Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/01/1997Call to Order Roll Call MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, December 1, 1997 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East Approval of Minutes November 17, 1997 4. Approval of Agenda Public Hearing Land Use Plan Change (R-3M to R-l) - east side of Hagen Drive between Larpenteur and Ripley Avenues New Business Zoning Map and Land Use Plan Changes (MnDOT Facility - 1779 McMenemy Street) BOOK 7. Visitor Presentations 8. Commission Presentations a. November 24 Council Meeting: Ms. Brueggeman b. December 8 Council Meeting: ?? (was to be Mr. Kopesky) c. December 22 Council Meeting: Ms. Edcson 9. Staff Presentations 10. Adjournment WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF 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. o 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. 8. 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 NOVEMBER 17, 1997 I. CALLTO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Bunny Brueggeman Barbara Ericson Lorraine Fischer Jack Frost Kevin Kittridge Gary Pearson William Rossbach Milo Thompson Absent Present Present Present Present Present Present Present III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Rossbach moved approval of the minutes of October 20, 1997, as submitted. Commissioner Ericson seconded. Ayes--Ericson, Pearson, Rossbach, Thompson Abstain--Fischer, Frost, Kittridge The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Frost moved approval of the agenda as submitted. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. V. CITY ATTORNEY PRESENTATION Steve Kelly, from the firm of Bannigan and Kelly, P.A. (city attorneys), addressed the commission on the following items: (1) property taxation and the legal process for appealing property tax, (2) the Metropolitan Land Planning Act and what it means for cities, and (3) the role and responsibility of the planning commission in comprehensive planning. Mr. Kelly outlined the three ways to appeal property tax: board of equalization, abatement, and the Minnesota Tax Court (appeals). He also gave the commissioners a printed summary of this information. Commissioner Fischer asked about the cash connection charge. Ken Haider, Maplewood city engineer, said these charges are not assessments. This charge results when a developer pays for sewer and water on a project, and neighboring private property ultimately benefits from these utilities when it is developed. State statute allows the city to collect a cash connection charge because the sewer and water utilities are owned by the city upon completion of the project. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-17-97 -2- Mr. Kelly reviewed the requirements of the comprehensive plan and how changes are made. Melinda Coleman, director of community development, asked the purpose of requiring cities to update their plans so that there is no conflict between zoning and the comprehensive plan. Mr. Kelly agreed with Ms. Coleman that there could be a risk involved in not changing the zoning on a parcel to match the comprehensive plan. An example used was a farm near the Maplewood Mall that is planned as commercial property in the comprehensive plan. In discussing the role and responsibility of the planning commission, Mr. Kelly felt familiarity with the Metropolitan Land Planning Act was first and foremost. He said the planning commission was usually the citizen's first contact with the system. Findings made at the planning commission level are most important because the minutes of these discussions follow the citizen request to the city council and even higher. VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Menards Conditional Use Permit Revision--2280 Maplewood Drive Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. Commissioners Frost and Fischer questioned the required number of parking spaces. Mr. Roberts said code requires one parking space for every 1,000 square feet of warehouse space and one space for every 200 square feet of retail area. Commissioner Rossbach pointed out that some of the discrepancy in the number of parking spaces now existing on the site, as noted in the staff report, could be the result of the reduction in rental space through the years. Menards now occupies more of the building than in 1988 when the original parking reduction was approved. Commissioner Rossbach also noted that more than one-half of the present Menards site is in the shoreland district, but the area is all asphalt. Mr. Roberts said that the shoreland ordinance became effective in approximately 1980 and this site was "grand fathered in." He did note that the present proposal by Menards would result in some of the southwest corner returning to green area and slightly improve the percentage of impervious surface on the site. Melinda Coleman, director of community development, said one of the major concerns, when reviewing this proposal, was the increase in noise that would result from more vehicles moving around behind and on the south side of the existing building and the cold storage warehouse. Gary Colby, of Menards, reminded the commission that the city's land use designation is light manufacturing for this property. Mr. Colby has met with neighbors and staff and said he was "surprised" at the tone of the staff report. Mr. Colby addressed various comments in the staff report. He said that, by relocating the yard entrance to the northeast corner, semitrailers would enter this gate and be almost at the loading docks. Mr. Colby felt that primarily cars and pickups would drive along the south side of the property, near neighboring residences, and thus the noise disturbance should be greatly reduced. He also emphasized that Menards is not proposing to do anything on this property that they don't already do--warehousing, outdoor storage and sales. According to Mr. Colby, the vacant outlot, where the new building is proposed, would result in almost half of it having grass and landscaping instead of broken asphalt as it now stands. Mr. Colby calculated the parking requirement as follows: the 123,136 square foot proposed store would need 616 spaces and the 43,065 square foot warehouse would need 43 spaces for a total of 659 parking spaces. He recognized that Menards would still need a parking variance. Mr. Colby said the parking they are proposing for this store is consistent with that utilized at their Planning Commission Minutes of 10-17-97 -3- 160,000 square foot prototype stores. These stores generally have 400 to 425 spaces. Mr. Colby summarized by saying the company policy is to remodel older stores to bring them in line with their prototype stores and that is the primary reason for the proposal. He said he was "surprised at the negative attitude the staff report" suggested and hoped to create a favorable "win/win" situation with the planning commission. Commissioner Frost mentioned that he did not like the parking setup at the present Menards, and reducing the required number of spaces "bothered" him. Mr. Colby said he would like to leave the existing yard entrance at its present location. He moved it after discussions with neighbors and staff because they wanted to reduce the number of trucks traffic in the southeast corner. Commissioner Rossbach questioned the safety and efficiency of having the trucks accessing the loading docks from the same drive as customer traffic. Mr. Colby confirmed that the number of parking spaces are shared by the Keller Lake Lounge. He said the 123,136 square feet building space does not include the Keller Lake Lounge. Mr. Colby also agreed that one of the reasons for this proposal is to better compete with their competitors. Commissioner Rossbach also suggested that Menards consider a better fence design and a more attractive material for the building design, i.e. brick. Commissioner Pearson asked about the noise from the forklift trucks that had previously been a concern. Mr. Colby said this can be stopped if it is happening and should not be a problem. Commissioner Thompson suggested that area residents voice their complaints to Menards as they happen rather than saving them to present to the city council. Mr. Thompson thought a liaison committee might help to resolve some of the problems that occur. Mr. Thompson said his opinion is "not in complete agreement" with staff. He thought Menards was making an attempt to work with the neighbors, however, he did not favor the proposed drive. Commissioner Ericson said she would be voting against this because she felt the new building should be built closer to Highway 36 rather than near the residential area. She felt the plan should be reworked. Commissioner Kittridge felt the issue with Menards was repetition of the same complaints. Deb Forbes, 1071 County Road B East, feels "harassed" and "stressed" by the proposal. She expects an increase in noise and fumes from all traffic, including the forklifts, if this proposal is approved. She was concerned about the exterior and the height of the proposed building, potential noise from various mechanical equipment, and increase in water runoff. She also mentioned the condition of the existing fence, parking arrangements, and various ways in which Menards is not in compliance with existing conditions. Ms. Forbes wanted the planning commission to know that the problem of noise and fumes from trucks was not alleviated by installing a blockade between Citgo and Menard's as was previously required. She said trucks still stop and leave their engines running while the drivers run over to the Citgo for coffee, etc. George Valento, 1081 County Road B East, was disturbed about the traffic congestion near the intersection of County Road B and Highway 61. He also said he has complained to Menard's management about diesel noise and trash and has not received any satisfaction. Mark Anderson of 1101 County Road B East asked the commission to "focus on a 30-foot-high building" in his backyard. He felt the existence of such a building would totally destroy any equity he has in his home. Peter Bobick, 1115 East County Road .B, was concerned with the condition of the fence, debris that goes into his yard and the routing of the traffic within the site. T- 'Il 7-- .... T ........... Planning Commission Minutes of 10-17-97 Commissioner Ericson moved the Planning Commission recommend: A. Denial of the request for a conditional use permit revision to enlarge the Menards store, 2280 Maplewood Drive, based on the following reasons: The proposed use is not designed in conformity with the city's code of ordinances. Menards is requesting a 25-foot building setback variance and a substantial (51 percent) parking-reduction authorization of 412 spaces (code requires 812 spaces; Menards is proposing 400). 2. The use would change the character of the surrounding area because: a. The height of the proposed building would be excessive due to the structure's close proximity to the adjacent residential properties.. All of the traffic going to the outside storage/sales yard and the proposed warehouse would be channeled past the abutting residential properties concentrating the resulting noise and commotion to this area. The proposal would involve activity that would be disturbing or cause a nuisance because of excessive noise or unsightliness. The proposed changes would concentrate traffic next to the residential lot lines creating the disturbance of increased noise and commotion. The building would be unsightly primarily due to its large size and its close proximity to the residential lots to the south. B. Denial of the request for a 25-foot building setback variance for the proposed warehouse building at Menards, 2280 Maplewood Drive, based on the following reasons: Strict enforcement of the code would not cause Menards undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property. The applicant could comply with the required 100-foot setback if they made the building smaller or moved it to a conforming location. There are no physical characteristics unique to the property preventing the applicant from meeting the setback requirements. The reason for enlarging the store is to compete better with the competition. The state law requires, however, that "economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of the ordinance." The site is presently being fully utilized under the terms of the ordinance. 3. The variance would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance because of the large exterior mass of the proposed warehouse. C. Denial of the request for a 50 percent parking reduction authorization from 803 to 400 spaces based on the following reasons. 1. The reduction of spaces by 403 (50 percent) is excessive. 2. The applicant has not provided any justification for this request based on the proposed square footage, only based on their current building size. 3. There is no opportunity to share parking with neighboring businesses which is a typical way to justify a parking space reduction. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-17-97 -5- Commissioner Thompson seconded. Commission Rossbach preferred that the motion not include any reference to number of spaces and percentage of parking reduction. He referred to residents complaining about after-hour noise and thought the conditions of the existing conditional use permit should be enforced before additional proposals are considered. Mr. Rossbach said trucks should not be allowed to sit in the lot with their engines idling after business hours. He also requested that the faulty traffic flow pattern should be mentioned. Commissioner Thompson said he was going to vote for denial but hoped that Menards would take note of various comments given at this meeting and come back with a revised plan. Commissioner Pearson said he intended to vote for denial because Menards has a long history of lack of neighborhood concern, and they have not complied with existing conditions. Chairperson Fischer asked staff to refigure the required number of parking spaces. Commissioner Ericson moved and Commissioner Thompson agreed to the following friendly amendment: Change A. 2. b. to read: All of the traffic going to the outside storage sales yard and the proposed warehouse would be channeled past the existing loading docks and retail racks, and abutting residential properties concentrating the resulting noise, traffic and commotion to this area. Add: A. 4. There should be no consideration of a request for expansion until there has been a compliance with the conditions of the current conditional use permit, i.e. noise, cleanliness, trucks parking, and hours of operation. Change C. to read: Deny the request for the parking reduction based on the following reasons: 1. The reduction of spaces is excessive. Chairperson Fischer directed staff to verify with legal counsel whether the condition referring to hours of operation in the conditional use permit refers to operation and cleanup or strictly the business operation. Ayesmall The motion passed. Forest Lawn Cemetery Conditional Use Permit--1800 Edgerton Street Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. Mr. Roberts answered questions from the commission. Leo Capeder, president of the association, said they have made many improvements to the cemetery grounds but need to upgrade the crematory. Don Rundquist, the manager and actuary of the cemetery, said the new equipment is computer controlled and has a Iow potential for emissions. Both Mr. Capeder and Mr. Rundquist emphasized that one of the major reasons for the proposed addition was to afford privacy when a hearse delivers the deceased to the crematory. Mr. Capeder said they do over 700 cremations per year at this cemetery. Mr. Rundquist added that Forest Lawn is the eleventh oldest crematory (actual existence) in the United States. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-17-97 -6- Commissioner Rossbach moved the Planning Commission recommend A.. Adoption of the resolution which approves a conditional use permit for the crematory addition at Forest Lawn Memorial Park at 1800 Edgerton Street. Approval is based on the findings required by code and subject to the following 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 construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. C. Rezoning (R-1 to LBC)--1695 McKnight Road Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. Mr. Roberts said the owner of this property was sent a neighborhood survey. However, a response was not received. Chairperson Fischer was concerned about the effect future financing or any future remodeling might have on a property that is residential but zoned commercial. Mr. Roberts summarized his experience with mortgage companies in this regard. Commissioner Rossbach said he wanted to be consistent in considering these rezonings. He wanted all property owners to be treated equally and referred to the Hijacek property near the Maplewood Mall. Melinda Coleman, director of community development, said this was different because it was a house "sandwiched" between two commercial properties. She felt each parcel should be looked at individually, and input from each property owner should be given complete consideration. Commissioner Ericson requested tabling this item until more information is received. Commissioner Rossbach moved the Planning Commission table the rezoning from R-1 to LBC for the property at 1695 McKnight Road until more information is received from the Metropolitan Council on alternatives. Commissioner Ericson seconded. Ayes--Ericson, Fischer, Kittridge, Pearson, Rossbach, Thompson Nays--Frost Commissioner Frost felt he could make a decision based on the information presented. Commissioner Pearson said he had a concern with the terminology in the Land Planning Act on the legislative findings and purpose. D. Gladstone Area Street Vacations (West of Manton Street, South of Skillman Avenue) The staff report was summarized by Ken Roberts, associate planner. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-17-97 -7- Commissioner Kittridge moved the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the resolution starting on page 4. This resolution vacates the unused portions of Ryan Avenue, Birmingham Street, and Ide Street between Skillman and Frost Avenue, west of Manton and east of Clarence Street. The city should vacate these street right-of-ways because: 1. It is in the public interest. 2. The city and the adjacent property owners have no plans to build streets or alleys in these locations. 3. The adjacent properties have street access. This vacation is subject to the city keeping a utility and drainage easement over all of the vacated Ryan Avenue right-of-way and Commissioner Frost seconded. The motion passed. Ayesmall Planning Commission InterviewmMatt Ledvina Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. Mr. Ledvina responded positively to all questions that were asked by the commissioners. Commissioner Frost moved the Planning Commission recommend Matt Ledvina for appointment to the planning commission vacancy. Commissioner Pearson seconded. The motion passed. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS There were no visitor presentations. VIII. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS Ayesmall October 27 Council Meeting: Melinda Coleman reported on this meeting. November 10 Council Meeting: Mr. Rossbach reported on this meeting. November 24 Council Meeting: Ms. Brueggeman will attend this meeting. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS There were no staff presentations. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Land Use Plan Change - Site 10 East of Hagen Drive, between Larpenteur and Ripley Avenues November 7, 1997 INTRODUCTION Maplewood city staff is proposing a change to the city's land use plan. The land use plan shows how the city expects owners to develop or ultimately use their property. As proposed, the area for this change is the property on the east side of Hagen Ddve between Larpenteur and Ripley Avenues. (See the maps on pages 4 and 5). The developer recently sold lots in this area for single dwellings. As proposed, the change to the land use plan would be from R-3(M) (residential medium density) to R-1 (single dwellings). (See the existing land use plan map on page 6 and the proposed land use plan map on page 7.) The city intends R-3(M) areas for a mix of residential uses including double dwellings, town houses and condominiums. For R-1 areas, the city intends to have primarily single dwellings. Minnesota law requires that the city's comprehensive land use plan and zoning be consistent with each other. The zoning designation shows how property owners can use their property now. As such, the city is proposing a change to the comprehensive land use plan for this area to match the existing zoning and development. Maplewood is proposing this change as part of our review of the comprehensive plan. BACKGROUND On June 14, 1993, the council approved a 28-foot-wide street and the construction of Hagen Drive between Larpenteur and Ripley Avenues. The council also required no-parking on the east side of the street. State law requires all cities in the metropolitan area to update their comprehensive plans by December 1998. The law requires that a municipality's comprehensive plan and zoning must be consistent with each other. This is one of ten sites where city staff has found that the current zoning and the land use plan designation are inconsistent. As such, city staff is proposing to change the land use plan for this area from R-3(M) (residential medium density) to R-1 (single dwellings). DISCUSSION An advantage of this proposal is that the land use plan would reflect the fact that the former owner developed this property with single dwellings instead of multiple dwellings. The current R-3(M) (medium density residential) land use designation allows for up to 25 multiple dwellings (six units per gross acre) in this area. This could include double dwellings, town houses and small apartment buildings. As proposed, the land use plan change to R-1 (single dwellings) would lower the allowed density in the area. Having 16 houses would be a lower density than 25 multiple dwellings that the [ 1 1 r ........ 1 existing R-3(M) land use designation would allow. The proposed land use plan change would benefit the existing neighborhood by reducing the allowed density on the site. This means there would be less traffic from this area than if the owners developed the property according to the current land use plan. Land use plan changes do not require specific findings for approval. Any change, however, should be consistent with the city's land use goals and policies. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution on page 8. This resolution changes the land use plan for the area with single dwellings on the east side of Hagen Ddve between Larpenteur and Ripley Avenues. This change is from R-3(M) (residential medium density) to R-1 (single dwellings). The city is making these changes because: 1. It would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. 2. The previous owner developed this area with single dwellings. 3. It would reduce the allowable density and traffic from this site. 4. It would be consistent with the existing zoning and land uses. CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the 93 property oWners within 350 feet of this site. All 28 replies were for having only single dwellings in this area. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: Gross acreage - 4.2 acres Existing land use: Single dwelling lots SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: West: East: Houses across Ripley Avenue Houses across Larpenteur Avenue in Saint Paul Ramsey County Trail property across Hagen Drive Houses on the west side of Clarence Street PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan designation: R-3(M) (multiple dwelling residential) Proposed Land Use designation: R-1 (single dwellings) Existing Zoning: R-1 (single dwellings) p:secl 5/hagenlup,mem Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Existing Land Use Plan Map 4. Proposed Land Use Plan Map 5. Land Use Plan Change Resolution Attachment 3 0 0 · OS ~li ~1 Il II II~iJorI C m~ AREA OF PROPOSED CHANGE Attachment 4 OS lec~tlorll ,, m; Attachment 5 LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Director of Community Development proposed a change to the city's land use plan from R-3(M) (residential medium density) to R-1 (single dwellings). WHEREAS, this change applies to the property on the east side of Hagen Drive between Larpenteur and Ripley Avenues. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. On December 1, 1997, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the plan amendment. 2. On ,1997, the city council discussed the proposed land use plan change. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described change for the following reasons: 1. It would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. 2. The previous owner developed this area with single dwellings. 3. It would reduce the allowable density and traffic from this site. 4. It would be consistent with the existing zoning and land uses. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,1997. "'-- MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan'Amendment- MnDOT Property, 1779 McMenemy Street November 20, 1997 INTRODUCTION On August 11, 1997, the city council initiated a rezoning and a comprehensive plan amendment for the MnDOT property at 1779 McMenemy Street. Refer to pages 5-8. The council proposed a rezoning from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-1 (single dwelling 'residential). On October 27, 1997, a motion was made to rezone this site to R-1. This motion failed by a two-three vote. The council then directed staff to look at other uses for this property such as R-2 (double dwelling residential), R-3 (multiple dwelling residential), BC (business commercial) and CO (commercial office). The council referred this issue to the planning commission for their review and recommendation. DISCUSSION The following is an evaluation of the zoning districts suggested by the city council for the MnDOT site: R-2 Double dwelling zoning allows small-lot single dwellings and double dwellings. This zoning would encourage lower-cost construction. Because of the freeway frontage location, it is less likely we would see higher-quality development occuring. The construction of rental units would also be a likelihood. Double dwelling zoning would be more compatible with the adjacent single dwellings to the east and south than M-1 zoning. It would also be a reasonable fit with the abutting land to the north that is designated R-3 for apartments or townhomes. The largest detriment, though, remains to be the freeway frontage which would cause the nuisances of excessive traffic noise, light glare and a relatively unappealing view for the lots closest to the freeway. The density of the R-2 district would allow 33 double dwellings. R-3 Multiple-dwelling residential would be compatible with the designated R-3 land to the north. It would be a better fit as freeway-frontage development than R-2. Multiple-dwelling residential zoning, however, would not be as compatible with the abutting single-dwelling homes. T I 1 T--~-T .......... Multiple-dwelling development would almost certainly be rental apartments or townhomes. It is unlikely that anyone would build owner-occupied units. Also, multiple dwellings are often not well received or supported by neighborhoods. Thedensity formulas, assuming medium density development occurs, would allow 27 to 52 units of apartments (this depends on the number of units per building) or 33 townhomes. BC The M-1 and BC zoning districts allow very similar uses. Business commercial zoning would allow all of the uses permitted in the M-1 zone with the exception of light-manufacturing businesses. I enclosed copies of the BC and M-1 use regulations for comparison (pages 9-14). The BC zoning would not be any more compatible with the adjacent residential land than the present M-1 zoning. The city would also have less control on development with BC than we have with the M-1 zoning. The M-1 code requires that a developer apply for a conditional use permit (CUP) to build within 350 feet of a residential district--the BC zoning does not have this requirement. Business commercial development can occur as close as 50 feet to a residential lot line. CO Commercial office zoning would be considerably more restrictive than either M-1 or BC. Commercial office, basically, only allows offices and a limited amount of retail and service- oriented businesses. Refer to pages 15-16. Conclusion No matter what the council rezones this land to, MnDOT can continue as a legal-nonconforming use unless they cease their operation for a year or more. In that event, the use regulations in the zoning code would prevail. It should also be understood that MnDOT does not need to obtain city zoning approval if they wish to expand. State law allows them to make changes without city approval, with the exception of getting a building permit. A rezoning, therefore, would have no effect on their operation. In deciding whether to rezone this property, the council should not just consider zoning map compatibility, but instead, what would be the most appropriate use for this freeway-frontage location. Based on the above discussion, staff is not recommending any change. The city should instead stress increased screening and buffering along the front and sides of the site whenever possible to screen the MnDOT property from the neighbors. We should also continue to work with the neighborhood advisory council to address resident concerns with MnDot staff. RECOMMENDATION Staff will prepare resolutions for a rezoning and a land use plan amendment based on the council's direction. 2 REFERENCE SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 10.42 acres Existing land use: MnDOT highway department vehicle and material storage facility SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Vacant property planned for R-3 South: Single dwellings East: McMenemy Street, townhomes, single dwellings and the Hmong Alliance Church West: Interstate 35E PAST ACTIONS November 3, 1960: The city council rezoned the MnDOT site from F (farm residential) to M-I. August 11,1997: The city council denied the request by American Portable Telecom, Inc. (APT) to install a 165-foot-tall monopole on the MnDOT site. October 27, 1997: A motion failed to rezone the MnDOT site from M-1 to R-I. The city council then moved to direct staff to look at other uses for this property like R-2, R-3, BC and CO and for the planning commission to review and make recommendations. PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: Existing Zoning: M-1 Proposed Zoning: R-1 G (government facility) Zone Change - Findings for Approval Section 36-485 of the zoning code requires that the city council make the following findings to rezone property: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of the neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewer, police and fire protection and schools. Land Use Plan Development Policies The land use plan has several goals and policies for commercial, industrial and residential development. Refer to pages 17-21. p:sec18/mndot2.rez Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Land Use Plan Map 3. Property Line/Zoning Map 4. Site Plan (from the recent APT monopole proposal) 5. BCOrdinance 6. M-1 Ordinance 7. CO Ordinance 8, Land Use Plan Goals and Policies 4 Attachment LITTLE CANADA COUNt' RD. Sondy Loke SKILLMAN AVE MT. V[RNON DOWNS BELLWOOD AVl. SUMMER AVE. FENTON AVl. ~u.,c ,~.. ~el~x~ ~, ~i ELD RI~E AV [. ~ ELDRt~[ ~ ~ , M~NT BELMONT LN. ~ ~ ~ Lake ~ Rg~E~WN A~. BE~W~D AVE. .~ . / SAINT LOCATION MAP I I i I Attachment 2 'RE-3 inte 1,1.1 R-3(H) E .Larpenteur R-2 LAND USE 6 major O MAP arteria R-3( BC [M) Attachment 3 .... ..... ~ ~ ,~,~-,~'=-' ~~,~ mN, :mmm~M~,Mmmmm~mmmHH ·: ~" j 1894 i~ ;& ~'" ...... ~. ~ 1876 ~ ~ 1-35E' ~ ...~ ........... ,. ~. 1860 ." "'",. ~ ~' ~~ '780 ' , . ............. ' 176 ' . i , "' ~ ~J:~:~:~:~: ~ ~ ~. 5 , ~ Btam ~ ~,..~" ,' o ~,~.~.,~'~ j lt~ ~,~ ' I i ~ ' ~ T. , .mmmmmmmm ,~2~ -- ,~.' ~ ~. . j~. ..~-- · I~e'- '" '": ~ :.- . : · T, / ~...I :. .. , . ,.., .., ~. · .? ' I '~ ' - ; ' 15 " - -' '- ~-~ -..' ..... '~~~.~.~~' - E PROPER~ LINE I ZONING ~AP Attachment 4 PR'C, PO'Z_,ED TELC,'j PC, UIE OVERHEAD I'ELCO · - TERMINATION POINT i --EXISTING FENCE ,-EXISTING PAVED i SURFACE / EXISTING ! BUILDING 5 TREES TO BE LRELOCATED ,---PROPOSED CELL SITE I ,,L. EXISTING BUILDING X"~'EXlSTiNG PAVED SURFACE SITE PLAN 8 ,1 Attachment 5 ZONING § 36-1~1 pertained to the referral by the p]...~.g com-~.sion of any matter concerning a CO district to the community design review board ~nd wa~ der/red ~om Ord. No. SS0, § 105, ~dopted January 16, 1975. Secs. 36-142--36450. Reserved. DMSION 7. BC BUSINESS COMMERCIAL DISTRICT Sec. 36-151. Uses. (a) Permitted uses. The city shall only permit the following uses by right: (1) A dwelling unit for one family in combination with a business use. (2) Hotel, motel or tourist cabins. (3) Retail or commercial rental activities, office, clinic, stu- clio, bank, personal service, day care center, mortuary or funeral home, restaurant or on-sale liquor business (sub- ject to license). All on sale liquor business not associated with a restaurant shall be at least three hundred fifty (350) feet from any property that the city is planning for residential use. All business, storage or display, except signs and parking, shall be in a closed building. (4) For motor vehicles, the following activities if not within three hundred fifty (350) feet of any property that the city is plA~,i~g for residential use: a. The sale or leasing of new motor vehicles. b. The sale or leasing of new and used motor vehicles when all such activities are on the same property. c. The rental of motor vehicles as an accessory use to the sale or leasing of new motor vehicles. (5) Publishing, photocopying or printing establishment. (6) Indoor theater. (7) I.~undry. (8) Bakery or candy shop, which produces goods for on- premises retail sale. Supp. No. 12 2239 ]' lO § 36-151 MAPLEWOOD CODE (14) Retail firearms sales if the business, store or shop is at least three hundred fil~y (350) feet from any property the city is planning for residential use. All such businesses are subject to all applicable state and federal licenses. (Ord. No. 652, § 4, 9-11-89; Ord. No. 667, § 1, 6-25-90; Ord. No. 694, § 2, 12-9-91; Ord. No. 705, § 2, 7-13-92; Ord. No. 775, § 1, 3-24-97) Secs. 36-152, 36-153. Reserved. Editor*a not.-Ord. No. 652, § 4, adopted September 11, 1989, provided for the deletion of §§ 36-152 and 36-153, wltlch pertained to area and design requirements and use regulations, and were derived from Code 1965, §§ 907.010 and 907.020 and the following ordinances: Ord. No. 8~tion Da~ Ord. No. 8~tion Dat~ 232 3 10-19-67 587-A I 12-23-85 256 11-20-69 616 2 12-14-87 402 1 8-12-76 624 I 5-23-88 529 5 11-22-82 633 5 10-1088 557 ' 1, 2 12-12-83 648 2 7-20-89 Attachment 6 DIVISION 9. M-1 LIGHT MANUFA~G DISTRICT* Sec. 36-186. Pemitted uses. The city shall permit the following uses by right: (1) Any use listed as a permitted use .in a BC (business commercial) district. (2) Wholesale business establishments. (3) Custom shop for ranking articles or products sold on the premises. (4) Plumbing, heating, air conditioning, glazing, painting, paper handling, roofing, ventilating and electrical con- tractors, blacksmith shop, carpentry, soldering or welding shop. *Editor's note--Ord. No. 575, § 1, adopted Nov. 8, 1984, amended in its entirety Div. 9,.M-1 Light Manufacturing District, to read ns herein set out in §§ 36-186--,36-189. Former Div. 9, §§ 36-186~36-190, contained similar material and derived from the following ordinances: Ord. No. Section Date Ord. No. Section Date Code 1965 909.010--909.030 529 9 11-112-82 351 I 6-21-73 556 I 12-12-83 395 1 5-13-76 557 3 12-12-83 Supp. No. 12 2249 13 14 Attachment 7 15 § 36-138 MAPLEWOOD CODE or switching facilities and similar uses. It is not intended that office facilities, maintenance dispatching depots or any use which generates regular daily use or traffic w~)uld fall within this definition. (d) Restaurants: In keeping with the intent and purpose of the CO District, a restaurant use does not include a drive-in or any res-. taurant commonly referred to as "fast food" or "fran- chise'' wherein the emphasis is on automobile oriented clientele or where any sizeable proportion of the total activity is involved in takeout orders intended for con- sumption other than within the building. Question,~ of the applicability of this definition to an individual pro- posal shall be reviewed by the planning commission, which shall forward a recommendation to the city council fi)r final determination. (e) Any other office use which is determined to be the same general character as the above uses. (Ord. No. 380, ~ 102, 1-16-75) See. 36-139. Determination of questions concerning ap- propriateness of use within district. Where there is a question concerning the appropriateness of a particular use as permitted or conditional within the CO District, the planning commission shall review the question and forward a recommendation to the city council for final determination. (Ord. No. 380, § 103, 1-16-75) Sec. 36-140. Reserved. Editor's note-Section 9 of Ord. No. 676, adopted Nov. 26, 1990, deleted former § 36-140, which pertained to site development ztandards and derived from Ord. No. 380, § 104, adopted Jan. 16, 1975; Ord. No. 529, § 4, adopted Nov. 22, 1982; Ord. No. 585, § 2, adopted Aug. 26, 1985; Ord. No. 624, § 2, adopted May 23, 1988; and Ord. No. 633, § 4, 10-10-88. Sec. 36-141. Reserved, Editor'~ note-Section 4 of Ord. No. 652, adopted September 11, 1989 and Ord. No. 676, § 9, adopted Nov. 26, 1990, provided for the deletion of § 36-141, which Supp. No. 9 2238 Attachment 8 LAND USE PLAN PURPOSE The Land Use Plan interrelates with all elements, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of thc Land Use Plan is to designate the type, location and density of land uses in the City. In doin~ this, the City considered the following items: a. Community goals and objectives. bo Natural Features. Supportive elements, such as la-an~fion, drainage systems and utilities. d. F. odsting and future problems. e. Coordination with surrounding facilities. communities and metropolitan The City government has a strong influence on the way a community develops. Community facilities and laws can stimulate or retard development. While the workings of the real estate market help determine the uses of land, these uses are regulated by City government. The City is the only entity with an opportunity to coordinate overall development in the City. The following are the City's overall land use goals: · Provide for orderly development. · Protect and streng&en neighborhoods. 17 · Promote economic development that will expand the property tax base, increase jobs and provide desirable services. · Preserve significant natural features where practical. · ]Vlinirrli~e the land planned for streets. · ]VginJmiT~ ¢Ol~flict$ between land uses. · Prevent premature use, overcrowding or overuse of land, es.l~.~.lally when supportive services and facilities, such as utilities, drainage systems or streets, are not available. · Provide a wide variety of housing types. · Provide safe and attractive neighborhoods and commercial are~. · Int.e~rate deve. lopments with open space areas, COmmunity facilities and s,gnificant natural features. · Maintain and upgrade environmental quality and, where needed, reclassify land uses. GENE~ DEVELOPMI~NT POLICIES The following general development policies are intended to implement the previous goals: · The City will not a.pprove new development without providing for adequate public facilities and utilities, drainage, parks and open spa~~'''' ,uca as streets, Safe and adequate access will be provided for all properties. Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative economic. ~ physical impact on · ...... or ~otning developments. Whenever possible, chang~ in types of land use should occur so that Mmilar uses front on the same ~treet or at border~ of areas ~eparated by m~or man-made or naturalbarriers. 13 laws including ~xinnesota I~OUU1IOn ~our.u. r~&~. j .... _ regulations, unless the developer gets a variance from the regulating agency. · The City ]nay require that a developer do sound tests to verify compliance with MPCA regulations. · The City requires drainage .~nta~ erosion control plans with new developments. Such plans sh not increase the rate of runoff and shall prevent ~esion. · Grading and site plans should preserve as many significant natural features as practical. '. · The City will not remove land from the tax rolls unless it is in the public interest. · The City supports the improvement: replacement or redevelopment of substandard or incompatible development. · The City coordinates its planning with neighboring communities. · The City applies its development policies and ordinances consistently and uniformly. The City coordinates land use chan~es with the character of each neighborhood. · The City regulates development near or the alteration of natural drainage systems to manage storm water runoff. · The City uses the Ramsey County Soil Survey to identify areas with soils that are not suitable for btd]dlng sites. · The City may require the developer to. prn~., ~c.e from a registered soils engineer that are_n~ ~ sou prom=uo can be developed as proposed. · Th. oty .o d.r, th. fo-, W=. h.d organizations in the review ot aevelopmen requests. 19 RF~IDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT POLICIES The following are the City's residential development policies: Plan residential neighborhoods, with se. hook and parks ns the hub. Natural or man-made physical barriers should not traverse, but set the boundaries of the neighborhood. Include a variety of housing types for aH types of residents, regardless of age, ethnic, racial, cultural or socioeconomic background. A diversity of housing types should Include apartments, town houses, mnuufactured homes, single-family housing, pubflc-nssisted housing and low- and moderate-income housing, and rental and owner-occupied housing. · Dispe..r~e. low- and moderate-income developments throughout the Cay, rather than concentrating thev.~ In one area or neighborhood. Such housing should be near to bus lines or have access to other public transportation. · Support innovative subdivision and housing design. · Protect neighborhoods from activities which produce excessive noise, dirt, odors or which generate heavy traffic. · Protect neighborhoods .from encroachment or Intrusion of Incompatible land uses by adequate buffering and separation. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMI:~.NT POLIC'I~ The. following are the City's commercial and industrial development policies: · Group compatible businesses In suitable areas. o. Provide attractive surroundings in which to shop and Work. · Require adequate off-street loading facilities. · Promote the Joint use of parkin.a ~.aS, drives and trash eontainers. · Avoid disruption of adjacent residential areas. 20 Use planned unit developments (PUDs) wherever practical. Maintain orderly transitions between commercial and residential Require commercial and industrial developers to make all necessary improvements to ensure compatibility with surrounding residential uses. Require adequate Screening or buffering of new or expanded commercial areas from any adjacent existing or planned residential development. Restrict commercial development which will result in traffic vol-roes which are beyond the capacity of the road systems or generate excessive noise or pollution as def'med by state standards. Plan land uses and streets to route nonresidential traffic around" residential neighborhoods. EXISTING LAND USE The City has a variety of land uses, ranging from a regional mall to parks and open space. Table 3 gives a breakdown by acreage and relative percentage of the basic land use classifications from 1975 - 1984.