The Commission is recommending that the City prohibit gun shops anywhere in the
City. (See their list of changes in uses on page 91.) The City Attorney has advised me
that it is highly unlikely that there is statutory authority to exclude gun shops. (See the
attorney's opinion starting on page 101.)
Planning Commission Recommendations on Problem Four
4. Change the commercial districts to conform to the Commission's list on page 91.
5. Make no change to clinics, and lift the moratorium on new or expanding clinics.
Problem Five: Controlling Nuisances from Commercial Uses
The City needs to ease and relieve commerdal noise, trespassing, visual impact and
traffic infilwation through single-dwelllng neighborhoods.
Noise
The City follows the State noise regulations in approving development. I am not aware
of any problems with these regulations.
Trespass
Trespassing can occur from neighbors cutting through the residential yards that abut a
commercial use. The City does not require a business to put up fencing unless required
for screening. The Gommunity Design Review Board could require additional fencing ff
they anticipate a trespassing problem. The Board should consider this on a case-by-case
basis. Residential owners may not want or need fencing.
V'~-ual Impact
The Community Design Review Board reviews all new commercial development. The
Board must make the following findings:
14
That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to
neighboring, existing or proposed developments and traffic is such that it will not
impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will
not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or
proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion.
That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the
character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the
harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and
the City's comprehensive municipal plan.
That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a
desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is
aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors.
Visual impact is in the eye of the beholder. An example is the conditional use permit for
the Kinderberry Hill Day-Care Center (586 Carlton Street). A thick tree and shrub
screen separates the day-care center from the adjacent homes to the east. A neighboring
resident had cut down the vegetation behind his home. He testified at the hearing that
he did not want screening because it interfered with his view of the 3M buildings.
The Planning Commission discussed three subjects about visual impact--building
maintenance, the Chanhassen Landscaping Ordinance and reserve parking.
Building Maintenance
As far as existing buildings, the City requires that property owners maintain their
building and grounds in at least as good a condition as when originally completed
(Section 36-28[b]). Maintenance shall include:
1. Replacing any landscaping shown on the approved plan that dies.
2. Picking up all trash and debris from the grounds.
3. Removing all noxious weeds.
4. Watering the grass, trees and shrubs.
5. Repairing any exterior parts of the building that deteriorate or break.
Chanhassen Landscaping Ordinance
One of the planning commissioners suggested that we look at the Chanhassen
landscaping ordinance (pages 35-46). This ordinance is very detailed and specific. A
concern of the CDRB is that an ordinance like this may limit their flexibility. Another
concern is that minimum standards can become maximum standards. As an example,
the Chanhassen ordinance requires that 1% or 2% of the project value be in
landscaping. This may be enough in some cases or too little in other cases. Developers
15
may provide only the minimum ordinance requirement, when they may have done more
without the ordinance. Ordinances can be self-defeating if the City writes them with too
much detail.
Because of the detailed requirements, the City should informally use the Chanhassen
standards before adopting them. It would be like test-driving a car before buying it.
Reserve Parking
The Planning Commission has recommended that the City allow part of the required
parking spaces to be deferred in a reserve strip until needed. This would create more
open space and reduce storm water nm-off.
Traffic Infiltration
Traffic infiltration means commercial traffic going through residential neighborhoods on
local, rather than collector or arterial streets. The Gity has planned its streets and
commercial areas to prevent commercial traffic from going through local residential
streets. As such, the Gity has planned certain streets for through traffic. The Gity has
shown these streets on the land use plan as collector and arterial streets. Most of these
streets have homes on them. People should expect more traffic if they live on these
streets.
I am not aware of anywhere in the City where commercial traffic is causing a problem
by infiltrating through local residential streets. The only recent case I know of has been
the controversy about traffic from Mounds Park Academy going through the
neighborhood to the west. The City Council solved this problem by closing the driveway
from the school to Price Avenue.
Planning Commission Recommendations on Problem Five
Use the monetary standards, vehicular; foundation and aesthetic plantings,
landscaping materials and definitions of the Chanhassen ordinance for a one-year
trial. The staff would apply the ordinance to each project and report the results to
the Community Design Review Board. Since it is not a Maplewood ordinance, the
Board can use or ignore the Chanhassen standards on a case by case basis. At the
end of the year, the Board shall recommend whether the City should add all or
some of the Chanhassen ordinance to the Maplewood Code.
7. Direct the staff to write an ordinance that allows the City to replace some of the
required parking with reserve land.
16
Problem Six--Transition Zones
Is the City planning transition uses between commercial and single or double dw~lllngs
or following the market?
The City has tried to use transition zones. Maplewood, however; did not do its first land
use plan until 1973. Development had occurred in much of the City by then.
The City designed all of its commercial districts except the BC (business commercial),
SC (shopping center), M-1 (light manufacturing) and M-2 (heavy manufacturing) to be
compatible with surrounding residences. The commercial districts that the City intends
to be next to residential uses are as follows:
NC (Neighborhood Commercial)
SeCtion 36-126 of the City Code lists the intent of the NC (neighborhood commercial)
district. It says, 'the intent of this district is to preserve land for the use of businesses
that are compatible and adjacent residential land uses. Uses are limited to offices and
smaller retail uses that cater to convenience shopping.'
CO (Commercial Office)
Section 36-136 gives the purpose and intent of the CO (commercial office) district. It
says, 'the CO district is established primarily to provide areas for the development of
professional and administrative offices, related uses together with supportive, low
intensity commercial uses in locations in close proximity to residential areas...' It also
says, "This, district is intended to be located primarily on heavily traveled streets or
adjacent to commercial or industrial districts, and is designed to lessen the impact of
these uses on residential areas.'
LBC (Limited Business Commercial)
The City designed the LBC district to be compatible with nearby residential uses.
Offices, medical or health clinics and day-care centers are the only uses that the City
allows in the LBC district.
BC(M) (Business Commercial-Modified)
The BC(M) zoning district allows a variety of commercial uses. The City added the
BC(M) (business commercial-modified) to the City Code in 1976. The City created this
zone as a buffer between the businesses on the north side of Beam Avenue and the
homes on Radatz Avenue. Section 36-155 of the City Code gives the intent of the
BC-M zoning district. It says that ~rhe BC(M) district is intended to provide for the
orderly transition between more intensive commercial uses and low- or medium-density
17
residential areas. Restrictions on, but not limited to, building height, setbacks,
orientation, parking lot location, or location of building entrances may be required to
ensure compatibility with abutting residential uses.'
The zoning ordinance does not specifically state that the City intends the following
districts to be next to residential uses. They are, however.
BC (Business Commercial)
The BC zoning district is the City's most permissive commercial district. The City
allows a wide range of commercial uses in the BC zoning district. The Code requires a
conditional use permit for any BC use within 75 feet of a residential building.
SC (Shopping Center)
The SC (shopping center) zoning district allows many types of commercial land uses.
The Plaza 3000 Shopping Center is the only place in the City that has this zone.
M-1 and M-2 (light and heavy manufacturing)
The zoning code does not specifically say that the City intended these districts to be
next to residential neighborhoods. The M-1 district, however; often is. Both districts
require a conditional use permit for any use within 350 feet of a residential lot line.
This requirement protects residential neighborhoods and allows the City to use the
M-1 district near residential neighborhoods.
If the City feels that a commercial zone next to a residential property is too intense,
they should rezone to a less intense commercial zone.
Planning Commission Recommendation on Problem Six
8. Change the intent section of the BC(M) zoning district. Drop the first sentence.
This sentence states that 'The BC(M) Business Commercial District (Modified) is
intended to provide for the orderly transition between more intensive commercial
uses and low or medium density residential areas.' The Commission did not feel
that the BC(M) district was a buffer between commercial and residential uses.
Problem Seven--Commercial Spread Along Major Streets and Into Residential
Neighborhoods
Continuous commercial spread along major streets and around the comer into
residential neighborhoods.
18
Problem Seven uses the term "continuous commercial spread." The City has had steady
commercial growth over the last 20 years. Most of this growth has occurred on land
that the City had planned for commercial use.
I can find little evidence of 'creeping commercialism' in land use plan changes. In the
last five years, the City has changed about as much land from commercial to residential
use as from residential to commercial use. (See the list of land use changes starting on
page 29.) None of these were significant changes. The City made most of these changes
as part of the updating of the Comprehensive Plan in 1989-1991. The plan is a guide.
As conditions change, the City should adjust and change its plan. Howevex; most of the
changes to commercial locations have been adjustments, rather than major policy
changes.
There is one exception to the above. The City has recently received a proposal to
redevelop the homes between White Bear Avenue, 11th Avenue, Highway 36 and Ariel
Street from residential to commercial.
Planning Commission Recommendation on Problem Seven
The Planning Commission did not recommend any change.
Problem Eight.Nonconforming Commercial Uses
Nonconforming commercial uses in residential zones, such as Don John's commercial
business on Stillwater Avenue.
Nonconforming uses
The City Code defines a nonconforming use as 'A building, or a use of land or of a
building, existing at the effective date of any provision of this chapter which does not
conform with the requirements of such provision of this chaptex; or a use authorized
under Article III of this chapter:" In other words, a nonconforming use is a use that was
legal, but no longer conforms to the current zoning laws because of a change in the
law. The Code allows a legal nonconforming use to continue as long as it does not
expand or end for one year or more. The City may allow a nonconforming use to
expand by approving a conditional use permit.
Zoning ordinances are not retroactive. Existing land uses that do not conform to a new
ordinance can continue as a nonconforming use. For example, if the City rezoned a
welding shop to a single-family zoning, the welding shop could continue as a
nonconforming use. Most communities do not allow an expansion of a nonconforming
use that would prolong its use. This is because a nonconforming use may not be
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Maplewood requires a conditional use
19
permit to expand a nonconforming use. If natural causes destroy a nonconforming
building, the owner has one year to reconstruct it or he must rebuild following the
current rules. If the owner abandons or does not use a nonconforming building for one
year; then the building or use must conform to the current ordinance and standards.
Don John
Don John's property (Stillwater Road) is the nonconforming use that we have had the
most complaints about. The City created this problem by approving a spot commercial
zone. Three years late~; the City tried to correct this error by rezoning the site to R-3.
Unfortunately, Mr. John's use became a legal nonconforming use. While he cannot
expand, he can continue to operate.
On October 22, 1979, Don John applied for a rezoning from R-1 (single dwelling) and
R-3 (multiple dwelling) to BC (business commercial). Mr. John applied for this rezoning
to park construction vehicles on his property and to build a commercial storage garage.
On December 2, 1979, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council
rezone the site to BC(M) (Business Commercial Modified) and change the land use plan
for this lot to commercial. The Commission based their decision on neighborhood
support for the rezoning and the unlikely development of that area into high density
residential use. The staff recommended that the Council deny the request. The
Commission asked the staff to investigate changing the surrounding properties to
commercial as well.
On February 7, 1980, the City Council approved the rezoning and land use plan change.
On February 14, 1983, the City Council rezoned Mr. John's property to R-3. The City
started this change after many complaints from the neighborhood.
On January 14, 1991, the City Council changed the land use plan and zoning maps for
Mr. John's property and the properties around it. These changes were from Rid (high-
density residential) to RL (low-density residential) and R-3 (multiple dwellings) to R-1
(single dwellings).
SOlutions
The City has two options for dealing with nonconforming uses:
1. Buy or condemn the property.
2. Change the ordinance to allow the City to amortize nonconforming uses.
Buying or condemning the property is the surest and fastest option. This option would
cost the City money. Condemnation would add legal costs. The other option is for the
20
City to amortize the use. Amortization also may result in legal costs. Since most other
cities do not amortize nonconforming uses, except signs, owners of nonconforming uses
may decide to sue the City to try to keep their businesses.
Gunnar Isberg, in his book Local and Regional Planning in Minnesota, says: "Some
cities have adopted provisions in the zoning ordinances which attempt to eliminate or
amortize the nonconforming use over a period of time. The time period varies and is
dependent upon such factors as the amount of investment in the use, the losses due to
the elimination, and the cost of relocation. In addition, the time period usually is
shorter for uses which may cause a nuisance adversely affecting the public health. For
such nonconforming uses the amortization period may be 6-12 months, whereas for the
type of uses which present less danger to the public health or where the investment is
substantial, the amortization period may be five or more years or may be allowed to
continue in perpetuity. In Minnesota, the courts have ruled that cities do have the
authority to amortize at least some nonconforming uses."
We tried to find a city that amortizes nonconforming uses. We surveyed thirteen of the
closest cities to Maplewood in population. None of the thirteen cities amortize
nonconforming uses.
Brooklyn Center adopted an ordinance around 1980 to eliminate a specific
nonconforming use. The target was a fertilizer plant that was a considerable nuisance in
a residential neighborhood. The ordinance provided for an amortization period of
several years. The fertilizer plant owners challenged the amortization ordinance. While
negotiations were underway, a fire significantly damaged part of the plant. The part of
the plant that the fire damaged was not nonconforming.
Howeve~ .the fire provided the City with an opportunity to use another provision of ks
code. This provision held that a nonconforming use that is significantly damaged cannot
be rebuilt unless in conformance with Codes. The City thereby forced the plant to
rebuild with significant site improvements (curb and gutte~; buffering and landscaping).
The plant owners challenged these efforts by the City as well. The suit went to court.
The City planner could not remember whether the amortization ordinance itself was
tried before the court, or whether the City simply dropped the issue out of court as part
of settlement negotiations. The upshot, howeve~ was that the City abolished the
nonconforming amortization ordinance in 1981. A positive note was that the City
· stuck it out' on the site improvement issue and won in court.
The Maplewood City Attorney's opinion is that a City can amortize nonconforming uses
if the amortization period is reasonable. (See the Attorney's opinion starting on page
10S.) The problem is that the City cannot arbitrarily enforce such an ordinance. If we
amortize Don $ohn's business, the City must also amortize other commercial uses in
residential zones. If the City Council passes an amortization ordinance, they should
rezone uses that they do not want to amortize.
The question is whether the City can write an ordinance that is fair and provides for
reasonable amortization periods. If this option interests the Council, they should initiate
an ordinance. We could then study this issue in more detail.
Planning Commi.e-sion Recommpndntion on Problem Eight
9. Initiate an ordinance to amortize nonconforming commercial uses in residential
neighborhoods.
On ,tune 6, 1994, the Planning Commission met with the City Council to discuss the
commercial property study. The Council asked the Planning Commission to study the
intensity of commercial uses in the commercial property study. A concern of the Council
was inadequate parking, particularly when there is a change in use from a less intense
to a more intense commercial use. A councilmember used the methadone clinic as an
example.
The first step in dealing with this problem is to define what intensity of commercial
uses means. Are we talking about parking, traffic generated, size of building, type of
use (noise created or outdoor activity) or amount of green space left on the lot?
Without first defining this problem, it is difficult to propose solutions.
Parking problems relate to the intensity of use. Inadequate parking leads to problems
with on-street parking in adjacent residential streets or on adjacent commercial parking
lots. The amount of city-required parking effects the intensity of use by limiting the site
area for building. While buildings can go higher; this increases the cost per square foot.
The Council mentioned parking as one of the main concerns with the methadone clinic.
The clinic does most of its business in the morning. Parking was inadequate at times
and customers were parking on the streets and adjacent parking lots. The rest of the
day the lot was nearly empty. The Council resolved the on-street parking problem by
putting up "no parking" signs. The staff obtained the off-street parking requirements of
several suburbs. We attached Maplewood's Code requirements (page 110) and
summarized the parking space requirements for five other cities (starting on page 111).
We included these five cities because they have more uses listed in their requirements
than the Maplewood Code has. Maplewood's commercial requirements are similar to
these cities.
The problem with requiring minimum parking spaces is that similar uses may have
different parking needs, depending on how successful their businesses are. Best Buy is
an example. They used to be in the Pier One Import store on Beam Avenue. The
parking standard is the same for Pier One as for Best Bu~ Parking was inadequate
when Best Buy was there, but is fine for Pier One. Another problem is peak demand.
Some uses, such as the methadone clinic, do most of their business during certain peak
times and the rest of the day they have empty parking spaces. Parking demand can also
be seasonal. The Mall needs more parking at Christmas than other times of the yeac
Parking standards are based on averages and minimum needs. If the City required
enough parking to meet all needs at all times, we would have more asphalt. One of the
recommendations of the Plarming Commission is to limit parking lots to create more
open space and less storm water nm-off.
Regulating Businesses Near Residential Neighborhoods With a Conditional Use Permit
One method of controlling nuisances from commercial uses around residential
neighborhoods is to require a conditional use permit. The CUP gives the City some
control over land uses. The public hearing gives neighbors a chance to have input into
the design and operation of adjacent commercial uses. The City has used CUPs to
periodically review businesses, regulate hours of operation or limit outside storage. The
City does not need a CUP to regulate the design of commercial buildings or site plans.
The Community Design Review Board (CDRB) already has this authority.
The question is what types of changes or uses should the City require a permit for.
There are at least three options:
1. Require a CUP for each new commercial building or expansion that is close to a
residential property line.
The City could add this option to some or all the commercial zones and could
include all or potential nuisance uses. The City already requires a conditional use
permit for new uses in the following zoning districts:
a. In M-1 (light manufacturing) districts where the use would be within 350 feet
of a residential district.
b. In BC (business commercial) districts where the use would be within 75 feet of
a residential building.
This option would cover new buildings or expansions but would not cover changes
in use within an existing building, such as happened with the Methadone Clinic.
23
2. Require a conditional use permit for every change in type of business that is close
to a residential lot line.
This option would give the City more control over specific businesses near
residences. The City could make this change to some or all the commercial zones
and could include all or potential nuisance uses. As an example, the City may
approve a CUP for a video store. A change from one video store to another video
store would not require a CUP. A change from a video store to an athletic store
would require a CUP. The City would have to be specific in the permit about the
type of business the permit is for.
The disadvantage is that this option would take more of the City's time and would
delay changes in tenancy. The City could lessen this disadvantage by issuing
conditional use permits for broad types of uses rather than specific uses. As an
example, the City could issue a permit for a medical clinic, rather than a specific
type of clinic. Another disadvantage is enforcement. The City might not know
about such a change unless the owner applies for a building permit.
o
The City Code requires a conditional use permit when one nonconforming use
replaces another. As part of the conditional use permit the Council could require
that the new use follow as many of the City's current standards as practical. These
standards could include more parking, landscaping, screening or building
maintenance. The City Attorney advises me that the City must relate any such
requirements to the impact of the development. As an example, the City should not
require that a business build an off-site trail that is not related to the business. (See
the attorney's letter starting on page 116.)
This ~equirement would not have affected the methadone clinic. The methadone
clinic meets the City's current parking space requirement. The Gode requires
fourteen parking spaces. The clinic has twenty spaces. To solve a similar problem in
the future, the City would have to increase the required spaces for clinics.
However; the current requirement has been adequate for the other clinics. The
Cirfs parking space requirements are minimum standards. There will be uses that
need more than the minimum number of spaces.
Requiring a CUP for every use in the BC(M), NC, CO or LBC districts that is near a
residential district seems impractical. The Gity designed these districts to be next to
residences. If a specific zone is causing a problem, the City should rezone it to a less
intense commercial zone.
There are BC zones adjacent to residential neighborhoods. The BC zone was not
intended to be next to residential neighborhoods. Some of the permitted uses in the BC
district require a CUP or are prohibited in the other commercial districts. To solve this
problem, the City could rezone all the BC zones near residential neighborhoods or
24
change the BC regulations. Changing the regulations would be easiest. The City already
requires a CUP in the BC zone for any use within 75 feet of a residence. The City
should require a CUP for some BC uses that are within 350 feet of a residential
property line. The City should require a CUP for uses that require a CUP or that the
Code prohibits in the BC(M) district. These uses include: restaurants, new car sales,
parking lots as a principal use and CNG or LPG dispensing facilities.
The other option would be to rezone all BC properties that are within 350 feet of a
residential lot line. These rezonings would take a lot of time. Simply changing the Code
to require a CUP for more uses would accomplish the same purpose and save much time
and consternation by property owners. The Planning Commission recommended
changing the permitted and conditional uses in the commercial zones to help protect
residential land uses. (See the proposed list on page 91.)
Floor Area Ratios and Lot Coverages
Another way to control the intensity of business use is to create floor area ratios. Floor
area ratios limit the ratio of commercial floor area to the area of the lot. If the primary
concern is green area, rather than floor area, the City could adopt maximum lot
coverage requirements.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS (The numbers refer to the numbers of the Planning
Gommission's recommendations in this report.)
Initiate an ordinance that changes Subsection 36-27(a) of the City Code to require
trees and shrubs in addition to grass, but allow the GDRB to waive the requirement
where the adjacent owners object. (See page 11.)
Initiate an ordinance to require landscaping with any required screening fencing on
the residential side of the fence. The CDRB may waive this requirement where the
adjacent owners object. (See page 11.)
Initiate an ordinance that changes Subsection 36-28(c)(6). This change would
increase the maximum setback for large and tall buildings from 75 feet to 100 feet.
(See pages 11-12.)
Initiate an ordinance to change the commercial districts to conform to the Planning
Commission's list on page 91. Exclude the prohibition on gun shops. (See page
14.)
5. Make no change to clinics in the zoning ordinance, and lift the moratorium on new
or expanding clinics. (See page 14.)
25
Use the monetary standards, vehicular; foundation and aesthetic plantings,
landscaping materials and definitions of the Chanhassen ordinance for a one-year
trial. The staff shall apply the ordinance to each project and report the results to
the Community Design Review Board. Since it is not a Maplewood ordinance, the
Board can use or ignore the Chanhassen standards on a case by case basis. At the
end of the yem; the Board shall recommend whether the City should add all or
some of the Chanhassen ordinance to the Maplewood Code. (See page 16.)
Initiate an ordinance that allows the City to replace some of the required parking
with reserve land. (See page 16.)
Initiate an ordinance that would drop the first sentence of the intent section of the
BC(M) zoning district. This sentence states that 'The BC(M) Business Commercial
District (Modified) is intended to provide for the orderly transition between more
intensive commercial uses and low or medium density residential areas.' (See page
Initiate an ordinance to amortize nonconforming commercial uses in residential
zones. (See page 22.)
REFERENCE
CURRENT COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL POUCIES
The City's commercial and industrial development policies are on pages 22-23 of the
Comprehensive Plan. The following five of these policies relate to protecting residential
properties:
1. Avoid disruption of adjacent residential areas.
2. Use planned unit developments wherever practical. Maintain orderly transitions
between commercial and residential areas.
3. Require commercial and industrial developers to make all necessary improvements
to ensure compatibility with surrounding residential uses.
4. Require adequate screening or buffering of new or expanded commercial areas from
any adjacent existing or planned residential development.
5. Plan land uses and streets to route nonresidential traffic around residential
neighborhoods.
MAPLEWOOD'S COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
(Refer to {he attached sections from the Zoning Code on pages 118-125 for specific
types of u~es allowed and prohibited in each zone.)
NC (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District
The Code says that the City intends the NC (neighborhood commercial) district for
activities and businesses that are compatible with adjacent residential uses. The Code
limits the uses in this district to offices and smaller retail uses that cater to convenience
shopping. Each NC zone has residential uses on at least two sides.
Commercial Office (CO)
The commercial office classification is for offices and related uses, such as supportive,
low-intensity commercial uses. These zones should be close to residential neighborhoods
to conveniently serve the public. These zones should be on heavily traveled streets or
adjacent to commercial or industrial districts, to lessen their impact on residential areas.
27
BC (Business Commercial) Zoning District
The BC zone is the general commercial zoning district in Maplewood. The BC zone
allows a wide variety of commercial land uses in this district. The City may permit high-
intensity commercial uses, such as fast-food restaurants and gas stations, subject to
specific guidelines. The City Code does not state that this zone is intended to be next to
residences. There are some examples of this however.
In 1992, the City Council changed the Code to provide more protection for adjacent
residential uses. The changes included not allowing a motor fuel station within 350 feet
of a residential use and requiring a CUP for any building or outside use within 75 feet
of a residential building.
IBC (Umited Business Commercial) Zoning District
The City intends this district for offices, medical clinics and child-care facilities that
would be adjacent to residential uses. It also may serve as a transition zone between
residential and more intense commercial uses. The permitted uses in the LBG are
compatible with residential uses. LBG uses are usually not open during evenings or
weekends. The LBG zones have a residential use on at least one side. This zoning
district does not have conditional or prohibited uses.
BC(M) (Business Commercial Modified) Zoning District
The City Code says that the intent of the BC(M) district is to provide for the orderly
transition.between more intense commercial uses and low and medium density
residential uses. The City may require restrictions on building height, setbacks,
orientation and parking lot location to insure compatibility with abutting residential
uses.
There are eight areas in Maplewood with the BC(M) zoning. These areas have
residential uses on at least one side. The conditional and permitted uses in the BC(M)
zone limit the activities that could occur in this zone. These limits help protect the
nearby residential uses.
SC (Shopping Center) Zoning District
The permitted uses in the SC zone are similar to the permitted uses in the BC(M) zone.
The only SC zone is the Plaza 3000 shopping center. This center is north of Lydia
Avenue between White Bear Avenue and Ariel Street.
28
M-1 (Ught Manufacturing) Zoning District
The M-1 zone allows the permitted uses of the BC zoning district and a variety of
industrial uses. These include wholesale businesses, contractors shops, manufacturing
plants, laboratories or research facilities and warehouses. The conditional uses in the
M-1 zone include the conditional uses in the BC zone, trucking yard or terminal and
privately-owned recycling facilities. The M-1 zone also requires a CUP for any building
or exterior use within 350 feet of a residential district. This helps protect residential
uses from the effects of potentially disruptive nearby commercial and industrial uses.
LAND USE CHANGES FROM COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL AND VICE VERSA
1982
The City changed the land use plan for the west side of White Bear Avenue, between
Larpenteur and Frost Avenues. This change was from LSC (limited service commercial)
to low-density residential.
1989
The City changed the zoning on the west side of Highway 61 between County Road C
and Beam Avenue. This change was from commercial to F (farm residential). Most of
this land is wetland owned by KSTP.
1990
The city zbned 1881-1889 Clarence (south of Frost Avenue) from BC (business
commercial) to R-1 (single dwellings). The owner had developed these two lots with
single dwellings.
The City changed the land use plan and zoning behind Guldens and 3065 Highway 61
from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-1.
The City changed the land use plan and zoning at 1765 County Road D from multiple
dwelling to commercial for the expansion of Frank's NurserM
The City rezoned about one acre of Hillcrest Development land on Ariel Street, between
Cope and Castle Avenues, from commercial to R-1.
The City rezoned 2708 Minnehaha Avenue (next to McDonald's) from R-1 to LBC
(limited business commercial). This change was to allow McDonald's to expand their
parking lot. (McDonald's decided not to expand the parking lot.)
29
The City rezoned a 2.5-acre parcel in the middle of Battle Creek Park from commercial
to F (farm residential).
The City rezoned several properties west of Highway 61, between Gervais Avenue and
Gounty Road G from residential to commercial and vice versa. The Gouncil made these
changes as part of the updating of the Comprehensive Plan.
The City rezoned the rear of the Maplewood Drive-In property from BC (business
commercial) to R-IS (small-lot single dwellings).
The City rezoned the land behind the former Carlton Racquetball Club (600 Carlton
Street) from R-1 to M-1 (light manufacturing). The rezoning allowed 3M to expand the
parking lot for a training center.
The City changed the land use plan and zoning from R-1 to LBC (limited business
commercial) for the property at 2702 Stillwater Road. The Gouncil made this change to
allow Knowlan's Supermarket and the Midvale Center to expand.
The City changed the land use plan from medium-density residential to M-1 (light
manufacturing) for the south side of Frost Avenue, east of Phalen Place. The Gity had
already zoned this land commercially and the owner was using the site for commercial
use.
1992
The City ~pproved a planned unit development (PUD) on the north side of Gervais
Avenue for the Care Free Cottages of Maplewood. The City has zoned this property LBC
(limited business commercial).
The City changed the land use plan and zoning map from medium-density residential to
single dwelling for the north side of Frisbee Avenue, west of English Street. The Gity
made these changes for the 14-lot Frisbee Hill plat for single dwellings.
1993
The City changed the zoning map from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and
double dwellings) for the south side of Duluth Street, south of County Road C. The City
made this change to allow Goff Homes to build double dwellings on the site.
The City changed the land use plan from LBC (limited business commercial) to C
(church) for the property at 2425 White Bear Avenue. The City made this change to
convert the former Montgomery Ward's office building to a church.
30
go:b-7:commprl 1 .mem (4.55)
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
20-41.
42.
43.
44.
4.5.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
52.
53.
,54.
55.
The February 23, 1993 Planning Commission Proposal
Chanhassen Landscaping Ordinance
1993 Lake Road/I-494 Interchange Plan
Vista Hills Land Use Plan Map
Highwood Land Use Plan Map
Woodbury Land Use Plan Map
Woodbury Zoning Map
Oakdale Comprehensive Plan Map (District 6)
Beaver Lake Land Use Plan Map (Stillwater Road and Century Avenue)
Property Line/Zoning Map (Stillwater Road and Century Avenue)
Beaver Lake Land Use Plan Map (Century, north of Minnehaha)
Proper~ Line/Zoning Map (Century, north of Minnehaha)
Oakdale Comprehensive Plan Map (District 8)
Property Line/Zoning Map (Anel, north of Highway 36)
Land Use Plan, north of Highway 36 at Ariel Street
Location Maps for Homes Near Commercial Uses
Property Line/Zoning Maps and Land Use Maps
2-18-94 letter from Kent Smith
Sections 36-27 and 36-28 of the City Code (Landscaping and Screening)
Proposed Changes in Commercial Uses by Zoning District
Memo on Chemical Abuse Clinics Ordinance
City Attorney's Letter on Gun Shops
City Attomey's Memo on Amortizing Nonconforming Uses
Maplewood Off-street Parking Requirements
Blaine Parking Requirements
Bloomington Parking Requirements
Brooklyn Center Parking Requirements
Golden Valley Parking Requirements
Richfield Parking Requirements
City Attorney's Letter on Requiring Conditions of Changes in Nonconforming Uses
Commercial Zoning Districts
$1
Attachment 1
TO: MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
FROM: MAPLE~OOD PLANNING COmmiSSION
TOPIC: COMMERCIAL PROPERTY STUDY
DATE: FEBRUARY 23, 1993
The planning commission has a concern with commercial
development in Maplewood with special concerns in areas
were commercial zoning and residential zoning adjoin each
other.
These concerns come from some basic beliefs they are,
1)
The residents of Maplewood are the foundation of the city
and as such should receive all due benefits and protection
in development matters.
2)
Commercial development is a convenience to the residents.
It does have benefits to the city which do deserve
consideration but these considerations should not be
allowed to overwhelm existing residents or burden the
future residential areas of the city.
3)
Commercial development can have a deteriorating effect
on residential areas. Over the long term a vicious cycle
of encroachment of commercial development, deterioration
of residential, and expansion of commercial into residential
can take place.
4)
Consideration of all areas where commercial and residential
land uses adjoin should receive the same consideration.
Areas of future residential development should be protected
in ,the same manner as existing residential areas. In doing
so the city will be creating the best situation to attract
better quality residential developments to these areas.
5)
6)
Some intense or bothersome commerical uses which generate
excessive noise, fumes, or traffic should not be allowed
to adjoin residential areas.
The city should have the ability to regulate the intensity
of use on commercial property, much like it does with
residential property.
There are a number of areas which could be looked at to
regulate the buffer zone between residential and commercial
development areas.
A)
B)
C)
D)
Make some changes to the existing zoning codes.
Rezone land to create buffer zones.
Change the comprehensive plan.
P.U.D. ordinance update.
32
The most likely situation to affect changes which would
have some impact now and into the future would be to put in
place a combination of these options.
The following are some examples of items which could be
reviewed by a commercial property study. These are just examples
and may not encompass all possible options.
Increase the amount of landscaped area. In our concept
the idea is to create some distance and aesthetic value to the
area between commercial and residential uses.
Take a close look at any land which has residential zoning
but is being used for commercial purposes also review any land
which is zoned for commercial use but is being used
residentially.
We believe that the city's screening ordinances along with
all required setbacks should be reviewed and updated to offer
the greatest protection to residential areas as is deemed
possible.
A study should also look at the city's existing farm zoning
areas and update these areas to minimize or eliminate the farm
zone.
The commercial property study should also address some
aspects of the commercial zones. We should review what can
be done to improve the overall appearance of commercial areas
and how ~to introduce more green area into commercial development.
The regulation of commercial intensity is also an area of
concern. All the residential zones are governed by density
tables as a means to control intensity of use. We could look
at floor area, percentage of building coverage of property,
traffic generation, etc. as some ways to regulate the intensity
of use of commercial property.
Rezoning some properties to create a buffer zone may be
a possibility in some areas, a review of the city's zoning
and land use maps may turn up some areas which could be changed.
This action would have to include a review of the comprehensive
plan as well.
We would suggest that a review of commercial property,
both existing development areas and future commercial areas
be done to determine:
A) How many areas exist with BC adjoining R-l, BC adjoining
R-2, BC (M) adjoining R-1 and R-2, etc.
B) What existing roads are in place and are they adequate.
C) What future roads might be needed to handle future
development.
D) Other infrastructure needs for development.
33
F)
Gather information from existing developments as to density
or intensity of use.
Special situations which might need addressing for future
development on any particular parcel of land. I.e. wet-
lands or terrain. These items if cataloged could serve
as guidelines for the staff, planning commission and
council when a development is proposed and eliminate some
reacting to proposals with concerns thought out in advance.
'One other tool which has been under consideration which
should be used in concert with these proposals is a revised
P.U.D. ordinance. To what affect it may play a role is yet
to be determined. However, if the P.U.D. was imposed as an
overlay zone, then the underlaying zone still serves as a
basis to code changes and variances as modified by the P.U.D.
and if some stronger ordinances are in place in the underlaying
zone then the city's position can only be strengthened.
In conclusion the city should initiate a study to look
at commercial areas of the city and their relationship to
residential areas. The study should encompass, improving
the overall appearance of commercial areas, and studying the
intensity of use on commercial property. The study would
include all existing and proposed commercial land and would
locate trouble spots and gather information for future use.
Ordinances should be reviewed to find areas were changes
could be made to improve the residential environment. The
study should include input from the city council, planning
commission, design review board, engineering department, the
community development department and any other department or
groups which have input.
Recommendation- Direct staff to initiate and coordinate
a commercial property study to evaluate the relationship between
commercial and residential zones and the control of the intensity
of uSe of commercial property.
34
Attachment 2
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
DIVISION 2. TREE PRESERVATION
The section below will be amended with the adoption of the Tree Preservation
Ordinance proposed for subdivision.
Sec. 20-1178. Generally.
DIVISION 3. LANDSCAPING STANDARDS
Sec. 20-1179. Landscape budget.
(a) Landscaping shall be provided that meets the minimum landscaping budget provided
in the table below.
Project value*
6'-~'.o-'-~ building construction, site
preparation, and the site improvements)
Below $1,000,000
$1,000,00 i- 2,000,000
2,000,001- 3,000,000
3,000,001- 4,000,000
Over $4,000,000
Minimum Landscape Value**
(Is the minimum landscape value and shall
include only expenditures on trees and
plant material excluding sod or seed, excluding
labor and grading.)
2%
20,000 + 1% of project value in excess of
$30,000 + 0.75% of project value in excess
of $2,000,000
$37,500 + 0.25% of project value in excess
of $3,OOO,OOO
1%
. .~ · ~..::.., The value of tree preservation may be utilized to offset
(b) At 'h- C:.9": :~=' :'.~.
landscaping requirements, if there is a finding of significant trees that are worthy of
preservation. The following formula shall be used for calculating the value of tree
preservation:
35
Cross-sectional Dollars Per Species Condition Location Dollar Tree
Area x Square lnch x Factor x Factor x Factor -- Value
NOTE: The formula used may be changed by resolution approved by the City
Council.
(see definitions section) Add definition of Interior Landscaping (area exclusive of
mandated setback).
Sec. 20.1180. Screening for visual i.mpacts.
(a) Visual impacts must be screened 4a,=b~fe~ as required by the city. These shall
include, but not be limited to, lruck loading areas, trash storage, parking lots, interior lot areas
and perimeters, outdoor storage areas, large unadorned building massing, garage doors
associated with auto-oriented uses and vehicular stacking areas for drive-through uses.
(1) Required screening ~ for any visual impact may be achieved with
fences, walls, earth berms, hedges or other landscape materials. All walls and fences
shall be architecturally harmonious with the principal building. The use of wooden
screen fences or chain link fences equipped with slats is prohibited. Earth berms shall
not exceed a slope of 3:1 unless provided with landscaping designed to minimize
maintenance. The screen shall be designed to employ materials which provide
effective visual barrier during all seasons.
(2) All required screening ~ shall be located on the lot occupied by the use,
building, facility or structure to be screened. No landscape screening shall be located
on any public right-of-way or within eight (8) feet of the traveled portion of any street
or highway.
(3) Screening ~ required by this section shall be of a height needed to
accomplish the goals of this section. Height of plantings required under this section
shall be measured at the time of installation.
(b) The following uses shall be screened ~ in accordance with the
requirements of this subdivision:
(1) Principal buildings and structures and any building or slructure accessory
thereto located in any business, industrial or planned unit development dislrict
containing nonresidential uses shall be ~ greened from lots used for
any residential purpose.
(2) Principal buildings and structures and any building or slructure accessory
thereto located in any R4, RS, R12, R16 district or planned unit development
dislrict containing residential development at densities exceeding four (4) units
per acre shall be ~ screened from lots located in any Al, A2, RR or
RSF dislrict.
(3) Additional buffer yard requirements are established by the city
comprehensive plan and listed in individual dislrict standards.
(4) Outside storage in any district subject to these provisions and allowed by
other provisions of this ordinance, shall be screened from all public views.
Sec. 20-1151. Vehicular areas.
(a) Parking lot perimeters where vehicular areas, including driveways and chive aisles,
are not entirely screened visually by an intervening building or slxucture from any abutting
right-of-way, there shall be provided landscaping designed to buffer direct views of cars and
hard surface areas. The goal of this section is to break up expanses of hard surface areas,
help to visually define boulevards and soften direct views of parking areas and provide for
reforestation with overstory tree from the approved tree species list identified for
parking or other species as approved by city staff.
All new planting areas must have an irrigation system installed
(b) Interic~r landscaping for vehicular use areas:
(1) Any open vehicular use areas ~ ........ =.........~,, -.-.....--.~,, ':: ~...-.-~,- ---~
..~.'r~" ......~-.= ~)"-~... _o=....o,":-'-:~'-~ containing more than six thousand (6,000) square feet of area, or
twenty (20) or more vehicular parking spaces, shall provide interior landscaping in
accordance with this division in addition to "perimeter" landscaping. Interior landscaping
may be peninsular or island types.
(2) For each one hundred (100) square feet, or fraction thereof, of vehicular use area,
~ eight (8) square feet of landscaped area shall be provided.
(3) The minimum landscape area permitted shall be =-~.~'..._" .... ":"'~,..7, two hundred
(200) square feet, with a ~o~r--ten six foot minimum dimension to all lrees from edge of
pavement where vehicles overhang and a four foot minimum dimension to all trees where
vehicles do not overhang.
(4) In order to encourage the required landscape areas to be properly dispersed, no re-
quired landscape area shall be larger than ~.~ ~'"'~°'~ r. fi~ ~r~ seven hundred twenty
(720) square feet in vehicular use areas under thirty thousand (30,000) square feet, unless
there is a preservation area. In both cases, the least dimension of any required area shall be
four-foot minimum dimension to all trees from edge of pavement where vehicles overhang.
Landscape areas larger than above are permitted as long as thc additional areas arc in excess
of thc required minimum.
(5) A minimum of one (1) tree shall be required for each two hundred fifty (250)
square feet or fraction thereof, of required landscape area. Trees shall have a clear tnmk of at
least five (5) feet above the ground, and the remaining area shall be landscaped with shrubs,
or ground cover (not to include rocks or gravel except as a mulch around shrubs and
ground cover), not to exceed two (2) feet in height.
(?) All landscaped ar~as shall be protected by concrete curbing.
(8) Ali landscaping area s.hall have the proper soil preparation, to emu? the
viability of the vegetation to surwve. The landscaping plan shall provide specsfications
for proper soil preparntion.
Sec. 20-1182. Foundation and aesthetic plantings.
(a), Landscaping plans shall provide for an appropriate mix of plantings around thc
exterior fo~tprint of all buildings. The intent of this section is to improve the appearance of
the slructures and, where necessary, break up large unadorned building elevations. These
plantings are not intended to obscure views of the building or accessory signage.
(b) All undeveloped areas of the site, excluding protected wetlands and tree
preservation areas, shall be seeded or sodded. In addition, an appropriate mix of trees and
other plant material shall be provided to create an aesthetically pleasing site.
(c) Boulevard and streetscape plantings, Where undeveloped or open areas of a site
are located adjacent to public right-of-way, the plan shall provide for over-story boulevard
trees. A minimum of one (1) tree for every thirty (30) feet of frontage is required. The city
may approve alternatives if it meets the intent of the ordinance from approved tree species
list or as approved by city staff.
Sec. 20-1183. Landscaping materials.
(a) Thc landscaping materials shall consist of the following:
38
(I) Walls and fences. Walls shall be constructed of natural stone, brick or other
appropriate materials. Fences shall be constructed of wood. Chain link fencing will be
permi~d only if covered with plant material or otherwise screened.
2) Earth berms. Earth berms shall be physical barriers which block or screen the
view similar to a hedge, fence, or wall. Mounds shall be consuucted with proper and
adequate plant material to prevent erosion. A difference in elevation between areas requiring
screening does not constitute an existing earth mound, and shall not be considered as
fulfilling any screening requirement.
(3) Plants. All plant materials shall be living plants; artificial plants are prohibited.
Plant materials shall meet the following requixcments:
a. Deciduous trees. Shall be species having an average crown spread of greater than
fifteen (15) feet and having trunk(s) which can be maintained with over five (5) feet
of clear wood in areas which have visibility requirements, except at vehicular use area
intersections where an eight-foot clear wood requirement will control. Trees having an
average mature spread of crown less than fifteen (15) feet may be substituted by
grouping of the same so as to create the equivalent of a fifteen foot crown spread. A
minimum of ten (10) feet overall height or minimum caliper (trunk diameter, measured
six (6) inches above ground for trees up to four (4) inches caliper) of at least two and
one-half (2½) inches immediately after planting shall be required. Trees of species
whose roots are known to cause damage to public roadways or other public works
shall not be placed closer than fifteen (15) feet to such public works, unless the tree
root system is completely contained within a barrier for which the minimum interior
containing dimensions shall be five (5) feet square and five (5) feet deep and for
which the construction requixements shall be four (4) inches thick, reinforced concrete.
Trees shall be selected from the approved list of tree species or ns approved by
city staff.
b. Evergreen trees. Evergreen trees shall be a minimum of six (6) feet high with a
minimum caliper of one and one-half (1½) inches when planted.
c. Shrubs and hedges. Deciduous shrubs shall be at least two (2) feet in average
height when planted, and shall conform to the opacity and other requirements within
four (4) years after planting Evergreen shrubs shall be at least two (2) feet in average
height and two (2) feet in diameter. Materials to be selected from approved list or
ns approved by city staff.
d. Vines. Vines shall be at least twelve (12) inches high at planting, and axe generally
used in conjunction with wails or fences. Materials to be selected from approved
list or ns approved by city staff.
39
e. Grass or ground cover. Grass shall be planted in species normally grown as
permanent lawns, and may be sodded, plugged, sprigged, or seeded; except in swales
or other areas subject to erosion, where solid sod, erosion reducing net, or suitable
mulch shall be used, nurse-grass seed shall be sown for immediate protection until
complete coverage otherwise is achieved. Grass sod shall be clean and free of weeds
and noxious pests or diseases. Ground cover such as organic material shall be planted
in such a manner as to present a finished appearance and seventy-five ('/5) percent of
complete coverage after two (2) complete growing seasons, with a maximum of fifteen
(15) inches on center. In certain cases, ground cover also may consist of rocks,
pebbles, sand and similar ~ materials if approved by the city. Materials to
be selected from approved Iisi or ss approved by city
f. Retaining. Retaining walls exceeding ~ four (4) feet in height, including
stage walls which cumulatively exceed ~s~e-(-~) four (4) in height, must be consu~cteA
in accordance with plans prepared by a registered engineer or landscape architect of
brick, concrete or natural stone. Artificial material may be approved ff appropriate. A
building permit is required.
DIVISION 4. MAINTENANCE AND INSTALLATION
Sec. 20-1184. Generally.
The owner, assigns, tenant, and their respective agents shall be held jointly and severally
responsible to continually maintain their property and landscaping ss approved with the
official site plan in a condition presenting a healthy, neat and orderly appearance and free
from refuse and debris. Plants and ground cover which are required by an approved site or
landscape plan and which have died shall be replaced within three (3) months of notifications
by the ciR. However, the time for compliance may be extended up to nine (9) months by the
director of planning in order to allow for seasonal or weather conditions.
Sec. 20-1186--20-1260. Reserved.
DEFINITIONS:
Screening - Visually shielding or obscuring structures or uses through the use of densely
planted vegetation. Vegetation shall include a mix of deciduous and coniferous to
provide year round screening.
Cross-Sectional Area - is a measure of tree size. It is calculated from the trunk
diameter using the formula 0.78~d2 where d2 is the trunk diameter .of the tree measured
in inches squared. Diameter measurements should be taken at a point on the trunk
feet above the level.
4O
Dollars per square Inch. is the value determined by the Council of Trees and
Landscape appraisers. The current value is $27.00 per square inch.
Species Factor - is the measure of the relative value of each shade or ornamental tree
species. See attached list with values ( Attachment A).
Condition Factor - is the measure of an individual tree and its relative physical
condition compared to a tree of the same species which has perfect health and form
(Attachment B).
Location Factor - is the function val~,e of a tree based on its location in the landscape.
The location factor may vary from 0 to 100 percent with 100 percent repr--~,enting a
perfect location. Its greater value is due to its aesthetic and functional impact on the
property. Positive functions such as providing shade, controlling snow drifting, or
providing wildlife habitat enhances a tree's location value. Negative functions such as
interference with public safety, utilities, sidewalks, building or other properties can
lessen the value.
List of Desirable Tree Species for Planting in Chanhassen means the following list tree
species.
List of Desirable Tree Species for Planting in Chanhassen
Key to notations used:
ST = Relatively tolerant to deicing salt
DT = Relatively tolerant to drought or dry sites
Size: (in terms of expected mature height) L = Large (over 50 fee0
M = Medium (between 25 to 50 fee0
S = Small (less than 25 feet)
Blvd= Suitable for boulevard planting and parking lot
Pkg = Suitable for parking lots
Suitable Tree Species
Broadleaf Species Size Tolerance Location Notes
Ash, Mountain M BLVD Protect from sunscald
Sorbus spp.
41
Attachment 31
I
IlS
('~,)
12
g O,e
I
r ....... ¢-?,~£"
il
IZ.- tG-'t"/
Attachment 30
·
·
·
·
·
F
W
i'R Y
A
r, A THRU E
·
I.G AR
"c.B?
SAINT PAUL
I PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP
· 74
Attachment 29
1'7
!; IlO,IT '
mmmmm
-Mt
~TAT~ op M,~l~.
¢4)
PROPERTY
LINE
73
/ ZONING MAP
Attachment 28
Attachment 27
DEMONT~ ~ ~
MOBILE HOME PARK
N.W. CAMERA
'~ m
~P mmmmmmmm~
Z(j~E'aC.ER, j483
WELL DRILLING
E-IN
'"-:" i .......'~ kLLEN
HIGHWAY 36
PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP ~-~
7'1
,L
Attachment 26
~
mmmmmmmmm!
I. eeL. h+
~688
rv ROAD C- ' ."'~ _L.
..: 1194)
CHURCH
MITSIJBI~
0") J 6(,)
J ',~
0'") "
3RD, ~
OU TLO T A ' ' -
WET LAND
PROPERTY
LINE
7O
/ ZONING
MAP
N
Attachment 25
2999
I ~
2873
See .S4c
Attachment 24
PROPERTY
LINE / ZONING MAP
68
Attachment 23
ii*
BANK ~"-
JlBBIB
RADATZ E. III
TOWN HOUSES
~FI
.,..............PU6'~ ~ ,,,/ BUILDING
.. .......... . .,,.. :."'" LBC~
· ." -'- ' '",.-. : 2785
2800
.L
Attachment 22
(2)
~BC
2425
REDEEMING LOVE CHUFICH
2462
2456
2444
2434 ~,r~
2428
2422
BERVAi$ ---II
2382
PROPERTY
LINE
66
/ ZONING MAP
Attachment 21
4
mmmmm
GERVAIS AVENUE
I. le.,...L
2462'
2456
2444
2434
2428
2422
o4.! ~
2416,
GERVAIS
2382
2374 C:
2366,~
·
·
·
·
·
I~VE.
AVE.~
· .':m~mt, ml--------_. ...................... .,!
&~ ,- ...... -, Ir ..... a_ ........ HIGHWAY aS ......
_4r. m m m W m m m m'B Jimi~jli~...L,,N,,C,. mmmmmwmmmmmmmmm~,mmm''--i b'~ ...~
e ," "" . , ,, J. H. ., · ,, .,o,,, ~, ! ,,, ,w,,.,,.,- 3 .,:.,.,,,,o,.,~ -..-d...,
,,e , ~,,'~"~;'1~'" IL'_, ......... ,..:::_., ..... ,.... ~~,._?_ ........ Ii ............
PROPERTY LINE/ZONINGes MAP -~ '----'I~1
.F
Attachment 20
)PE AVENUE
PON 0
·
·
·
·
·
LARK AVENUE
SAN ST AV sr.
COUNi/
n
P~OPE~TY
LINE
/ ZONING MAP
Attachment 19
1200N
960N
720N
4.80N
9
10
11
12
A~r.
BRAND A'~- :"..
"Fl
1200N
9
960N
10
720N
11.
,,480N
12
~a~ ~ ,{~ ,.24.0N
24.ON ~ -
13
13 ~
__ ,~ ~.~ ~o. ~. / , O0
LOCATION MA
Homes Near Co~ercial 63
mm
Attachment 18
@1
WHITE B~_AR LAKE
NORTH SAINT PAUL
$¢o1~
1700' O' 1700' ~.00'
2. 11F. RNLrY AVE.
3. 14F. JDOW ~
4. RSPL~ AVE.
NORTH EAJNT PAUL
AW..
IONqO AVE.
Attachment 17
P~
AV~.
JUNCT~N
('~) CHA~BO~S ST
SAINT PAUL
ART..
~-I~EN AV~.
AV~.
' LOCATION MAP' lf~l
Homes Near Commercial 61 N
Attachment 16
~: hi
o o
~t' o o
LFFFL~ CANADA
B
C
264UN
2~.OON
~ ~KING DR.
BURK~
KIN~,,~TON I~
BS.~ONT
Lek.
SK]LL.MA~
SKILLMAN A~..
MT.
0OWNS AV~
BELLWOOO AV~ AVE. BEi i WOOD __
SUMME~ A'~ ~.~ ~
PAUL
LOCATION MAP'
Homes Near Commercial 60
Attachment
Attachment 14
F
0
0
HIGHWAY 36
- '3, F ...... {~l~_J_v.~____~_l_~,~.f~,... ,,,z- .... : ....s,6. ....
mmmmmmmmmm F ' ! '
· .-.. -- - , ~:-~ ~
T' ,,,.i,- ,,,,,.,,., ~;~ ,:.,.,,,,,.,, -'"'~:,i I1~ I ! I I',,_-f~,.~ i o,.~ ',
PROPERTY
LINE
58
/ ZONING MAP
HARVESTI
BRAND'~
MINNEHAHA
MD. blEDlUM DENSIT~ ~
HD. HIGH Dr:NSITY RESIDEIrrlAL
'p . IKIBUCISEMI-IqJaUC
C - COMMERCIAL
IIO - INDUSTRI&LI~)FFICE
Gl - GENF. RAL INDUSTRIAL
o' 2ti0' i~o'
STEEP SLOPES
EXISI'ING TRALS
PROPOSED TRAILS
~. FUTURE STRF~T$
57
Attachment 13
Oakdale
Minnesota
Planning District
8
Attachment 12
BRAND
I
I
I ! I
CHURCH 925
ST.
I ""1 I I-
i '1 I - 665
I I ~___851
I
~725
rDEGE GARDEN CENTER
DAIRY
leos
.~,
779
~ a A&W
HOLIDAY STORE
R-3(M)
mmmm
~R-T'
~-..R-3(M)
Attachment .11
Maryland
Ave.
,Stillwater Rd.
BC
BC(M)
larv :ster Ave.
R-31
BC(M
BC
L
CEM
M-1
.: OS "- "
· ~ M- 1
:ollect, :::~-.:
mmmmimmm mmm mM
BC .~
nnehaha Ave.
BC
LBC
R-3(H)
OS
Conway Ave.
Attachment.lO
.[ I I I I I I j L- I
I I I I
J
2700
ts 2701
eo.?~ \ \
\ ,?.>\ \\
,.,,,, \
lO
FIRE
_YOCUM OIL
~'EXACO,
1077
R-3
Attachment 9
R-3(M)
1
I
ector
y Ave.
R-2
,R-1S
Maryh Ave.
R.3(M)
OS'
R'-I'
,Stillwat Dr Rd.
BC
BC(I
Harvester Ave.
R-3(H)
M-1
CEM
sc ~
LBC0
Minnehaha Ave.
BC
LBC
LAND USE MAP 1
MD
RICHARD --
WALTON
MEMORIAL
MUNICIPAL
LD - LOW DENSITY RES~DENTL&L
MD - MEDIUM DENSITY RESIOENT~AL
MD - HIGH DENSITY RESIDF. NTM~
P o PUBUC
SP - SEMI-PUBUC
C - COMMERCIAL
I/0 - INDUSTRIAL/OFFICE
Gl - GENERAL INDUSTRIAL
~ WETLANDS
[] woooc~ms
~/ STEEP SLOPES
mm EXISTING TRAILS
eee PROPOSED TRAILS
NONTH
OAKDALE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Oakdale
Minnesota
Planning District
6
Attachment.8]
R-4
FD'I
Attachmen~ 7
I
FD-2
~EEK
R-4 SGL. FAMILY
B-1 OFFICE PARK '
CiTY OF WOODBURY ZONING
B-2 GENERAL BU&.
FD-1 FREEWAY BU~.
I-1 LIMITED INDUSTRY
FD-2 FREEWAY IMPACT
N
51
LD
MD
LD~
LD LOW DENSITY RESID. HD HIGH DENSITY RESIn. I INDUSTRY
L MD MED. DENS,ITY RESID. O OFFICE C COMMERCIAL RETAIL N
50
Attachment
Llnwood
R-1
collector
Highwood---
R-1 P
~11 minor I
' IIc°llec~°r ! R-1
I
I
R-1
o
o
C,&rver
REVISED
49 Figure 21
T
Attachment
Lower Aft on r,.,
LB(
Londin Line
REVISED
mi Jot Irteriel
R-1
Mail&nd
minor collector
OS
o
o
collector
.
/..o',~
Linwood
I
I.
BIB · ·
48 Figure 20
47
Shrubs Continued
2
Botanical Name Common Name Size Tolerance Notes
Yucca Filamentosa Yucca 24' ST lYF Full Sun
Sedum Spectabile Stone Crop 18" ST DT SN
'Autumn Soy'
Iris Sibefica Siberian Iris 24" ST DT SN
Comus Alba 'Red ElF' Dogwood 'Red Elf' 36'
Diervilla Lonicera Dwarf Bush Honeysuckle 36' SN
Juniperus Horizontalis Juniper 18' DT SN
'Hughes'
Suniperus Sabina Juniper 18" DT SN
'Arcadia'
Junipers Sabina 'Baffalo' Juniper 18' DT SN
Lonicera Xxylosteum Honeysuckle 24"
'Emerald Mound'
Potentilla Fruticosa McKay's White Potentilla 30" DT SN
Potentilla Fmticosa Potentilla 30" PT SN
'Gold Finger'
Rosa sup. Carefree Beauty Rose 36" DT
Rosa SUp. Nearly Wild Rose 36' DT
Spires Japonica 'Alpina' Alpine Spirea 12' SN
Spirea Japonica 'Alpina' Alpine Spirea 12' SN
* NOTE: Other materials may be used subject to city approval.
LIST OF DESIRABLE GROUND COVER AND HERBACEOUS PERENNIAL
ST = Relatively Salt Tolerant
SN = Relatively Tolerant of Snow Loading
Botanical Name Common Name Size Tolerance Notes
Achillea Filperd Yarrow 24" PT DT SN
Anemisia Schmidtiana 'Silver King' Artemisia 36" DT ST SN
Astilbe spp. Astilbe 12"-30" SN Partial Shade
Aegepodium Podograria Goutweect/ 12" SN
Snow On The Mountain
Baptisia Amstralin False Indigo 36" ST DT SN Shrub Like
£uophorbia Epithymoides Cushion Spurge 18" DT SN
Fesfica Ovina q31auca' Blue Fescue 12" DT SN Fall Sun
Hemerocallus spp. Day Lily 12"-30" ST DT SN
Hosta spp. Plantain Lily 12"-30" SN Partial Shade
Huechera Sanguinea Coral Bells 18" ST SN
Hypeficum, Calycinum St. Johns Wort 18"-24" PT SN
Lamium Maculatum Pend Nettle 18" SN Sun or Shade
Linum Perenne Perennial Blue Flax 24" DT SN
Monarda Didyma Beebalm 24" ST SN
Partheno Cissus Virginia Creeper 15" SN Partial Shade
Quinguefolia
Polygonum Tricuspidatam Fleece Flower 24" DT SN Can Be
'Compactum' Invasive
Pennisetum Alopecumides Foup!_nlr~ Grass 36" SN
Rudbeckia Fulgida Black-eyed Susan 24" ST SN
'(3oldsturm'
Sporobolus Heterolepis Prairie Drapseed 24" ST DT SN Full Sun
Veronica spp. Speedwell 24" SN
Fir, Balsam M Relatively tolerant of wet
Abie$ balsamea sites. Shade tolerant.
Fir, White M DT
Abie$ concolor
Pine, Austrian M
Pinus nigra
Pine, Red L DT State tree
Pinus resinosa
Spruce, Black M
Hills
Picea glauca
densata
Spruce, Colorado M
Picea pungens
Spruce, Norway L
Picea abie$
Spruce, White L
Picea glauca
Tamarack L Tolerant of wet sites.
Larix laricina Only conifer that drops
its needles each year in
fall.
8/26/93
9/22/93
44
Locust, Black L DT PKG
Robinia
pseuedoacacia
Maple, Amur S Shade tolerant.
Acer ginnala
Maple, Norway M-L ST BLVD/PKG Protect from sunscald.
Acer platanoides
Maple, Red M-L BLVD Protect from sunscald.
Chows best on moists,
Acer rubrum acid soils.
Maple, Sugar L BLVD Protect from sunscald.
Acer saccharurn PKO Prefers heavy, moist
soils. Shade tolerant.
Northern Catalpa M-L DT
Catalpa speciosa
Oak, White L
Quercus alba
Oak, Bur L DT ST BLVD/PKG
Quercus
macrocarpa
Oak, Red L ST BLVD/PKG
Quercus, rubra
Oak, Swamp L PKG Relatively tolerant of wet
White sites
Quercus bicolor
Ohio Buckeye M BLVD
AesCulus glabra
Walnut, Black L
Juglans nigra
CONIFERS
Arborvitae, M
American
Thuja occidentalis
43
Birch, River M Relatively tolerant of wet
Betula nigra sites
Coffeetree, L DT BLVD
Kentucky PKG
Gymnocladus
dioicus
Corktree, Amur M DT
Phellodendron
amurense
Crabapple, S BLVD Many varieties available;
Flowering check for disease
Malus spp. resistance; protect from
sunscald
Ginkgo M BLVD Male trees only
Ginkgo biloba
Hackberry L DT ST PKG
Celtis occidentalis
Hawthorn S DT ST PKG Thornless varieties
Crataegus spp. available
Hickory, Shagbark L DT
Carya ovata
Honeylocust M-L ST BLVD/PKG Prote~t from sunscald.
Gleditsia Thornless varieties
triac anthos popular
Ironwood M Grows well under shade
Ostrya virginiana of other trees
Lilac, Japanese S ST BLVD
Tree
Syringa reticulata
Linden, American L BLVD/PKG A.K.A Basswood;
Tilia americana Relatively tolerant of wet
sites
Linden, Littleleaf M BLVD
Tilia cordata
42
Attachment 32
F
~KING
BUILDER'S SQUARE
PRICE
BC
'L
Attachment 33
'1913
1831
ALDRICH ARENA
(~ RENTA
1799
z.i743
~)
(~
BC
~KING
PRICE:
PROPERTY
LINE
/ ZONING
77
MAP
N
Attachment 34
--F
YAN ,~ ~
SUMMER
AVE
PROPERTY
LINE
78
/ ZONING MAP
N
Attachment 35
(G.'/'/e,.c..) ~%e,'"' ISO4..4B&
~m ~ FROST
mmmmmmmm AVE.I
~ Ali I,m,,
I k IGlm~-~'7 ~ ''
I /~C.
I
'
,
,
~ .~ Immmmm
mmm~mmmmmmmmm
R1
r
Attachment 36
SAI
I
- --Mt N N-C--HAl-IA--- --~V
Attachment 37
,i
lzlal41.s
I
Ill
!
(0
AUTO PARTS
TOM THUMI~
i
UPPER AFTON ROAD
SCHOOL DIST. N2622
F '
PROPERTY
LINE
81
/ ZONING
MAP
N
Attachment 38
U'T'~L 0
;
!
B.4 i0~! MERIT.__CH.E, VY: ,? I
. ~'i
'l-
:z
L
\\ II
: APARTMENTS
APARTMENTS
PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP
F
Attachment 39
II
671
665
~)
571
561
~ ,,o 557
7
~ 543
~ 537
'~ 529
tt 521
B 513
Attachment 40
I ' -MINNEHAHA AVE. ~"~'~.~,- .
s I ~ ,'[ ~ I ~ I ~ ~,,
~ I I ~',
.. I (,~)~ , 8) I , ...
I ', I t, , , JRY CENTER
'~ "' I ' ~ , I[) ~.. J !
~2 ~ .... ~ v ~' '' '
~ ~-. , -. ~ ~,..~ ~, , , 1 I
~) I ~_~ / ~ ' ~ 1~ i I
', J ','.
[ o.w-~~ ~ ~ ~.~.o~ I ~oo' I>1
e ~'1 ""~ I'"l ~1 ~) ' ~ , " ~1 ~'1
' I,v ' I ~-- ~ ~'~ ,.' J} ',~,,-~,~.'~'*~(~ o l
i~ .... ~--~--I~~'~~' ---¢---~~~~
, I'(~) - ~ I
.-_.~___~ ___~_ j ~- .
." '--~ . -.~.s -' ~ -
, -- ~~F~T... .... : .... ~y~ .... ~
I'~~ u~) . 0~, ~J I~ I, / I~'~ fo ~l "i I
~j P~OPEXY LIN:/ ZONING ~AP ~~
'/ 8~ ~ t
Attachment 41
BRAND
NATURE CENTER
ST.
T
~i
E. SEVENTH ST.
1
I
I
i I
IT?IS
L DEGE
~8141¢ DAIRY,'
QUEE-N~
~ 804.:.:i m
~ii763~
I~I
i uouB~ ·
...... I ......I ............I
I--
·
0
PROPERTY
LINE
85
/ ZONING MAP
PROPERTY RECORDS AND REVENUE
LOU McKENNA
D/rector
Attachment 4Z
Division Managar
BRIAN DUCKLOW
February 18, 1994
Ken Roberts, Associate Planner
City of Maplewood
1830 E. County Road B
Maplewood, MN 55109
FEB 2 2
Dear Ken=
This is a follow-up to our discussion February 14, 1994, regarding
properties zoned commercially, but being used residentially.
There are two issues dealt with by the Assessor's office that impact
this type of property: classification and valuation.
Classification of a property; examples being residential homestead,
apartment or commercial-industrial, is determined by the use of the
property. Zoning has no impact on classification unless the ~roperty
is unimproved vacant land.
Valuation of property is based on the concept of highest and best use.
Highest and best use relies on four tests: 1. legally permissible,
2. physically possible, 3. economically feasible, and 4. maximally
productive.
The question in this case depends on highest and best use, which
typically for an improved parcel, is its' current use. Highest and
best use can be something other than its' current use. If, for
example, a house of minimal value sits on a very large lot that is
zoned commercially, the highest and best use could be as a vacant
commercial site.
Unless a residential property has a highest and best use different than
its' current use, the taxes would likely be the same whether zoned
residential or commercial.
In situations where the issues dealing with zoning changes take place,
we look at parcels on a case by case basis if warranted.
Sincerely
Appraiser
KS:sp
86
RAMSEY COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER WEST · 50 WEST KELLOGG BOULEVARD, SUITE 840 · ST. PAUL, MN 55102-1695
FAX 266-2199" TTD # 266-2002
Attachment 43
Sec. 36-27. Landscaping and screening.
(a) A landscaped area of not less than twenty (20) feet in width
shall be provided where:
(1) A nonresidential use abuts a residentially zoned property.
(2) A multiple dwelling abuts a property zoned for single or
double dwellinge.
The requirements of this subsection shall not apply where the
residentially zoned property is being used or is designated on the
city's land use plan for a nonresidential use.
(b) Screening shall be provided where:
(1) The light from automobile headlights and other sources
would be directed into residential windows.
(2) There would be exterior storage ofgoods or materials which
could annoy or endanger property owners.
(3) Mechanical equipment on the ground or roof would be vis-
ible from public streets or adjoining property. Mechanical
equipment sh,l! not include chimneys, antennas or vents.
The city shall not reqtfire ~n-eening for single dwellings,
double dwellinge, mobile homes or equipment for indi-
vidual town house units. Equipment that serves more than
one town house unit shall be screened. The community
design review board may waive the screening requirement
for mechanical equipment if they determine that screening
would not improve the building appearance or protect prop-
erty values. If the board waives this requirement, ihey
shall require that the mechanical equipment be painted to
match the building.
Such screening shall be compatible with the materials
and design of the principal building and subject to staff
or design review board approval. Approval shall be
based on creativity in design to enhance the esthetics,
durability of the structure and materials, and the per-
cent of screening afforded. The screening and mechan-
ical equipment shall be painted or stained to match
the building.
(4) A parking lot is constructed next to a property that is used
or shown on the city's land use plan for single- or double-
dwelling use. The community design review board may
waive this requirement if they determine that screening
would not be needed or would not protect surrounding prol>
erty values.
(c) Screening shall be satisfied by the use of a screening fence,
planting screen, berm or combination thereof. If the topography,
natural growth of vegetation, permanent buildings, or other bar-
riers meet the standards of subsections (1) and (2) below, they may
be substituted for all or part of the screening fence or planting
screen.
~7
(1) A planting screen shall consist ofevergreen plantings. Trees
shall be a minimtun of two and one.half (2¥2) inches in
trunk diameter, two (2) feet above grade. Shrubs may be
used in combination with a berm and shall be a minimum
of two (2) feet in height. Spacing of trees and shrubs shall
be ~o a~ to create an eighty (80) l~reent opaque screening
at least six (6) feet in height.
(2) Berms shall have mowable side slopes. Slopes greater than
two and one-half (2¥2) to one may be used if the slopes are
stepped with retaining walls. Plant materials resistant to
erosion may be substituted for sod when approved by the
community design review board.
(3) Screening fences shall be painted or stained whenever nec-
essary, so aa not to fade, chip or discolor. Broken or knocked
down fences shall be repaired. Planting screens shall be
maintained in a neat and healthy condition. Plantings that
have died shall be promptly replaced.
(d) Screening may be satisfied with a screening fence. A
screening fence shall be attractive, compatible with the principal
building and surrounding land uses, at least six (6) feet in height,
and provide a mlrtimnm opaqueness of eighty (80) percent.
(e) Trash container enclosures shall be provided around all trash
containers and shall be one hundred (100) percent opaque. '£hey
shall be protected by concret~f'dled steel posts, or the equivalent,
anchored in the ground at the front comers of the structure. If the
enclosure is masonry, the protective posts may be omitted.
In all instances, the enclosure must be of a design, material and
color compatible with the building and be kept in ~ood repair.
A gate that provides one hundred (100) percent opaqueness shall
be provided.
The community design review board may waive any part of these
requirements if tbe¥ find that the trash container would be hidden
from adjacent properties and m~-ets.
(Ord. No. $30, § l, 11-29--82; Ord. No. 580, § 1, 2-11-85; Ord. No.
633, § 1, 10-10-88; Ord. No. 710, § 1, 3-8-93)
Sec. 3~28. Additional design standarcb.
(a) All combt~dction and landscaping shall comply with the plans
approved by the city.
(b) The property owners shall maintain their building and
grounds in at least as good a condition as when originally com-
pleted. Maintenance shall include:
(1) Replacing any landscaping shown on the approved plan
that dies.
(2) Picking up all trash and debris from the grounds.
(3) Removing all noxious weeds.
(4) Watering the gra~, troe~ and shrub~.
(5) Repairing any exterior parts of the building that deterio-
rate ar break.
(c) The developer of any project, other than single or double
dwellings, shall do the followinw
(1) Install parking lot lighting. Lighting shall not be directly
visible from any residential area or public street. Lighting
shall not exceed one footcandle at a residential property
line. Residential areas are areas planned or used for resi-
dential purposes.
(2) Drain all stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces to
an underground, on-site stormwater collection system that
is connected to a public stormwater system.
(3) Restore any public right-of-way, adjacent property or prop-
erty irons disturbed by the construction.
(4) Install stop signs, handicap signs and building address signs
as required by the city.
(5) Construct parking lots with the following minimum
setbacks:
a. Fifteen (15) feet from a street right-of-way.
b. Five (5) feet from all other property lines. This setback
shall be increased to twenty (20) feet if the adjacent
property is used or shown on the city's land use plan
for residential use.
(6) Construct all buildings, except single- and two-family
homes, with the following miv~mum setbacks:
a. Thirty (30) feet from a street right~)f-way.
b. Fifty (50) feet from property that is used or shown on
the city's land use plan for residential use. This set-
back shall be increased up to seventy-five (75) feet based
on the more restrictive of the following requirements:
1. Building height: The building setbacks shall be
increased two (2) feet for each one foot the building
exceeds twenty-five (25) feet in height.
2. Exterior wall area.' Where an exterior wall faces a
residentially zoned property, the wall setback shall
be increased five (5) feet for each one thousand
(1,000) square feet, or part thereof, in excess of two
thousand (2,000) square feet.
(7) The city council may approve a conditional use permit to
allow an addition within a required setback if.'
a. The required findings in section 36'442 for a condi-
tional use permit are met.
b. The setback would be consistent with the setbacks for
surrounding properties.
c. At least eighty (80) percent of the addition would be
screened from property that is used or shown on the
city's land use plan for residential use.
89
(8) Plant trees with the foUowing minimum sizes: f
a. Large deciduous trees, two and one-half (2x/2) inches in
diameter, balled and burlapped.
b. Small deciduous (ornamental) trees, one and one-half
(1¥2) inches in diameter, balled and burlapped.
c. Evergreen trees, six (6) feet in height.
(9) Install a lawn irrigation system tha~ will not spray on public
streets or sidew,11~,.
(10)
(11)
Use low-maintenance materials on buildings.
Use building materials that are compatible in quality with
similar development in the area.
(12) Locate any bike racks so they do not interfere with vehic-
.1.,- or pedestrian traffic or fire lanes.
(13) Preserve sign/ficant natural features, such as wetlands and
large trees, as required in the environmental protection
ordinance (Chapter 9, Article IX).
(14) Provide on-site loading and unloading space where needed
so that public streets are not used for this purpose. (Ord.
No. 652, § 3, 9-11-89; Ord. No. 676, § 4, 11-26-90)
Seca. 36-29-36-40. Reserved.
9O
Attachment 44
PROPOSED CHANGES IN COMMERCIAL USES BY ZONING DISTRICT
CUP = a use that should have a conditional use permit (CUP) if within 350 feet of a
property that the City is planning for residential use
350 feet = a use that should be at least 350 feet away from a property that the City is
planning for residential use
BC (Business Commercial)
Permitted Uses:
On-sale liquor that is not part of a restaurant--350 feet
Craftsman's shop--CUP
Motor vehicle sales (new only or new and used)--350 feet
CNG (compressed natural gas) or LPG (liquid petroleum gas) dispensing facilities
(limited capacity)--350 feet
Add check cashing businesses--350 feet
Conditional Uses:
Sale of used cars--350 feet
Omit heliport (see below)
Major motor fuel station, vehicle wash or maintenance garages--350 feet
M-1 (Ught Manufacturing)
Permitted Uses:
Contractors' shops--350 feet
Manufacturing, assembly, or processing of products--350 feet
Conditional use:
Mining or material recycling--350 feet
Other Changes
Gun shops (or sales)--prohibit anywhere in the City
Add helistop as an accessory use to a hospital, if it is not within 350 feet of a
residential district. Define helistop as a place for one helicopter to land or takeoff, but
does not include maintenance or fueling operations.
91
Attachment 45
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
City Manager
Director of Community Development
Cb~mlml Abuse ~l~nks Omdinaace
November 12, 1993
INTRODUCTION
On September 27, 1993, the City Council directed the staff to study changes to the
zoning ordinance about clinics. The Council heard complaints from residents near 2223
White Bear Avenue. A methadone clinic is at this address. The clinic concerned the
residents because it is so close to their neighborhood. On October 25, 1993, the Council
considered first reading of the attached ordinance. The Council tabled first reading and
referred the ordinance to the Planning Commission and Human Relations Commission.
Both commissions have recommended against an ordinance regulating clinics. The
Planning Commission felt that the City should look at all commercial uses near
residential areas.
BACKGROUND
The City permits cEnics in all commercial and industrial zones. The zoning code does
not define clinics or differentiate between types of clinics. We use the dictionary when
the zoning code does not define a term. The dictionary defines clinics as:
1. A class of medical instruction in which patients are examined and discussed.
2. A group meeting devoted to the analysis and solution of concrete problems or to
the acquiring of specific skills or knowledge.
3. A facility (as of a hospital) for diagnosis and treatment of outpatients.
4. A group practice in which several physidans work cooperatively.
OPTIONS
1. Prohibit all chemical abuse clinics.
2. Prohibit all chemical abuse clinics within 350 feet of a residential lot line.
3. Require a conditional use permit for all chemical abuse clinics.
92
4. Require a conditional use permit for all chemical abuse clinics within 350 feet of a
residential lot line.
5. Take no action.
DISCUSSION
On November 8, 1993, the Council passed a moratorium on new or expanding clinics
until February 28, 1994. The Council wanted to look at the 'big picture'--aU
commercial uses around residential areas. Because of the moratorium there is no need
to adopt an ordinance regulating clinics now. The Council is leaning towards a mo.e
comprehensive study by the end of Februar~ The Planning Commission has already
started work on this study. The Commission will discuss the regulation of clinics as a
part of this study.
If the Council wants to adopt an ordinance on clinics now, I have attached an ordinance
on page 4. The attached ordinance requires a conditional use permit (CUP) for clinics
that primarily treat chemical abuse and are within 350 feet of a residential property ]/ne
(Option 4). The CUP would give the City the authority to regulate or prohibit such
uses. The City requires a public hearing for a CUP. A hearing would give the residents a
chance to ask questions and get information before a clinic opens.
The City Attorney advised me to be careful when creating regulations that only apply to
certain clinic types. There must be a rational basis for protecting the health, safety and
welfare of the residents..
I contacted six other dries about how they regulate clinics. None of these dries have
special conditions or rules about outpatient clinics. Four of the six dries have these
types of clinics. The dries with these clinics were not aware of any special problems.
Our police department checked with the police departments in other dries. The other
dries reported no problems or minor problems, such as loitering. (See the reference
section on page 3 and the police report on page 8.) I cannot find any evidence for
prohibiting clinics.
RECOMMENDATION
Take no action on a clinic ordinance now. The Council may reconsider th/s ordinance
when the Planning Commission finishes their broader study of commercial uses near
residential neighborhoods.
93
REFERENCE
OTHER CmES--ZONING REGULATIONS FOR CUNICS
There are thirteen outpatient treatment programs in Rarnsey County. Eight are in St.
Paul and five are in the suburbs. TWo of these clinics are in Maplewood. One is the
methadone clinic. The other is an adolescent chemical dependency clinic at 1707 Cope
Avenue.
I contacted the planning offices in six other cities. I asked how they regulate drag
treatment or other outpatient clinics. I also asked about any problems these clinics
caused. I contacted Bloomington, Minneapolis, Saint Paul, Atlanta Georgia, Orlando
Florida and Ocala Florida. Each city considers such clinics as a permitted use in
commercial and office zoning districts. The Colonial Group (the operators of the
Maplewood clinic) has clinics in the last three cities. The planner in Orlando told me
there are two of the Colonial clinics in Orlando. The planner in Ocala told me that the
chemical dependency clinic there has been open about seven years. The clinic is in a
medical office park. None of the planners was aware of any problems with these types
of clinics. The police report on page 8 did not find any serious problems with these
clinics, other than loitering before the clinics open.
go/b-5:clirdc3.mem (5.1)
Attachment:
1. Ordinance
2. Police Report
94
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ABOUT CMNICS IN THE IBC (I. IMFIT_D BUSINESS COMMERCIAL),
BC-M (BUSINESS COMMERCIAL MODIFIED), BC (BUSINESS COMMERCIAL), NC
(NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL) AND CO (COMMERCIAL OFFICE) DISTRICI~
THE MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL APPROVES THE FOLLOWING ORDINANCE:
(I crossed out the deletions and underlined the additions.)
Section 1. This section changes subsection 36-154(a) and adds subsection
36-154Cb) to the LBC, Limited Business Commercial District as follows:
¢2)
Permitted Uses· The City shaft only permit the follo~ng uses by rJ_~ht:
Offices.
Clinics, except those that primarily treat chemical abuse and are within 350 feet
of a residential lot line.
(3) Day ~;are centers.
Cb) Conditional Uses. The following uses must have a conditional use vermit:
¢1) cliniCS that primarily treat c_hemical abuse and are within 350 feet of a
residential lot line.
Section 2. This section changes subsection 36-155(b)(1) and adds 36-155(c)(8) to the
BC(M) Business Commerdal District (Modified) as follows:
(b) Permitted uses. The City shall only permit the following uses by right:
(1) Retail or commercial rental activities, offices, clinics, except those that primarily
treat chemical abuse and are within 350 feet of a residential lot line, .1:..:.
studio, bank, personal service, day care centez; craftsmen's shop or mortuary. All
business, storage or display, except signs and parking, shall be in a closed
building.
(c) Conditional uses. The following uses must have a conditional use permit:
(8) C'.llnics that prlm_arilY treat chemical abuse and are within 350 feet of a
residential lot line.
95
Section 3. This section changes subsections 36-151(a)(3) and Co)(8) of Division 7 of
Chapter 36 of the BC (Business Commercial District) as follows:
(a) Permitted uses. The City shall only permit the following uses by right:
(3)
Retail or commercial rental activities, restaurant, on-sale liquor business (subject
to license), office, clinics, except those that primarily treat chemical abuse and
m'e within 350 feet of a residential lot line,........,-"-:A studio, bank, personal service,
day care centoa; craftsmen's shop or mortuar~ All business, storage or display,
except signs and parking, shall be in a closed building.
(b) Conditional uses. The following uses must have a conditional use permit:
(8) Clinics that primarily treat chemical abuse and are within 350 feet of a
Tesidential lot line. ~
Section 4. This section changes subsections 36-173(a)(1) and (b)(3) of Division 8 of
Chapter 36 of the SC, Shopping Center District as follows:
(a) Permitted uses. The City shall only permit the following uses by right:
Retail or commercial rental activities, restaurant, on-sale liquor business (subject
to license), office, clinics, except those that primarily treat chemical abuse and
are within 350 feet of a residential lot line,........,~:-:~ studio, banlq personal service,
day care center; craftsmen's shop or mortuary. All business, storage or display,
except signs and parking, shall be in a closed building.
Conditional uses. The following uses must have a conditional use permit:
(3) Clinics that primarily treat chemical abuse and are within 350 feet of a
residential lot line.
Section 5. This section changes subsection 36-127, Permitted Uses, of the NC
Neighborhood Commercial District as follows:
Sec. 26-127. F~mitted Uses.
(a) Permitted uses. The City shall only permit the following uses by fight, provided
that the floor area of all buildings in any one NC zone shall not exceed three
thousand ($,000) square feet:
96
(1) Bakery or candy shop. Any goods produced on the premises must be sold on the
p~,:,,u--~--:ses ..... ' ~-
(2) Beauty parlor or barber shop.
(3) Dry cleaner or laundromat. All odors must be controlled so as not to be
noticeable to adjacent residents.
Office.
(5) Repair shop, except for motorized vehicles. All business, storage or display shall
be in closed buildin_~
(6) Drug, hardware or grocery store.
(7) Studio.
(8) Tailor or dressmaker shop.
(9) Veterinary or grooming clinic where there are no outside kennels or storage.
(10) Video store
(11) Printing shop.
(12) ('!llnics, except those that primarily treat chemical abuse and are within 350 feet
of a residential lot line,
Section 6. This section changes subsection 36-129, Conditional Uses, of the NC
Neighborhood Commercial District as follows:
Sec. 36-129. Conditional uses. ,....~ .......rr .... ..'
-(a) Conditional uses. The following uses must have a conditional use permit. In
addition, the floor area of all buildings in any one NC zone shall not exceed eitht
thousand (8.000~ square feet:
IzO~.C ;.I....:1.1. =.CT ..... .1 .:-1.+ +1. ...... .1 re nnn'~ ....... · ....
(1) Any permitted use listed in Section 36-127.
97
(2) Club, lodge or hall.
(3) Private school, day care center or community service use.
(4) Taxi stand or bus stop.
(5) Restaurant, where there are no drive-up order windows of serving food to
patrons in their automobiles. All cooking odors must be controlled so as to not
be noticeable to adjacent residents.
(6) Other uses, where the City Council finds that the use would be compatible with
the neighborhood and the intent of this division.
(7~ Clinics that primarily treat chemical abuse and are within ~;0 feet of a
residential lot line.
Section 7. This ordinance shall become effective after publication.
Passed by the Maplewood City Council on
,1993.
98
MEMORANDUM
September 16, 1993
To:
From:
Subject:
Chief Kenneth Collins~
Sergeant Michael Ryan
St. Paul Metro Treatment Center
I have contacted several of the names listed as renting office
space to treatment centers located in several states. These
sites vary from business district/industrial areas to sharing
facilities with other medical related clinics and shopping center
or store front areas. The locations also seem to be varied from
high traffic, main street locations to other locations that could
be described as "off the beaten path."
When asked about the clinics, the renters almost universally
replied that they initially were apprehensive about renting to
such facilities but admitted that they have had only minor
problems. For the most part, these seem to be related to clients
leaving coffee cups and cigarette butts at the clinic sites.
None of those questioned had any negative comments and felt the
clinics were good tenants.
I contacted police departments in Ocala and Temple Terrace,
Florida to inquire about their clinics. Ocala reported only one
incident at their clinic, that being a burglary in March of 1992.
Temple Terrace Police Department advised that they were familiar
with the clinic in their area. They have had many complaints
that mostly deal with the clients loitering in the area. Temple
Terrace has done some surveillance work on their clinic.
Temple Terrace referred me to Sherry Miller with the DEA at (813)
228-2486. In speaking with her, I found that Dr. Randall Green,
the clinic owner, operates in accordance with all FDA and DEA
rules and regulations. Miller told me that their concern was
with the philosophy behind the "for profit" clinic where addicts
are not urged to get off methadone or other substances. Miller
did not have any negative information about the clinics.
I contacted police departments in Atlanta and Ft. Oglethorpe,
Georgia. Atlanta advised that complaints deal with the loitering
clients. They also advised that they have had incidents of
clients buying other drugs at the clinic site and also selling
their methadone, especially their take home doses on weekends.
The Atlanta clinic hires outside security for their site. Ft.
Oglethorpe Police advised that their clinic, while in Georgia, is
only 10 miles from Chattanooga, Tennessee. They reported many
problems with transients related to crimes in the area. Most of
their crime consisted of shoplifting and shoplifting rings
operating in the area. The clinic is located in a business
district. They also reported that they have incidents of people
99
buying the methadone from the clinic clients. Ft. Oglethorpe
Police felt that most of their problems came from persons that
were from outside the area stating they come from Nashville,
Knoxville and Florida.
Generally, the various police problems appear to be related to
the locations of the clinics. It does appear that the most
common complaint has to do with the loitering that occurs prior
to the clinic opening in the early morning. Other police
departments suggested that police presence seemed to help and
they often made warrant arrests of clients waiting at the clinic.
100
JOHN F. BANNIGAN, JR.
PATRICK J. KELLY
JAMES J. HANTON
JANET M. WILEBSKI
JOHN W. QUARNSTROM
B annig y
A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
1750 NORTH CENTRAL LIFE TOWER
445 MINNESOTA STREET
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101
Attachment 46
(612) 224-3781
FAX(612) 223-8019
March 31, 1994 .
Mr. Geoff Olson
Director of Community Development
City of Maplewood
1830 E. County Road B
Maplewood, MN 55109
RE: Maplewood Planning Commission/Gun Shop
Regulation
Dear Mr. Olson:
Pursuant to our earlier telephone conversation, I did contact the St. Paul City Attorney's
office regarding the studies which have been initiated by the St. Paul Planning Commission to
regulate gun shops. I was referred to Mr. Lawrence Soderholm with the St. Paul Department
of Planning and Economic Development. Mr. Soderholm was extremely cooperative and willing
to provide access to his file. In fact, Mr. Soderholm indicated that he would be more than happy
to meet with you to discuss the matter further.
I am enclosing a variety of documents which I excerpted from Mr. Soderholm's file. The
particular proposal before the St. Paul Planning Commission is presently tabled. There is a sense
that the legislature might take further action this session with respect to gun control and gun
shops. As a result, the Planning Commission is waiting to determine what steps, if any, the
legislature might take.
Mr. Soderholm has collected an enormous amount of materials and literature regarding
gun shop regulations. I would estimate that Mr. Soderholm has several files totalling perhaps
one foot of documentation. The documentation includes a large number of studies, reports and
statistical surveys. I have not copied any of those materials at this time.
I would suggest that you review the materials which I am currently enclosing. You will
note that St. Paul is not attempting to exclude gun shops. In fact, you will not in the gun shop
zoning study dated January, 1994 that there is a section addressing the authority of local
101
Mr. Geoff Olson
Page 2
March 31, 1994
municipalities to regulate the location of businesses that sell guns (see page four). The study
specifically makes reference to Minn. Stat. S471.635 which provides that "a governmental
subdivision may regulate by reasonable, non-discriminatory and non-arbitrary zoning ordinances,
the location of businesses where firearms are sold by a firearms dealer." As I mentioned in my
previous correspondence, there is no question that pursuant to this statute, the City of
Maplewood can take some action to regulate, by zoning, the location of gun shops. However,
it is highly unlikely that this statutory authority can be construed so as to permit the exclusion of
all gun shops.
I hope that this information will be of some assistance to you as you consult with the
Planning Commission. ff you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact
me.
Sincerely yours,
C: Mr. Michael McGuire
BANNIGAN & KELLY, P.A.
102
From:
Date:
Re:
MEMO
Director of Community Development
City Attorney
February 6, 1994
o inion/ i ion of
Attachment, 47
On February 3, 1994, this office received from you a request for a legal opinion to be discussed
with the Planning Commission on February 7, 1994. You have raised the following question:
Whether the City has the legal authority to adopt an ordinance for the purpose of
amortizing non-conforming uses?
It is the opinion of this office that the adoption of a zoning ordinance including an amortization
provision is authorized and legal.
ANALYSIS
The controlling case in Minnesota is that of Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company v. Village of
Minnetonka, 162 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1968). In that decision, the Minnesota Supreme Court
upheld the legality and constitutionality of a municipal zoning ordinance which required the
removal of non-conforming uses after a specified amortization period. A copy of that decision
is enclosed.. The Minnesota Supreme Court specifically concluded that the use of an
amortization provision was constitutional "on its face." The Supreme Court went on to consider
whether the particular amortization provision could be held unconstitutional when applied to that
particular property owner. In essence, the Supreme Court analyzed whether an amortization
period of three years was reasonable for the interest of that particular owner. The Supreme
Court ultimately concluded that the three year amortization period was reasonable.
As noted above, it is the opinion of this office that the Minnesota Supreme Court has previously
acknowledged the constitutionality of amortization provisions contained within zoning ordinances.
The primary focus on such ordinances will be concerned with the "reasonableness" of an
amortization requirement when applied to a particular situation. It should also be noted that the
establishment of an amortization requirement or schedule should be linked in some manner to
the promotion of the public health, safety or welfare. Therefore, shorter amortization periods
should be linked to greater public risks. It is also important to note that any application of an
amortization provision should be enforced equally in order to withstand any constitutional
challeages.
103
'~demorandum
Page Two
determining ~easonable period of amortization, there
-be considered!~ ,.~
- ~
.~-~ere may be. oiher factors as well.
February 6, 1994
are a number of factors which should
-%
104
how ~e~'a risk is presented by the particular non-conforming use;
will the ~ortization of that use advance some legitimate public objective;
how muqh investment does the owner have in the use;
has the ~vner had sufficient time to recover his/her investment;
has the o~er financially benefitted from enjoying a "monopoly" in the area.
105
~E
107
108
109
Attachment 48
Sec. 36*22. OfY. stFeet parkinf,
(a) ~he following t~s of ~ sh~l p~vide additional off-
~t ~ng ~, ~ ~~, unl~ othe~ authoriz~ by
the ci~ ~u~. ~ ~g ~ ~ ha~ pm~r ~ from
a ~t or ~ley ~d sh~ ~ !~ on or n~ the lot on which
such ~ h si~;
(1) 8i~-~y ~lli~: ~o (2) s~.
(2) Multip~ d~lling: ~o (2} s~s for e~h houMk~ping
u~t. ~e of ~ ~s m~t ~ enclo~.
(3) HoWl or Wu~t ~in ~u~: One ~m for ~ch mn~ ~m
or ~.
(4) Res~, ~fe or ~ ~m: One ~ for ~ch fi~y (50}
~ f~t of fl~r ~ d~ ~ ~n u~.
(5) ~r, audiWriu~ church or other pla~ of public
~mb~' A minimum of one spa~ for eve~ four (4) Ma~.
~h~is mu~ ~ve a minimum ~om ~ for eve~ twenty
(20) audi~rium
(6) Commercia~ offi~ or ~cre~nal bui~ing u~, other than
~ s~ified ~' One spa~ for each two hund~ (2~)
~uare f~t, or ~ion ther~f, ~ fl~r area.
(7) S~
One spa~ for each two hund~ (2~} ~ f~t, or ~r-
tion ~e~f, of i~le fl~r area.
(8) Manuf~turing and ware~mse es~l~h~nt~' One s~
for each two (2) employes, or one spac~ for each four
hundr~ (4~) ~uam f~t of manufacturing spa~ and one
apace for each one thounnd (1,~) ~uam f~t of ware.
ho~ s~ce, whichever is ~aMr.
(9) Motor fuel s~' Four ~4) spa~s, pl~ thr~ (3) addi-
tional ~ for ~ch M~i~ s~ll If them is a ~nve-
nien~ s~re or res~urant a~ia~ with the fuel s~tion,
additional ~ki~ o~li ~ provid~ in ~r~n~ wi~
~h ~tion.
(10) O~str~t ~rking f~ilitie~' Shall not ~ ~u~ ~low
the ~ui~men~ ~ oub~ra~aph (a).
(11) MoOr mh~b ~ ~o (2) spa~ for ~h M~i~ ~11,
one ~ for ~h empioy~ ~ o~ ~ for ~ b~i-
n~ vehicle ~ on ~e siM.
110
Attachment 49
PARKING IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS - CITY OF BLAINE
BY SQ. BY NO. BY NO.
USE CATEGORY FOOT OF SEATS EMPLOY'D OTHER
AUTO SVCE. STATION 1 / 1 2 / STALL
BANK 1/400 :
HOUSE ~' I PER 3 ACCOMM
,BRD1NG/ROOMING .
~ · . ! (2 MINIMUM)
BUSINESS/PROF/ADMIN 1 / 200
CHURCH/SYNAGOGUE 1 / 4 ,
FOOD/DRINK ESTABS. 1 / 100
FURNITURE/APPLiANCE ·
& VEHIC. SALEs 1/600 · .
HOSPITAL I/4(STAFF) 1 PER 2 BEDS
t/2(MiD.s) : ' "
HOTEL .... i ' · ' 1/3: 'SEPA~TE ROOM
: :!/3 SUITES
LIBRARY & MusEuM 1/500 ' .: :." ·
MFG.iW/o RETAIL) 1 /500 :::: ' :: PLUS fi '
MED.iDENTAL cLiNIC ' ' ' :1' 2 PER TRTMT,ROOM
MOTEL I / 1 :1 PER ROOM
PRIVATE CLUB~ODGE 1 / t6 1 /·2.5 [* WHICHEVER MORE
,(ASSBLY.)
PUBLIC UTILITY/SVCE. ' ~1 / 3 MORE FOR VISITORS
REC./COMMUNITY CTR. tO BE DETERMINED
:SCHOOL' 1 / t MORE FOR STUDENTS
SUPERMARKET & HIGH ' : ! .
THEATER : 1:/:4 ·
UNDERTAKING/FUNERAL" '10 PER PARLOR
' I PER VE~C. ' ...........
WAREHOUSE/STORAGE 1/2000 1 1 2 * WHICHEVER MORE
(1) REQUIREMENTS ARE CUMULATIVE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ABOVE.
(2) OTHER USES FIGURED ON BASIS AS FOR MOST SIMILAR USE ABOVE.
] = CA TEGORIES NOT IN MAPLEWOOD CODE (MA Y
BE A SUBDIVISION OF A MAPLEWOOD CA TEGOR Y)
111
Attachment 50
PARKING IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS - BLOOMINGTON
BY SQ. BY NO. BY NO.
USE CATEGORY FOOT OF SEATS EMPL'D OTHER / (COMMENT)
THEATER/AUDITORIUM, :
ARENA/ASSEMBLY .. !.t 3
cHURCH ' '1 / 3 . ADD IF ASSOC~D USE''
HOSPITAL ' ' . ' :i. : !/1' "' ' 1pERBED.-
MED/DENTAL CLINIc · i 1/1 5 PER M.D./D.D.S.
BUS. & PROF. OFFICE 1 / 200 : : ' : : (LEASABLE SPACE)
RETAIL SHOPPING . i / 85 i ,,,, '" ' ,' ~A!L SPACE)
MOTEL 1 / 1 1 PER UNIT
RESTAURANT/CLUB 1 / 25* 1 / 2.5 *(MEETING/BANQUET)
SERVICE STATION 1 / 1 3 PER BAY
BOWLING ALLEY
5 PER LANE
DRIVE-IN : ' 15 tF SERvEs FOOD &
: tF NOT (MTN.)
OTHER BUS./INDUSTRY
& WHOLESALE 1 I 800 1 / 2 1 PER CO. VEHIC.
DRIVE-IN BANK ' 6 STAC~NG SPACES
PER LANE
WAREHOUSE : 1 / I t PER ~. VEHIC.
REST/NURSING HOME :. 1 / I 1 PER 4 BEDS
(1) FOR OTHER BUS./INDUST., BASE IS EMPL 'D STANDARD, THEN ADD
THE GREATER OF FLOOR SPA CE OR COMPANY VEHICS. STANDARD
(2) REQUIREMENTS ARE CUMULATIVE UNLESS OTHER WISE INDICA TED
(3) BLOOMINGTON HAS SPECIAL PRO VISIONS FOR JOINT FA CILITIES
CATEGORIES NOT IN MAPLEWOOD CODE (MA Y
BE A SUBDIVISION OF A MAPLEWOOD CA TEGOR Y)
112
Attachment 51
PARKING IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS - BROOKLYN CTR.
BY SQ. BY NO. BY NO.
USE CATEGORY FOOT OF SEATS EMPL'D
OTHER / (COMMENT)
EATING & DRINKING 1 / 2 1 / 2
SERVICE STATION 1 / 1 3 PER BAY &
1 PER CO. VEHIC.
RETAIL:& FINANCIAL ltl!st 2~ ::.
MOTEL & HOTEL 1 / 1 1 PER UNIT
BOWLING ALLEY : 5 PER LANE
OFFICE BLDGS.:
20,000 - 220,000 (FORMULA)**
· OV~R'.Z20,000 ~ ~/300
OTHER COMMERCIAL ' :
(NO WHOLESALE) .!/200 . ':
RACQUET~swIM~SPA :20!!St '1000 · ' 2 PER OUDOOR
' ' "'t/ADDED 300 ......... '' ' ' TENNIS CT.
INDUSTRY/WHOLESALE 1 / 800 1 / 2 WHICHEVER GREATER
3 PER M.D. IS BASE, THEN ADD GREATER OF SQ. FT.
OR EMPLOYEE STANDARD
FORMULA IS: G.F.A. DIVIDED BY (.0005 TIMES G.F.A.) PLUS 190
NOTE: REQUIREMENTS ARE CUMULATIVE UNLESS OTHER WISE INDICA TED
] = CATEGOmES NOT IN MAPLEWOOD CODE (MA Y
BE A SUBDIVISION OF A MAPLEWOOD CATEGORY)
113
Attachment 52
PARKING IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS - GOLDEN VALLEY
BY SQ. BY NO. BY NO.
USE CATEGORY FOOT OF SEATS EMPL'D
OTHER / (COMMENT)
RETAIL & SERVICE 1/150 : ' (PER RETAIL SPACE)
STORAGE 1 / 500 ' ' (STRG.USE ONLY)
OFFICE ...... .... 1 / 250 ' ' (GROSS OFFICE SPACE)
CLASS I RESTAURANT 1 1 40 [ .(PUBLIC ~A)
1 / 80 (NON-PUBLIC AREA)
CLASS II RESTAURANT 1/35 (GFA) ! / 3 * WHICHEVER MORE
CLASS'HI 'RESTAURANT ' it25 (BAR) ' ' '
'' '" i~40 (PUBLIC) ' (CUMULATIVE)
, IIS0(NON-PUB)
BOWLING & SKATING t/300 ~NK) 1 / 6 * ~ICHEVER MORE
THEATER/GYM/REC. 1 / 400 1 / 4 * WHICHEVER MORE
HOTEL & MOTEL 1 / 3 1 PER SLEEPING UNIT
SERVICE STATION 1 / 3 4 PER STALL &
1 PER CO. VEHIC.
CAR WASH i 'l / 3 4 PER STALL
TRADEtTRNG SCHL. 1 /1 1 / I :
SALES sHowRooM 1 / 1000 , 1 13 ~ (SQ.FT. BASED ON IN &
! OUTSIDE SHOW AREA)
MORTUARIES 1 /400 1 /3
(I) REQUIREMENTS ARE CUMULATIVE EXCEPT AS NOTED
(2) RESTAURANTS I & III ARE CUMULATIVE, WHILE REST. II IS 'EITHER/OR ~
[ = CATEGORIES NOT IN MAPLEWOOD CODE (MA Y
BE A SUBDIVISION OF A MAPLEWOOD CATEGORY)
114
Attac~men.t 53
P~G I~ COMMERCIA~ DISTRICTS - RICHFIELD
BY SQ. BY NO. BY NO.
USE CATEGORY FOOT OF SEATS EMPL'D OTHER / (COMMENT)
THEATER 1 / 3 (IF IN SHOPG. CTR.)
1 / 2.5 (IF FREE-STANDING)
CHURCH/ASSEMBLY 1 / 2.5
GEN'L OFFICE/BANK 1 / 250 (10 SPACE MINIMUM)
RETAIL 1 / 250
SHOPPING CENTER:
<50,000S.F. i 1i~2 :
> 50,000 S,F~ ~iii,'
HOTEL 1 / 1 1 PER UNIT & 1/4.5
SEATS OF ASSOC. USE
RESTAURANT:
NO LIQUOR i (WHtC~VER MORE)
:: LIQUOR i~50 ~tCmVER MO~) ,
FAST FOOD
SERVICE STATION 1 / 50 2 / STALL &
BASE OF 4 SPACES
BOWLING ALLEY : : t 5:PERLA~ & t!4i5
,,, :: :: ,._ ~, , ,;~;,,,~ SEATS OF AssoC:: USE ,,
WAREHOUSE/WHOLESALE ! . ; 000
HEALTH/FITNESS 1-i 225 :
MINI-GOLF 115 PER HOLE
(1) PARKING FOR USES NOT SPECIFIED DETERMINED BY CITY PLANNER
L ] = CATEGORIES NOT IN MAPLEWOOD CODE (MA Y
BE A SUBDIVISION OF A MAPLEWOOD CA TEGOR Y)
115
JOHN F. BANNIGAN, JR.
PATRICK J. KELLY
JAMES J. HANTON
JANET M. WILEBSKI
JOHN W. QUARNSTROM
Bannigan Kelly, P.A.
A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
1750 NORTH CENTRAL LIFE TOWER
445 MINNESOTA STREET
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101
July 22, 1994
Attachment 54
(612) 224-3781
FAX (612)223-8019
Mr. Geoff Olson
Director of Community Development and Planning
Maplewood City Hall
1830 East County Road B
Maplewood, MN 55109
Re: Nonconforming Uses/Additional Use Permit
Dear Mr. Olson:
In a letter dated July 7, 1994, you asked whether the City could be successfully defended
if the City imposes, upon new nonconforming uses, a requirement that the new use comply with
as may of the City's current zoning standards as practical. I have verbally advised you that the
success or failure of any such defense would depend largely upon the facts of each particular
situation.
I believe you already have a copy of the recent decision of the United States Supreme
Court entitled Dolan v. City of Tigard. As you know, that decision was only issued on June 24,
1994. There has been virtually no opportunity for the Minnesota Courts to issue any local
application in light of that Supreme Court decision. I believe that decision will have a bearing
upon any future litigation which might arise from the issuance of a conditional use permit.
The Dolwz analysis ma), be applicable whenever the Ci~, makes an adjudicative decision
to impose conditions upon an individual property as opposed to a legislative classification of an
entire area of the City. According to previous court decisions, the court must first determine
whether a legitimate state interest is being served. Under your proposed scenario, I believe it
is highly probable that a court would conclude that adopted zoning standards do serve legitimate
state interests.
The second question requires the determination whether an "essential nexus" exists
between those legitimate state interests and the actual conditions being imposed. Again, I think
it is highly likely that the City could defend the existence of this "essential nexus."
The Dolan case has clarified the next portion of the analysis. According to Dolan, the
court must then determine whether the scope of that "nexus" is sufficiently substantial so as to
116
Mr. Geoff Olson Page 2 July 22, 1994
pass judicial examination. Perhaps most troubling is the requirement that the "the City must
make some sort of individualized determination that the required condition is related both in
nature and extent to the impact to the proposed development." There is certainly a strong
possibility that a court will begin to impose a much greater burden upon municipalities to make
an affirmative showing as to this relationship.
In the past, the burden was on the applicant to show that a relationship did not exist. The
Supreme Court has now held that the burden is upon the municipality to show that the
relationship did exist.
For this reason, I am hesitant to provide a clear assurance that the imposition of any such
condition can be successfully defended. I believe that the City must be prepared to make a
greater showing or substantiation as to the conditions that it imposes on the individual properties
or applications. I believe that the blanket endorsement of conditional use permits and their
conditions will be subject to a great deal of challenge. Please let me know if you wish to discuss
this further.
Sincerely,
BANNIGAN & KELLY, P.A.
Patrick J. Kelly
c Michael McGuire
117
Attachment 55
118
119
120
121
122
124
125
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
City Manager
Director of Community Development
Shoreland Ordinance
August 22, 1994
INTRODUCTION
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is requiring Maplewood to
revise its shoreland ordinance.
BACKGROUND
On January 24, 1983, the City Council adopted the shoreland ordinance. It created
shoreland overlay districts around DNR designated public waters. The regulations in
shoreland districts are more restrictive than for land outside the shoreland districts.
On July 11, 1988, the Council approved a change to the shoreland ordinance. This
change exempted nonwater-frontage developments that would not be visible from the
lake from the height and density limitations. A developer requested this change for a
senior housing project. The project was planned, but not built, on the Beaver Lake
Lutheran Church proper~r.
DISCUSSION
We have based the proposed ordinance on a model ordinance written by the DNR.
Some of the DNR's standards apply to a city's subdivision regulations, some to the
general zoning ordinance and some to other sections of the City Code, such as water
systems or sewers. We have consequently changed the DNR's model ordinance to fit
Maplewood's Code.
The non-shoreland sections of the ordinance describe the changes from current
regulations. The Shoreland Ordinance starts on page 13. I have made notes in the
margins of the new shoreland ordinance about which changes are new and which are
current or revisions of the old ordinance. The old shoreland ordinance starts on page
37. The new ordinance starts on page 4. The new ordinance creates the following major
changes from the current regulations:
After December 31, 1995, the City cannot issue a building permit for a new
principal structure, bedroom or bathroom if a nonconforming sewage treatment
system is on the property. (Section 2, page 4)
e
e
o
10.
11.
12.
13.
Minimum lot areas would not include wetlands. The current ordinance only
exempts storm water ponds. (Section 7, page 6)
The definition of planned unit development (PUD) would require at least five
dwelling units instead of a minimum of five acres. (page 9)
Nonconforming lots could be built on and nonconforming buildings could be
expanded with certain conditions. (Section 17, pages 11-12)
Section 36-566(a) (pages 18-22) drops the height restrictions for non-residential
uses, since the DNK regulations do not require them.
For each Class of water; Section 36-566(a) (pages 18-22) creates separate
standards for single, two-unit, three-unit and four-unit buildings. The current
standards have only two classh'icadons, single dwellings and multiple dwellings. All
buildings with more than four units must be approved as a planned unit
development.
Section 36-566(a)(4) (page 24) adds lot width and setback standards for the two
.reeks.
Section 36-566(b)(2) (page 25) adds special standards for double, three-unit and
four-unit buildings around natural environment lakes.
Section 36-566(b)(3) (pages 26) creates standards for public access lots and access
lots used by surrounding neighbors.
Section 36-566(c) (pages 26-29) adds standards for the placement, design and
height of structures.
Section 36-570 (page 32) adds spedal standards for non-residential uses.
Section 36-571 (pages 32-33) adds standards for conditional use permits in
shorelands.
Section 36-572 (page 33) adds standards for expanding or adding decks to
nonconforming structures.
14. Section 36-574 (pages 34-36) adds standards for planned unit developments.
2
I am submitting this draft to the Planning Commission and City Council for first
reading. The City must then submit the draft to the DNR for their review. I will then
bring back the draft with the DNR's changes to the Planning Commission and City
Council for second reading. Because of a heavy workload, the DNR told me that their
review will probably take several months.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the attached shoreland ordinance.
go/b-7:shore3.mem (5.1)
Attachments:
1. Proposed Shoreland Ordinance
2. Existing Shoreland Ordinance
Attachment 1
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE REVISING ARTICLE IX, SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT AND
OTHER RELATED SECTIONS OF THE CODE
The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of
Ordinances:
SECTION 1. This section changes Section 28-76 es follows: ([ underlined the additions
and crossed out the deletions.)
Sec. 28-76. Individual ~ sewage treamaent systems--Conformance to state
standards.
The city sewer system must be used where available. Where the city engineer
determines that a municipal sewer is not available, any use producing sewage shall have
an individual sewage treatment system. A sewage treatment system means a septic tank
and soil absorption system or other individual or cluster type sewage treatment system.
A permit from the City is required to install or alter a sewage treatment System. All
individual sewage treatment systems must meet or exceed the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency's standards. These standards are in the document titled 'Individual
Sewage Treatment Systems Standards, Chapter 7080". Sufficient soil borinTs and
percolation tests shall be provided so the City can determine a site's suitability for an
individual sewage treatment system r
fl,,',,t nTrn;lnl~l,', ,,.11 ,-,,.., ..,.;* ......... +,..~,.,',-,-,,a,-,+ .... + .... 1,,..,11 T.,~. ,.1~.,....:..,-~n,..1 .:,.,~..*-.-.11~.,4 ...,..~,4
..... **,.1 : ...... ,.I ...... ..%k +L, RA: .....
I ~"7Q'~ I'~ ....... ,1, ....... :,-.,'..,,,1 ....... ,% ,..,,.,+ .... ..:1,1-,1~ ~11 ........ T,,.I:,,.:,.1,,A 1,.,*,, ,.1-,..-,11
SECTION 2. This section adds a new Section 28-78 as follows:
Sec. 28-78. Nonconforming individual sewage treatment systems.
(a) After December 31, 1995, the City shall not issue a building permit for a new
principal structure or for the addition of a bedroom or bathroom, unless any
nonconforming sewage treatment system on the property meets current standards.
Except that the City shall not consider a sewage treatment system nonconforming if the
only deficiency is the setback of the sewage treatment system from the ordinary high
water level of a lake or creek.
4
(b) The owner of any nonconforming sewage treatment system that the City
determines to be a public nuisance shall bring the system into conformance or stop
using the system within thirty (30) days of receiving written notice from the City.
SECTION 3. This section changes the following definitions in Section 302 as follows:
([ underlined the additions and crossed out the deletions.)
Lot means a parcel of land that is described separately from other parcels of land by a
plat, metes and bounds, registered land survey, auditor's plat or other accepted means.
The lot description must be recorded by the County. T~v,,,. :~ a rv---~--""'~:"" ''~- a ~-~--..~.~..~"~"~:'~: .... ~-
Lot area means the area of a lot, excluding drainage easements, wetlands and land
below the ordinary high water mark of public waters.
Lot Division means the division of a property by metes and bOunds description.
Public waters: Any waters as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 105.37,
subdivisions 14 and 15.
Subdivision means the separation of an area, parcel or tract of land into two or more
parcels, tracts, lots or long-term leasehold interests for sale, rent or lease, ~
...,.:A,~...:.l ...... -~='..1 :..~..~.--'~1 ~- ~*~- ............... ~.:_..:..-- .t. .... ~ except those
separations:
(a)
Where all the resulting parcels, tracts, lots or interests will be twenty (20) acres
or larger ~ and five hundred (500) feet in width for residential uses and
~.z~ for all other cc:mr, crc:~ a=~ :_~..~+.a.~ uses;
five (5) acres or larger k'~ ~: ~ ' .........
(b) Creating cemetery lots;
(c)
tt tu mg"es--'t:-- from court orders "" ,u~ ~.~:..~-:~-+ -.~ ~ ~--+ ~:-,- ~--- +~-~ --~*:~- --~ ~
Wetland means a surface water feature classified as a wetland in the United States
Fish and Wildllfe Service Circular No. 39 C1971 edition).
SECTION 4. This section adds a new Subsection 30-3(d) as follows:
(d) The City shall not approve a subdivision where a later variance would be needed
to use the lots for their intended purpose.
5
SECTION 5. This section changes Subsection 30-5(a) as follows: (! underlined the
additions.)
(a) Before dividing any tract of land into (4) or more lots, a subdivider shall submit
a preliminary plat application to the director of community development. The director
of community development shall determine the necessary application requirements and
state them on a written form to be made available to the public at his or her office.
These requirements shall apply to plats and lot divisions. The director may waive any
requirements that do not apply to the proposed subdivision.
SECTION 6. This section adds a new Subpart 30-8(e)(3) (Minimum subdivision design
standards-Easements) as follows:
(3)
Wetland easements. The City may require a wetland easement over and beyond a
wetland. The wetland easement shall prohibit any structures, mowing, cutting,
filling or dumping within the easement. The City Council shall determine the
easement's size based on the wetland's quali _ty, the amount and quality of
surrounding habitat, the site's building restraints and whether the wetland will be
partially filled. The City may require a developer to place signs around the
easement boundary. These signs shall identify the easement's boundary_ and
restrictions.
SECTION 7. This section adds a new Subpart 30-8(0(7) (Minimum subdivision design
standards~Lots) as follows: (! have underlined the additions and crossed out the
deletions.)
(7)
Lot areas, x^r~, ......... T ~+o .~,,+.: ....... a .... + ........ A.~: ........... ~. .... 1
+~+ ..... + -"~:*"* +- ~--":-- M~mm lot ~eas sh~ not ~clude public waters,
wetlands or ~age easements for store water ponds. Lots in a shoreland overlay
disffict must meet the shoreland re~latlo~ ~ Chapter 36, ~cle ~.
SECTION 8. This section deletes Subpart 30-8(0(10) (Minimum subdivision design
standards-Lots) as follows: (I have underlined the additions and crossed out the
deletions.)
(10)
SECTION 9. This section adds a new Subpart 30-8(0 (13) (Minimum subdivision design
standards-Lots) as follows:
(13)
Where the city engineer determines that city sanitary sewer service is not
available, all new subdivided lots shall have usable space for an individual
sewage treatment system and additional usable space to add a second drainfield.
SECTION 10. This section changes Section 30-15(a) (Lot divisions) as follows: (I
underlined the additions and crossed out the deletions.)
(a) A lot division shall not result in the creation of more than three new lots. For-the
SECTION 11. This section changes Section 30-15(d) (Lot Divisions) es follows:
(I have underlined the additions and crossed out the deletions.)
(d) The Ci_ty shall not approve more than three new lots from a parcel n.,~......~ ..... ,,..,, ],,..,,,
a:..:~: ..... ~:~+:~_ ~ ..... u ~..t.:~. ~. ~u~. ~. ...... +~'~ in any single calendar year.
SECTION 1Z This section adds a new Section 35-5 es follows:
Sec. 35-5.,Water Quality Standards.
Any pul~lic or private supply of water for domestic purposes must meet or exceed the
water quality standards of the Minnesota Department of Health and the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency.
SECTION 13. This section changes Section 36-1 as follows: (I underlined the additions
and crossed out the deletions.)
Sec. 36-1. Short tide and administration.
This chapter shall be known ar.~ may ~c c'.'tefl as 'The Maplewood Zoning Ordinance."
The director of community_ development shall administer this chapter.
7
SECTION 14. This section changes Section 36-4 as follows: (I have underlined the
additiom and crossed out the delefiom.)
Sec. 36-4. ~nterpmtation; controlling pmvislons.
~-~ :-* .... *: .... '~ ~"'~-~"" *~" The provisions of ~ chapter~ sh~ be
~te~reted to pro. de ~..~.~ *~.~ ~e ~m re ements for ~e
pubic he~th, s~e~ co~o~, conve~ence ~d gener~ weff~e. ~ere
pro~siom of ~s chapter co~cts ~th ~g othe~ ~e most restrictive requkement shall
appl~ ~po~c ~catcr ' '
SECTION 15. This section adds and deletes the following definitions to section 36-6
(definitions): ([ have underlined the additiom and crossed out the de]edom.)
Commercial use: A principal use of land or buildings for the sale, lease, rental or
trade of products, goods or services.
Building line: The line parallel to the street line at a distance therefrom equal to the
depth of the front yard required for the district in which the lot is located. For a lot
fronting on a public wateg the building line shall include a line parallel to the ordinary_
high water level at the required setback therefrom.
Deck: A. horizontal, unenclosed platform with or without attached railings, seats,
trellises or other features that is attached or functionally related to a principal use.
Dwelling site: A designated location for residential use, including temporary_ or
movable shelter such as camping and recreational vehicle sites.
Dwelling unit: Any structure or portion of a structure that is designed as short- or
long-term living quarters, including motel units, hotel units or cabins.
Height of building: The vertical distance between a buildinges highest adioining
ground level or ten feet above the building's lowest ground level, whichever is lower,
and the highest point of a flat roof or the average height of the highest gable of a
pitchedor hipped roof. A bv:i!dL':g's ....-...,.*.:.,,.1 ....... -- .... ...... * ~-~-- *1-, ..... 1 .... 1 ~l: +1~
of ~'" roof; .... ':'~'~-~ '~'"' Height of building shall not include c~mneys, spies, towers,
1 th taz~ --'~ ~ b ildi oj ti
e evator pen ouses, _or ...... s ar u fig pr ec om of
8
Industrial use: The use of land or buildings to produce, manufacture, store or transfer
goods, products, commodities or other items.
Lot: A parcel of land that is described separately from other parcels of land by a plat,
metes and bounds, registered land surve~ auditor's plat or other accepted means. The
lot description must be recorded by the Coun _ry.
Lot area: The area of a lot, excluding drainage easements, wetlands and land below
the ordinary high water mark of public waters.
Mining: The surface or subsurface removal of sand, gravel, rock, industrial minerals,
other nonmetallic minerals and peat not regulated under Minnesota Statutes, sections
93.44 to 93.51.
Planned unit development (PUD): A type of development characterized by a unified
site design, with two (2) or more principal uses or structures. A PUD may include town
houses, apartments, multi-use structures (such as an apartment with Commercial shops).
or similar projects. Residential PUD s must have at least five dwelling units or dwelling
sites.
Residential planned unit development: A residential use that is nontransient, and the
primary focus of the development is not service-oriented. For example, residential
apartments, manufactured home parks, residential condominiums, town houses,
cooperatives, single-dwelling homes and multiple dwellings would meet this definition.
Semipublic use: The use of land by a private, nonprofit organization to provide a
public service that is ordinarily open to persons outside the regular constituency of the
organization.
Setback: The minimum horizontal distance between any part of a structure, sewage
treatment system or other facility and an ordinary_ high water level, sewage treatment
system, top of a bluff, property_ line or another structure. Setbacks shall not include
eaves, gutters, cornices, steps, chimneys or fireplaces projecting not more than two feet
from the principal structure.
9
Sewage treatment system: A septic tank and soil absorption system or other
individual or cluster _type sewage treatment system.
Structure: Any building or appurtenance that is constructed or erected on the ground
or attached to the ground. This does not include aerial or underground utility lines,
such as sewer electric, telephone, telegraph, gas Hnes, towers, poles or other supporting
facilities.
Subdivision: The separation of an area, parcel or tract of land into two or more
parcels, tracts, lots or long-term leasehold interests for sale, rent or lease, except those
separations:
(a) Where all the resulting parcels, tracts, lots or interests will be twen _t-y acres or
larger and 500 feet in width for residential uses and five acres or larger for all
other uses;
(b) Creating cemetery_ lots;
(c) Res~flting from court orders.
Variance: The same as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462.
lO
SECTION 16. This section changes Section 36-8 as follows: (l underlined the additions
and crossed out the deletions.)
Sec. 36-8. Violations.
Any violation of this article (including violations of conditions established in
connection with variances or conditional use permits) sbal! be a misdemeanor and shall
be punishable as defined by law. Violations of thLs article can occur whether or not the
qui gui fivity. ^ ........... ~'" 0~'~" "=~'~* .....
City or State reres a permit for a re ated ac --.¥ r ....................... v
· · _:,,a ......... ~ ~' Each day
that any violation continues shall constitute a separate violation.
SECTION 17. This section changes Subsection 36-17(h) and adds a new Subsection
36-17(0 as follows: (I have underlined the additions and crossed out the deletions.)
(h) A nonconforming structure or parking lot may be expanded if the structure or
parking lot meets the following conditions:
(1) The zoning regulations permit the use.
(2)
The expansion would meet the minimum setbacks required by this chapter or the
setbacks of the existing structure, whichever are less· The expansion shall not
exceed the maximum height required by this chapter or the existing height.
whichever is taller. The City may approve a conditional use permit to deviate
(3)
The minimum setback from the ordinary_ high water level in a shoreland district
would be at least the average setback of adiacent residential structures or fifty_
(50) feet, whichever is greater. ,~r-~-----~'.~*~ ..... ~-rr'~-~'~''~1~'''~1~1~ 1~,,~'1A:..,,..~,.,~.~.... ~.,.,,.-,..A~
(4) All portions of said structure would be are on the applicant's property.
(5) Runoff from the overhang of ~c?.. :~-.:cture addition would is not adversely
affecting an adjacent proper~r.
(ii The City shall allow construction on nonconforming lots that do not meet the lot
size, width, frontage or depth requirements if the lots meet the following requirements:
(1) Since becoming substandard, the lots have always been in separate ownership
from abutting lands.
(2) The lots were of record in the county recorder's office on the date of enactment
of this article.
(3) There is no evidence that the lots did not meet the official controls in effect at
the time the lots were approved.
(4) Any sewage treatment system meets the requirements of this Code.
(5) The proposed use would be permitted by the zoning regulations.
SECTION 18. This section adds a new Section 36-18 as follows:
Sec. 36-18. Variances.
The City may grant variances to the requirements of this chapter. All variances must
follow the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462. The City may approve
administrative variances in accordance with Article VI of tiffs chapter.
SECTION, 19. This section changes the title to Subsection 36-438 and Subsection 36-
438(a) as follows: (I crossed out the deletions.)
Sec. 36-438. Planned unit developments generally; .... ,~--~:---:~'---.., purpose and intent,
(a) A ..1 .... A ....;, .1 .... 1 ..... . rOTW~ :.. .1 .... 1 ..... ,- 1.....~.....*';;C t'.'~
! ~.,,** ~ A DTTI~
,.,.,~,, :--,,.1,,..1~ + .... 1,, ......... ~. --,~:,,,.,..+,.., .~,.,,.,^1,,.: .... ..,.~ +1., .... 1.,,,:1,-1: ..... 1+:
,.,.,..,,,,+ ......... 1.,~ ~ ,.,,,,~..,~,,~-.,.~--+ T,,,,,~IA,~ .... .,.:.,-1,,, ,..,.-.,,-,,~1 ~1., ..... ,.,,,,,.,,.,,,--,-1 4'1~ 1 .... 1 .,.,,,.,,1
~:--n .... ~:~+' A PUD may not be divided unless the density distribution approved in
the PUD is ensured.
12
SECTION 20. This section adds the following subsections to Section 36-438 (PUD s):
(d) Common open space. The developer shall provide deed restrictions, covenants,
easements, public dedication or other equally effective and permanent means to
preserve and maintain any common open space. The instruments must include all of the
following protection:
1. Except for routine maintenance, the City must approve the alteration of any
vegetation or topography that is visible from a public water.
Prohibit the exterior storage of vehicles or other materials. Storage shall not
include routine vehicle parking or the temporary storage of materials for an on-
going construction project.
3. If on a public water; prohibit the uncontrolled beaching of watercraft.
(e) Owners' association. All planned unit developments with common open space
must have an owners' association with the following features:
1. Each lot owner must be a member.
2. Each member must pay a pro rata share of the association's expenses, and
unpaid association assessments can become liens on units or sites.
3. Association assessments must be adjustable to accommodate changing conditions.
4. The association must be responsible for insurance, taxes and maintenance of all
commonly owned property and facilities.
(f) The City shall designate PUD s on the City's official zoning map.
SECTION 21. This section replaces the wording in Article IX of Chapter 36 with the
following wording:
ARTICLE IX. SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT
Sec. 36-561. Authorization, purpose and objectives.
(a) Authorization. State Statutes and regulations authorize Article IX. The specific
sources are Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 105 (Division of Waters, Softs and Minerals);
Minnesota Regulations, Parts 6120.2500-6120.3900 and Minnesota Statutes, Chapter
462 (the planning and zoning enabling legislation).
13
{b} Purpose and objectives. The purpose of this article is to provide specific
regulations to protect the City's shorelands. It is in the public's best interest to provide
for the wise subdivision, use and development of shorelands. To accomplish this
purpose, Article IX has the following objectives:
(1) Protect, preserve and enhance the quality of surface waters.
(2) Protect the natural environment and visual appeal of shorelands.
(3) Protect the general health, safety and welfare of city residents.
.~. 36-562. Definitions.
The following words shall have the following meanings:
Average lot area: The average of the lot areas within a single development. To be
included in the average lot area, all lots must be divided together. For a single lot, the
minimum allowable area shall be no less than the average lot area requirement.
Bluff: A topographic feature such as a hill, cliff or embankment having all of the
following characteristics (land with an average slope of less than 18 percent for 50 feet
or more shall not be considered part of the bluf0:
(1) Part or all of the feature is in a shoreland;
(2) The slope rises at least 25 feet above the ordinary high water level;
(3) The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point 25 feet or more above
the. ordinary high water level averages 30 percent or greater; and
(4) The slope must drain toward a public water.
Bluff impact zone: A bluff and land that is within twenty feet of the top of a bluff.
Boathouse: A structure designed and used solely for the storage of boats or boating
equipment.
Commissioner: The Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources or his or
her representative.
Intensive vegetation clearing: The complete removal of trees or shrubs in a specific
patch, strip, row or block.
14
Nonpolnt source pollutant: A contaminant that enters water by washing off the land
or seeping into ground water; which alters the physical, chemical or biological
properties of water or the discharge into water of any substance that may create a
nuisance or make such water detrimental or harm the public health, safety or welfare.
Ordinary high water level: The boundary of public waters. For lakes, this boundary
shall be at an elevation delineating the highest water level that has existed for a
sufficient time to leave evidence upon the landscape. This evidence is commonly that
point where the natural vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to
predominantly terrestrial. For creeks, the ordinary high water level shall be the
elevation of the top of the bank of the channel.
Public waters: Any waters as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 105.37,
subdivisions 14 and 15.
Regional flood: A flood that represents the large floods known to have occurred in
Minnesota. Such a flood is characteristic of what a person can expect to occur about
once every one hundred (100) years.
Shore impact zone: The land between the ordinary high water level and a line
parallel to it at a setback of 50 percent of the structure setback.
Shoreland: Land that is within the shoreland overlay district on the city's zoning
maps.
Shoreline: The boundary of a public water.
Steep slbpe: Land having average slopes over twelve (12) percent, as measured over
horizontal distances of fifty (50) feet or more, that are not bluffs.
Surface water-oriented use: The use of land where access to and use of a lake is an
integral part of the normal use. Marinas, resorts and restaurants with transient docking
facilities are examples of such use.
Toe of the bluff: The lower point of a fifty (50)-foot land segment with an average
slope exceeding eighteen (18) percent.
Top of the bluff: The higher point of a fifty (50)-foot land segment with an average
slope exceeding eighteen (18) percent.
Urban runoff: Storm water that flows over land or through a man-made drainage
system.
Water-oriented accessory structure: A small, above-ground building or other
improvement that the owner needs to locate closer to public waters than the normal
structure setback. Such a setback would be because of the relationship of its use to a
surface water feature. Examples of such structures and facilities include boathouses,
gazebos, screen houses, fish houses, pump houses or freestanding decks. Stairways,
fences, docks or retaining walls shall not be included as water-oriented accessory
structures or facilities.
Wetland: A surface water feature classified as a wetland in the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service Circular No. 39 (1971 edition).
Sec. 36-563. Shoreland Overlay Districts.
(a) The City hereby creates a shoreland overlay district, with its attendant
regulations, as part of the zoning ordinance. This district shall overlay existing zoning
districts, so that any parcel of land lying in the overlay district also shall lie in one or
more of the underlying zoning districts.
(b) Within the overlay district, the City shall permit all uses allowed by the
underlying zoning district(s), if the uses meet the additional requirements in this
Article.
(c) Article IX shall only apply to the shoreland districts on the official zoning maps.
These maps shall be on file in the office of the Director of Community Development.
The City has classified the affected waters in Section 36-565.
(d) The city staff may reduce the limits of a shoreland on the zoning map whenever
the commissioner determines that a public water has topographic divides that are closer
to the public water than the shoreland boundary on the zoning map.
Sec. 36-564. Notifications to the commissioner.
(a) The City shall send public hearing notices for amendments, subdivisions, plats,
variances or conditional uses under this article to the commissioner. The City shall mail
such notices at least ten days before the hearings. Hearing notices about subdivisions
shall include copies of the subdivision.
(b) The City shall send a copy of approved amendments, subdivisions, variances or
conditional uses under this article to the commissioner. The City shall mail all such
approvals within ten days of final action. When the City approves a variance after the
commissioner has recommended denial, the notification of the approved variance shall
include the City Council's minutes of the public hearing.
.36-565. Shore. land Classifi~tion System.
(a) The city has classified its public waters based on the DNR's Protected Waters
Inventory Map. The city used the following classification criteria (percentages apply
only to the shoreland located in the city):
(1)
Class I waters are those that the DNR has designated general development
waters, and the city land use plan shows at least seventy-five (75) percent of the
shoreland for commercial or industrial use.
(2) Class II waters are those that the DNR has designated general development
waters, and do not qualify for Class I status.
(3) Class III waters are those that the DNR has designated recreation development
waters having:
a. At least sixty (60) percent of the shoreline in public ownership, or
At least fifty (50) percent of the shoreland in public ownership and less than
ten (10) percent of the shoreland remaining for development, excluding
public open space.
(4) Class IV waters are those that the DNR has designated recreation development
waters, and do not qualify for Class III status.
(5) Class V waters are those that the DNR has designated natural environmental
waters.
(b) The City has classified its lakes as follows:
(1) Class I waters
Public Waters Inventory_ I.D.#
3M Pond 62-0017
Tanner's Lake 82-0115
(2) Class II waters
Gervais Lake
Public Waters Inventory I.D. #
62-0007
17
(3) Class III waters Public Waters Inventory I.D. #
Casey Lake
Keller Lake
Lake Phalen
Silver Lake
Spoon Lake
Wakefield Lake
62-0005
62-0010
62-0013
62-0001
62-0011
(4) Class IV waters
Public Waters Inventory I.D. #
Carver Lake
Kohlman Lake
Oehrline's Lake
82-0166
62-0006
62-0014
(5) Class V waters
Public Waters Inventory I.D. #
Beaver Lake 62-0016
Round Lake 62-0012
(c) The City has classified its two creeks as tributary streams. The two creeks are
Battle Creek and Fish Creek
Sec. 36-566. District development standards.
(a) Lot and Building Standards. The following lot and building standards shall apply
to commercial developments and residential developments with four or fewer dwelling
units per building. The City must approve developments with more than four units per
building as planned unit developments.
(1) Class I waters
With Sanitary Without Sanitary
Sewer Sewer
a. Non-residential development
1. Minimum building setback from
the OHWL (feet)
50 NA
2. Minimum on-site sewage system
setback from OHWL (feet)
NA NA
18
Maximum Impervious surface
area (percent)
With bonus (percent)*
50 5O
70 70
b. Single dwelling
Minimum lot width
Water frontage lots (feet)
Other lots (feet)
75 NA
75 NA
2. Minimum building setback from
the OHWL (feet)
50 NA
3. Minimum on-site sewage system
setback from the OHWL (feet)
NA NA
Average lot area
Water fromage lots (square feet)
Other lots (square feet)
15,000 NA
10,000 NA
Maximum impervious surface area
(percent)
With bonus*
Water frontage lots (percent)
Other lots (percent)
30 NA
40 NA
50 NA
(2) Class II and III waters
a. Non-residential development
1. Minimum building setback from
the OHWL (feet)
50 75
2. Minimum water frontage (feet)
7S 100
3. Minimum on-site sewage system
setback from the OHWL (feet)
NA 75
19
Maximum impervious surface
area (percent)
With bonus*
Water frontage lots (percent)
Other lots (percent)
b. Single dwelling
Minimum lot width
Water frontage lots (feet)
Other lots (feet)
2. Minimum building setback from
the OHWL (feet)
3. Minimum on-site sewage system
setback from the OHWL (feet)
o
Average lot area
Water frontage lots (square feet)
Other lots (square feet)
Maximum impervious surface area
(percent)
With bonus*
Water frontage lots (percent)
Other lots (percent)
c. Two-unit dwellings
1. Minimum building setback from
the OHWL (feet)
2. Minimum lot width
o
Maximum impervious surface
area (percent)
With bonus*
Water frontage lots (percent)
Other lots (percent)
Average lot area
Water frontage lots (square feet)
Other lots (square feet)
4O
50
75
75
50
NA
15,000
10,000
30
4O
5O
5O
135
40
5O
6O
26,OOO
17,500
40
150
100
75
75
40,000
20,000
30
40
50
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
20
d. Three-unit dwellLngs
1. Minimum building setback from
the OHWL (feet)
Minimum lot width
Water frontage lots (feet)
Other lots (feet)
Maximum impervious surface
area (percent)
With bonus*
Water frontage lots (percent)
Other lots (percent)
Average lot area
Water frontage lots (square feet)
Other lots (square feet)
e. Four-unit dwellings
1. Minimum building setback from
the OHWL (feet)
Minimum lot width
Water-fromage lots (feet)
Other lots (feet)
Maximum impervious surface
area (percent)
With bonus*
Water frontage lots (percent)
Other lots (percent)
Average lot area
Water frontage lots (square feet)
Other lots (square feet)
(3) Class IV and V waters
a. Non-residential development.
1. Minimum building setback
from the OHWL (feet)
21
50 HA
195 NA
190 NA
40 NA
50 NA
60 NA
38,000 NA
25,000 NA
50 NA
255 NA
245 NA
40 NA
50 NA
60 NA
49,000 NA
32,500 NA
75 100
Minimum water frontage per
development (feet)
Minimum on-site sewage system
setback from the OHWL (feet)
0
Maximum impervious surface
area (percent)
With bonus*
Water frontage lots (percent)
Other lots (percent)
b. Single dwelling
1. Minimum lot width (feet)
2. Minimum building setback from
the OHWL (feet)
3. Minimum on-site sewage system
setback from the OHWL (feet)
o
Average lot area
Water frontage lots (square feet)
Other lots (square feet)
Maximum impervious surface
area (percent)
With bonus*
Water frontage lots (percent)
Other lots (percent)
d. Two-unit dwellings
1. Minimum building setback from
the OHWL (feet)
2. Minimum lot width (feet)
Maximum impervious surface
area (percent)
With bonus*
Water frontage lots (percent)
Other lots (percent)
75
NA
30
4O
50
75
75
NA
20,000
15,000
30
40
50
75
135
4O
50
60
150
75
30
40
50
150
100
75
40,000
40,000
30
40
50
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
22
Average lot area
Water frontage lots (square feet)
Other lots (square feet)
26,000 NA
35,000 NA
e. Three-unit dwellings
1. Minimum building setback from
the OF1WL (feet)
75 NA
Minimum lot width
Water frontage lots (feet)
Other lots (feet)
195 NA
190 NA
e
Maximum impervious surface
area (percent)
With bonus*
Water frontage lots (percent)
Other lots (percent)
40 NA
50 NA
60 NA
Average lot area
Water frontage lots (square feet)
Other lots (square feet)
50,000 NA
38,000 NA
f. Four-unit dwellings
, 1. Minimum building setback from
the OHWL (feet)
75 NA
Minimum lot width
Water frontage lots (feet)
Other lots (feet)
255 NA
245 NA
Maximum impervious surface
area (percent)
With bonus*
Water frontage lo.ts (percent)
Other lots (percent)
40 NA
50 NA
60 NA
Average lot area
Water frontage lots (square feet)
Other lots (square feet)
65,000 NA
49,000 NA
*Refer to subsection 36-566(b)(1)(d) for requirements to qualify for an impervious
surface area bonus.
23
(4) Lot width and setback standards for creeks
a. The lot width standards for single, double dwellings, three-unit buildings
and four-unit buildings in shorelands adjacent to creeks are as follows:
Single dwelling
Double dwelling
Three-unit building
Four-unit building
Unsewered Sewered
100 75
150 115
200 150
25O 190
be
Structure and sewage system setbacks (in feet) from the ordinary high
water level of tributary streams
Structures
Unsewered Sewered
Sewage Treatment
System
100 S0 75
~-(b) Additional Special Provisions
._~k ~ (1) Reduction in development standards
k a. The City shall reduce all applicable development standards by one public
waters classification where a shoreland property meets all of the following
~) conditions:
('~/,c l~q'~ 1. A principal or major arterial roadway, as defined by the Maplewood
Land Use Plan, separates the property from any public waters.
2. The property does not drain directly to a public water.
3. The visual impact of the property from the lake surface is minimal.
(i.e., A property subject .to Class III standards may be subject to Class II
standards.)
bo
The city shall raise the maximum required building height to forty-two (42)
feet from any street side for structures that would be at least eighty (80)
percent screened from view from at least eighty (80) percent of the
shoreline of a public water during the summer.
24
The minimum lot area requirements in Section 36-566(a) shall not apply to
developments that meet all of the following conditions:
1. The development is at least eighty (80) percent screened from view
from at least eighty (80) percent of the shoreline during the summer.
2. The development shall have no frontage or private docking facilities on
a public water.
3. The development meets the impervious surface area requirements.
d. Impervious surface area bonus.
The impervious surface area limits shall be determined using the total
developable area of a parcel (above the ordinary high water level and
suitable for development), exclusive of streets and sidewalks.
The developer or owner shall provide and maintain significant man-
made facilities for the reduction of storm water flow or the treatment of
urban run-off for nonpoint source water pollutants to qualify for an
impervious surface area bonus.
The city engineer shall determine whether a proposed management
practice(s) is adequate to warrant a bonus. A bonus may range from
one to twenty (20) percent for nonwater frontage lots and from one to
ten (10) percent for water frontage properties, dependent upon the
practice(s) proposed. The city engineer shall forward a copy of proposed
bonuses to the DNR for their comments.
(2) In addition to other standards in this chapter~ double and three-unit and four-
unit dwellings on Natural Environment Lakes must meet the following standards:
a. Each building must be set back at least 200 feet from the ordinary high
water level.
b. Watercraft docking facilities for each building must be consolidated in one
location.
No more than 25 percent of a lake's shoreline can be in double, three-unit
or four-unit dwelling developments.
25
(3) Lots used as controlled accesses to public waters or as recreation areas for use by
owners of non-riparian lots must meet or exceed the following standards:
ao
If docking, mooring or over-water storage of more than six ([6) watercraft is
to be allowed at a controlled access lot, then the width of the lot must be
increased by the percent of the requirements for riparian residential lots for
each watercraft beyond six, consistent with the following table:
Controlled Access Lot Frontage Requirements
Ratio of lake size
to shore length
(acres/mile)
Lessthan 100
100-200
201-300
301-400
Greaterthan 400
Required increase
in frontage
(percent)
25
20
15
10
5
b. All owners of non-riparian lots in a subdivision who have riparian access
rights on an access lot must jointly own the access lot.
c. The owner shall record against the title of the affected properties covenants
or other equally effective legal instruments that specify which lot owners
have authority to use the access lot. The covenants must do the following:
1. Limit the allowed number of vehicle parking.
2. Limit the allowed number of watercraft that the owners moot dock or
store over water. (This shall not include temporary docking.)
3. Require centralization of all common facilities and activities to lessen
topographic and vegetative alterations.
4. Require screening of all parking areas, storage buildings and other
facilities from a public water; assuming summer conditions. Screening
shall use vegetation or topography as much as practical.
(c) Placement, design and height of structures.
(1) Structure placement. Where structures exist on the adjoining lots on both sides
of a proposed building site, structure setbacks may be changed without a
variance to conform to the adjoining setbacks from the ordinary high water level,
26
provided that the proposed building site is not in a shore impact zone or in a
bluff impact zone.
Regardless of a waterbody's classification, structures or facilities shall be set
back at least thirty (30) feet from the top of a bluff and fifty (50) feet from
an unplatted cemetery.
b. There shall be no structures or accessory facilities, except stairways and
landings, within bluff impact zones.
Ce
Non-residential uses without water-oriented needs shall not be on lots with
public water frontage unless one of the following conditions are met:
1. The use or structure has double the normal setback from the ordinary
high water level; or
2. The use or structure is largely screened from view from the water by
vegetation or topography, assuming summer conditions.
(2) Design Criteria For Structures.
Floodplain regulations. Development must follow the City's floodplain
regulations (Article VIII of Chapter 36).
be
Water-oriented accessory structures. Each lot may have no more than one
water-oriented accessory structure not meeting the normal structure setback
in Section 36-566(a), subject to the following conditions:
The maximum height shall not exceed ten feet, exclusive of safety rails.
Except that detached decks shall not exceed eight feet above grade at
any point.
e
The maximum area shall not exceed 250 square feet. Except that on
general development and recreational development waterbodies, the
maximum area of water-oriented accessory structures used solely for
watercraft storage shall be 400 square feet (provided the maximum
width of the structt~e is twenty (20) feet as measured parallel to the
configuration of the shoreline). These structures may include the
storage of related boating and water-oriented sporting equipment.
3. The setback from the ordinary high water level must be at least ten
feet.
27
dj
Vegetation (assuming summer conditions), topography, increased
setbacks or color shall be used to reduce the visibility of the structure
from public waters or adjacent shorelands.
The roof may be used as a deck, but shall not be enclosed or used as a
storage area.
The structure or facility shall not be designed or used as a dwelling. The
structure shall not contain sanitary facilities or sewage treatment
facilities.
Stairways, lifts and landings. Bluffs and steep slopes shall not be graded for
the sole purpose of access to a public water; where stairways or lifts can be
built or installed. Stairways and lifts must meet the following design
requirements:
1. Stairways and lifts must not exceed four feet in width on single-
dwelling lots.
2. Landings for stairways and lifts on single dwelling lots must not exceed
32 square feet in area.
3. Stairways, lifts or landings shall not have canopies or roofs.
Whenever practical, stairways, lifts or landings shall be in the most
visually inconspicuous part of a lot, as viewed from a public water
during the summer.
Ramps, lifts or mobility paths for physically handicapped persons are
allowed to access shore areas, if the owner or builder follows the
standards of subparts 1 through 4 above, in addition to the
requirements of Minnesota Regulations, Chapter 1340.
Steep Slopes. The city engineer must evaluate the possible soil erosion
impacts and development visibility from public waters before issuing a
permit to construct sewage treatment systems, roads, driveways, structures
or other improvements on steep slopes. When the city engineer determines it
necessary, he or she shall attach conditions to permits. These conditions
shall prevent erosion and preserve vegetation that screens structures,
vehicles or other facilities as viewed from the surface of public waters during
the summer.
28
(3) Height of structures. Unless approved as a planned unit development, the
maximum height of all structures in residential districts, except churches and
nonresidential agricultural structures, shall be 25 feet.
Sec. 36-567. Shoreland alterations.
(a) Vegetation alterations
(1) This subsection on vegetation alterations does not apply to construction of the
following uses:
a. structures and sewage treatment systems
b. roads, ramps or parking areas
(2) Vegetation may be removed or altered subject to the following standards:
There shall be no intensive vegetation clearing within the shore or bluff
impact zones or on steep slopes. For all other property, the city requires a
conditional use permit to dear forest land that is visible from a public water.
Such a proposal requires an erosion control and sedimentation plan
approved by the City Engineer and based on the Ramsey County Soil and
Water Conservation District Erosion Control Manual.
bo
The City shall allow limited cutting, priming or trimming of trees or shrubs
in shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes. This cutting, pruning or
trimming shall be limited to providing a view of the water from the site of a
dwelling or to accommodate the placement of stairways and landings, picnic
areas, access paths, beach and watercraft access areas or water-oriented
accessory structures or facilities. Such limited clearing is subject to the
following conditions:
1. Such work not significantly reducing the screening of structures,
vehicles or other facilities as viewed from the water during the summer.
2. Preserving the shading of water surfaces along rivers.
3. The above provisions are not applicable to the removal of trees, limbs
or branches that are dead, diseased or are safety hazards.
29
(b)
(1)
(2)
Topographic alterations/grading and filling
Unless part of a building permit, the City shall require a grading and
permit for:
a. The movement of more than ten (10) cubic yards of material on steep
slopes, within shore impact zones or in bluff impact zones.
b. The movement of more than fifty (50) cubic yards of material outside of
steep slopes, shore impact zones or bluff impact zones.
The following requirements shall apply to construction permits, grading and
filling permits, conditional use permits, variances or subdivisions:
a. Wetlands shall not be filled without a permit from the watershed board.
b. Alterations shall be designed and conducted in a manner that insures that
the work exposes only the smallest amount of bare ground for the shortest
time possible.
c. All development shall meet the City's erosion control ordinance.
d. The owner or contractor shall not place full or excavated material in bluff
impact zones.
The commissioner must authorize any alterations below the ordinary high
water level.
Topographic changes shall only be done if they are accessory to permitted or
conditional uses and do not adversely affect adjacent or nearby properties.
The City will permit the placement of natural rock riprap, including
associated grading of the shoreline and placement of a filter blanket, if the
following conditions are met:
1. The finished slope does not exceed three feet horizontal to one foot
vertical.
2. The landward extent of the riprap is within ten feet of the ordinary high
water level.
3. The height of the riprap above the ordinary high water level does not
exceed three feet.
go
30
(~)
The commissioner must approve all connections to public waters. This includes
excavations where the intended purpose is to connect to a public water; such as
boat slips, canals, lagoons or harbors.
Sec. 36-568. Placement and design of streets, driveways or parking areas.
(a) Public and private streets, driveways or parking areas shall be designed to take
advantage of natural vegetation and topography to achieve maximum screening from
public waters.
(b) Streets, driveways or parking areas shall meet structure setback standards from
the ordinary high water level. These facilities shall not be within bluff or shore impact
zones if there are reasonable options. If no reasonable options exist, these facilities may
be placed within bluff and shore impact areas. However; these facilities must be
designed to minimize adverse impacts.
(c) Watercraft access ramps, approach roads or access-related parking may be within
shore impact zones if the vegetative screening and erosion control conditions of this
article are met.
Sec. 36-569. Storm water management.
(a) General Standards.
(1)
When possible, natural drainage ways, wetlands and vegetated soil surfaces must
be .used to convey, store, filter and hold storm water runoff before discharge to
pu.blic waters.
(2) Development must be planned and conducted to minimize disturbed areas, runoff
velocities and erosion.
(3)
Developments shall maximize the use of surface drainage and vegetation to
control storm water nm-off. Where surface drainage and vegetation are not
adequate to handle storm water nm-off, the City will allow the use of buried
pipes and man-made materials and facilities.
31
(b) Specific Standards.
(1) Newly constructed storm water outfalls to public waters must provide for
filtering or settling of suspended solids and skimming of surface debris before
discharge.
(2) All development within shoreland areas shall be consistent with the City
Drainage Plan.
Sec. 36-570. Special provisions for non-residential uses.
(a) Standards for non-residential uses.
(1) Surface water-oriented non-residential uses must meet the following standards:
a. Such uses shall have topographic and vegetative screening of parking areas
and structures.
b. Uses that require short-term watercraft mooring for patrons must centralize
these facilities and design them to avoid navigation obstructions and to be
the minimum size necessary.
(2) Non-residential uses without water-oriented needs and having frontage on a
public water must meet one of the following standards:
a. Double the normal setback from the ordinary high water level setback, or
b. Screen the use from view from the water by vegetation or topography,
assuming summer conditions.
(b) Mining. Processing machinery shall meet the structure setback standards from the
ordinary high water level and from bluffs.
Sec. 36-571. Conditional Uses.
(a) In addition to the normal standards for evaluating a conditional use permit, the
following standards shall apply within shorelands:
(1) There would be no soil erosion or pollution of public waters during or after
construction.
(2) The proposed plan would limit the visibility of structures from public waters
(assuming summer conditions).
32
The types, uses and numbers of any watercraft that the project would generate
would be compatible with the capacity of the public waters to handle these
watercraft.
(b) Conditional use permit conditions. The City Council may attach special conditions
in shorelands. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Increased setbacks from the ordinary high water level.
(2) Limitations on removing the natural vegetation or requiring the planting of
additional vegetation.
(3) Special location, design and use provisions for structures, sewage treatment
systems, watercraft launching and docking areas or parking areas.
Sec. 36-572. Expan~ or adding decks to nonconforming structures.
A deck may be added to or expanded on a structure if the deck would be within the
required setback from the ordinary high water level. The deck must meet all of the
following criteria:
(1) The structure existed when the City established the structure setbacks.
(2) There is no reasonable location for a deck that meets or exceeds the existing
ordinary high water level setback of the structure.
(3)
The deck encroachment toward the ordinary high water level does not exceed ! 5
percent of the existing setback of the structure from the ordinary high water
level or does not encroach closer than 30 feet, whichever is more restrictive.
(4) The deck would be primarily wood, and not have a roof or screening.
· Sec. 36-573. Land Suitability.
Each lot created through subdivision shall be suitable for development with minimal
alteration. The Gity shall not consider lots suitable for development that would create
any of the following effects:
(1) Susceptibility to flooding
(2) Filling wetlands
(3) Building on soils with severe development limitations
(4) Greating severe erosion potential
(5) Building on steep topography
(6) Inadequate water supply or sewage treatment capabilities
33
(7) Creating a loss of protected wildlife habitat
Sec. 36-$74. Planned Unit Developmem's (PUD s).
(a) "Suitable area' evaluation. The suitable area for calculating the density of a
residential PUD shall be determined as follows:
The project site shall be divided into tiers. Tier boundaries shall be approximately
parallel to the boundary of the public water at the following intervals,
proceeding landward from the public water:
Unsewered Sewered
(feet) (feet)
Class I and II waters-
first tier 200
Class I and II waters-
second and additional tiers 267
Class III and IV waters 267
Class V waters 400
All river classes 300
200
200
267
320
300
(2) The suitable area within each tier shall exclude wetlands, bluffs or drainage
easements for storm water ponds.
(b) Residential PUD Density Evaluation. The procedures for determining the base
density of a PUD and density increase multipliers are below. Allowable densities may be
transferred from any tier to any other tier further from the waterbod3t Allowable
densities may not be transferred to a tier closer to a waterbody.
(1) To determine the residential PUD base density, divide the suitable area within
each tier by the minimum lot size for lakes or the minimum lot width times the
tier depth for creeks.
(2)
Density increase multipliers:
a. The maximum base densities may be increased if the proposed plan meets or
exceeds the dimensional' standards in Section 36-566 and the other criteria
in this section.
be
The City shall allow the density increases in Item c. below if:
1. The developer increases the structure setbacks from the ordinary high
water level to at least 50 percent greater than the minimum setback, or
34
The proposal reduces the impact on the public water an equivalent
amount with vegetation, topography or other means acceptable to the
City and the setback is at least 25 percent greater than the minimum
setback.
c. Allowable density increases for residential planned unit developments:
Density evaluation tiers
Maximum density increase
within each tier (percent)
First 50
Second 100
Third 200
Fourth 200
Fifth 200
d. Regardless of the above, the density may not increase above the density
allowed by the City's land use plan.
(c) Open Space Requirements. Planned unit developments must contain open space
meeting all of the following criteria:
1. At least 50 percent of the total project area shall be open space.
2. The City shall not include dwelling units or sites, road rights-of-way or land
covered by road surfaces, parking areas or structures as open space.
3. Open space may include outdoor recreational facilities or water-oriented
accessory structures or facilities
For residential PUD s, at least 50 percent of the shore impact zone of existing
developments or at least 70 percent of the shore impact zone of new
developments must be preserved in its natural state.
(d) Storm water management. Each PUD must have a storm water management plan
consistent with the city's drainage plan and erosion control ordinance.
(e) Centralization and design of structures and impervious surfaces. The following
standards shall apply to PUDs:
1. On-site water and sewage systems must be centralized.
2. The plans shall cluster buildings and impervious surfaces to maximize open
space.
35
o
The plans shall centralize shore recreation facilities. Shore recreation facilities
shall include, but not be limited to, swimming areas, docks, watercraft mooring
areas and launching ramps. The number of spaces provided for the regular
beaching, mooring or docking of watercraft must not exceed one for each
allowable dwelling unit or site in the first tier (except existing mooring sites in
an existing commercially used harbor). The developer or owner may provide
launching ramp facilities, including a small dock for loading and unloading
equipment, for use by occupants of dwelling units or sites located in other tiers.
The developer shall design structures, parking areas and other facilities to
minimize their visibility (under summer conditions) from public waters and
adjacent shorelands. This design shall use vegetation, topography, increased
setbacks, color or other means. The plans shall use existing vegetative and
topographic screening as much as possible. The City may require additional
vegetation to help screen these facilities.
All accessory structures and facilities, except water-oriented accessory structures,
must meet the required principal structure setback. The plans shall centralize all
accessory structures and facilities.
The City may allow water-oriented accessory structures and facilities if they meet
or exceed the design standards in Section 36-566. The plans shall centralize all
water-orientated accessory structures.
Secs. 36-575-36-581. Resented.
SECTION '22. This section drops the definition of mining as follows: (! added a new
definition in Section 36-6.)
SECTION 23. This ordinance shall take effect after the City approves it and the official
newspaper publishes it.
The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on
,1995.
36
Attachment 2
ARTICLE IX. SHORELAND OVERLAY D/STRICT*
See. M-561. Purpose fad intent.
(a) It is the purpose of this article to provide for the w~
utilization of shoreland areas, in order to protect water quality:
the natural characterbties and visual appeal of prot~.-ted waters.
the local t~z bane, &nd the genera] health, safety and welfare o~
eommunlty residents.
(b) Enactment of this article is provide a mechanism to reduce
the negative effects of shoreland overcrowding, ouch u water
pollution, inadequate slmee on Iota for drainage &nd o&nitary
facilities, flood damages, &nd degradation of the sesthetic appeal
and natural cho. racteristies of desirnated shoreland and ad, stunt
water treas. (Ord. No. 534, ! 1, 1-24-83)
See. 86-M2. EstablisJ,,,,ent of n ehoreland overlay district.
(a) A shoreland overlay district, with its attendant regulations,
is hereby established ns part of the zoning ordin&uce. This dis.
tract shall overlay existing zoning districU, so that any parcel of
)&nd lying in the overlay district shall nlzo lay in one or more of
the underlying established zoning dJ~cts.
(b) Within the overlay district, all u~s may be permi~d in
accordance with regulations for the underlying zoning district, s),
if the uses meet the additional requirements ~smblished in ~
article. (Ord. No. 534, § 1, 1-24-83)
This overlay ordinance shall apply to the shoreland districts
which are delineated on the official zoning maps. The~e maps
shall be on file in the office of the director of commtlBity devel-
opment for inspection and copying. (Ord. No. 534, ! 1, 1-24-83)
' ~t~fer~nee--Environmental protoctiou, ! 9~1~6 ~t s~q.
Supp. lq. m 2325
See. M-M4. Definitions.
[A~ use~ in this article, the following terms shall have the
mennin~ n~-ribed to them:]
Ave'~e ~ot a~e,.' The average of the lot areas within a single
development or phase. For a single lot, the minimum allowable
ma shall be no less than the average lot area requirement.
BoafAouf~' A structure uzod solely for the s~orqe of boats or
boating equipment.
Building of r~ord~' A structure which was in existence or for
which a building permit was issued prior to (effoctive date of this
article).
Lot of ~,eor&' A lot recorded with the Ramsey County refister
of deeds or reristrar of titles prior to (effective date st'thio article).
M,L'/pb dwelli~: Any residential structure containing two (2)
or more living units.
37
]~onpoint source (I~PS) pollutant: A contaminant that enters
water by washing off the land or seeping into ground water,
which alters the physical, chemical, or biological properties of
water or the discharge into water of any substance that may
create a nttisance or render such water detrimental or injurious
to public health, safety or welfare.
Nonpoi~ ~ou~z (NPS) pollufa~ ~n~ Storm water man-
agement practices which will reduce nonpoint source pollution
prior to reaching a protected water.
Ordi~ h~gh wa~ m~k (O~M): A mark delineating the
highest water level which has been maintained for a sufficient
period of time to leave evidence upon the landscape. The ordinary
high water mark is co,~,~only that point where the natural vage-
tation changes from predominantly aquatic to predominantly
P/an~d un/z dzve/op~n~ A development planned as a uni~
which incorporates:
(1) Residential and commercial land uses, or
(2) Variation(s) from this shoreland overlay article or under-
lying zoning district regulations relating to, but not lim-
ited to, density, setbacks, height limits and minimum lot
area which are permitted by negotiated agreement between
the developer, the municipality, and the co~,~-~ioner of
P~o~c~d waZ~&' Formerly referred to as public waters, m~n~
any water of the state as defined in .Minnesota Statutes, Section
105.37, subdivision 14.
R~2ioaa~ ~d.' A flood which is representative of large floods
known to have occurred in Minnesota and that can be expected to
occur on an average frequency of once every one hundred (100)
years.
S~oreli~' Land abutting the ordinary high water mark.
S~o~daad~' Land located within the followin~ distances from a
protected water:
.(1) One thousand (1,000) feet from the ordinary high water
mark of a lake, pond or flowage; and
(2) Three hundred (300) feet from a river or stream, or the
landward extent of a floodplain on such a river or stream,
whichever is greater.
The practical limits of shorelands may be less than the statutory
limits, where such limits are desiguated by the natural drainage
divides at a lesser distance and approved by the department of
natural resources.
S~um' Any building, except aerial or underground utility
lines, such as sewer, electric, telephone, telegraph or gas lines,
including towers, poles and other supporting appurtenances.
Urban runo~. Storm water that flows over land or through a
man-made drainage system, that usually contains litter, organic
or bacterial wastes. (Ord. No. 534, ~ 1, 1-24-83)
Sec. M,~5. Shoreland classifications.
(&) ~Reria for classi~n (percentage~ ~ply only to shoreland
located in Maplewood):
(1) Class I waters are defined as those DI~R designated gen-
eras development waters in which at least seventy-five (75)
percent of the shoreland area i~ pl~,,ed for co~-~-ercial or
industrial use, as defined by the Maplewood Land Use
Plan.
(2) C/ass II waters are defined as those DNR designated gen-
eral development waters not qualifying for Cl~s I ~atus.
(3) Class III waters are defined as those DNR designated rec-
reation devalopment waters having:
a. At least sixty (60) percent of the shoreline in public
ownership, or
b. At least fi/fy (50) percent of the shoreland in public
ownership, or
c. Less than ten (10) percent of the shoreland remaining
for development, excluding public open space, as of
(date this ~rticle becomes effective).
(4)
(5)
Class IV waters are defined as those DNE designated rec-
reation development waters not qualffyi~ for Clm
status.
C/ass V waters are de£med as those DNR designated natu-
environmental waters.
(b) Cla~sifu~ation of protected water&.
(1) Class I water&
3M Pond
T-nner's Lake
~) C~s II w~r~
Battle C~k
-F~ C~k.
~ ~e
(3) C~s III
C~y ~e
Kell~ ~e
~e P~en
Silver ~e
S~n ~e
W~efield ~e
(4) C~s ~
C~er ~e
Kohlman ~e - -:~ · '
~e's
(5) C~s V
~aver ~e
(~. No. 5~, I 1, 1-~3)
39
Sec. ~-566. District development stanclarcl~.
(a) C/ass ] water&
(1) Commercial development.
a. Minimum bui]~,%a se~__l~, fram
the OHWM (feet)
setback from OHWM (feet)
c. Maximum Impervious surface
area (percent)
With bonus (percent)*
(2) Multiple Dwelling.
OHWM (feet)
b. Maximum impervious surface
~re& (percent)
With bonus (percent)*
0o) Cla~s II and HI water&
(1) Commercial development.
a. Maximum building height (stor-
ies)
b. ]tginimum building ~ fram
the OHWM (feet)
c. Minimum water frontage (feet)
d. ~inlm~lm on-~its ~ewage ~
~etback from the OHWM (feet)
e. Maximum impervious surface
~rea (percent)
With bonus*
Water frontage lots (percent)
Other lots (percent)
(2) Single dwelling.
a. Minimum water frontage
b. l~Ani~um building ~ from
the OHWM (feet)
W~th
Sewer
50
70
75
Without
Sanitary
Sewer
5O
5O
4 4
50 75
75 100
50
40 40
50
(e)
With Without
Sanitary Sanitary
Sewer Sewer
c. M~mum on-~ts eewage system
setback from the OHWM (feet)
d. Avera~ lot area water froata~e
lots (square feet) 15,000
Maximum impervious surface m~a ....
(percent)
With bonus*
Water frontage lots (percent)
Other lots (percent) 50
5O
4O
(3) Multiple dwellins.
a. Maximum building height (stor-
ies) 4
the OHWIVl (feet) 75
c. M~,',i,,,,.un water fi, mtqe per do.
velopment (feet)
& M&ximum impervious surhce
m*ea (percent) 40
With bonus*
Wa~er &ont~e loU (percent) SO
O~her lots (percen0 60
e. Average lot m*ea per ~nit
Water &on~qe lot~ (squAre Feet) 10,000
(c) C~f ]~' ~ ¥
(1) ~o,~rci~l development.
a. L~-~mn buiM~_~ heifht
ies)
the OHW1VI (feet) 75
c. M{~i,,,um water fzuntqe per de-
velopment (feet) '/5
setback from the OI-IWl~ (feet)
(2)
$
100
150
Without
~0,000
16,000
e. Maximum impervious surface
area (percent) 80
With bonus*
Water fr~ntaee lm (~reenO
Other lots (pereent)
Single dwelling.
a. Minimum water frontafe and lot
width at buildinf setback line
(feet) 75 1~0
the OHWlVl (feet) 75 100
oethck fz~m the OI-IWM (feet) 75
d. Averqe lot men
Water fzontqe Iota (oqum~ feet) 40,000
Other lots (squ&re feet) 40,000
e. Miximum impervious surface
n (percent) 80 S0
With bonus*
Water frontage lots (peroent) 40
Other lots (percent) 60
4]
(2)
Multiple dwelling.
~. Maximum buil,~i,,_a height (~tor-
les)
b. Mi,,~,,,um building setback fr~
the OHWlVl (feet)
velopment (feet)
d. Maximum impervious surface
area (percent)
With bonus'
Water f~mt~e ~ ~)
Other lots (percent)
?$
4O
W~th W~hout
Sewer
e. Average lot area per unit
Water frontage lots (square feet) 15,000
'~"Other lots (square feet) 5,000
*Refer to subsection 3~566(e) for requirements to qualify for
an impervious surface area bonus. Impervious surface area limits
shall be determined using the total developable area of a parcel
(above the ordinary high water mark and suitable for develop
ment), exclusive of streets and sidewalks.
(d) Ro~d~ a~/i~rki~ ~
(1) Reads and parking areas shall be designed and located so
as to retard urban run~ff.
(2) Where practical and feasible, all roads and parking areas
shall meet the structure setback standards from the ordi-
nary high water marker specified in subsections 36.566(a),
Co) and (c). In no instance shall these impervious surfaces
be located less than fifty (50) feet from the ordinary high ..
water mark. "
(3) Natural vegetation or other natural materials shall be
tlsed to screen parking areas when viewed from the water.
(e) Imper~iou~ eur)fzoe a~ea borm~ To qualif), for an intpervious
surface area bonus, as permitted in subsections 36-566(a), (b) and
(c), significant man-made facilities shall be. provided and main-
tained for the reduction of storm water flow or the treatment of
urban run-off for nonpoint source water pollutants.
The director of public works shall determine whether a pro-
posed management practice(s) is adequate to warrant a bonus
using criteria adopted by the city council and approved by DNR.
The criteria will be subject to revision from time to time taki~
into account the 'moat recent technology. A bonus may range
from one to twenty (20) percent for nonwater frontage lots and
from one to ten (10) percent for water frontage properties, depen-
dent upon the practice(s) proposed. The director of public works
42
shall forward a copy of proposed bonuses to the D]hTR for review
and co~-~ent.
(t) Water quality oumage~ plar~
(1) All development within · shorel~d area _~'h.ll be subject,
to a wa~er quality _~l~A_aement pi&n, which is to be ~p-
proved prior to construction by the direct~ of public w~ks,
except single and double dwellings meeting the following
criMria:
a. The p&rcel is not p&rt of a plat created d~er (effective
d~te of this &rticle).
b. The pm~el does not lave frontage on · protectM w~ter.
(2) A water quality ~.anagement plan shall include, but not
be limited to, · statement of the construction &nd effective
· ~A4-tenance of nonpoint source pollutant treatment meth-
ods to be used to reduce potential water pollution m~oci-
· ted with:
· . Urban run-off,
b. Soil erosion ~fter construction is complete,
c. Soil erosion during construction.
These methods shall be in addition to any significant man-
made facilities proposed for an impervious suff~e tree
bonus as permitted by subsection 36-S66(e).
~7 ~ (g) EbL~io;~ o£ tad ~owest ~oor. ~ere no ~~ fl~
~ ~%? ~a~o~, pie~ ~d d~, ~1 ~ pla~ at ~ eleva~on such
~ ~'~: ~et ~e lowe~ fl~r, ~clu~g bmment, b lee ~ ~ (3)
~ .~q f~t a~ve ~e ~ghe~ ~o~ wear level. ~ ~ ~~
~..~.%~' wbe~ ~cient ~m on ~o~ high wa~r leveb ~ n~ av~l-
~..~.~,e;~. ·ble, ~e o~ ~gh wa~r ~k ~1 b ~.
-"~.',~*" ~) D,~, All development ~ ~l~d ~ ~1 ~
"~"" w~nt ~ ~e ~nt d ~e ~l~ ~ ~ ~
J~, 1974.
~m ~e ~ high wa~ ~k ~ n~ ·pply ~ ~o~s,
pie~ ~d d~. ~fion ~pie~ ~d d~ ~1 ~ ~n~ll~ by
appli~ble ~ ~d 1~ ~tio~.
(1) ~e~ a ~o~l~d pm~ h: (n) ~p~a~ ~m ~1 ~
~ wa~ by a p~cipd cr ~or ~ ~dway, ~
defined by ~e Maplew~ ~d U~ E~, ~) ~e ~
not &~ ~ly ~ n p~ wn~r, ~d (c) ~e ~
appli~ble development ~d~ may ~ ~u~ ~ ~
~ivene~ by ~e p~ wa~ c~~on. (i.e.,
~y ~bj~ ~ CI~ ~ ~~ ~y ~ ~ ~
C~ H ~valopment ~~.)
~) Not ~~~ ~e m~ b~g height ~-
men~ ~ ~ion ~6~66 ~) ~d (c), ~e m~im~
height sh~l not ex~d fo~y.~o (41) f~t ~om ~e ~t
~de for ~es ~at wo~d ~ at le~t eighty (80) ~r-
~nt ~ned ~om ~ew ~om at le~t ei~h~ (80) ~nt of
~e ~o~l~e of a pro~ wa~r d~g ~e ~er.
(3) Minimum ma-per-unit requirements in section $6-566(c)
shall not apply to developments that are at least eighty
(80) percent screened from view from at least eighty (80)
percent of the shoreline of a protected water during the sum-
. mar, do not have frontage or private docking facilities on
& protected water and which comply with impervious surface
requirements.
(k) substandard lotJ and building&
(1) Lots of record, not meeting the minimum lot area require-
meats of this shoreland overlay article, ,~-y be allowed as
· building site, provided all other dimensional rec!uirements
of this shoreland overlay article are complied with insofar
as practical.
(2) A building of record, which is caused to be sul~tandard
due to the enactment of this article, may be expanded,
provided that:
?
a. The use and expansion are allowed by the zoning
ordinance.
b. Where practical and feasible, the improvements will
not increase the substandardness of the building rela-
tive to the requirements of section 36-566, except as
permitted in subsection 36-566(dX2)c, or
c. The setback of the structure, ff a water frontage lot, is
the average setback of adj,,:ent residential structures
from the ordinary high water marker or fifty (50) feet,
whichever is greater.
(l) Boathouse& Boathouses may be allowed up to the OHWM
provided:
(~) They do not con~in nni~,~ hcilities.
(2) They &re not used for human habitation.
(3) They are no larger than one hundred sixty (~60) square
;ee~ in area and one s~r~ in height.
(4) They m'e designed to be -es~eticall~ compatible with the
natural setting insofar as practical. (Ord. No. 534, § 1,
1-24~83; Ord. No. 628, § 1, 7-11-88)
Sec. 86-567. Shoreland alterations.
(a) Selective removal of natural vegetation shall be allowed,
provided that sufficient vegetative cover remains to screen cars,
dwellings and other structures when viewed from the water for
aesthetic purposes.
(b) Grading and idling in shoreland areas may be authorized
by a grading and fill permit. Such permit may be granted by the
director of public works, subject to the approval of an erosion
control plan. At a minimum, an erosion control plan shall require
that:
44
(1) The smallest mount of bare Sround b e~ for a short
· time as feasible.
(2) Temporary ground cover, such as mulch, i~ u~ed and por-
manent ground cover, such as ~ocl, is planted.
(3) Methods to prevent erosion and trap m~lin2nt ~e employed.
(4) Fill is stJbilized to accepted engineering standardL
(c) F. xcavstion on shot·lauds where the intended purpooe Jo
eonnection to a protected water, shall require · permit from the
director of public works before construction is begun. Permit·
may be obtained only after the commissioner of natural reso,2rces
has i~ued · permit for any work on the beds of protected ~·tere.
(d) Any work which will chan~ or climini~ the couree, cur.
rent or cro~ section of · protected water or wetland shall be
Ii)proved by the commi~ioner of natural r~ources, and such
approval shall be construed to mean the ·eau·rice by the commis-
sioner of natural resources of · permit under the procedures of
Minnesota Statutes, Section 105.42 and other related statutes.
(Ord. No. 534, ! 1, 1-24-83)
bc. 06~88. On4ite oewafe treatment systems,
(·) All on4tte oewqe treatment ~stemo shall be desirned and
installed in accordance with the Minnesota Pollution Control
~ Imiividual SewMe Tr~tment Systems St~uim~ (6 MCAR
4.8040).
(b) All existing ~ewqe treatment oystemt inconsistent with
the standards in subeection 36-368(·) shall be broufht into con-
formance or dbcontinued wi*~in five (5) yoar, from the date of eh-
actment of this article. Any nonconfarm~,~_a sanitary hcih'ty found
to be · public nuisance shall be brought into conformity or dis-
continued within thirty (30) days ai~er roceivin~ written notice
from the Maplewood enviro,~,~ental health o~cial. (Ord. No. 534,
! 1, 1-24-83)
(1)
06660. Plan review.
All phte which ~ inconsistent with the provisions of ,~i.
ordinance shell be reviewed by the commimdonor of n~tu-
re] resources. Such review shall require t~t the proposed
plaU be received by the comminioner at least ten (10) days
before city council approval of · preliminary plat.
(2) A copy of all plate within the shoreland overlay district
within ten (10) days of t~ns~ approval of the city council.
ard~ may be allowed as exceptions to the zonin~ ordinance for
PUD'a, provided that:
(1) Prolx~tls must be approved by the department of natural
r~ources prior to final approval by the municipality. The
department of natural resources shall have thirty (30) days
from the date of written notification from the city to reply,
~ which time said proposal ,~Rl! be considered approve&
(~) Open ~pece b pr~erved, tl~t would no~ have been pr~
(3) Where a density bonus is considered, the following factors
are evaluated to ensure the proposed density will be con-
sistent with the resource limitations of the ~ water:
a. Physical and aesthetic impact of any increased density;
b. Density of current development;
c. Amount of public shoreland and shoreline;
d. Levels and types of water surface use and public access;
e. Possible effects on over-all public use of the protected
water.
(4) Any shoreline recreation facilities, such as beaches, docks
and boat launching facilities are centralized.
(5) The development is consistent with requirements for a
PUD in the city zoning code.
(6) An approved PUD shall not be modified unless approved in
writing by the department of natural resources and the
city council. The department of natural resources shall
have thirty (30) days from the date of written notification
from the city to reply, after which time, said request shall
be considered approved.
(c) Mu~ipl~.£amil;y a~d commercial develoiomen~a Non-single-
dwelling detached developments which would disturb at least
one acre of shoreland, shall be submitted to the commissioner of
natural resources for review and comment at least ten (10) days
prior to community design review board approval.
(d) Reduction o£ developmen~ s~a~ Where standards would
be reduced under subsection 36-5660), notification of the request
shall be submitted to the commissioner of natural resources at
least ten (10) days prior to issuance of building permit or commu-
nity design review board approval, whichever would come first.
(Ord. No. 534, § 1, 1-34~3)
See. 86-~?0. Variances and Rmendments.
(a) A ~py ~ public he~ng noti~s ~ ~ider v~ ~d
~en~enU W ~e pro~io~ of ~ ~icle sh~l ~ ~iv~ by
~e ~m~ioner ~ nat~ ~M~ at le~ Mn (10) ~ys ~or
~ su~ h~.
Co) A copy of final decisions granting variances or ordinance
amendments shall be submitted to the commissioner of natural
resources within ten (10) days of final action. (Ord. No. 534, § 1,
1-24~3)
Sees. 36.571~1. Reserved.