Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/05/2001BOOk MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, February 5, 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. January 17, 2001 5. Unfinished Business a. Residential parking ordinance New Business a. Highway 61 Frontage Road right-of-way vacation (3007 Maplewood Drive) 7. Visitor Presentations o Commission Presentations a. January 22 Council Meeting: Mr. Ahlness b. February 12 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler c. February 26 Council Meeting: Mr. Mueller d. March 12 Council Meeting: Mr. Ledvina Staff Presentations a. Reschedule February 19 meeting (Presidents Day Holiday) - Tuesday February 20? 10. Adjournment WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OIF THE 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. 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. jwlpc~pcagd Revised: 01/95 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 17, 200'1 II. III. IV. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. 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: Recording Secretary: APPROVAL OF AGENDA Present Present Present Present Absent Present Present Present Absent Melinda Coleman, Assistant City Manager Lori Hansen Commissioner Ledvina moved approval of the agenda, as submitted. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes-All The motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 2, 1001. Commission Frost moved approval of the minutes of January 2, 1001. Commissioner Rossbach seconded the motion. Ayes-5 (Frost, Fischer, Mueller, Trippler, Ahlness) Abstentions-2 (Ledvina, Rossbach) Vo The motion passed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. Planning Commission -2- Minutes of 01-17-01 VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Conditional Use Permit-Lot Division (1101 County Road C). Melinda Coleman, Assistant City Manager, gave the staff report for the city. Mr. Callahan, the applicant, is requesting city approval of a conditional use permit to divide a 140-foot-wide lot into two 70-foot wide lots. This property is on County Road C just west of Highway 61. The Maplewood city code allows interior lots with widths between 60 and 75 feet in the R-1 zone with city council approval of a conditional use permit (CUP). Mr. Callahan is requesting this CUP for a lot split to construct two new homes. The new houses will be on the two new lots after Mr. Callahan demolishes or removes the existing house and garage from the property. Section 36-442 of the City Code gives nine standards for approval of conditional use permits. Section 36-69(2) of the City Code gives the following additional condition for approving new interior lots that are between 60 and 75 feet in width: "There are at least two developed lots-of-record with the same or less width than proposed, within 350 feet of the site on the street. Larger minimum side yard setbacks may be required to balance the separation between structures." This request meets the required findings for approval of a conditional use permit and for narrow- width lots. There are six lots on County Road C within 350 feet of the site that have a width of either 65 or 70 feet. This proposal is within character of what is happening along that street. The site is in the shoreland district of Kohlman Lake. The city code has several requirements for placement and design of the proposed single dwellings near lakes, including this site. These include a requirement that each lot be at least 20,000 square feet in area. The city code defines lot area as "the area of a lot, excluding drainage easements, wetlands and the land below the ordinary high water mark of public waters." Each of the proposed lots, however, would not have 20,000 square feet of buildable land outside of the wetland and lake area. Each lot would have about 8,000 to 10,000 square feet of buildable area. The shoreland code has a provision to deal with this situation. Section 36-566 (b)(1)(c) of the code says that the minimum lot requirements shall not apply to a development that is at least eighty (80) percent screened from view from at least eighty (80) percent of the shoreline during the summer. As such, if the applicant could prepare and implement a screening plan for the two lots that show how the new houses would be screened from the lake to meet the 80 percent requirement, then the city could approve the lot division. Section 36-573 of the city code says that "Each lot created through subdivision shall be suitable for development with minimal alteration. The city shall not consider lots suitable for development that would create any of the following effects: (1) Susceptibility to flooding; (2) filling of wetlands; (3) building on soils with severe development limitations; (4) creating severe erosion potential; (5) building on steep topography; (6) inadequate water supply or sewage treatment capabilities or (7) creating a loss of protected wildlife habitat." The proposed lot division can meet the above-listed objectives and the lots are suitable for development. Having two houses on this property, if the owner properly screens them from the lake and if the owner carefully places them on the property, should not cause any negative effects on the lake, on the environment or on the health, safety or welfare of the citizens. Planning Commission -3- Minutes of 01-17-01 This site is next to a Class I wetland. As such, the city has several regulations about the use of land and the placement of the structures near the wetland. Because the site is near a wetland and a lake, the city asked the staff of the Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District to comment on this proposal. They recO~[~l that ~t~e applicant not make any impact on the wetland as it would require a lengthy review under the Wetland Conservation Act. They also noted that since much of the buffer area had been disturbed they would only require the applicant to dedicate a 10-foot-wide no-disturb buffer instead the 100-foot-wide no-disturb buffer that the code would usually require. Both the shoreland code and the wetland code have language about the placement of structures near a lake and near a wetland. Section 36-566 (c)(1) of the code has language about the placement, design and height of structures in the shoreland areas. Specifically, this part of the code says that "where structures exist on the adjoining lots on both sides of a proposed building site, the owner or builder may change the structure's setbacks without a variance to meet the adjoining structures setbacks from the ordinary high water level." Section 9-196(d)(1)a of the city code says that the wetland setback regulations shall not apply to "structure, vegetation and maintenance activities and practice in existence on the date this ordinance becomes effective. (May 13, 1996.) A contractor or owner may remodel, reconstruct or replace affected structures if the new construction does not take up more buffer land than the structure used before the remodeling, reconstruction or replacement." These code sections say that the applicant may line up the rear of the new houses with the rear of the neighbor's houses and that the new construction may occur as long as it does not further impact the wetland buffer. The applicant has not yet submitted specific site plans for the proposed lots. It appears, however, that there is enough room on the two lots to meet the setback requirements of the shoreland code and those in the wetland regulations. Staff's recommendation is to approve the conditional use permit for the property at 1101 County Road C for Donald Callahan for two 70-foot wide interior lots in the R1 zoning district. The permit is subject to the noted conditions, with the first being the one Mr. Callahan would like to discuss with the commission. It states the construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The front setback for each house shall be 25 feet and the rear of each house shall not be more than 65 feet from the front property line. Staff feels there is a possibility of increasing that to 75 feet and still keep what is within the character of the neighborhood as long as the grading limits do not disturb the wetland easement. Mr. Trippler asked how many feet would be between the no disturb zone and the back of the house. Ms. Coleman responded by saying there would be about 13 feet to the line. Mr. Rossbach asked if tree planting is allowed in the buffered zone. Staff responded by saying a certain species is allowed to be planted there and this is something that should be reviewed by the DNR and watershed district. The city's goal is to screen the area with deciduous and coniferous trees so a buffer is created. Mr. Ledvina questioned the ordinance setback from the wetlands. He asked if it was the opinion of staff that the site falls into the category of remodeling, reconstruction, or replacement? Ms. Coleman confirmed that was their opinion. She added that there had been so much degradation of the whole area that they were comfortable with the development of the property as long as it was not encroaching any closer than what was presently happening. She also added that the DNR was comfortable with this proposal. Mr. Trippler asked why the house was not included in the demolition verbiage. Ms. Coleman stated when the lot is split, the garage will be ~ on each lot. From a practical standpoint, she felt both buildings would be demolished. Mr. Trippler would be more comfortable if the conditions stated the buildings would be demolished and properly disposed of. Planning Commission -4- Minutes of 01-17-01 Donald Callahan, 975 County Road C, the applicant, gave an overview of the project. He explained the area to the east of the property, which appears to be a ravine, was a driveway at one time. The present retaining wall is 8 to 10 feet high. The elevations of the homes are considerably above the wetland delineation. Mr. Callahan has talked with the DNR and one of the requests he will be making will be to create a channel out to the open water that would serve both lots. The expected size of the homes will be 2200 square feet and will include a triple garage. Mr. Rossbach was concerned with the side lot setbacks, the size of the homes being built and the homes blocking the view of the lake for neighbors. Mr. Callahan responded in saying the current plans do meet the side yard setbacks. The width of the existing home is basically the same width as the proposed attached three car garage. The footprint of the home is approximately 55x55. The distance between the two living areas of the proposed homes is 20 feet. The commissioners are concerned the main objective of the builder is putting as much house as possible on the land. Mr. Ledvina is not comfortable that the proposal fits the "grandfathering" requirement of remodeling, reconstruction or replacement for the wetland setback ordinance. He does not feel the construction of two new homes fits into that category. Mr. Mueller feels a smaller footprint would be more appropriate to preserve the wetland. Ms. Coleman reiterated that the commission has the right to recommend other setback requirements that would better suit the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Rossbach is in favor of splitting the lots only because of the pressure to increase the density and provide housing in the city. He does not feel developers need to fill every bit of land with as much homes as possible. In this particular case where the city is allowing a developer to build on a piece of land that is considered substandard on a shoreland lot, the city should be able to dictate what, and how much, is built on that parcel. He feels larger side yard setbacks would be appropriate. Mr. Ledvina stated in many cases where there is a reduction in the wetland buffer there is a monument placed on the edge of the buffer stating requirements not to mow or disturb the buffer, and feels the monument would be appropriate in this case. The planning commission suggested the following adjustments to the conditions in the recommendation: 1. Condition 1: change 65 feet to 70 feet. Add: In addition, the side yard setbacks shall be 20 feet total (either side). 2. A modification would be made to condition 5a which would now read: Remove or demolish the existing house and garage from the property in accordance with all applicable state demolition ordinances and ensure all demolition debris is properly disposed of in a licensed demolition landfill. 3. Condition 5e would be added to require one wetland easement marker per lot. Commissioner Frost moved the planning commission recommend to the city council to adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit for the property at 1101 County Road C for Donald Callahan. This permit is for the creation of two 70-foot-wide interior lots in the R-1 zoning district. This permit shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow site plans approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The site plans shall meet the following conditions: a. The front setback for each house shall be 25 feet. Planning Commission -5- Minutes of 01-17-01 The rear of each house shall not be more than 70 feet from the front property line. · There shall be at least 20 feet of side yards for each house - at least 10 feet on each side. The proposed construction 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. The applicant or building contractor shall provide a grading, drainage and erosion control plan with each building permit application. These plans shall show: The proposed house pad and the proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each lot. The house pads shall be such that minimize the grading on the lots so the builder can save as many of the existing trees on each lot as possible. Contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. This shall include the existing and proposed drainage patterns with elevations and contours for each lot. c. The wetland and the wetland buffer area being outside the grading limits. All proposed slopes on the construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. All retaining walls on the plans. Any new retaining walls taller than 4 feet require a building permit from the city. No grading beyond the property boundaries without temporary grading easements from the affected property owner(s). The city engineer must approve these plans before the city will issue a building permit. The applicant or building contractor providing the city a tree plan that: Shall be approved by the city engineer before building demolition or removal, site grading or final lot split approval. b. Shows where the developer or builder will remove, save or replace large trees. c. Shows no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. Shows the size, species and location of the replacement and screening trees. The deciduous trees shall be at least two and one half (2 '~) inches in diameter and shall be a mix of red and white oaks, ash, lindens and sugar maples. The coniferous trees shall be a mix of Austrian pine and other species. Before the city approves and stamps the lot division deeds, the applicant or owner shall complete the following: Remove or demolish the existing house and garage from the property according to all applicable state demolition ordinances. This is to ensure that the owner or contractor properly disposes all demolition debris in a licensed demolition landfill. b. Record a wetland buffer and drainage easement over all the property that is north Planning Commission Minutes of 01-17-01 Co -6- of the wetland buffer easement line shown on the survey on page 16 of this staff report. Provide city staff with a screening plan for each lot. This plan is to show how the applicant will meet the code requirement that the new houses be at least eighty (80) percent screened from view from at least eighty (80) percent of the shoreline of the lake during the summer. Prepare and record covenants with each lot that requires the property owners to keep the required screening on each lot. Install one permanent wetland buffer sign per lot. These signs shall be around the edge of the wetland buffer easement. These signs shall mark the edge of the easement and shall state there shall be no mowing, vegetation cutting, filling, grading or dumping beyond this point. City staff shall approve the sign design and location before the contractor installs them. The developer or contractor shall install these signs before the city issues building permits in this plat. Install survey monuments along the wetland boundary. 6. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes-6 (Fischer, Frost, Trippler, Rossbach, Ahlness, Mueller) Nays-1 (Ledvina) Mr. Ledvina's nay vote was due to his belief that this proposal does not meet the exemption for the variance process as it relates to the wetland setback. This proposal will go the city council on February 12, 2001. B. parking Lot Setback and Curbing Variances and Conditional Use Permit--Rose-Rice Auto (1908 Rice Street). Ms. Coleman gave the staff report for the city. Brad Beatty, of Rose-Rice Auto Sales, is requesting approval of a parking lot setback and curbing variances for his recent parking lot expansion and a conditional use permit for used car sales. Mr. Beatty recently paved the easterly part of the site. This is the unpaved side yard that has been used for unapproved car-parking by the previous owner, Jerry Anderson. The applicant has improved the property by residing the two buildings, adding a pitched roof to one of the buildings, and in general, cleaning up the site. He also removed the cars Mr. Anderson had parked on the grass east of the building. This project requires the following approvals: 1. A parking lot setback variance since the new parking lot is paved up the east (side) and north (front) lot lines. The city code requires that the parking lot have a five-foot side yard setback and a 15-foot front setback from the Roselawn Avenue right-of-way. (The applicant said that the new pavement is setback about 20 feet from the south lot line.) The applicant would also need a curbing variance since the code requires continuous concrete curbing around the new parking lot. 2. A CUP (conditional use permit). The city code requires a CUP for used car sales. The previous owner did not have this permit, as he was grandfathered in. The current owner needs a CUP because of the expansion of the paved parking lot. This property has been a continuous source of parking code violations when the previous owner Planning Commission Minutes of 01-17-01 -7- was in charge. The city has worked long and diligently to gain compliance on this site. Staff feels the building has been improved greatly. The current operation has been run very well and the appearance has improved greatly. Ms. Coleman stated "It was upsetting that the applicant made the parking lot improvements without working with the city on that improvement". David Parupsky, 3229 A. Casco Circle, Wayzata, was present to answer questions for the applicant. Mr. Parupsky explained the old, unpaved parking lot had been there for thirty years. When he was told by Mr. Ekstrand, Associate Planner, that the lot had to be paved, he paved it. Unfortunately, prior to paving, he did not apply for a permit or address setback requirements. State law requires that the city council make two findings in order to approve variances. First, they must determine that the applicant cannot meet the code because of "circumstances unique to the property." They must find that the applicant cannot meet the code due to some unique physical characteristic of the site. There is not unique circumstance in this case. The applicant could have met the setback and curbing requirements if they had checked with the city before paving this site. Secondly, the variances must meet the "spirit and intent of the ordinance." The purpose of the setback and curbing requirement are so parking lots do not crowd neighboring properties, so there is area provided for snow storage and landscaping for esthetics. Curbing also provides a neat edge to parking lots and controls storm water runoff. Staff appreciates the improvements the applicant has made at this site. Their buildings are attractive and the site is now nicely maintained. Mr. Beatty also did an excellent job of removing Jerry Anderson's cars from the unpaved side yard, which for a long time was an eyesore. Unfortunately, staff cannot make the finding that state law requires for the approval. Staff recommends that the applicant make the necessary changes and corrections to the new parking lot as follows: saw-cut the bituminous to meet the required five-foot side setback as well as the required 15-foot front setback; provide continuous concrete curbing around the south, north and east sides of the parking lot (keeping in mind that the required setbacks must be measured to the back edge of the curb); backfill behind the curbing and restore with sod. Staff is not recommending that variances be granted. Staff is recommending that the applicant make the necessary changes and corrections to the new parking lot as follows: Cut out the bituminous to meet the required 5-foot side yard setback as well as the 15 front yard set back and to provide continuous concrete curbing around the south, north and east sides of the parking lot. Also, backfilling where the pavement has been cut out. The operation to sell used cars does meet the intent of the ordinance. It is an activity that has been going on there for quite some time. Other than the setback and curbing issues, the applicant has greatly improved the corner by refurbishing the buildings and eliminating a long occurring eyesore. Staff recommended the approval of a conditional use permit with the condition that the applicant correct the parking lot issues. Staff would also recommend the applicant have until next summer to correct the issues since we are in the middle of winter. With the exception of the requirements to meet the setback and curbing requirements, the site plan looks fine. The parking lot should be striped according to parking spaces and drive aisles as required by code. This would be spaces that are 9 ~ feet by 18 feet and drive aisles of 24 feet Wide. Staff's recommendation is that the proposed parking lot setback and curbing variances be denied because they do not meet the findings required by state law. Strict enforcement of the code would not cause undue hardship because of the circumstances unique to the property. The applicant could have met the setback and curbing requirements without any hindrance by site characteristics. Two of the variances would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. The ordinance requires parking lot setbacks and curbed edges to maintain a neat appearance, control drainage and provide an on site area to store snow in the winter. Secondly, staff is recommending the commission to adopt the resolutions to approve the conditional use permit for used car sales at 1908 Rice Street. Commissioner Mueller was concerned with the cars that are parking on Roselawn Avenue. He also noted there is a 10-foot fence on the east and north side of the property facing Roselawn Planning Commission -8- Minutes of 01-17-01 Avenue with pavement that extends right up to the fence. Mr. Parupsky explained they did extended the asphalt up to the fence, but felt if they were to tear out the 5 feet of asphalt and re-sod, it would not change the appearance due to the 10-foot fence screening the view of this area. He was not aware of any cars parking on Roselawn Avenue. Ms. Coleman explained that she was not aware of the street parking either, and suggested a requirement could be added to the conditions that the applicant should designate customer parking on the site plan. The applicant explained at one time there were 130 "for-sale" cars on the lot, but currently there are only about 40. He felt that should leave plenty of parking for shoppers on the lot so they would not have to park on Roselawn Avenue. Commissioner Rossbach asked where the runoff from the parking lot flows. Mr. Parupsky stated the lot is sloped to the south side of the property where they will now be building a curb. Ms. Coleman explained the city is allowed to not require curbing if the public works director sees a reason for drainage purposes not to have curbing. In the conditions it states the plans for curbing must be submitted to staff for approval by the city engineer who will evaluate the parking lot for drainage control. She also stated, due to the ordinance change, the commission could give the engineer latitude to say there should not be curbing on that south side to allow for drainage. Mr. Rossbach also noted that the 10-foot fence is a cyclone fence that you can see through. Therefore, you could see whether there was grass or pavement on the other side of the fence. Mr. Parupsky confirmed that would be the case. Mr. Mueller reiterated the importance of parking being designated as customer parking so it is made obvious where they are to park. He also expressed his concern of having "one big corner" filled will asphalt, busses, and cars and across the road from a swimming beach for families. Mr. Rossbach moved the commission to recommend to the city council to: Al. Approve the proposed fifteen-foot parking lot setback variance from the north property line since the proposed variance does meet the following findings required by state law and it is a continuation of an existing parking lot and non-conforming use; it also meets the spirit and intent of the ordinance. A2. Deny the proposed parking lot setback and curbing variance on the east side of the lot since the proposed variance does not meet the following findings required by state law. 1. Strict enforcement of the code would not cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property. The applicant could have met the setback requirements without any hindrance by site characteristics. 2. The variances would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. The ordinance requires parking lot setbacks to provide room for snow storage and so not to crowd adjacent properties. B. To approve a conditional use permit for used car sales at 1908 Rice Street. This resolution also approves the recently expanded parking lot which maintains the existing nonconforming setback from Roselawn Avenue. Approval of the reduced front setback is because the continuation of the existing pavement setback would meet the spirit and intent of the code. The conditional use permit for car sales is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions: Planning Commission -9- Minutes of 01-17-01 VII. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city, except as stated below. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The applicant shall revise the site plan for staff approval as follows: ao Cut away the part of the new easterly parking lot which encroaches into the required fifteen-foot side setback area. b. The excess pavement material shall be removed from the site. The edges of the new parking lot shall be curbed with upright continuous concrete curbing. The plan for this curbing shall be submitted to staff for approval by the city engineer who will evaluate the parking lot for drainage control. The curbing requirement may be waived if deemed necessary for drainage purposes by the city engineer. So The required fifteen foot setback shall be measured to the back of the curb, if the engineer requires curbing, not to the parking lot edge. Stripe the parking spaces as required by code. The applicant shall designate four customer parking spaces on the west side of the building. There shall be one handicap-accessible parking space. This space must meet the requirements of the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act). The applicant shall complete these parking lot corrections by June 30, 2001. The city council shall review this permit at that time if the work is not completed. The council may extend this deadline if an extension is warranted. The city council shall review this permit annually as required by the code, unless they determine that there is no need for such subsequent reviews. Mr. Frost seconded. Ayes-All Motion carries. The proposal goes before city council on February 12th, 2001. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Mr. Bruce Anderson, Parks and Recreation Director, was present to share information on the Lake Links Trail Plan, During the last eighteen months Mr. Anderson has served on the technical advisory task force for the area wide Lake Links Trail Network Masterplan. Planning Commission -10- Minutes of 01-17-01 The planning for the project is now completed and is currently in the review process through the 13 communities and 2 counties involved in the process. This proposal will be going to the city council February 12 for their review and eventual adoption. The study area involved northeast Ramsey and Washington counties. The four main goals were to: 2. 3. 4. Establish a trail loop around White Bear Lake. Establish a trail loop around Silver Lake. Extend the Bruce Vento trail from Maplewood to the Hugo Trail System. A trail link to each of the above to the Gateway and Stillwater Trail System. The trail corridor for Maplewood follows County Road D at Highway 61 heading east to Century Avenue. The cost of the entire trail systems is about 12 million dollars for the complete 34 mile trail segment. Copies of the entire masterplan are available through Ms. Coleman. Commissioner Ledvina left the meeting at 8:55 p.m. VIII. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS A. Election of Planning Commission Officers: Mr. Frost moved the commission to reinstate the current slate of offices for the 2001 year: Lorraine Fischer, Chairperson and Jack Frost, Vice-Chairperson. Mr. Rossbach seconded. Ayes-5 (Frost, Rossbach, Mueller, Ahlness, Trippler) Abstention-1 (Fischer) B. January 8th City Council Meeting: Mr. Frost attended the meeting and gave his report. The ATP Monopole proposal was approved. The Independent Estates proposal was also approved. The seller of the property was allowed to continue his trucking operation with the elimination of some of the big vehicles on his property. He was given a 10 year extension, with a 2 year reviewal. The Mounds Park Academy addition and the Deer Management (Trap and Shoot) were also approved. A resolution was passed that Ramsey County could go forward with their 9 hole golf course. The Planning Commission reappointments were also approved. C. Mr. Ahlness will attend the January 22nd, 2001, city council meeting. D. Mr. Trippler will attend the February 12th, 2001, city council meeting. E. Mr. Mueller will attend the February 26th, 2001, city council meeting. F. Planning Commission 2000 Annual Report: Chairperson Fischer confirmed with Mr. Rossbach there were no further projects he would like added other than the ones that were adopted. G. Monopoles: Mr. Trippler wondered if the plan to create a new ordinance for monopoles would be resurrected. Ms. Coleman informed the commission that they have not forgotten about the request. The city has been working with the League of Minnesota Cities and some of the providers to draft a new ordinance. AT & T has filed a lawsuit against the city regarding the denial of Taste of India proposal. The city is working with AT & T to find an alternative site for them. When a draft of the ordinance is completed, the planning Commission and the providers will be included in the process. -11- IX. Mr. Trippler questioned why Christmas trees are not being picked up by the rubbish haulers. Ms. Fischer believed the licensing agreement for the rubbish haulers in the city of Maplewood is that they will indeed haul away Christmas Trees. Ms Coleman will research the problem. STAFF PRESENTATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Residential Parking Issues and Code Change January 29, 2001 INTRODUCTION On September 25, 2000, the city council again discussed the issue of residential parking. Because of strong support and interest in this issue, the city council directed staff to prepare city ordinance revisions about parking in residential areas. BACKGROUND On October 4, 1999, the council reviewed several concerns and alternatives about off-street parking in residential areas. The council had varying opinions and concerns with the proposed ordinance and took no action on the matter. Therefore, the city made no changes to the parking ordinance. On February 14, 2000, the city council again reviewed this matter. The council took no specific action at this meeting about residential parking issues but agreed to have this matter on an upcoming workshop agenda for further discussion. On December 6, 2000, the planning commission reviewed a draft ordinance amendment about parking in residential areas. The commission asked staff to make changes to the proposed ordinance and then bring the revised ordinance back to them for further review and comment. DISCUSSION Over the last 2- 3 years, staff has seen an increase in the number of complaints received about junk vehicles and cars parked in front yards. We are concerned that a large number of vehicles and improper storage can have a detrimental effect on the character of residential neighborhoods. In March of this year, the City Council asked staff to review city regulations about parking in residential areas. They also directed staff to seek public input on this issue. Before writing any new ordinances, staff and the city council felt that it would be beneficial to hear from the community and see how they feel about the issue. As such, we had information published in the Maplewood Review and the Maplewood in Motion. Several residents responded to our request for comments by writing or telephoning city staff and several persons spoke at the September 25, 2000, council meeting. The majority of the people that commented supported code changes as outlined by staff. The items or ideas listed in the articles included the following: Limiting the amount of driveway area or pavement in the front yard. Requiring a paved or hard surface area for parking. o Requiring all vehicles parked or stored outside to be licensed and operable. Requiring a paved driveway when an owner requests a building permit to improve his property. Prohibiting vehicle parking or storage in the front yard on grass or unimproved areas that are not intended for a vehicle. Creating an exemption provision that would allow city staff or the city council to waive these requirements under certain circumstances. Citizen Response After publicizing the above-listed information, staff received 39 phone calls and 21 letters about this issue. One of the letters had signatures of support for code changes signed by 21 residents. Another had signatures of support from three households. Following is a representation of the kind of responses received through the phone calls and letters. * Several offering general support for the proposed changes. * Something should be done about overnight parking on city streets. People are parking boats, RV's and semi's on the street. * Should not be allowed to park multiple vehicles, bobcats and other items in front yards. * Junk cars should not be allowed to be stored anywhere outside. * Car repair businesses should not be allowed in residential areas. * Need consistent enforcement of overnight parking ordinance. * Home businesses that have vehicles for non-residents should not be allowed in residential areas. * Un-licensed vehicles should not be allowed to be parked in yards. * No parking (period) on unpaved areas. * Need also to address junk and appliances that are stored in yards. * No vehicle parking on lawns and owner is required to obtain permission from neighbor to expand/create additional parking surfaces besides a standard driveway. * Recreational vehicles, boats, etc. should not be allowed to be parked in front of a house, only on a driveway or improved side yard. * Class 5 or crushed rock should be considered to be a hard or improved surface. * New ordinances are fine, but need city staff to enforce them. * Penalties and fines for violations need to be defined. * Need to define what improved or hard surface means. * Should be allowed 30- 60 days to make vehicles operable. * Exemption provision a good idea but need defined criteria. * Something needs to be done about cars for sale on city streets, private property and business parking lots. * Why can't we park on the street overnight? * The city should not require paved parking or limit the number of vehicles on a property. * The city should not limit the number of vehicles people park, consider small lots that don't have a lot of options. This is a violation of personal property rights. The list above is a representation of the comments received. The number of times a statement was made was not recorded but staff noted the responses that were opposed to any code changes. We received two calls against any new prohibitions on parking and 3 letters, one which was more concerned about lack of enforcement of existing rules. I have attached a small representation of letters (starting on page four) we received for your review. It was and is the city's intention to listen to resident input on this issue and then, with direction from the city council, draft an ordinance that starts to address the problems identified by residents, city staff and the planning commission. The council, at their meeting on September 25, 2000, suggested that city staff include the following items in a code change about residential parking: The city will consider crushed rock or gravel as a hard surface for parking and storage purposes. 2. The city should not require a paved driveway with other home improvements. The city may allow exceptions to the rules, subject to the input of the neighbors, city staff and city council. The council also wants to see a comprehensive approach to address junk and debris in yards. Our goal is to develop an ordinance that balances the interest of private property rights with one that provides more control and order to the parking of trucks, cars and recreational vehicles. The proposed ordinance puts into writing the direction the city council gave to city staff after they considered the testimony of the interested parties. The proposed ordinance also includes changes suggested by the city attorney and the planning commission at their December 6, 2000 meeting. RECOMMENDATION Approve the code change on page 12 about off-street parking in residential areas. p\ord\parking2.01 Attachments: 1. Response Letters 2. Proposed Ordinance Amendment AI-FACI-IVENT 1 4 September 5, 2000 Ms. Melina Coleman Community Development Department City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Ms. Coleman: We read about the upcoming plans to review zoning regulations relating to parking in residential areas in the September issue of the Maplewood Motion. If it is necessary to review these regulations, we would like to share some comments and concerns. By limiting the amount of driveway area in the front yard would certainly limit the number of vehicles allowed. How would the amount of driveway area be determined? Many households have three or four members that are licensed drivers and these families have more than two vehicles and only a one-car garage. Requiring a paved or hard surface area for parking is a good idea. However, the term hard surface needs to be defined (e.g., rock, gravel, asphalt, or blacktop). · Requiring vehicles to be licensed and operable is also good. However, we think there should be a time limit allowed for repairs (e.g., 30-60 days). · Prohibiting vehicle parking on unimproved areas or without a hard surface also is a good idea. · Creating an exemption provision may be a good idea, but what criteria would be used for allowing an exemption (e.g., financial hardship, medical reasons). · Residential areas should not be used as a repair shop unless garage space is available to store them. We feel the issue of a "well maintained" yard should be addressed in conjunction with vehicle issues. We have seen yards that look like a "junk yard" that are unkept and have multiple storage areas with various equipment laying around (even though their vehicles are parked on a paved surface, v~.--~--:~-::.: ............ Ms. Melinda Coleman Page 2 September 5, 2000 We can really appreciate the difficulty the city faces in making changes, trying to balance property rights and having a nice looking neighborhood. If you have questions or need clarification, please contact one of us. Thank you for the opportunity to share our views. S~n~, r~ely, ] . Diane and Jurgen Droeger 1443 Laurie Road Maplewood, MN 55109 (651) 777-3768 Jeah and Jim Oiem)et - 1451 Laurie Road Maplewood, MN 55109 (651) 773-8327 Sheryl Brenner 1446 Laurie Road Maplewood, MN 55109 (65 I) 770-0270 July 14, 2000 Ms. Melinda Coleman Mr. Ken Roberts Community Development Department City of Maplewood 1830 E. County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Ms. Coleman and Mr. Roberts: This letter is to enthusiastically endorse the proposed new zoning regulations relating to parking in residential areas. We are in favor of this proposal because we realize it will help maintain our property values and preserve the character of our quiet suburban neighborhoods. We endorse all of the following proposed regulations: 1. Limiting the amount of driveway area or pavement in the front yard. 2. Requiring a paved or hard surface area for parking. 3. Requiring all vehicles parked or stored outside to be licensed and operable. 4. Requiring a paved driveway when an owner requests a building permit to improve his property. 5. Prohibiting vehicle parking or storage in the front yard on grass, unimproved areas or areas without a hard surface that are not intended for a vehicle. In addition, we would also like to propose the following additional regulations: 7. Limit to 2 the number of vehicles that can be parked or stored outside. 8. Prohibit on-street parking completely between midnight and 6 am. 9. Increase the penalty in existing noise regulations for vehicles that do not have fully functioning mufflers. Thank you for your efforts to preserve the quality of our suburban neighborhoods. Sincerely, Name Address Phone 8 Name Address Phone 9 July 14, 2000 Ms. Melinda Coleman Mr. Ken Roberts Community Development Department City of Maplewood 1830 E. County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Ms. Coleman and Mr. Roberts: This letter is to enthusiastically endorse the proposed new zoning regulations relating to parking in residential areas. We are in favor of this proposal because we realize it will help maintain our property values and preserve the character of our quiet suburban neighborhoods. We endorse all of the following proposed regulations: 1. Limiting the amount of driveway area or pavement in the front yard. 2. Requiring a paved or hard surface area for parking. 3. Requiring all vehicles parked or stored outside to be licensed and operable. 4. Requiring a paved driveway when an owner requests a building permit to improve his property. 5. Prohibiting vehicle parking or storage in the front yard on grass, unimproved areas or areas without a hard surface that are not intended for a vehicle. Thank you for your efforts to preserve the quality of our suburban neighborhoods. Sincerely, Name Address Phone '7 77- -y3 10 Name Address Phone ll ATTACHMENT 2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ABOUT OFF-STREET PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances: (I have underlined the additions and crossed out the deletions.) SECTION 1. This section changes the language of Section 19-9(24) of the Maplewood City Code as follows: (24) All other conditions, acts or things which are liable to cause injury to the person or property of anyone. This shall include, but not be limited to. the parking or storage of vehicles in the front yard of a residential property on grass, unimproved areas or areas without a hard surface. SECTION 2. This section adds the following definition to Section 36-6 of the Maplewood City Code. Vehicle: A device for carrying or conveying persons or property that may be self-propelled or may be propelled, drawn or towed by a self-pr0pelled vehicle. SECTION 3. This section adds Subsection 36-22(j) to the city code as follows: 1/!1 Purpose The purpose of this Article of the City Code is to control, through zoning regulations. certain land uses and activities that have a direct and detrimental effect on the character of the City's residential neighborhoods. As such, the Maplewood City Council finds that. in order to accommodate the off-street parking needs of residents while protecting the interests of the public, regulations and performance standards are desirable and necessary for off-street parking areas in residential zoning districts. Findings TO the purposes listed above, the Maplewood City_ Council finds that the use and possession of vehicles are an important factor in the lives of many residents of Maplewood. The city council also finds that the number of vehicles, the improper storage of vehicles and the parking of and storage of excessive numbers of vehicles can be a nuisance and can affect the neighborhood character as well as the public health, safety and welfare, property values and the reasonable use and enjoyment of neighborin(~ properties. The city_ council further finds that the establishment of these regulations further the goals in the Maolewood Comprehensive Plan relative to the establishment and enhancement of residential neighborhoods and similar goals. In making these findings. the City Council accepts the recommendations of city_ staff and planning commission that have studied the experiences of other suburban cities that have reviewed and regulated off-street parking in residential areas. The Maplewood City Council establishes these regulations as a means to balance the interests of the owners of vehicles, nearby residents and the public. 12 Goals Goals a. in adopting this ordinance include the following: Preserving neighborhood character. _public health, safety_ and welfare and property values. Allowing all residents a reasonable use of and a chance to en!oy their pro_perry. Minimizing the nuisances and the adverse effects of off-street parking through careful site design standards. Reouiring the owners and builders of residential driveways and parking areas to design and build them to reasonable standards, Avoiding potential damage to adjacent ero_Derties from off-street vehicle parking and parking areas through design standards and setback reouirements. (4) Off-Street Parking Standards for Single and Two Family Dwellings. The following standards shall aD~)ly to off-street parking for single and two family residential propertie-,-- in the RE-40. RE-30, RE-20, F, R-l. R-I(S) and R-2 zoning districts. Vehicle Darking in the front yard setback area (the area between the front of th~. structure and the street right-of-way line) of single and two family residences shall only be on a hard surface drivewav or on improved and designated parking areas. Such a hard surface shall include bituminous, concrete, brick, gravel or crushed rock or another hard surface approved by city_ staff, The city_ prohibits vehicle parking or storage in the front yard on grass, unimproved areas or areas without a hard Surface Driveways and parking areas shall be at least five feet from a side property lin~, and shall not be in the street right-of-way or on other public property. No owner or operator shall park a vehicle that would block a sidewalk. All vehicles parked or stored outside on a residential property shall not bc abandoned (as defined in Section 19-28), shall have a current license and registration and shall be in operable condition. (Also see Sections 19-28, Definitions and 19-29, Violation.) The total area in the front yard of a single dwelling lot improved for parking and driveway purposes shall not exceed forty_ (40) Dercent of the front yard area. The total area in the front yard of a duplex or double dwelling 10t improved for parking and driveway purposes shall not exceed fifty. (50~ _percent of the front yard area. The city_ may approve an increase in front yard driveway coverage, a different driveway setback or a different driveway surface for a single or double dwelling 13 administrative review of minor construction plans as outlined in Section 25-65 of the city code. The city_ may approve an increase in front yard driveway coverage, a different driveway setback or a different driveway surface where such approval would meet the standards rea_uired by code for unique circvmstances and where the above ordinance standards do not fit or where they would create a hardship for the property_ owner. As part of such an approval, the city_ may require the property owner or applicant to add screening next to or around the parking area or driveway. The city_ may require such screening to help hide the parking area and vehicles from the view of adjacent residential properties or from the view from the public street. The property_ owner or applicant may use a privacy fence, additional landscaping or other means to meet the screening requirement. City_ staff shall approve and inspect all such screening. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall take effect on August 1, 2001. (After the City Council approves it and the official newspaper publishes it). The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on ,2001. Mayor Attest: City Clerk Ayes- Nays- 14 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2000 B. Residential Parking Issues and Code Changes. Mr. Ken Roberts gave the report for the city. On September 25, 2000, the city council again discussed the issue of residential parking. Because of strong support and interest in this issue, the city council directed staff to prepare city ordinance revisions about parking in residential areas. The council is choosing to take small steps versus jumping in head first. The council, at their meeting on September 25, 2000, suggested that city staff include the following items in a code change about residential parking: 1. The city will consider crushed rock or gravel as a hard surface for parking and storage purposes. 2. The city should not require a paved driveway with other home improvements. 3. The city may allow exceptions to the rules, subject to the input of the neighbors, city staff and city council. The ordinance amendment clarified what the violation is for an abandoned motor vehicle to make it clear that is a code violation and can be prosecuted accordingly. The purpose, findings and goals sections of the report are included to show the legislative intent and why the ordinance is being created. The proposed ordinance would apply to all property less than one acre in size, and for the residential zoning district except the RE-40. There was question at the staff level if this should include all residential properties no matter the acreage. The ordinance does not apply to side yards or rear yards which may be another important discussion point to consider. Mr. Roberts informed the commission that Mr. Trippler has distributed language that Mr. Trippler is requesting be added to the proposed ordinance as item I. Mr. Thompson felt item D was not clear. He questioned that if he paved his driveway could he park a car next to the curbing in the front yard? Mr. Roberts responded saying there is a public boulevard along every street that is 10 to 15 feet wide that is public property. You cannot be on the public boulevard at all, and if you do want to make a paved parking spot in your front yard, it has to be into your private property at least 10 feet. Mr. Thompson felt it was indiscriminatory to commercial property. Chairperson Fischer pointed out a resident's property line could be very close to the curb, or they might have a twenty-foot setback. Mr. Roberts pointed out item H in the ordinance covers unique situations or where normal rules don't apply, somewhat similar to a variance. The reasoning for item D is due to snowplowing and sanding issues. Item D asks for no parking at least 10 feet back from the street right of way, Ms. Fischer questioned whether engineering felt that was really necessary. Mr. Roberts responded in saying they didn't specifically have engineering's input on that issue. He also did not see a problem with the commission asking him to reduce that to a smaller number. Mr. Trippler had two concerns with the proposed ordinance. One included what the difference was between items A and C in the proposed ordinance. He also did not understand why the ordinance applied only to properties less than one acre in size. Staff felt larger properties may not have problems with the parking issue. Past history has proven the problem lies with the smaller lot, residential areas which are those less than one acre. Staff thought if it is a 10-acre lot and a neighbor cannot see it, why would they care if their neighbor parked next to the garage on grass or in his front yard on grass. Ms. Fischer pointed out what if it is on a 10-acre lot and you can see it? Mr. Trippler felt setting the property size for the ordinance to less than 5 acres seemed more appropriate. Staff also felt A and C in the ordinance had a lot of the same language and could be combined. Mr. Rossbach felt the ordinance should include some type of language to address screening. He said if there was proper screening to obscure the vehicle so it was not a nuisance there should be proper language in the ordinance to allow for that. "What the ordinance is trying to accomplish is to not have an unsightly situation for neighbors, or for people driving down the street. Just by having a large lot does not necessarily accomplish this" stated Mr. Rossbach. He would also like to see the type of language used in the ordinance be addressed. Using "the front setback area" would only make sense to planners and suggested further definition was needed. Mr. Rossbach also didn't feel it was reasonable that an owner would have to go 10 feet into their property to park a car. Mr. Mueller was disappointed the ordinance did not address recreational vehicles or campers. Mr. Roberts responded in saying the council did not want to address those issues at this time. Mr. Thompson pointed out Ms. Coleman straightened out his thinking regarding townhomes having more than 50 percent hard service in their front yard. She pointed out townhomes would be excluded from this ordinance due to their zoning classification. Darlene Laube, 134 Downs Avenue, Maplewood, was present with questions. Her main concern was people and how they maintain their property. She doesn't feel they screen their boats or junk vehicles as they should and feels it runs down the neighborhood. She thought the ten feet from the property line proposal was ridiculous and viewed parking to the side of property in a "mud pile" also a problem. Mr. Rossbach felt the ordinance was addressing this issue by requiring some type of solid surface that has been prepared for parking. Ms. Fisher added that in many families when they have the young adult drivers, the families will add a crushed rock temporary driveway, and when the vehicles are gone, they resod or landscape. Ms. Laube did not feel the ordinance covers vehicles parked in backyards in view of their neighbors' backyard. Mr. Rossbach reiterated the ordinance is not trying to dictate how people landscape, but to gain control on what people are putting into their yards as far as vehicles go. Personally Mr. Rossbach would also like to see back and side yards addressed in the ordinance. His understanding is the city is starting with the front, see what happens, and then go beyond possibly to the back yard or side yards. Mr. Roberts has found there are some people who just don't make good neighbors no matter how many rules are written. They simply don't care. There is only so much the city can do. Mr. Thompson questioned the petitions that were submitted from what appeared to be one neighborhood. He drove over to the neighborhood expecting to find a serious offense, only to find one driveway with five cars. It was a Sunday afternoon where they could be visiting at the residence to watch the football game. Mr. Trippler shared that one member of his car pool was one of the petitioners. He thought maybe he sparked their interest about the parking issue. Mr. Thompson wanted to commend the neighborhood for taking the time to register their feelings. Mr. Trippler presented a motion to add an item I in the ordinance that would state: Four or more adult residents each living at a different address and within one block of the residents having the offending vehicle may petition the city of Maplewood to have their neighbor remove or relocate an offending vehicle. The owner of the offending vehicle will be required, within 30 days of receiving a copy of the petition, to do one of the following actions: 1. Remove the offending vehicle from the property. 2. Relocate the offending vehicle to another location or area of their property which is agreeable all of the signers of the petition. to 3. Request from the Maplewood City Council a special variance to retain the offending vehicle on their property. The intent of the motion is that the ordinance proposed by the staff does not address: 1. The number of vehicles parked at a residence. 2. The type of vehicles parked at a residence. 3. Vehicles parked on either side or backyards of a residence. Trying to address any or all of these issues, and the infinite number of possible scenarios which might occur is almost impossible. This proposal allows any or all of the above situations to be addressed and allows for the diversity of lot sizes and neighborhoods which exist throughout the city of Maplewood. Staff felt Mr. Trippler's proposal may inspire vigilantes to pick on neighbors they simply don't like and would suggest that the city attorney needs to review the proposal. Mr. Rossbach felt the proposal was taking law into your own hands; a form of vigilante justice. Ms. Fischer questioned if there was an avenue of appeal if the person who is looking for a variance did not agree with the staff recommendation in the proposed ordinance. Staff responded in saying that process would fall under item H. Mr. Thompson seconded Mr. Trippler's motion to add his amendment to the proposal. Staff agreed with Mr. Rossbach that the nuisance ordinance would cover junk cars or expired tabs, but would not cover esthetic opinions. Mr. Pearson did not feel he could support the amendment because it may put power in the hands of people who simply just may not like another person. Mr. Mueller felt there should be a vote on whether everyone was in agreement of calling to question Mr. Trippler's amendment. Chairperson Fischer established there was no disagreement. Motion failed. Ayes-2 (Trippler, Thompson) Nays-4 (Fischer, Pearson, Mueller, Rossbach) Mr. Roberts was flexible with the less than one acre stipulation and felt items A and C could be combined since there was a lot of overlap. Item D (the 10-foot requirement) was a starting point, stated Mr. Roberts and could be adjusted to what the commission deemed appropriate. The ordinance at this point was an attempt to follow the city council's direction. If the commission felt strongly about addressing RVs, motor homes, screening, or parking on the boulevards, the staff will work on language to present at the next meeting. The majority felt the ordinance should apply to everyone regardless of lot size. A suggestion was made to also add some type of verbiage regarding screening, possibly under item H. Mr. Roberts also noted there is no suggested deadline at this point. Ms. Fisher noted the suggested changes/additions to the proposed ordinance: 1. Page 12, sixth line from the bottom should read "relative to the establishment". 2. Page 13, under item 4, the size of the lots should be eliminated. 3. Four A and C seemed redundant and should be combined. 4. Item B, the second line would have a period after surface, and the rest of the sentence would be stricken. 5. Item D, the 10 foot setback could be reduced if agreed to by engineering. The consensus was 0 feet (adjacent to the lot line). 6. It was established that item H included an appeal process. 7. Include in parenthesis what a front setback is. (The distance between any part of the principal structure and a street right of way line). 8. Staff will check with other cities to find out what, if any, verbiage they use on screening, and work on creating verbiage about screening. The issue of grandfathering was brought up by Mr. Thompson. Staff responded in saying the city has the right to require a resident to improve their parking areas as required to meet the current ordinance. Staff will have the city attorney review the grandfather application to the authority of the ordinance. Mr. Pearson moved the commission to table the proposed ordinance for staff to make revisions. Mr. Rossbach seconded. Ayes-All Motion carried. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Right-of-Way Vacation Highway 61 frontage road, south of County Road D January 23, 2001 INTRODUCTION Mr. Frank Frattalone, of Frattalone Excavating, is asking the city council to vacate the unused part of a street right-of-way. This vacation is for part of the Highway 61 frontage road right-of-way that is south of County Road D, next to the property at 3007 Maplewood Drive. Please see the maps on pages 4 - 7 and the statement on page 8. BACKGROUND The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) originally acquired this part of the right-of- way in 1936 when they were developing and building Highway 61. MnDOT, however, never used the right-of-way. The state turned the jurisdiction of the frontage road (including the right-of-way) back to the city in 1988. On August 14, 2000, the city council approved the following for the Highpoint Ridge development: Changes to the comprehensive plan. These were from R-1 (single dwellings), R-1S (single dwellings - small lot) and M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-3(M) (residential medium density) for the site. The city also dropped a planned minor collector street that would have gone through the site from County Road D on the north to Highway 61 on the east. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for a 65-unit housing development. The applicant requested the CUP because the existing F (farm residence), R-1 (single dwellings), R-1S (single dwellings - small lot) and M-1 (light manufacturing) zoning districts limit the uses to single dwellings in a typical or standard subdivision or to commercial uses near Highway 61 in the M-1 zone. (See the property line/zoning map on page four.) As approved, the project will have 29 single dwellings and 36 town houses. Having a PUD gives the city and developer a chance to be more flexible with site design and development details than the standard zoning requirements would normally allow. The existing F and M-1 zoning districts on the site also do not allow twin homes, town houses or other multiple dwellings. A preliminary plat to create the lots in the development. (See the approved preliminary plat on page nine.) 4. Having no parking for one side of private streets and driveways. DISCUSSION Mr. Frattalone is requesting this vacation because the right-of-way for the frontage road is unnecessarily wide. Maplewood has no plans to develop or use this part of the right-of-way. If the city does not vacate the right-of-way, the county will require Mr. Frattalone to plat the area as a public street when he develops his property. This vacation will give Mr. Frattalone an additional 50- foot-wide strip of property to use and develop with his existing property west of the frontage road. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution on page ten. This resolution vacates the unused part of the Highway 61 frontage mad right-of-way that is south of County Road D, next to the property at 3007 Maplewood Drive. 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 in this location. 3. The adjacent properties have street access. SITE DESCRIPTION Existing land use: Undeveloped REFERENCE SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Sparkle Auto Sales East: Highway 61 and frontage mad South: Gulden's Roadhouse Restaurant West: Undeveloped property owned by Mr. Frattalone p:sec4/fratalon.vac Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Area Map 4. Area Map 5. Topographic Survey 6. Applicant's Statement 7. Approved Preliminary Plat 8. Vacation Resolution Attachment 1 VADNAIS HEIOHT$ VADNAIS HEIGHTS Attachment 2 '~ ...... : ' ." )-.- ' '"~ Pal = ........... COUNTY ROAD D ~ROJECT SITE ¢~J PARK 2998 2975 ;~2968 ' NSP POWER LINES ,, ~ q--4---1- .. i I PROPOSED VACATIOI PROJECT SITE I 1215 GULDENS 2970 2999 ~ 2980 FUTURE AUTO USE ;LaME~RY COLLISION GOLF COURSE ', MAPL~W06D TO'ora ~ BUILDING / c. 2889 / AVENUE ' Attachment 3 PROPOSED VACATION GULDENS Limit on Liability: This document is not a legally Current Layers; STRTXT; ROADS96~ recorded map or survey and is not intended to be STRUCTURES96; WATER96; HALFSECL- used as one. This map is a compilation ol LIMITSA; PARREG; LIMITSP ' I records and information from various state, ~ county, and city offices, and other sources. AREA MAP Attachment 4 PROPOSED VACATION GULDENS Limit on Liability: This document is not a legally recorded map or survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation ol records and information from various state, county, and city offices, and other sources. current Layers; STRTXT; ROADS96; STRUCTURES96; WATER96; HALFSECL; LIMITSA; PARREG; LIMITSP AREA MAP 6 PROPOSED GULDENS Attachment 5 = 420.84 A =: 06'45'14" L = 49.62 ~,62 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY Attachment 6 (Description of highway easement to be vacated) The southerly 503 feet of the following described tract: The Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 4, Township 29, Range 22 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota; Which lies easterly of a line run parallel with and distant 50 feet westerly of the westerly right of way line of Trunk Highway No. 61 (formerly Trunk Highway No. 1) as same is now located and established over and across Section 4. We are requesting that this portion of this highway easement be vacated. This easement is no longer needed and if left in place, Ramsey County will require that we plat this area as a City Street. We are not aware of any utilities running across this tract as described, though we are willing to dedicate a utility easement as may be required by the City of Maplewood. 8 Attachn'~ent ~7 2 3 I 15 9 Attachment 8 VACATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Frank Frattalone applied for the vacation of the following-described right-of-way: The southerly 503 feet of the following described tract: The Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 4, Township 29, Range 22 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota; Which lies easterly of a line running parallel with and a distance 50 feet westerly of the westerly right-of-way line of Trunk Highway No. 61 (formerly Trunk Highway No. 1) as the same is now located and established over and across Section 4, Township 29, Range 22, in Ramsey County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: On February 5, 2001, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve the vacation. On February 26, 2001, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent a notice to the abutting property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. WHEREAS, after the city approves this vacation, public interest in the property will go to the following abutting property: Subject to County Road D and Subject to gas pipeline easement and except East 661.6 feet of the North 1006 feet, the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 4, Township 29, Range 22, Maplewood, Ramsey County. (PIN 04-29-22-11-0006.) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described right-of-way vacation for the following reasons: It is in the public interest. The city and the applicant have no plans to build a street in this location. The adjacent properties have street access. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2001. 10