Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/06/2001BOOK MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday August 6, 2001, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda Approval of Minutes a. July2, 2001 Public Hearings None New Business a. Alamo Car Rental Conditional Use Permit (2525 White Bear Avenue) b. Code Amendment - F (Farm Residence) District c. Code Amendment - Rezonings 7. Visitor Presentations Commission Presentations a. July 23 Council Meeting: Mr. Ledvina b. August 13 Council Meeting: Ms. Dierich c. August 27 Council Meeting: Mr. Rossbach o Staff Presentations a. Annual Tour Follow-up 10. Adjournment WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF TH"=' PLANNING COMMISSION This outline has been prepared to help you understand the public meeting process. The review of an item usually takes the following form: The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed and ask for the staff report on the subject. Staff presents their report on the matter. The Commission will then ask City staff questions about the proposal. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. o This is the time for the public to make comments or ask questions about the proposal. Please step up to the podium, speak clearly, first giving your name and address and then your comments. After everyone in the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting. The Commission will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. The Commission will then make its recommendation or decision. All decisions by the Planning Commission are recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes the final decision. jw/pc\pcagd Revised: 01/95 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, JULY 2, 2001 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Ii. ROLL CALL Commissioner Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Jack Frost Commissioner Matt Ledvina Commissioner Paul Mueller Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner William Rossbach Commissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Eric Ahlness Commissioner Mary Dierich Staff Present: Present Present Present Present Present Present Present ' - Present Present Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director Ken Roberts, Associate Planner III. Recording Secretary: JoAnn Morin APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairperson Fischer added to Item 6, New Business: c. Hillcrest Village Commissioner Rossbach added to Item 8, Commissioner Presentations: d. Lower Afton Road Mr. Roberts added to Item 9, Staff Presentations: a. National Night Out b. City Tour Commissioner Pearson moved approval of the agenda, as amended. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes -All The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 18, 2001 Commissioner Trippler noted changes to the June 18, 2001 minutes: Page 5, Paragraph 8, Line 1' "...on the pool barn." Should read "....on the pole barn." Commissioner Dierich requested an amendment to the minutes to reflect the context of the discussion on Page 4, Paragraph 4. Adding this verbiage to the first sentence: Planning Commission Minutes of 07-02-01 -2- "... in light of the fact that the ordinance was enacted in 1988. Commissioner Dierich felt that it was an inconsistent application of code and that perhaps another evaluation or discussion is warranted regarding our code on this issue. She also stated that there were four other businesses in that neighborhood besides Mr. Schlomka's that have heavy traffic." Commissioner Dierich also requested to amend Page 6, Paragraph 6 adding this verbiage after the last sentence in that paragraph: "Commissioner Dierich strongly disagrees with the staff findings regarding the traffic. She stated that Mr. Schlomka is a one-person business. She also disagreed with the second finding regarding the visible changes to the property, she stated that Mr. Schlomka has improved his property. Regarding the noise and dust in the area, she stated that 1494 is very noisy already and that there are construction trucks rolling through every morning at 6:00 a.m. for the two developments further down the street. She also pointed out that there is a significant amount of Woodbury traffic in this neighborhood already. She stated that she felt that Mr. Schlomka did not meet city code home occupation requirement b)4 regarding the area allowed to be used for a home occupation. She also felt Mr. Schlomka did not meet code under Section 36-442, Item a)l regarding conformity with the city's comprehensive plan." Commissioner Rossbach moved approval of the minutes of June 18, 2001, as amended. Commissioner Frost seconded the motion. Ayes - 8 Commissioner Ahlness abstained. The motion passed. V. PUBLIC HEARING None. VI. NEW BUSINESS A..Street Vacation - Lydia Avenue, east of Duluth Streel. Mr. Roberts gave the staff report. He stated that Richard and Joyce Lambert are asking the city council to vacate part of a unused street right-of-way. The vacation is for Lydia Avenue, east of Duluth Street and north of the Lambert's home at 2986 Duluth Street. This is a half right-of-way that is 30- feet wide and was platted with the subdivision in preparation in case it was needed for future street connections. Recently the city processed and approved the High Pointe Ridge Development, immediately north of the Lambert's property. There are single family lots all around Duluth Street and Carey Heights Drive, there is no longer a need for a street right-of-way in this area. There is a water main that is located in this right-of-way that will loop down to Highway 61 by Gulden's and make a connection once the property north of Gulden's is developed. Because of that, the City Engineer is requesting that we keep drainage and utility easement over the vacated right-of-way. In addition, staff feels that it is important to keep a trail easement over part of the right-of-way as well in case there is a need or desire for a trail when the property north of Gulden's is developed. Mr. Roberts stated that if it turns out in the future that the trail is not put in, the easement then could be vacated. Staff recommends approval of the proposed vacation for the unused Lydia Avenue right-of-way east of Duluth Street next to the property at 2986 Duluth Street. Staff is recommending this vacation because it is in the public interest, the city and adjacent property owners have no plans to build a street in this location, and the adjacent properties have street access. Staff is recommending that the city keep a drainage/utility trail and pedestrian easement over the north 25-feet of the right-of-way. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-02-01 -3- Commissioner Ledvina asked staff about the easement to the east that leads to Highway 61. He stated it is 33-feet wide and this proposal is for a 25-foot easement. He asked if this would cause any problems narrowing the easement from 33-feet to 25-feet. Mr. Roberts indicated that easement was also laid out for a possible road connection. He stated that the City Engineer feels that the 25-feet that will be retained as easement will be adequate. It covers the existing water main that is already in the ground. Any future extensions can either work to the north or possibly go into this easement. Commissioner Dierich asked if the Planning Commission could put language in the resolution stating that if the development chooses not to put a trail in that the easement would automatically revert back to the property owner. She felt that the property owners should not have to pay twice for the vacation on that property. Mr. Roberts stated that the fees could be waived in the future, but a request would have to be made in writing. It does also depend on what happens with the property to the east. Joyce Lambert, the applicant addressed the Commission. She stated that they have been talking with the City Engineer and Ken Roberts and she does not have any questions or concerned. She stated that they knew about the trail easement going into the application, and are willing to take the risk as to whether a trail will be going through the easement in the future. Commissioner Trippler asked the applicant if the easement that is being discussed is on the north or south side of the silts fence that is there. Ms. Lambert stated that is was on the north side. She also stated that they anticipate taking care of the full 33-foot easement. Commissioner Rossbach moved to recommend to the City Council that they adopt the vacation resolution. This resolution vacates the unused Lydia Avenue right-of-way, east of Duluth Street next to the property at 2986 Duluth Street. The City should vacate this right of way because: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The city and the adjacent property owners have no plans to build a street on this location. 3. The adjacent properties have street access. This vacation is subject to the city keeping a drainage/utility easement and a pedestrian easement over the north 25 feet of the vacated right-of-way. In the future, if a request is made to vacate the pedestrian easement due to lack of use by the city, all vacation fees would be waived. Commissioner Ledvina seconded the motion. Ayes - All Motion carries. This recommendation will go to the City Council on July 23, 2001. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-02-01 -4- B. Home Occupation License- Wethern (193 Mount Vernon Avenue) Mr. Roberts gave the staff report. He stated that the applicants, Steve and Mary Wethern, are requesting city approval of a home occupation license to operate a small engraving business out of the garage at their home at 193 Mount Vernon Avenue East, just off of Adolphus in the western part of Maplewood. The Wethern's have been conducting this business out of their garage for the past 14 years. They have an existing detached garage that they have been running the business from. When they recently applied for a building permit to expand their garage, staff then became aware of the home business. Up until that point, staff was not aware of the home business and had not received any calls, complaints or concerns about the business. Because of the home business, this request falls under the guidelines and requirements of the home occupation licensing requirements. The Wethern's are the only two employees of the business. They manufacture engraved nametags, nameplates, and various types of directional signs for companies throughout the area. According to the applicants' information, the orders are mailed out via the U.S. Postal Service with few customers coming to their home. Of the surveys that were sent out to neighbors, staff received nine that were generally favorable and one that had some concerns and was opposed to the business. In reviewing the city's home occupation requirements, it appears that this business will meet, and does meet, all the city's requirements and should not be a problem. This request came about because of the proposed addition to add garage space to the rear of the existing garage for storage of their personal items, lawn equipment, bicycles, etc. That garage itself does meet all the city's code requirements, there is a concern that if the business expanded much more in floor area it would go above the 20% maximum allowable space allowed for a home business. Because staff did not find any concerns, and staff feels that the business does meet the city's home occupation requirements, staff is recommending approval of the license request for the Wethern's at 193 Mount Vernon. Staff is recommending approval subject to the three conditions listed in the staff report. Commissioner Trippler asked staff if the applicants do not move their business into all of the proposed addition, would they be in compliance with the regulations for a home occupation. Mr. Roberts stated that was correct. garage addition and still meet code. 20% limit. Essentially, the Wethern's could take about half of the new However, if they took the whole addition, they would be above the Commissioner Trippler asked who would enforce that requirement. Mr. Roberts stated that city staff would be the enforcers. Commissioner Dierich stated that she drove by the property and it appears that if that much space is added to the garage, the garage will actually have a larger footprint than the house. She asked staff if there is a hard surface limitation that goes into effect at any point because the Wethern's yard is very small. Mr. Roberts stated that the only time there is a surface limitations is if the property is in a shoreland district. Outside of that, there is not a limitation and therefore the Wethern's request is ok. The applicant, Steve Wethern, addressed the Commission. He stated he agreed with what Mr. Roberts had stated. Commissioner Trippler asked the applicant if he could only move into 50% of the proposed garage expansion, what will he do with the other 50%. Mr. Wethern stated that he has a lot of bikes, a boat and other personal items to be stored in that expansion. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-02-01 -5- Commissioner Rossbach stated that the applicant may want to even put a car into the garage. The applicant agreed. Commissioner Ahlness asked about the shed that had been on the property and had been taken down. He asked why the applicant does not want to rebuild the shed. He also asked what the size of the shed was. Mr. Wethern stated that it would be easier to replace the shed, however he stated that he has a lot to store. He stated that the shed had collapsed due to snow and that is why it came down. Commissioner Ahlness asked about the nature of the business. He asked if there was any smell or noise involved in the business. Mr. Wethern stated that no lasering, burning or painting is used in his business. He stated that the engraving is all computerized. Commissioner Rossbach asked the applicant if he only does plastic engraving. Mr. Wethern stated that his business does the nametags for the fire department of Maplewood. He also stated that no chemicals are involved in the process and that it is strictly etching. He also stated that there is not much noise generated by his business and there is not very much traffic associated with his business. He indicated that a lot of the neighbors were not even aware that there was a business located on his property. He also stated that he did not know that he was required to have a home occupation license because he has been doing a lot of business with the city and no one from the city had ever said anything to him. Commissioner Rossbach asked the applicant if this was his occupation. Mr. Wethern stated that yes, it is. Commissioner Dierich stated that she felt that the Commission needs to address the issue of home occupation license requirements. She stated that this is the third time this year that this has come up before the Commission. She suggested publishing the ordinances for home businesses. Commissioner Dierich commended the applicant for wanting to store his personal property inside a structure. She stated she drove through the neighborhood and counted eight trailers, boats, campers, and two commercial vehicles that were all parked out in the yards. Commissioner Frost moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to approve the home occupation licenses for Steve and Mary Wethern of 193 Mount Vernon Avenue to conduct an engraving business from their residential property. This approval shall be subject to the following conditions. 1. Compliance with all conditions of the city's home occupation ordinance. 2. Any garage space in excess of the 20 percent allowed for the business must be used for storage of the Wethern's non-business-type materials only. 3. The city council will review this home occupation license in one year. Commissioner Pearson seconded the motion. 8 - Ayes 1 - Nay (Commissioner Ahlness) Planning Commission Minutes of 07-02-01 -6- Motion carries. This recommendation will go to the City Council on July 23, 2001. C. Hillcrest Village Mr. Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director, gave the staff report. He stated the Hillcrest Village Smart Growth Study has been underway for the past couple of months with the Met Council, various consulting groups, and city staff. What it entails is taking a look land used in the Hillcrest Village, including the Hillcrest Shopping Center. He showed the Commissioners two different alternatives for the redevelopment of the area, Alternative A and Alternative B. He stated that on April 26 of this year the Met Council and consulting groups held a workshop session at Woodland Hills Church. It was intended to bring together the area residents and business owners to participate in offering input into what they would like to see developed in the White Bear Avenue/Lapenteur Avenue area - on both sides of Lapenteur in Maplewood and St. Paul. The future development in the area is for five to twenty years from now. The workshop attendees brainstormed and developed six scenarios. The consultant combined the ideas together, and took what was most popular and came up with the two alternatives that were being presented. On May 24th the two alternative plans were presented to the neighbors at Woodland Hills Church and they were asked for additional input. Mr. Ekstrand stated that he would like the Planning Commission's feedback on these two alternative plans. Mr. Ekstrand stated that the two alternatives are largely the same in that they are offering a mix of dwelling units and businesses. Alternative A has 179 living units featuring a mix of twinhomes, townhomes, apartments and apartment/retail style buildings. The apartment/retail style buildings would be with the apartments are above the shops on White Bear Avenue. The units that are strictly residential will be set back a half of block to a block off of the Avenue. Alternative B is much the same, but it does offer more living units, there would be 254 living units. Alternative B also features a block-large sized neighborhood square at the southeast corner of White Bear and Larpenteur Avenues. This is a nice green space that would be adjacent to the transit hub for the bus line. Mr. Ekstrand stated that what the Met Council is desiring at this point is that he bring back input from the Planning Commission and City Council to let them know what the city's thoughts are on this matter. Commissioner Trippler asked about the dividers located on White Bear Avenue on both of the proposals. He asked if White Bear Avenue would be restricted to two lanes, or will it remain four lanes. Mr. Ekstrand stated that it looks as those on Alternative A White Bear Avenue appears a little bit narrower. However, he is sure they are not planning a reduction of the width of White Bear Avenue, but he believes what they are trying to accomplish is somehow to slow down, regulate, and control traffic on White Bear Avenue. They felt it was unsafe for senior citizens that were trying to cross, it was everybody's strong point to try to restrict the traffic speed and traffic volume. He stated that the county will have something to say about that because White Bear Avenue has to be maintained as a thorough fare, but they are trying to put in some medians in an attempt to try to separate the north and south flow of traffic. Mr. Ekstrand stated that you cannot tell from the sketches, but they are focussing on safer crosswalks. Many of the residents that participated in the workshop had bridges proposed over White Bear Avenue so foot traffic could cross unimpeded. Commissioner Mueller asked how many living units are in the area now. Mr. Ekstrand stated that currently it is largely a commercial in the area. In Maplewood there are three single-family homes along White Bear Avenue. He stated that in St. Paul along the Avenue it is also commercial. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-02-01 -7- Commissioner Mueller stated concern regarding adequate housing in Maplewood. He asked if this area will be like a Grand/Dale type of community where housing is expensive, or will this be an affordable housing area. Mr. Ekstrand stated that one facet of this study is a marketing study. He stated that there are real estate people looking into those types of questions as to what is realistic for the area. He stated that the way the sequence is going is that the consultants and Met Council would like everyone involved to come up with what they would like to see as a nice development scenario. With that, the marketing people would sit down and evaluate the scenarios and determine what would work best. Chairperson Fischer stated that just east of White Bear Avenue, the block from Larpenteur to Idaho bounded by Van Dyke and Gary Place, are senior cottages. She stated that those would probably fall into affordable housing. Commissioner Mueller commented that a previous applicant had stated that affordable housing for empty nesters is $180,000 to $200,000. He stated that there are many seniors and families with children that cannot afford that type of housing. He stated that as the consultants and Met Council decide about the type of housing that will go into this area, they should consider the affordability of the houses. Commissioner Frost stated that he had attended both of the workshops. It was his impression that the area would be affordable because there would be apartments, townhomes, cottages and apartments above retail. He stated he felt it would be wide mix of housing types, styles, and prices in either of the scenarios. He stated Alternative B has more apartments, which would create more density in a small area as opposed to Alternative A that has more townhomes. Chairperson Fischer asked Mr. Ekstrand if he could zero in on the proposal that is in Maplewood and inform the Commission as to how the plans agree with, or differ with, the comprehensive plan designations for those areas. Mr. Ekstrand stated that Maplewood is the area north of Lapenteur. The area on the corner is planned commercial where the existing Pizza Hut is. The property going north is planned for R1 - single family residential. Alternative A will not hold to the comprehensive plan and will have to have some changes. On Alternative B, North St. Paul Road would no longer come directly into White Bear Avenue. It will bend and then connect with White Bear Avenue. Alternative B would encompass some of the properties going north which are residential and will be planned residential. It looks as though two lots on that plan would have to be changed to commercial. Commissioner Mueller asked what the white space on Alternative B was at the corner of North St. Paul Road and White Bear Avenue. Mr. Ekstrand stated that would be a parking lot for the proposed grocery store. He stated that both the alternatives are featuring buildings close to roads with parking in the rear of the buildings. Commissioner Trippler asked what will happen to the Super America store that has just completed a renovation of their facility on North St. Paul Road, the farm implement store, and the bank once North St. Paul Road is redirected perpendicular to White Bear Avenue. Mr. Ekstrand stated it will hinge on willing sellers. If Super America can see themselves fitting into a redevelopment scenario in twenty years, they may well just do that. Right now Mr. Ekstrand stated that he couldn't imagine SA wanting to do anything new after recently refurbishing their whole site and building. Mr. Ekstrand stated that staff will soon be receiving a proposal for a Walgreen's to take over the Burger King that is currently in that neighborhood. They are planning on tearing down the Burger King and building a new store there. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-02-01 -8- Commissioner Ahlness stated his concerns regarding Alternative B. He stated the lights for the parking area to the rear of the buildings with the buildings fronted on White Bear may go into the residential areas and create excess light for those areas. He stated in Alternative A there seems to be buildings on both sides to the back of the property with parking in between. Mr. Ekstrand stated that was true. He also stated that the back area would become the dock/service area with more commotion generated. Commissioner Ahlness stated that there is good transition to the north where there is retail and then apartments, and then to pure residential. He also stated that there is quite a difference between Alternative A and Alternative B regarding the number of units, number of total square footage, and parking spaces. After looking at the plans, he noticed that Alternative B goes into significantly more areas to the north that is included in the development. He asked if one alternative has a larger footprint than the other, how can it be compared fairly. Mr. Ekstrand stated that this is the kind of thing that needs to be addressed in the preliminary planning of this area. Commissioner Dierich stated that on Alternative A there is a Mews Townhouse development and it is not shown on Alternative B. She asked where the residential area would be for Maplewood on Alternative B. Mr. Ekstrand stated that there are three apartment complexes proposed on Alternative B located north of Larpenteur. There is also an apartment/retail building proposed on the north side of Larpenteur. He stated there are no townhomes proposed in Maplewood in Alternative B. Commissioner Dierich stated that visually Alternative B is far more appealing, although she would like to see more greenery along White Bear Avenue and less buildings right up to the street. She also indicated that she likes the proposed grocery store right in the neighborhood and the town square concept. She felt that for the comprehensive plan, Alternative B offers higher density housing but stated she would like to see townhomes developed also rather than just apartments. Mr. Ekstrand stated that the consulting group did encourage at the second workshop that the participants indicate whether they preferred Alternative A or Alternative B and what aspects of each plans did they like. Commissioner Dierich also stated that she liked Commissioner Ahlness' suggestion to buffer the light pollution behind the buildings on White Bear Avenue. She stated she would much rather see the parking be encompassed by trees or buildings in the back with the parking between the two sets of buildings. Mr. Ekstrand stated that was a very good point. Chairperson Fischer asked how successful has St. Paul been on redevelopment and actually obtaining the type of business that is proposed. She stated that they had lost the grocery store in the area due to the competition from Cub and Rainbow on White Bear Avenue, near Highway 36. Mr. Ekstrand stated staff works a lot with the White Bear Avenue Business Association. They are not very happy with their success. They are not really getting the businesses they desire. They see the Avenue as a place that needs a face-lift and needs rejuvenation. The Association is very excited about this concept and hopes that it will give them a "shot in the arm". Mr. Ekstrand stated that at the meetings he had attended with them, they indicated that they are not getting the quality businesses in that area that they wish to have. Many of the businesses that are there don't seem to have the pride in their appearance and storefront that the Association would hope for. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-02-01 -9- Chairperson Fischer asked if from Maplewood's point of view, the Hillside neighborhood currently has the second highest percentage of multiple to single family housing already. Mr. Ekstrand stated that there is a high percentage of multi-family housing towards the west near Edgerton Street. He stated he though Chairperson Fischer was correct regarding the high percentage of multiple housing in the Hillside neighborhood. Commissioner Trippler stated that on Alternative B south of the intersection of Iowa and White Bear Avenue it appears that White Bear Avenue narrows. Commissioner Trippler also stated that he recalled that there has been talk of increasing foot traffic and encouraging people to use bicycles and alternative forms of transportation. He stated he did not see any of that on either plan. Mr. Ekstrand stated that the plans have not yet been developed to that detail yet. He stated that they are mostly showing what types of building uses and where the parking and greenery would be. He stated that the issue has not yet come up in any discussions or meetings he has been involved in. He feels that they just have not gotten down to that detail yet. Commissioner Trippler stated that if they have the level of detail regarding parking, etc. he felt that perhaps the bike trails etc. would not be happening. Mr. Ekstrand stated he would check into this issue. Commissioner Ledvina asked if the officials of the Woodland Hills Church have voice their opinion on either option and if they have any specific ideas in terms of how this area interfaces with their site. Mr. Ekstrand stated that the church officials have not expressed their opinions to him. They may have expressed them with the consultants. They have just put in a huge investment into their building and he doesn't believe they are planning to go anywhere soon. Mr. Ekstrand also stated that he has not heard any negative input from the church officials regarding the development scenarios and he assumes they are supportive of this planned development. Chairperson Fischer asked staff if they knew whether the church officials prefer Alternative A or Alternative B. They are the nearest neighbor to the development. Mr. Ekstrand said he could look into their preference to the plans. Commissioner Rossbach stated that he prefers Alternative A with a change to North St. Paul Road and putting in a town square. He feels that Alternative B is too intense, with too many people/housing being put into the area. He also stated that the area is already a single-family residential area but it is tight with small lots. He feels that the City of Maplewood is already on track with the density and stated he feels we do not need to make any extra special strides to go above and beyond where the city is right now. Commissioner Mueller asked why on Alternative B did they develop the land north of North St. Paul Road and on Alternative A they left it as is. He stated that there is room for improvements on Alternative A. Mr. Ekstrand stated that so many ideas were given at the initial workshop that the consultants tried to use as many of them as they could. Planning Commission -10- Minutes of 07-02-01 Commissioner Mueller stated that he was sure that any church would rather have residential people within walking distance from their facility rather than commercial development. Commissioner Dierich asked if the cutout parking in North St. Paul along 7th Avenue or along Snelling are now out of vogue for planning. She would much rather see parking along White Bear Avenue where you pull in nose first for parking. She felt that parking in the back of the businesses would create a challenge for some of the senior citizens. She also stated that she agrees with Commissioner Rossbach regarding the high density housing that is proposed in Alternative B. She would like to see more townhomes in Alternative B. Commissioner Frost stated that he thought the intention was to be like Grand Avenue, which is with the businesses right on the Avenue and parking in the rear, with access from both sides and be very walkable. He believes the plans both have large sidewalks making it very accessible for walkers. He also stated that once the road is narrowed, the traffic automatically calms itself. He felt that people would avoid this area unless they are going there for shopping. He did not think that it would be used as a big thorough fare. Commissioner Dierich asked if that indicated that everyone who did not live in the neighborhood would not be going to that area. Commissioner Frost indicated yes, that this is a neighborhood development and that is why the grocery store was a big concern with the neighbors. Currently, there is no grocery store where the people can walk to. The seniors would like somewhere they could walk to to do their grocery shopping. He felt that is the intention of the plans. Commissioner Dierich stated she liked the intention, but questioned whether it would serve the business community. Currently, the businesses are drawing from other areas. Commissioner Frost stated that the intent was to have neighborhood businesses. He stated that the businesses that he has talked with were excited about the development. Commissioner Rossbach stated that in his ideal city this is an example of what we should have. There are neighborhoods that have small neighborhood stores that make the neighborhood independent. It was like that in the past, then it went to "big box" retail and places like the mall. He stated that it's not that the area wants to exclude people from outside the neighborhood, but rather take care of the neighborhood needs in a fashion that is walkable and neighbor friendly. Mr. Roberts stated that the thought was to add more housing units in the area so the businesses that would be there would have a larger customer base within walking distance. He stated that is why we are seeing the higher density in the area. He also guesses that the real estate moguls will say that the only way financially that any of this would work is if there is higher density housing. Lower density townhomes and single-family homes are not going to pay to make these plans financially workable. Commissioner Pearson stated he liked Alternative A. He likes the lessor density, but if that area is going to be successful and survive, it will need some density that will shop in the area. He also stated he feels the area will not be a place that people wilt drive to to utilize retailers there. He stated he would like to see a central park on Alternative A next to the transit area rather than the additional retail and office space. He also stated he agreed with Commissioner Rossbach that with either plan a realigned North St. Paul Road would surely solve some traffic problems in that area. Chairperson Fischer asked about the proposed Walgreen's store on the Burger King site. She asked if that would be in addition to or in lieu of the existing Walgreen's near Rainbow north of Highway 36. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-02-01 -11- Mr. Ekstrand stated that they asked the developer that and they have not said yet. He stated that his guess is that the one north of Highway 36 will be closed. Walgreen's has been wanting a drive- through facility at their present location for some time. However, due to the way the building is set on the site, they have been unable to construct a drive-thr0ugh. Commissioner Dierich stated that it is nice just having a plan in that area. It is currently so miss- matched in that area and there is no cohesiveness as far as stores, housing, etc. She stated she would be happy with either plan just to get the area looking better than it currently does. Commissioner Frost added that he liked Alternative B but without as many apartments and perhaps with more townhomes. He stated he liked the change to North St. Paul Road, the park, and the grocery store on Alternative B. He stated he would like to see the density half way between the two Alternatives. Chairperson Fischer asked about the discount grocery store in the area. Commissioner Frost stated that they are looking for a grocery store similar to a Nolan's or Jerry's type grocery store that are not quite as big as the Cub or Rainbow, but bigger than the discount grocery store currently there. Commissioner Trippler asked exactly what the staff was looking for from the Commission regarding this plan. Mr. Ekstrand stated that what they are discussing is what they are looking for. They are in a working stage and are looking at what aspects of the plans the Commission likes and dislikes. Commissioner Trippler stated he likes the density of Alternative A but likes the layout of Alternative B. He stated he really dislikes the way that North St. Paul Road currently comes into White Bear Avenue. He stated the only thing he dislikes about Alternative B is the street design for White Bear Avenue. He stated that it looks as if they are restricting White Bear Avenue down to a half lane south of Iowa. He stated his recommendation would be that walkways and bikeways need to be added into the plan. Commissioner Rossbach stated that as a group the consensus is that they favor Alternative B but would like to see the density lowered. Commissioner Ahlness asked if it were the design of Alternative B that was liked or was it the grocery store and the open square that they liked. Commission Rossbach added that those items along with the road change of North St. Paul Road. Chairperson Fischer added there is a valid concern regarding Alternative B and it's restricted traffic flow on White Bear Avenue. She stated the drivers of the area have a way of finding alternative routes when it gets too tedius. She asked if those alternative route would be on McKnight Road. She stated that White Bear Avenue has been a carrier of traffic historically and that the businesses that would be on White Bear Avenue would like the traffic going slower past their businesses and perhaps stop in. She stated the purpose of the street is not to bring business into individual stores but rather carry the traffic in that area. Commissioner Rossbach stated he interpreted what Commissioner Trippler stated differently. He stated that on Alternative B the section south of Iowa is essentially the same street that we currently have and once it goes north of there it is expanded and has dividers between the lanes. He stated that he does not see that it is restricted more so than it is now. He indicated that on Alternative A it is all about the same width. He stated we may be making too much of something that we don't really know what they are showing. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-02-01 -12- Commissioner Dierich stated, as an example, that she would go out of her way to drive Summit Avenue because it is very nice to travel down that road, even though it is only 30 mph and may take her ten minutes longer. She stated that she thought there would be a certain percentage of people that would travel White Bear Avenue just because it had the dividers, trees, and had a nice look to it. Commissioner Ahlness stated that on Alternative A he felt that it was a "status quo". It seems that if you are driving down White Bear Avenue and someone is making a left-hand turn, many people pass on the right. He stated that looking at Alternative B it appears that what they have done is not narrow the road down to two lanes south of Iowa, but it appears in the commercial area there is a left turn lane available for them and there appears to be a left turn at Larpenteur allowing people to make their turns without totally restricting the traffic. Commissioner Dierich suggested slowing the traffic speed down. Chairperson Fischer stated that in some areas of White Bear Avenue there is parking along the side of the road which restricts the flow of traffic. Commissioner Pearson stated that at one time there was consideration about bring North St. Paul Road out to White Bear Avenue via Ripley Avenue. Mr. Ekstrand stated that at a staff level there was some discussion during the White Bear Avenue Corridor Study regarding that type of change. To his knowledge, nothing has happened with that. Chairperson Fischer asked staff what the processes of this plan from this point will be. Mr. Ekstrand stated that at this point he is gathering input from the Planning Commission and then from the City Council. He stated staff will then see what direction they receive from City Council and then proceed as directed. VII. VISITORS PRESENTATIONS VIII. No visitors were present. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS June 25 City Council Meeting: Commissioner Trippler attended this meeting. He stated that the item that was before the Council was the Afton Ridge development. He stated that staff presentation to the Council was very thorough on all the issues concerning this development. He stated that the public discussion was brief. He reported to the Council that the Planning Commission was concerned about the traffic in that area and the plan to deal with that issue. The City Council separated this into three parts; land use plan change, zoning map change, and preliminary plat. They approved all three. They added a berm between the southwest development and the house at 349 Parkview. They also identified a 26-inch diameter elm tree that will be saved. Commissioner Rossbach asked if the City Council had added some type of water collection pond on the property. Commissioner Trippler stated that no, they had not. Mr. Roberts stated that based on the discussion at the last meeting, there is a condition that the City Engineer had staff add to the report before it went to the Council regarding the water collection pond. It stated that the developer would have to do some type of on-site ponding to meet NURP standards. That was adopted as an additional condition of approval. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-02-01 -13- Mr. Roberts added that at the June 25th Council approved three award of bids for equipment for the dispatch center, the radio equipment, the 911 answering equipment, and the recording equipment. Therefore, the dispatch center is definitely going forward. The proposed date for opening is in September or October. Commissioner Frost inquired where the funds would be coming from for the equipment. Mr. Roberts stated they will be selling bonds to finance the three-quarters of a million dollars. Commissioner Trippler asked if this item had been advertised that it would be on the City Council agenda. He also stated that we already have a 911 service. Mr. Roberts stated that the 911 dispatching is now handled by Ramsey County. They have informed the city that they are ending their service for Maplewood and we would have to provide our own service. City Council made the choice to bring the dispatching back to the city, and have it operate from City Hall, as it did up to about two years ago. The city is currently in the process of rebuilding the dispatch center. Commissioner Trippler asked if the City Council had done a study that showed that having our own 911 was cheaper than hiring it out to someone else. Mr. Roberts stated he was not aware of any such study. Bo July 9 City Council Meeting: Commissioner Mueller will attend this meeting. However, he will not be available to report back to the Planning Commission on July 16. The used car sales application will be on that agenda. C. July 23 City Council Meeting: Commissioner Ledvina will attend this meeting. Do Commissioner Rossbach discussed the issue of the speed limit on Lower Alton Road. He suggested that the Commission send a resolution to the City Council with a recommendation regarding the speed limits in that area. Mr. Roberts stated that this topic was brought up with the Alton Ridge project at the City Council meeting. He stated that the Council has asked the county to do a speed study on Lower Alton Road. He stated that the city engineer has sent a letter to the county engineer asking for the study. Commissioner Rossbach stated that the Commission is not asking for a study, but are asking for the speed limit to be lowered. Mr. Roberts stated that the study is the first step, and the speed limit will not be lowered without first having the study done. Commissioner Rossbach stated that the Commission could still put their support behind that by issuing a recommendation. Chairperson Fischer asked if given the design of the road, which was obviously for a higher speed, less urbanized area, she was not sure what would be the recommendations once the engineers looked at it whether it would be additional turning lanes. Mr. Roberts stated that the County is looking at the intersection of McKnight and Lower Alton Roads with adding the turn lanes or reconfiguring. He also stated that the engineer reported that on Century Avenue from 94 South all the way to Lake Road will also be looked at, much of that is State Highway 120, that eventually will be turned back to the County and there will probably be a reconfiguration at Lower Afton and Century, with possible traffic signals. This will tie in with the new golf course that the county wants to build on the workhouse property. All this will be happening in the next two or three years. We can expect to see design changes at both the intersections at Lower Alton and Century and Lower Alton and McKnight, whether that does anything for the speed in-between the two. Chairperson Fischer stated that the Commission could use a little education on what are the rules that are governing both the design and the speeds that are on the county roads, or roads that have funding from other jurisdictions that are in our area. Whether they are consistent and whether we have really ever looked at them all, or just a piece a time as there has been a problem in the area. She suggested that this topic might be an in-service training session for the Commission that the city engineer could present. Mr. Roberts stated yes, that was possible. Discussion continued regarding the speed limits on other roads in Maplewood. Commissioner Rossbach moved to recommend to the City Council that they actively pursue getting Ramsey County to reduce the speed limit on the Lower Alton Road. The reasons being that in the Planning Commissioner's view of Maplewood, they could find no other similar roads that have as high of speed limit as Lower Afton Road, and also that with the future, development in the area it will become more congested and be in further need of reduction. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-02-01 -14- Commissioner Frost seconded the motion. Ayes - All Motion carries. E. Chairperson Fischer asked about the garage-zoning item that was included in their packets. Mr. Roberts indicated that he included it just for their information. Chairperson Fischer asked if given our limitation on garage sizes, how would it equate into garage size. Mr. Roberts stated that if there is a one-acre lot, a five or six car garage would be allowed. He stated that three and four car garages fit on many of the properties in Maplewood. Commissioner Dierich asked staff what the formula was to determine the amount of garages. Mr. Roberts stated there is no formula, it is a table that was adopted by the City Council in about 1986 or 1988. The basic theory is that the larger the lot, the more garage space you can have. F. Chairperson Fischer ask staff if the City of Maplewood's farm ordinance addressed how many animals were allowed per acre. Mr. Roberts stated that livestock are only allowed by conditional use permit, and the amount allowed would be reviewed as part of an application. Commissioner Dierich stated that this information should be published in the Maplewood In-Motion. Chairperson Fischer asked staff even if a person had farm zoning they cannot have farm animals without a special permit. Mr. Roberts stated that was correct. Chairperson Fischer asked if a horse would be considered a farm animal. Mr. Roberts stated that there are a few cases that horses on the property have been grandfathered in. G. Commissioner Ahlness asked staff about the split of a residential lot on County Road C right by the lake. It appears that they are currently building one residence, and it seems rather tight. Commissioner Ahlness asked staff if the applicant had decided to build only one residence on the property. Mr. Roberts stated that the applicant will be building two houses on the property. IX STAFF PRESENTATIONS Mr. Roberts stated that the City will have a National Night Out event on Tuesday, August 7. There will be a table for the Planning Commission and asked if anyone would like to volunteer to participate at the table. If anyone is interested, contact Tom Ekstrand or Melinda Coleman for more details. Chairperson Fischer asked if there would be a large display of the comprehensive plan available for people to see Chairperson Fischer stated that having something visible and easily seen as they are walking by the table, might attract more people in to ask questions. Mr. Ekstrand stated that staff will get that information onto boards for easy display. Mr. Roberts asked the Commission if there was anything specific that they would like to see for the City Tour on July 30th. He stated he is now in the process of setting the route and having maps made. He stated that Chairperson Fischer had volunteered to do some speaking during the tour, and also Commissioner Ledvina had volunteered to speak on behalf of the Community Design Review Board. Chairperson Fischer stated that it might help if the Commission knew what neighborhood they would be going to in order to volunteer to speak. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:43 p.m. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Conditional Use Permit Alamo Car Rental 2525 White Bear Avenue (Maplewood Auto Center) August 1, 2001 INTRODUCTION Alamo Car Rental is requesting approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) for the rental of motor vehicles from the Maplewood Auto Center, 2525 White Bear Avenue. No exterior changes are proposed for the building or the site. Alamo proposes to rent the vehicles mainlY to local dealerships as temporary insurance or dealer replacements. Background March 22, 1988: The community design review board approved the plans for the Maplewood Auto Center (Attachment 1 ). This facility was developed as an automotive center for auto parts, sales, and vehicle repairs. April 24, 1989: The city council denied an appeal of two of the community design review board's conditions for approval of the Maplewood Auto Center (Attachment 2) including: 1) The exit on White Bear Avenue shall have only one exit lane, a "no left turn" sign and stop sign; and 2) there shall be no outside storage or displays of products or merchandise. November 22, 1999: The city council approved a CUP for Credit Equity Sales to open a motor vehicle sales business for this location (Attachment 3). In the year 2000, this permit was taken over by Midwest Auto. July 9, 2001: The city council approved a CUP for Credit Equity to open a motor vehicle sales business for this location (Attachment 4). DISCUSSION The Maplewood Auto Center consists of the Super America Station with attached car wash and an automotive strip mall consisting of several bays with various auto-type businesses. Alamo is proposing to lease 1,680 square feet of space within the automotive strip mall. This space will include one service bay for washing cars, an office, and a waiting area. No exterior improvements to the building, excluding wall signage, are proposed for Alamo's business. Parking The center was approved and constructed with 124 parking spaces, which met the city requirement of 116 parking spaces. The two CUPs approved for automotive sales within this center were Midwest Auto and Credit Equity. Each of these businesses was allowed to use a maximum of 15 parking spaces per their CUPs. Alamo is requesting the use of 20 parking spaces for the storage of their rental vehicles. This brings the total of "reserved" parking spaces in the center to 50. In addition, the city's parking code requires that Alamo's 1,680 square feet of leased space have 8 parking stalls, for a total of 28 parking stalls used by Alamo. During two inspections of the site within the last two months, I found that there were a number of vacant parking stalls. During the last inspection I counted a total of 54 parking stalls in use, and 70 parking stalls vacant. Approximately 3,000 square feet of the auto mall will remain unleased after Alamo Car Rental locates to the center. City code would require 15 parking stalls for this area of leased space. Alamo representatives state that few of their reserved parking stalls will actually be occupied as their vehicles will be rented out to customers. Staff feels that even if the center were fully leased, and Alamo used all 28 of their parking stalls, there would still be adequate parking on the site. However, additional requests for "reserved" parking stalls for motor vehicle sales or rental within the center should be highly scrutinized. Compliance with Original Design Review Conditions The new owner of the Maplewood Auto Center states that it has been difficult to lease space within the center. The main reason given is the lack Of visibility, with most automotive bays facing north, away from the visibility of White Bear Avenue traffic. Staff feels that Alamo Car Rental is a compatible use for the site and the increased revenues to the owner will be beneficial. However, Alamo's request for a CUP within the site is a good opportunity for the city to ensure that the center is in compliance with all original design review and city council conditions. On inspection of the center it was found that the site suffers from a general lack of maintenance including: 1) illegal parking of two vehicles on the grass, behind the auto mall (even though parking stalls were available); 2) illegal stacking of vehicles with four cars within two parking stalls (even though parking spaces were available); 3) two areas of illegal dumping in the drainage ditch behind the auto mall (dumped materials consist of sand and miscellaneous trash); 4) trash dumpster located outside of the enclosure; 5) seven temporary signs; 6) unmaintained landscaping; 7) missing landscaping; 8) missing stop sign; and 9) missing no left turn sign. Items 1 through 6 above all relate to general maintenance of the site and can easily be resolved by the owner. Items 7 through 9 involve replacing items that were required by the community design review board (CDRB). The CDRB minutes (Attachment 1) reflect three conditions associated with these missing items including: 1) all required landscape areas shall be continually and properly maintained; 2) all required plant materials that die shall be replaced by the owner within one year; and 3) the exit to White Bear Avenue shall have only one exit lane, a no left turn sign, and a stop sign. In comparing the landscaping on the site to the original landscape plan dated February 17, 1988 (Attachment 9) it appears that 14 trees and 28 shrubs have either died or were never planted. Plant material missing from the interior of the site include: 4 golden mockorange, 1 black hills spruce, 5 radiant crab, 3 pin oak, 9 varigated dogwood; 1 marshal ash, 9 globe arborvitae, 2 sugar maple, 5 mugo pine. Plant material missing from the front of the site include: 2 dwarf lancelot crabapple and 1 isanti dogwood. Alamo Car Rental 2 August 1,2001 RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt the resolution on pages 21 and 22. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for rental of motor vehicles at Maplewood Auto Center, 2525 White Bear Avenue. Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to: All construction of the Alamo Car Rental business shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The proposed motor vehicle rental use must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The owner of the Maplewood Auto Center at 2525 White Bear Avenue will do the following general maintenance of the site as required by city code prior to Alamo Car Rental obtaining a certificate of occupancy: ao Ensure that there is no illegal parking on the site including no parking on the grass and no stacking of vehicles (i.e., two vehicles to one stall). bo Ensure that the entire site is cleared of trash including all illegally dumped material located within the drainage ditch behind the auto mall. Ensure that the trash dumpster is placed inside the dumpster enclosure at all times. Ensure that the site is in compliance with the city's temporary sign ordinance including obtaining a sign permit for all temporary signs over 16 square feet and only allowing one temporary sign per business located within the center. Ensure that all landscaped areas are maintained including removing all weeds from the landscaped area around the base of the center's pylon sign. The owner of the Maplewood Auto Center at 2525 White Bear Avenue will replace the following landscaping and signage on the site as required by design review approval prior to Alamo Car Rental obtaining a certificate of occupancy: Replace the following missing landscaping on the site as specified on the approved landscape plan dated February 17, 1988:4 golden mockorange, 1 black hills spruce, 5 radiant crab, 3 pin oak, 9 variegated dogwood; 1 marshal ash, 9 globe arborvitae, 2 sugar maple, 5 mugo pine, 2 dwarf lancelot crabapple, and 1 isanti dogwood. Replace the following missing signs on the site as specified in the community design review board's conditions for approval of the development: a stop sign and a no left turn sign to be located at the exit onto White Bear Avenue. Alamo Car Rental 3 August1,2001 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site Size: 4.8 acres Existing Use: Maplewood Auto Center and Super America SURROUNDING LAND USES North: A multi-tenant commercial building and vacant property owned by Bob Mogren. South: Mapleridge Shopping Center West: Undeveloped wetlands owned by Ramsey County. East: Across White Bear Avenue is Bachman's, Mogren Brothers' Landscaping, the former NTB building, and an office building. PLANNING Land Use Plan: Zoning: BC (Business Commercial) BC (Business Commercial) Ordinance Requirements Section 36-151 (b)(5)(b) requires a CUP for the storage or rental of motor vehicles. Criteria for Conditional Use Permit Approval Section 36-442(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. Refer to the findings in the resolution on pages 21 and 22. Application Date We received this application on July 12, 2001. State law requires that the city council decide on this project within 60 days. City council action is required by September 10, 2001. p:secl l\maplewood auto (alamo) Attachments: 1. Community Design Review Board 3/22/88 Minutes 2. City Council 4/24/89 Minutes 3. City Council 11/22/99 Minutes 4. City Council 7/9/01 Minutes 5. Location Map 6. Property Line/Zoning 7. Site Plan 8. Floor Plan 9. Original Landscape Plan (2/17/88) 10. Revised Landscape Plan (7/8/93) 11. Alamo Car Rental's Explanation of Project 12. Alamo Car Rental's Criteria for Approval of CUP 13. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 4 ATTACHMENT 1 Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-22-88 -4- dated-stamped March 4, 1988 for Tom Thumb at the Hillside Shopping Center, and also for the tenant signage as follows: i. Each tenant shall be al lowed one silk-screened sign on the canvas canopy and one 15-inch sign on the tower. 2. The pylon sign shall be subject to staff approval and shall meet all size, height and setback requirements. Board Member Erick'son seconded Ayes--all  Design Review - Maplemood Auto Center White Bear Avenue Michael Wilkus, an architect with Weiss Companies, was present representing the applicant. He said he was in agreement with the conditions of recommendation. The board questioned him om the architecture and materials to be used for the proposed building. Board Member Kochsiek moved approval of site, landscaping, architectural and signage plans date-stamped February 22 1988 for the Maplewood Auto Center, subject to: 1. Approval of plans by the Community Design Review Board does not constitute approval of a building permit. 2. All trash dumpsters shall be stored in screening enclosures with a 100% opaque wooden gate and shall be a color and material compatible with the building. Enclosures shall be protected by concrete-filled steel posts, or the equivalent, anchored in the ground at the front corners of the structure. If the enclosure is masonry, the protective posts may be omitted. 3. Any exterior building or roof-top equipment that is not adequately screened by the parapet shall be additionally screened and hidden from view. 4. An erosion control plan, acceptable to the city engineer, shall Oe s~bmitted prior to the issuance of a boil0ing permit for erosion :ontrol during construction. 5. F'arking areas shall be striped and all bituminous areas shall have continuous concrete curbing. Parking lots shall bm Hept in a continual state of repair. 6. If construction has not begun within two years of approval, board review shall be repeate,d. 5 Community Design Review Board Minutes 3-22-88 -5- 7. Site security lighting shall be provided and shall be directed or shielded so not to cause any undue glare onto adjacent properties or roadways. 8. If any adjacent property is disturbed or property irons removed due to construction of the site, that property shall be restored and irons replaced by the applicant. 9. Grading, drainage' and utility plans shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. 1~]~. The curb cut along White Bear Avenue shall properly blend in to match the sidewalk grade. 11. F'rior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit, the appl leant shall obtain approval from Ramsey County for the curb cut and for the realignment of the drainage ditch. 12. The exit to White Bear Avenue shall have only one exit lane, a "no left turn" sign and stop sign. 13. All grass areas along the south and east lot lines shall be sod, not seed. Those areas adjacent to the ditch shall be sod or seed. 14. All required landscape areas shall be continually and properly maintained. 15. All required plan~materials that die shall be replaced by the owner within one year. 16. Reflectorized stop signs and handicap parking signs shall be provided. 17. All public boulevard that is disturbed doe to this construction shall be restored and resodded. 18. The applicant shall provide a monetary guarantee, in the form acceptable to staff, in the amount of 150% of the established cost of any site improvements that are not completed by occupancy. 19. The parking stall depth and drive aisle widths north and south of Building B shall be 19 feet and 24 feet. 20. There shall be no outside storage or displays of products or merchandise. Board Member Erickson seconded Ayes~-all ATTACHMENT 2 Appeal of C.D.R.B. Motion: [-~aplewood Auto Center (2525 White Bear Avenue) Manager mcGuire presented the Staff report. Associate Planner Ekstrand presented the specifics of the proposal. Board Member Anitzberger presented the C.D.R.B. report· Chris McGrath, representing the developer, spoke on behalf of the request for left turn exits onto White Bear Avenue. e. Councilmember Anderson moved to deny the request of Curt Johnson Properties for a left turn lane exit onto White Bear Avenue. Seconded by Councilmember Juker. Ayes - all. O. VISITOR PRESENTATIO~]S 1. Gerald Mogren 'a. ~r. Mogren requested an extension of time for his mining permit at Maple Hill. He tried to renew his mining permit but because of other difficulties with minJ.ng permits, it was denied. There is ~till material to be removed and he wishes to finish the job by July. b. Council directed Mr. Mogren to see Director of Public Works Haider regarding a grading permit. Councilmember Bastian moved to reconsider the vote re~ardin~ the proposed development on Beebe Road and that it should be placed on May 4th, 1989, Asenda. Ayes - all. Seconded by Mayor Greavu. P. ADJOURI,~,~EL!T OF 4-24-89 MEETING 11:37 P.M. City Clerk 4-20-89 MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M., Monday, November 22, 1999 Council Chambers, Municipal Building Meeting No. 99-26 ATTACHMENT 3 2. 7:18 P.M. Used Car Sales Conditional Use Permit - Maplewood Auto Ctr. (2525 White Bear Avenue) a. Mayor Rossbach convened the meeting for a public hearing. b. Manager McGuire introduced the staff report. c. Director of Community Development Coleman presented the specifics of the report. d. Commissioner Frost presented the Planning Commission report. e. City Attorney Kelly explained the procedure for public hearings. f. Mayor Rossbach opened the public hearing, calling for proponents of opponents. No one xvas heard. g. Mayor Rossbach closed the public hearing. Councilmember Koppen moved/introduced the following Resolution, approving a conditional use pein'fit for used sales at Maplewood Auto Center, 2525 Wlme Bear Avenue t0r a slx month period oftm'~e. At that re'ne apphcant wall be required to come before Council at that t~me and moved ~ts adoptmn: 99-11-109 CONDITIONAL USE PER3IIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Dale Martin, of Credit Equity Sales, applied for a conditional use permit for motor vehicle sales at the Maplewood Auto Center: WHEREAS, this permit applies to property located at 2525 White Bear Avenue. The legal description is: SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS: N 280 FEET OF LOT 2 & ALL OF LOT 1 BLOCK 1, MAPLE RIDGE MALL WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: I. On November 1, 1999, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 11-22-99 8 o On November 22, 1999, the cig ~ncil held a public hearing. The city staf ~lished a notice in the paper and sent :?otices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit based on the building and site plans. The city approved this permit because: 1. Thc use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the folloxving conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. ! 2. The proposed use must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null 'and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. There shall not be any vehicles displayed in the parking lot with "for sale" signs, flags, pennants or any other forms of car-sale display or graphics. 5. Car'sales on the site shall be by appointment only as proposed, not on 'a drop-by retail basis. 6. No Large transport vehicles allowed on the site. Seconded by Mayor Rossbach Ayes - all 11-22-99 MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M. Monday, July 9, 2001 Council Chambers, Municipal Building Meeting No. 01-14 PUBLIC HEARINGS ATTACHMENT 4 7:00 P.M Credit Equity Sales Conditional Use Permit (2525 White Bear Avenue) a. Mayor Cardinal convened the meeting for a public hearing. b. City Manager Fursman introduced the staff report. c. Assistant City Manager Coleman presented the specifics of the report. d. Commissioner Paul Mueller presented the Planning Commission report. e. Mayor Cardinal opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents. The following person was heard: Julie Berry, 2361 Oak Lane, employee at Credit Equity Sales Councilmember Collins moved to adopt the following resolution that approves a conditional use permit for used motor vehicle sales at Maplewood Auto Center, 2525 White Bear Avenue. Approval is based on the finding required by the code and subject to: RESOLUTION 07-01-061 Credit Equity Sales--Conditional Use Permit WHEREAS, Dale Martin, of Credit Equity Sales, applied for a conditional use permit for motor vehicle sales at the Maplewood Auto Center: WHEREAS, this permit applies to property located at 2525 White Bear Avenue. The legal description is: SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS: N 280 FEET OF LOT 2 & ALL OF LOT 1 BLOCK 1, MAPLE RIDGE MALL (PIN 11-29-22-22-0040) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On June 18, 2001, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 2. On July 9, 2001, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. 10 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit based on the building and site plans. The city approved this permit because: The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city'S comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. o The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The proposed use must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. There shall not be any vehicles displayed in the parking lot with "for sale" signs or any other forms of vehicle-sale display or graphics. 5. Vehicle sales shall be by appointment only, not on a drop-by retail basis. 11 o The owner or operator shall get a certificate of occupancy from the city before occupying the space. Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk Ayes - All 12 ATTACHMENT 5 Mapleddge Shopp)ng Cente~ 2515 White Bear Avenue I Maplewood Auto Center Location Map 13 ATTACHMENT 6 COUNTY ROAD C ~8o~ ~1~oF ~' -~ " 2 .~ 1862h 1876 3 3°130 ~ r 23 22 L4E =.~.,. F 2_1 4 i~ zo 5 ? CAR WASH i -zzs~ ,/ METRO LAWN & POWER EQUIPMENT KENNET"'S HAIR STYLING cPA M~HBESHER & -!al ' m~ ~ .- ~ -- SPENCE LAWYERS [ _ · BACHMAN'S ~ i:.' m .~ OFFICES 9 ~, &,~ ~'~ SUPER AMERICA; S'x ,' '~ ', OFFICES .... -~. 1 ,----'--..----, ~ ' ~ NI'B ~"~ ...... h' --x- - . L I - ' . ~FOODS ' ~ [ P~~I~AL [" BUILDING ~-mm-mmmmmmmmmm ., ~ GERVAIS AVENUE ATTACHMENT 7 I~UPEg~ ~Ms~ f:~ I~:~q' II 11 II It Ii IJ II Il II II Il II II tl II II SITE PLAN~ ATTACHMENT 8 Floor Plan 16 ATTACHMENT ORIGINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN DATED FEBRUARY 17, 1988 17 ATTACHMENT 10 ! ! / ,, PLAN~' LIs,T? ~.. " ................... ' - ."" '~ ".~..L:" A I Ho, MM Black Hills Spruce · B .5. 1,5" BB Dwarf Lancelot Crabapple' C 16 3' BB Isanti.Dogwood .. .-.. D 300 d~l 'Goldsturm' Rudbecida '-- REVISED FRONT LANDSCAPE PLAN DATED JULY 8, 1993 18 ATTACHMENT 11 Explanation of Project Alamo Car Rental 2525 White Bear Avenue, #117 Maplewood, MN Alamo Car Rental has chosen a location at 2525 White Bear Avenue, #117 in Maplewood for expansion of the neighborhood division of Alamo. This property is currently zoned "BC" Business Commercial and the proposed car rental requires a Conditional Use Permit to locate within the "BC" District. The proposed lease space consists of approximately 1,680 square feet. The landlord has agreed to allow Alamo to' use up to twenty (20) parking spaces as shown on the enclosed site plan for the storage of their rental vehicles. Alamo will also be using an existing service bay to wash cars with a hand-held pressure washer. Although a total of twenty (20) parking spaces will be available, Alamo anticipates that few of these spaces will actually be occupied, as their vehicles will be rented out to customers. The Alamo Neighborhood Division focuses on the "Off-Airport" business. The business is comprised of insurance replacement, dealership replacement, corporate and retail. The hours of operation generally are Monday through Saturday from 7am to 5pm. The staffing at the location generally consists of three (3) employees during the morning hours and two employees during the afternoon hours. Alamo's ideal situation is to exist in a "full rental" status which means there are no cars on site because they are rented out. On any given day, a few cars will be parked on site as there is transition time between customer rentals. On behalf of Alamo, McBride Dale Clarion respectfully requests approval of this Conditional Use Permit application to allow their car rental operation and the outdoor storage of motor vehicles. Alamo is a low impact use and will not be harmful to the health, safety, welfare or morals of the community. Alamo looks forward to expanding their business in Maplewood, Minnesota and is excited to have the opportunity to serve the community with their services. McBride Dale Clarion 19 July 10, 2001 ATTACHMENT 12 Criteria for Approval ora Conditional Use Permit Alamo Car Rental 2525 White Bear Avenue, #117 Maplewood, MN o ° Alamo will be located within an existing storefront in an existing shopping center and would therefore be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's comprehensive plan and Code of Ordinances upon approval of the Conditional Use Permit request. Alamo will not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. Alamo will not depreciate property values. Alamo is a low impact use and will not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that will be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing, or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. Alamo will generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and will not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. Alamo will be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. Alamo will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. Alamo will maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. Alamo will cause minimal environmental effects. McBride Dale Clarion 20 July 10, 2001 ATTACHMENT 13 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Alamo Car Rental applied for a conditional use permit for the rental of motor vehicles at the Maplewood Auto Center: WHEREAS, this permit applies to property located at 2525 White Bear Avenue. The legal description is: SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS: N 280 FEET OF LOT 2 & ALL OF LOT 1 BLOCK 1, MAPLE RIDGE MALL (PIN 11-29-22-22-0040) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On August 6, 2001, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 2. On August 27, 2001, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approves the above-described conditional use permit based on the building and site plans. The city approved this permit because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. 21 Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction of the Alamo Car Rental business shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The proposed motor vehicle rental use must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The owner of the Maplewood Auto Center at 2525 White Bear Avenue will do the following general maintenance of the site as required by city code prior to Alamo Car Rental obtaining a certificate of occupancy: a. Ensure that there is no illegal parking on the site including no parking on the grass and no stacking of vehicles (i.e., two vehicles to one stall). b. Ensure that the entire site is cleared of trash including all illegally dumped material located within the drainage ditch behind the auto mall. c. Ensure that the trash dumpster is placed inside the dumpster enclosure at all times. do Ensure that the site is in compliance with the city's temporary sign ordinance including obtaining a sign permit for all temporary signs over 16 square feet and allowing only one temporary sign per business located within the center. e. Ensure that all landscaped areas are maintained including removing all weeds from the landscaped area around the base of the center's pylon sign. The owner of the Maplewood Auto Center at 2525 White Bear Avenue will replace the following landscaping and signage on the site as required by design review approval prior to Alamo Car Rental obtaining a certificate of occupancy: Replace the following missing landscaping on the site as specified on the approved landscape plan dated February 17, 1988:4 golden mockorange, 1 black hills spruce, 5 radiant crab, 3 pin oak, 9 variegated dogwood; 1 marshal ash, 9 globe arborvitae, 2 sugar maple, 5 mugo pine, 2 dwarf lancelot crabapple, and 1 isanti dogwood. Replace the following missing signs on the site as specified in the community design review board's conditions for approval of the development: a stop sign and a no left turn sign to be located at the exit onto White Bear Avenue. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2001. 22 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: city Manager Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Farm Zoning Paul Schlomka 2511 Carver Avenue August 1,2001 INTRODUCTION Background On June 18, 2001, the planning commission directed staff to research possible code amendments to the farm zone. The proposed changes were prompted by Paul Schlomka's request for a home occupation permit to conduct a landscaping business from his farm-zoned property and also his request for two conditional use permits that were associated with the business, including one for a 4,224 square foot pole barn and one for the storage of commercial vehicles on residential property. Mr. Schlomka has agreed to delay his request until staff's research into possible farm zone code changes is complete. Request Staff is requesting an amendment to the city code to permit a landscaping business in a farm zone with a conditional use permit. DISCUSSION Farm Zoning Within the City of Maplewood there are 407 parcels of farm-zoned land that are used for residential purposes, totaling 690 acres. This amount does not include other non-residential farm-zoned property including the Bailey Nursery site, churches, parks, open space, and golf courses. The average parcel size within the residentially used farm zone is 1.88 acres. Uses permitted within the farm zone include: 1) single family houses; 2) commercial farming or gardening, including the use or storage of associated equipment; 3) commercial greenhouses or nurseries; and 4) stands for the sale of agricultural products produced on the premises (Attachment 1). Within all residentially zoned land, including farm-zoned land, heavy commercial vehicles (greater than 1 ton payload rating) are allowed with a conditional use permit. The exceptions to this rule, as stated above, are commercial vehicles used for commercial farming or gardening that are stored on farm-zoned land. The code does not specify the size, number, or required storage location for the commercial vehicles when used for farming. Other than the Bailey Nursery site located on the southern end of Maplewood, there are no commercial farms or greenhouses within the city that are zoned farm. With a majority of the farm-zoned land having small parcel sizes (average 1.88 acres), the possibility that there will be future commercial farms within the city is minimal. However, the code does not specify a minimum lot size for farm use. A property owner with 1.88 acres of farm-zoned land could run a small farm or nursery and store any number of commercial vehicles and equipment on their property according to the ordinance. Much of the original, large parcels of farm-zoned property have been subdivided into smaller, single-family lots. When this takes place the city's policy has been to rezone the property from farm to single dwelling residential. For this reason, farm-zoned property that is used for residential purposes is slowly being faded out. Attached find a map that breaks down the large farm-zoned parcels (greater than 4 acres) from the remaining farm-zoned land within the city (Attachment 2). There are a total of 35 parcels that are 4 or more acres in size. The largest farm zoned lot, excluding non-residential lots as specified above, is the Hajicek site at the north end of the city (80-acres). The Hajiceks are selling their land for development. When this happens the land will be rezoned. The remaining large farm-zoned parcels are found on the southern end of the city. There is a strong likelihood that these parcels will remain as large lots zoned farm because of the absence of sanitary sewer in this area. Paul Schlomka's property is 4.34 acres in area and is located on the southern end of the city. During the May 28, 2001, planning commission meeting there was consensus from the commissioners that a landscape-type business on a lot the size of Mr. Schlomka's lot would not create negative impacts to surrounding residential properties if the proper conditions were in place. For this reason, the city should focus proposed changes to the farm zone ordinance on lots of 4 acres or larger. As a result, the proposed ordinance change would mostly affect the southern tip of the city, where the population is less dense and the lots are larger. Farm Zone Comparisons Five other cities' farm zones were researched including Cottage Grove, Hugo, Inver Grove Heights, Lake Elmo, and Woodbury. The areas examined were the minimum lot size, permitted and conditional uses, and accessory structures (Attachment 3). Uses Allowed: The permitted uses within all five cities' farm zones were generally agricultural and greenhouse uses, similar to Maplewood. Both Hugo and Lake Elmo found that much of their farm-zoned property was not being farmed because of smaller parcel sizes and economics. In response to this, these cities allow other types of businesses within the farm zone in order to allow the property owners an economical use of their property. Hugo allows home occupations to be conducted within an accessory structure with a conditional use permit if it meets the following criteria: must be within a farm zone; no exterior storage; cannot generate more than 10 vehicle trips per day; only one employee allowed besides family members living on site; cannot produce noise, odor, smoke, glare, or waste. Lake Elmo allows what they term "low-impact non- agricultural uses" with a conditional use permit. Low-impact non-agricultural uses are defined as the outdoor storage of cars, trucks, boats, trailers, recreational vehicles, recreational equipment, and other vehicles or mobile equipment under 26,000 tare weight. These uses can take up only 4 percent of a 40-acre parcel. Farm Zone Amendment 2 August 1,2001 Accessory Structures Allowed: The largest size and number of accessory structures allowed within the comparable cities is Hugo. Hugo allows up to three accessory structures with a combined square footage of 3,600 square feet if a lot is over 10 acres. The smallest size and number of accessory structures allowed in the comparable cities is Lake Elmo. Lake Elmo allows one accessory structure up to 1,000 square feet for lots under 10 acres and two accessory structures up to 2,000 square feet for lots 10 acres or larger. Maplewood's accessory structure ordinance is based on the size of the lot (Attachment 4). On a lot of 42,000 square feet or larger, the maximum size of detached accessory structures is 1,250 square feet. This square footage can be comprised of one, 1,250 square foot detached accessory structure, or a combination of detached accessory structures. Also, for lots that are 42,000 square feet or larger, there is an additional 1,000 square feet allowed for what is termed "all other buildings." This means that a property owner could have a 1,250 square foot "garage" and a 1,000 square foot "storage shed." The difference in the two structures would be the existence of garage doom. In addition to the detached accessory structures allowed on a lot of this size, the combination of detached and attached accessory structures can equal 2,500 square feet (combination of 1,250 s.f. detached and 1,250 s.f. attached). Maplewood allows pole bams in the farm zone. Cottage Grove and Inver Grove Heights are the only comparable cities that allow pole barns within their farm zone. In Maplewood, the size of the pole barn is limited to the accessory structure ordinance as stated above. Any size over that allowed by the ordinance can only be constructed with a conditional use permit, as is the case with Mr. Schlomka's request for a 4,224 square foot pole barn. Proposed Code Changes As seen in Hugo and Lake Elmo, the City of Maplewood has existing farm-zoned land that is not being used for farming or nurseries. The city should make accommodations for these property owners to enable them an economical use of their farm-zoned land, while ensuring that surrounding properties are protected with strict controls and regulations of the nonagricultural uses. A landscape-type business similar to Mr. Schlomka's business is a comparable use to a farm or nursery because of the similar commercial vehicles. For this reason, staff recommends allowing this type of business, and other similar types of businesses, with a conditional use permit within the farm zone on property of 4 or more acres. The city should consider the following when reviewing such requests: Storage of Equipment: With a landscape-type business comes commercial vehicles and equipment. Other items that may be stored on the site are landscaping materials such as sOil, rock, wood chips, etc. The city should ensure that all of these items are stored indoors, out of the sight of adjacent property owners. Any amendment to the farm zone code to allow landscape-type businesses should specify that the business must be conducted solely within the house or an accessory structure, with no exterior storage allowed. Farm Zone Amendment 3 August 1, 2001 Size of Accessory Structure: Maplewood currently has a fairly lenient accessory structure ordinance. Basing the size of allowable accessory structures on the size of the lot is a fair system, as the larger the lot, the less likely a large structure will pose a negative impact on surrounding properties. Having a maximum size of one accessory structure limited to 1,250 square feet for larger lots is a way for the city to protect surrounding residential properties. For example, the larger the accessory structure, the more likely larger items, such as commercial vehicles, will be stored in them and the more likely the structure will be used for a commercial venture. Requiring conditional use permits for larger accessory structures is a mechanism for the city to control the storage and use conducted in the structure. As you will recall, Mr. Schlomka originally applied for a conditional use permit to construct a 4,224 square foot pole barn. It was during staff's review of his original request that the landscape business and commercial vehicles were discovered. For these reasons, staff feels that the accessory structure ordinance should · remain as is, and no accommodations for larger accessory structures on lots over 42,000 square feet should be made at this time. Setback of Accessory Structure: The city's code specifies greater setback requirements for businesses that abut residential property. Staff feels that these setback requirements should also apply to an accessory structure used for a landscape-type business within the farm zone. The code bases the setback on the exterior wall area, ranging from 50 to 100 feet (Attachment 5). Accessory structures for a landscape-type business would more than likely fall into the wall area category of 0 to 1,999 square feet, and must therefore maintain at least a 50-foot setback to residential property. When farm-zone property is adjacent commercial, the accessory structure ordinance should apply and allow for a 5-foot rear or side yard setback. Number and Storage of Commercial Vehicles: Mr. Schlomka is requesting permission to store two pickup trucks, one bobcat, one backhoe, one bulldozer, one front-end loader, one dump truck, and two trailers for his landscaping business. The city's farm zone does not restrict the number of commercial vehicles or equipment allowed for commercial farms or nurseries. Since the comparison has been made that a landscape-type business is similar to a farm or nursery, commercial vehicles and equipment for this type of business should not be restricted either. Mr. Schlomka is also requesting a larger accessory structure in which to store all of his commercial vehicles to ensure that they are out of sight of the neighbors. Any code amendments to the farm zone should also specify that all commercial vehicles and equipment associated with this type of business must be stored in an accessory structure. Screening and Lighting: When a business is adjacent residential property, the city's code specifies a 20-foot screening buffer and lighting limited to 0.4 foot-candles at the adjacent residential property. The screening buffer includes one or a combination of the following: a 6-foot high screening fence, a planting screen, and a berm. The screening requirements can be waived if the topography, existing vegetation, or other barriers create an adequate screen. Staff feels that both of these screening Farm Zone Amendment 4 August1,2001 and lighting requirements apply to an accessory structure used for a landscape-type business within the farm zone as well. Employees: A landscape-type business within farm-zoned property should meet the employee requirements specified in the city's home occupation ordinance. The ordinance states that no more than one nonresident employee shall be allowed to work on the premises. A nonresident employee who works off-premises may be allowed to visit the premises to pick up equipment. Hours of Operation and Noise: A landscape-type business has the possibility of creating unacceptable noise levels for adjacent property owners with commercial vehicles warming up early in the morning or being repaired late in the evening. For this reason, the city should specify the hours of operation for this type of business and be diligent in its enforcement. Staff recommends following the city's noise ordinance, which specifies no disturbing or loud noises between the hours of 7 p.m. to 7 a.m., Monday through Saturday, and all day Sunday. RECOMMENDATION Approval of the ordinance amendment in order to allow landscaping and other similar businesses in the farm zone with a conditional use permit. P:ord\farm zone amend Attachments: 1. Farm Zone Ordinance 2. Farm Zone Map 3. Comparison of Farm Zoning 4, Accessory Structure Ordinance 5. Setbacks Required for Business Adjacent Residential 6. Ordinance Amending the Farm Residence District Farm Zone Amendment 5 August 1,2001 ATTACHMENT 1 FARM ZONE ORDINAN( § 36-51 MAI'I,EWOOD CODE DIVISION 2. F FARM RESIDENCE DISTRICT* Sec. 36-51. Permitted uses. The only uses permitted in a F, Farm Residence District are: (1)Any uses permitted in thc R-1 Residence District subject to its regulations. (2)Commercial farming or gardening, including the use or storage of associated equipment. (3) Commercial greenhouses or nurseries. (4) Stands for the sale of agricultural products produced on the premises. (Ord. No. 627, § 2, 6-27-88; Ord. No. 687, § i, 5-13-91) Sec. 36-52. Conditional uses. The following uses may be permitted by conditional use permit: (1) Any use allowed by conditional use in the R-1 Residence District, except that equipment used for on-site farming shall be a permitted use. (2) Livestock raising and handling. (3) Manufactured home park. (4) Golf course. {Ord. No. 627, § 2, 6-27-88) Sees. 36-53--36-65. Reserved. *Editor's note---Section 2 of ()rd. No. 627, adopted June 27, 1988, amended Art. I1, Div. 2 in ira entirety to read as ~,t out herein. Formerly, Div. 2, contain~l §§ 36-51 and 36-52, which per 'rained to permitted uses and automatic rczonisqI or pk~tting in this district ami d{wived from Code 1965, §§ 903.010, 912.02(}; Ord. No. 431, [ t, adopted Oct. 27, 1977; and Ord. No. 493, § I, :tdopted Nov. 20, 1980. No. 12 2222 ATTACHMENT 2 City of Maplewood Farm Zoning (Residential) icek Site Farm Zoned Property - 4 or More Acres (35 Parcels) Farm Zoned Property - Less than 4 Acres (372 Parcels) N S Paul Schlomka's 7 COMPARISON OF FARM ZONING Attachment 3 Cottage Grove 1-1/2 acres Agricultural/ Stables and kennels 2,500 2 Yes feedlots if located at least 300' from adjacent dwelling Hugo 10 acres Agricultural/ 1,000 No horticultural or one structure nursery stock 2,050-3,300 2 Home occupations Home occupations combined (if not in an access. (if in an access. (< 10 acres) structure, not more structure, no exterior than one 9,200 storage, can't generate 3,600 3 g.v.w, truck) more than 10 vehicle combined trips per day) (10 > acres) Inver Grove Heights 10 acres Agricultural/ Stables and kennels 1,000 1 Yes, with greenhouses or (< 5 acres) CUP nurseries 2,400 2 (5 > acres) Lake Elmo 40 acres Agricultural/ Greenhouse, stable, 1,000 2 No horticultural kennel, commercial (< 10 acres) recreation 2,000 2 Non-agricultural Iow- (10 > acres) impact uses: storage of vehicles under 26,000 tare weight (limited to 4% of 40- acre pamel) Maplewood 10,000 s.f. Agricultural/ Heavy commercial 786-1,250 no Yes greenhouse/ vehicles - except if one structure limit nursery used for on-site (< 1 acre) farming 1,188-2,250 combined (< 1 acre) 1,250 one structure (> 1 acre) 2,500 combined (> I acre) Woodbury 5 acres Agricultural - only Compatible use 2,000 2 No if pre-existing as determined by city council 8 ATTACHMENT 4 ACCESS. STRUCTURE ORDINANC Sec. 36-77. Accessory buildings. (a) The areas of accessory buildings on a lot shall be limited to the areas in the following table: lot arco (sq. fl.) Under 8.000 8,000-11,999 12,000-15,999 16,000-20,999 21,000-41,999 42,000 ~ (4) (2) (3) Combination Detached Attached of detached bldgs, without garages and attached an attached without garage* garage bldgs, buildings 786 768 1,188 1,000 1,000 1,420 1,000 1,000 1,480 1,100 1,000 1,660 1,250 1,250 1.850 1,250 (garages} 1,250 2,500 1,000 (all other bldgs. I *The total area of all detached accessory buildings shall not ex- coed the areas in column (2). The total of all attached garages shall not exceed the areas in column (3). (b) A private garage shall not exceed sixteen (16) feet in height as viewed from the street. (c) The city council may approve an increase in height or area by conditional use permit. Itowever, the maximum area of any one building shall not exceed the maximum area allowed for an attached garage in subsection (a) and the height shall not exceed the height ol' the house. (d) Detached garages shall not include living space. No com- inertial use of a garage shall occur unless authorized by the city council. tOrd. No. 621, § 2, 2.22-88; Ord. No. 636, § 1, 11-11-88; Ord. No. 6,15, § 1, 6-22-89) ~ ...... ~. ,(~ 2226.3 ATTACHMENT 5 SETBACKS REQUIRED FOR BUSINESS ADJACENT RESIDENTI/ Sec. 36-28. Additional design standards. (a) All construction and landscaping shall comply with the pl;,"'~ approved by the city. (6) C~nstruct all buildings, except single- and two-family homes, with the following minimum setbacks: a. Thirty (30~ feet from a street right-of-way. (7) bo Fifty (50) feet from a residential lot line. This setback shall be increased up to one hundred (100) 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 (1) 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 from the residential lot line shall be as follows: Minimum Setback Wall Area (square feet) (feet) 0--1999 50 2000t2999 75 3000 or more 100 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. 10 ORDINANCE NO. Attachment 6 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FARM RESIDENCE DISTRICT The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances: Section 1. This amendment adds subdivision (5) to Section 36-52 (Farm Residence District Conditional Uses) (additions are underlined): Section 36-52. Conditional uses. The following uses may be permitted by conditional use permit: Landscaping business, or any other similar use that is determined to be the same general character as a landscape business, if on a parcel of land which is four (4) acres or larger. Where there is a question concerning the appropriateness of a similar use as a conditional use within the farm residence district, the planning commission shall review the question and forward a recommendation to the city council for final determination. The landscaping business must meet the findings for a conditional use permit as well as the following: a. No exterior storage of commercial vehicles, equipment, or material associated With the business. Storage of these items must be in an approved accessory structure which meets the findings below: The accessory structure must meet the size and height requirements as specified in Section 36-77 (Accessory Structures). When adjacent a residential lot, the accessory structure must comply with the setback requirements specified in Section 36-28(c)(6)(b) (Additional Design Standards). When adjacent to a commercial lot, the accessory structure must comply with Section 36-71 and 36-72 (Residential Side and Rear Setbacks for Accessory Structures). When adjacent a residential lot, the accessory structure, and other areas of the lot where deemed necessary, shall comply with Section 36-27(a), (bi, (c), and (d) (Landscaping and Screening). No more than one (1) nonresident employee shall be allowed to work on the premises. The hours of operation are limited to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect after the city publishes it in the official newspaper. The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on ,2001. Attest: City Clerk Ayes - Nays - Mayor 1! MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Voting Requirements for Zoning Ordinance Amendments and Zoning Map Changes August 1, 2001 BACKGROUND The City's Zoning Code, Article VII, Section 36-484 states that the city council may adopt and amend the city's zoning ordinance or map by a two-thirds majority vote of all its members. To summarize, Maplewood's city council would have to vote at least 4 to 1 in favor of a requested amendment to a zoning ordinance or change to the zoning map for approval. This section of the zoning ordinance is mandated by Minnesota's planning and enabling law (Section 2000, Chapter 462) which gives municipalities the power to conduct and implement municipal planning. During the 2001 Minnesota Legislative Session, the Builders' Association of Minnesota (BAM) and the Minnesota Association of Realtors (MAR) requested changes to the above-mentioned law. The BAM and MAR proposed changes to building code interpretation, plan review fees, and zoning ordinances. These changes were proposed in an attempt to reduce market barriers to building more affordable homes. The changes were adopted by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor. A section of the new law affects the voting requirements for zoning ordinance amendments and zoning map changes. Minnesota Statutes 2000, section 462.357, subdivision 2 (attached) was amended to require a majority vote (at least 3 out of 5 in favor) of all governing body members for amendments to zoning ordinances or changes to zoning maps. An exception to this requirement is the adoption or amendment of any portion of a zoning ordinance that changes all or part of the existing classification of a zoning district from residential to commercial or industrial. In this case, the governing body must have a two-thirds ma~-~rity vote (at least 4 out of 5 in favor) of all its members. This law went into effect May 30, 2001, and takes precedence over the city's current zoning ordinance. As a housekeeping measure, and to comply with the new state requirements, staff is proposing a zoning code amendment. This change is to reflect the new majority vote requirements for amendments to zoning ordinances or changes to zoning maps. RECOMMENDATION Approve the proposed ordinance amendment. This amendment changes the voting requirements for zoning code amendments and zoning map changes. P\ord\amendments and changes Attachments: 1. Minnesota Statutes 2000, section 462.357, subdivision 2 2. Ordinance Amending the Amendments and Changes Article ,~.....__~ ,,~ ,.~-----~- -~ - ATTA~M~ 1 House .of .Represen v ~: ~ = old language to be removed ~~/ = new language to be added NOI"E: If you cannot s~ any difference in the key above, you need to changc the displa~of stricken m2cl/or underscored hnguage. " Authors and Status · List versions I-l, 1~ No. 1310, 4th Engrossment: 82nd Legislative Session (2001-2002) Posted on May 23,2001 1.1 A bill for an act 1.2 relating to construction; giving the state building 1.3 official final authority for interpreting the State 1.4 Building Code and prescribing its enforcement; 1.5 regulating construction-related fees; requiring 1.6 municipalities to submit annual reports on Z.7 construction-related fees; providing for adoption of 1.8 c~rtain amendments to the mechanical code; limiting 1.9 certain municipal building code ordinances; clarifying 1.10 certain terms; modifying provisions relating to Z.11 construction warranties; limiting car:sin waivers of 1.12 rights; modifying provisions relating to zoning 1.13 ordinances; amending Minnesota Statutes 2000, sections 1.14 16B.61, subdivisions 1, 2; 16B.62, subdivision 1; 1.15 168.63, by adding a subdivision; 326.90, subdivision 1.16 1; 327A.01, subdivision 2; 327A.02, subdivisions 1, 3; 1.17 462.353, subdivision 4; 462.357, subdivisions 2, 5; 1.18 proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, 1.19 chapters 16Bt 462. 1.20 BEIT~--~-~BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: _ 1.21 ~ Minnesota Sta:utes 2000, section 16B.61, 1.22 subdivision 1, is amended to read: 1.23 Subdivision 1. [ADOPTION OF CODE.] Subject to sections 1.24 16B.59 to 16B.75, the commissioner shall by rule establish a 1.25 code of standards for the construction, reconstruction, 1.26 alteration, and repair of buildings,:governing matters of 1.27 structural materials, design and construction, fire protection, 1.28 health, sanitation, and safety, including design and 1.29 construction standards regarding heat loss control, 1.30 illumination, and climate control. The code must conform 1-31 insofar as practicable to model building codes generally 1.32 accepted and in use throughout the United States, including a 2.1 code for building conservation. In the Preparation of the code, 2.2 consideration must be given to the existing statewide specialty 2.3 codes presently in use in the state. Model codes with necessary 2.4 modifications and statewide specialty codes may be adopted by 2.5 reference. The code must be based on the application of 2.6 scientific principles, approved tests, and professional 2.7 'judgment. To the extent possible, the code must b= adopted in 2.8 terms of desired results instead of the means of achieving those 2.9 resultm, avoiding wherever possible the incorporation of 2.10 specifications of particular methods or materials. To that end 2.11 the code must encourage the use of new methods and new h~p:#~ww..~revis~r~eg.st~e~ran~u~gi~birdgetbi~?sessi~n~2&versi~n=~est&number-~H~ 310 6/5/01 2.12 materials. Except as ctherwi~pr~vi~e~ in sections 16B.59 2.13 16B.75, the commissioner shall administer and enforce the 2.14 provisions of =hose sections. 2.15 The commissioner shall d~v~lOD rules addre~sin= the 2.16 ' w ' . · . . 2.17 ' ' · . ' ' ~.is .... T' ' ' 2.19 · · . . . 2.20 · · w' 2.21 direct amd indirect costs of the service. 2.23 subdivision 2, is amended to read: 2.24 Subd. 2. [ENFORCEMEN? BY CERTAIN BODIES.] Under the' 2.25 direction and supervision of the commissioner, the provisions of 2.26 the coda relating to electrical installations shall be enforced 2.27 by the state board of elestricity~ pursuant to the Minnesota 2.28 Electrical Act, the provisions relating to plumbing shall be 2.29 enforced by the commissioner of health, the provisions relating 2.30 to high pressure stemmplplng and appurtenances shall be 2.31 enforced by the department of labor and industry. Fees for 2.32 inspections conducted by the state board of electricity shall be 2.33 paid in accordance with the rules of the state board of 2.34 electricity. Under direction of the commissioner of public 2.35 safety, the state fire marshal shall enforce the Minnesota 2.36 Uniform Fire Code as provided in chapter 299F. The 3.1 ¢ ' ' 'n ' w h · · h '' 3.2 ~ . 'n 3.3 ~.4 p~p~' d~ for proces~ 3.5 [EFFECTi~ DATE.] Tlli,~_a~otion is effective the d~ ~.6 ~mllowin= final enactmen%~ 3.7 3.8 ~ba~vi~sT~n 1, is amended to read: 3.9 Subdivision 1. [MUNICIPAL ENTORC~MENT.] The State Building 3.10 Cod~ applies statewide and supersedes the building code of any 3.11 municipality. · · 3 -12 v . . 3.14 · 3.15 · v 3.16 ' ' w' v 3.18 · · " ' ' 3.19 ' o ' 'v ' . ' al 3.20 * · 3.21 n ' 'v .... 3.22 ri ' ' The State Building Code does 3.23 not apply tO agricultural buildings except with respect to state 3.24 inspections required or rulemsking authorized by sections 3.25 103F.141, 216C.19, subdivision 8, and 326.244. All 3.26 municipalities shall adopt and enforce the State Building Code 3.27 with respect to new construction within their respective 3.~8 Jurisdictions.. 3.29 If a city has adopted or is enforcing the State Building 3.20 Code on June 3, 1977, or determines by ordinance after that date 3.21 to undertak~ enforcement, it shall enforce the code within the 3.32 city. A city may by ordinance extend the enforcement of the 3.33 COde to contiguous unincorporated territory not more than two 3.34 miles distant from its corporate limits in any direction. Where 3.35 two or more noncontiguous cities which have elected to enforce ~.36 the code have boundaries less than four miles apart, each is ~.1 authorized to enforce the code on its side of a line ~quidi~tant 4.Z between them. Once ~nforcement authority is extended h~p-#www revisor leg stme mn us/cg~ bin/g~b~ l~cssm~ ...... "' ' 'P" ' =~82&ve~n=la~est&number=Hi310 6/5/01 1.3 4.5 1.6 4.7 J.8 ~.9 t.10 ~-ll 4.12 4.13 extraterritoriallY by ordinance, the authority may continue to be exercised in the designated territory even though another city les~ than four miles distant later elects to enforce the code. After the extension, the city may enforce the code in the designated area to the same extent as if the property were situated within its corporate limits. A city which, on June 3, 1977, had not adopted the code may not commence enforcement of the code within or outside of its jurisdiction u~til i~ has provided written notice to the commissioner, the county auditor, and the town clerk of each town in which it intende to enforce =he code. A public hearing 4.14 on the proposed enforcement must be held not less than 30 days 4.15 after the notice has been provided. Enforcement of the code by 4.16 the city outside of its jurisdiction commences on the first day 4.17 of January in the year following the notice and hearing. 4.18 Municipalities may provide for the issuance of Permits, 4.19 inspection, and enforcement within their jurisdictions by means 4.20 which are convenient, and lawful, including by means of 4.21 contracts with other municipal/ties pursuant to section 471.59, 4.22 and with qualified individuals. The other municipalities or 4.23 qualified individuals may be reimbursed by retention or 4.24 remission of some or all of the building permit fee collected or 4.25 by other means. Ia areas of the state where inspection and 4.26 enforcement is unavailable from qualified employees of 4.27 municipalities, the commissioner shall train and designate 4.28 4.29 4.30 4.31 4.32 4.33 4.34 4.35 4.36 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 ~.o_r_ final interpretations relatt 5.10 LLnal_in~e 5 11 - " ate level · ~ code board of 5 12 5.13 ~ ' o f m h' 'v { . 5 .!4 o ' 5.15 .~ ' w' ' , v w 5.~6 --~ ' i 5 17 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ~umia~m ' c · ' w' v' 'w 5 18 5. ~9 ~--~J~ ' ' sion~_~ ,~ 5.20 ~ , o ' ' 0 5.21 · . . i wi h n 'n ets 5,22 5.23 ' tA~'~j~l~i~n~'i, _' ' ~t-r all fins~ sued by the stat~ 5.24 ~ . 5.25 5.29 ~'5 D.4,, ~./..~ http/~www-rev]sor.]¢g, state.mn, us/cg[.bin/getb~ -lgscssion=~-e'~-------- ..... . ' '~' ' individuals available to carry out inspection and enforcement on a fee basis. ~ this section 9rohibits a ~IO~ - relatin~ to zoning, subdivision, o, ~N~l~~$.he ordinance conflisJL~--~L~b_~_Drovision Of $-~~lding Code that reoulates mommDnents or systems of any resi~t~al ~tructurg~ ~ __ Sec. 4. Minnesota Statutes 2000, section 16B.63, ~ended by adding a s~division to read: ' ~~ [INTERP~TATIVE AUTNORITY ] ~ a=hi~v~ ..... - ' ' '~ 'c' ' ~te~ · · ~ e Z ' · ~ ' t d ~ e' ' , ' . -aaus:~y ~eD~ese~.~shal .~.OC I 5.30 vm ' · 5.31 r-~t. whichever ~$ greater, for the imDrovementL 5.32 ins~on, or replacement of a residential- fixture 5.33 ~oDlianc~__~ $.34 5.35 ~ ~ 5.36 6.1 · .. ~ ' 6.2 .- . 6.5 6.6 -e ....... :' d · 6.B 6.9 ' ' h 6.10 ·. ' 6.13 ~2) the ~o~n~ of build~n~ ~e~t f~as, plan review fees. 6.14 'n' ' e 6.15 ~r i i r 6.16 - · 6.17 ' u ' ' 'v' ' 6.18 6.20 S~division 1. [LOCAL LICENSE PROHIBITED.] Except as 6.21 provided in ~ections ~ 326.90, subdivision 2, 6.22 ~~ a ~litical subdivision may not require a person 6.23 licensed =rider sections 326.83 to 326.991 to also be licensed 6.24 ~ reuistration or other f~.~ related to licensur~ under any 6.25 or~nance, law, rule, or repletion of the political 6.26 z~division. This section does not prohibit charge~ for 6.27 building pe~its or other charges not directly =elated 6.Z8 licensure. 6.30 s ision 2, is amended to read: 6.~1 S~d. ~. [BUILDING STANDARDS.] "Building standards- means 6.32 the 6.33 - · . . ' ' . 6.34 · . - 6.35 ~of ~~ ' a~inistration~~ 7.1 · 7.2 7.3 sub=lvi~on 1', is amended to read: 7.4 S~division i. [W~NTIES BY VENDORS.] In every sale of a 7.5 completed dwelling, and in every contract for the sale of a 7.6 dwelling to be completed, the vendor shall warrant to the vendee 7.7 that: 7.8 (a) during the one-year period from and after the warranty 7.9 date the dwelling shall be free from defects caused by faulty 7.10 wor~anship and defective materials due to noncompliance with 7.11 building standards; 7.12 (b) during the two-year period from and after t~ warranty 7.13 date, the dwelling shall be free from d~fects caused by faulty 7.14 installation of PlYing, electrical heat' . · 7.15 systems ~to noncompliance with bulhdin-~n~' ~nd,coollng u s=anoar,.s; and 7 16 (c) during the ten-year Deriod from and after th~ warranty 7.17 date, the dwelling shall be free from major construction defects 7.18 ~~~Dliance with buildi~. 7.19 ~ ~innesota Statutes 2000, section 327A.02,~~'~~O 7.20 subdivision 3, is ~ended to read: ~ ~ .... "~"~ ~=rs~n=m~es~n~H ] 3 7.21 Subd. 3. '[~OME IMPROVEMENT WARRARTIES.] (a) In a sale or 7.22 in a contract for the sale of home improvement work involving 7.23 major structural changes or additions to a residential building, 7.24 the home improvement contractor shall warrant to the owner that: 7.25 (1) during the one-year period from and after the warranty 7.26 date the home improvement shall be free from defects caused by 7.27 faulty workmanship and defective materials due to noncompliance 7.28 with building standards; and 7.29 (2) during the ten-year period from and after the warranty 7.30 date the home improvement shall be free from major construction 7.31 defects due to noncompliance with building standard~:. 7.32 (b) In a sale or in a contract for the sale of home 7.33 improvement work involving the installation of pl~mbing, 7.34 electrical, heating or cooling syste~, the home improvement 7.35 contractor shall warrant to the owner that, during the two-year 7.36 period from and after the warranty date, the home i~rovement 8.1 shall be free from defects caused by the faulty installation of 8.2 the system or systems due to noncompliance with buildino' 8.4 (¢) In a sale or in a contract for the sale of any home 8.5 improvement work not covered by paragraph (a) or (b), the home 8.6 improvement contractor shall warrant to the owner that, during 8.7 the one-year period from and after the warranty date, the home 8.8 improvement shall be free from defects caused by faulty 8.9 workmanship or defective materials due to noncompliance with 8.10 b~andards. 8.11 (. ~ec. 1~ Minnesota Statutes 2000, section 462.353, ) suD~vision 4, is mended to read: ~(~'~'~ 8.13 Subd. 4. [FEES.] A municipality may prescribe fees 8.14 sufficient to defray the costs incurred by it in reviewing, '8.15 investigating, and administering an application for an a/nenc~ent 8.16 to an official control established pursuant to sections 462.351 8.17 to 462.364 or an application for a perrait or other approval 8.18 required under an official control established pursuant to those 8.19 sections. Fees as prescribed ~4~ mus~ be by ordinance and 8.20 must__~)_~fir, reasonab~ ~,~ ...... ~: 8.23 ~ 8.24 ~. . 8.25 /~~e arises over a s~eclfic fee imposed by a 8.26 - 8.27 ~sited and held in escrow, and the person 8.29 r v~ a i ' n ~ h D i 8.30 8.32 ~~.[462.3531] [WAIVER OF RIGHTS.] 8.35 ~ ' . eal ~nder ' 8.36 ~ n ec ' 9.1 . s w' not be subject to appeal 9.2 ~) the increases are a resul%~ re~ests made by th~ 9.3 ~~~roDertv o~er; or 9.4 - 9.8 Subd. 2. [GENE~L ~QUI~NTS.] ~ At any time after 9.9 adoption of a land use plan for the municipality, the planning 9.10 agency, for the purpose of carrying out the policies and goals 9.11 of the land use plan, may prepare a proposed zonin~ ordinance ..... "' E ' 'P · ' =~82a~ersbn=late~n~Hi3 ]0 6/5/0~ 6 { 9.13 adoption. 9.14 _(b~ Subject to the requirements of subdivisions 3, 4, and " 9 15 5, the governing body may adopt and amend a zoning ordinance by / 9.16 a ' ' v o ·. a 9.17 D-f--=~lY~nln~ ordinance Which changes all 9.18 ~f the existi~ classification of a zoni~0 district fro~ \ 9.19 r~sidential to-either commercial or industrial re_ouires 9.20 two-thirds ~kO~E~ vote of all ~member~ Df the oovernivtg 9.22 ~ The dln~_~_=plan must provide guidelines for the 9.23 timing and sequence of the adoption of official controls to 9.24 ensure planned, orderly, and staged development and 9.25 r~t consistent with the 1AD&~!~plan 9.26 ~-9~=' l~--~ Minnesota Statutes 2000, sectio ' .357 9.27 - . . . subdivision 5, ~s amended to'read: n 462 , 9.28 Subd. 5. [AMENDMENT; CERTAIN CITIES OF T~E FIRST CLASS.] 9.29 The provi~ions of this subdivision apply W ' 9.33 · ' property locat~L~ of the first class, except a city of 9.34 the first class in which a different proces~ is provided through 9.35 the operation of the city's home rule charter. In a city tO 9,36 which this subdivision applies, amendments to a zoning ordinance 10.1 ~hall be made in conformance with this section but only after 10.2 there shall have been filed in the office of the city clerk · 0.3 written consent of the owners of two-thirds of the several ~0.4 descrlption~ of real estate situate within 100 feet of the total 1D.5 contiguous descriptions of real estate held by the same owner or 10.6 any party purchasing any such contiguous property within one 10.7 year preceding the request, and after the affirmative vote in 10.8 favor thereof by a majority of the members of the governing body 10.9 of any such'city. The governing body of such city may, by a 10.10 two-thirds vote of its members, after hearing, adopt a new I0.11 zoning ordinance without such written consent whenever the 10.12 planning commission or planning board of ~uch city ~hall have 10.13 ma~e a survey of the whole area of the city or of an area of not 10.14 less than 40 acres, within which the new ordinance or the 10.15 amendments or alterations of the existing ordinance would take ~0.16 effect when adopted, and shall have considered whether the 10.17 number of descriptions of real estate affected by such changes 10.].8 and alterations renders the obtaining of such written consent 10.19 impra=tical, and such planning commission or planning board 10.20 shall report in writing as to whether in its opinion the 10.21 proposals of the governing body in any case are reasonably 10.22 related to the overall needs of the community, to existing land 10.23 use, or to a plan for future land use, and shall have conducted 10.24 a public hearing on such proposed ordi 10.25 alterations, of which he~ ......... ~anc~ changes or -~,,~ ~uo~sne~ no,lee shall have been 10.26 given in a daily newspaper of general circulation at least once 10.27 each week for three successive weeks prior to such hearing, 10.28 which notice shall state the time, place and purpose of such 10.29 hearing, and shall have 'reported to the governing body of the 10.30 city.its findings and recommendations in writing. 10.31 Sec. 15. [EFFECTIVE DATE.] 10.32 ~s 5 and 11 are effective 10.33 /b~8 to 10, 13, and 14 are ef~ng~L~/e the ~_~ 10.3~ ~ _final ~naetment 10.35 http:#www, revisor.leg.state.mn, us/cgi, bin/getbill.nl?session=~ 9 o ..... . r - ~°-~v~rszon=latcst~number=H1310 6/5/01 Attachment 2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE AMENDMENTS AND CHANGES ARTICLE The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances: Section 1. This amendment revises Section 36-484 (Council Vote Required) (additions are underlined and deletions are stricken): Section 36-484. Council vote required. The city council may adopt and amend a zoning ordinance, including an amendment to this chapter which includes the zoning map, by a majority t'::c thirds vote of all its members. A__Qn exception to this requirement is the adoption or amendment of any portion of a zoning ordinanCe that changes all or part of the existing classification of a zoning district from residential to commercial or industrial. In this case, the city council must approve such a change by a two- thirds maiority vote of all its members. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect after the city publishes it in the official newspaper. The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on ,2001. Attest: Mayor City Clerk Ayes - Nays -