Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/21/1997BOOK Call to Order Roll Call Approval of Minutes MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, April 21, 1997 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East April 7, 1997 4. Approval of Agenda o o New Business a. Saint Paul Hmong Alliance Church (1770 McMenemy Street) Conditional Use Permit Revision Co Carey Addition (Carey Heights Drive) Preliminary Plat Zoning Map Change (F to R-l) Saint Johr{s Hospital (1575 Beam Avenue) Parking Deck Setback Variance Conditional Use Permit Revision d. In-fill Development Study Visitor Presentations Commission Presentations a. April 14 Council Meeting: Mr. Thompson b. April 28 Council Meeting: Mr. Rossbach c. May 12 Council Meeting: Ms. Fischer Staff Presentations 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 usuany takes the following form: e 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. J The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who w/shes 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 dearly, 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 dose the public discu;sion 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. kd/misc\pcagd Revised: 6-18-93 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA APRIL 7, 1997 I. CALLTO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. I1. ROLL CALL Commissioner Bunny Brueggeman Commissioner Barbara Ericson Commissioner Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Jack Frost Commissioner Kevin Kittridge Commissioner Dave Kopesky Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner William Rossbach Commissioner Milo Thompson Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 17, 1997 Commissioner Frost moved approval of the minutes of March 17, 1997, as submitted. Commissioner Rossbach seconded. Ayes--Ericson, Fischer, Frost, Kittridge, Rossbach, Thompson Abstentions--Brueggeman, Kopesky, Pearson IV. The motion passed. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Frost moved approval of the agenda as submitted. Commissioner Pearson seconded. AYeswall The motion passed. NEW BUSINESS A. U.S. West Telecommunications Tower Conditional Use Permit (1890 Gervais Court) Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. John Hollenbeck, with the telecommunications division of CB Commercial Real Estate Services, answered questions from the commission. Mr. Hollenbeck said PCS towers are Iow-powered and are typically placed every two miles. To collocate on a another 165-foot tower that was recently approved for placement about a mile west of this location might necessitate a request for two additional antennas in this area to provide adequate service. He said that U.S. West considers constructing this tower on its property to be an extension of its phone service, not a cellular service for mobile use. This U.S. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-07-97 -2- West site also has a generator that would enable the tower to continue functioning in a major emergency. Mr. Hollenbeck explained personal communication systems (PCS) with code division multiple access (CDMA) technology.. Commissioner Frost moved the Planning Commission recommend: Adoption of the resolution which approves a conditional use permit to allow a 90-foot-tall telecommunications monopole and related equipment. This approval is for the property at 1890 Gervais Court. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the ordinance and is subject to the following conditions: All construction shall follow the Site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The proposed 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. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The applicant shall submit a letter to the city showing an intent to allow the collocation of telecommunications equipment on the proposed tower. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Commissioner Rossbach said he was going to vote against this motion. He felt the intent of the code was to limit the number of towers. He also thought using the city water tower in this vicinity was a possible option for U.S. West. Commissioner Thompson was in agreement with Mr. Rossbach. Since there were three recent requests for towers in the same general location, he encouraged cooperation among the various tower applicants. CommiSsioner Kopesky shared some of the same concerns but thought the problem was with the ordinance as it pertains to collocation. He would like to see modifications made in the code. Commissioner Frost agreed that the ordinance needed to be changed. He said this application meets all of the city requirements. Ayes--Brueggeman, Ericson, Fischer, Frost, Kittridge, Kopesky, Pearson The motion passed. Nays--Rossbach, Thompson B. Tires Plus Store (1935 County Road D) Conditional Use Permit The staff report was presented by Ken Roberts, associate planner. Mr. Roberts answered questions from the commission. Ron Fiscus, of Yaggy Colby Associates (the architects, site designers, and engineers for Tires Plus), was present. Mr. Fiscus assured the commission that the Tires Plus policy was to have all service and storage within the building. He said they were in complete agreement with the staff recommendations. Planning Commission Minutes of 04-07-97 -3- Commissioner Frost moved the Planning Commission recommend:. A. Adoption of the resolution which approves a conditional use permit to expand and convert the building at 1935 County Road D for an automobile maintenance garage. The city bases this permit approval on the standards required by ordinance and is 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 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. 4. There shall be no outside storage of refuse or vehicle parts of any kind (including tires and wheels) unless in a screening enclosure. The developer or contractor shall submit plans for screening enclosures to staff for approval of placement and design. Any outside storage not in an enclosure shall have city council approval. 5. The owner or operator shall not allow anyone to work on vehicles outside the building. All employees shall do the vehicle repair and maintenance inside the building. 6. There shall not be any outside display or sales of tires or other materials. Commissioner Brueggeman seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. Precision Tune Auto Care Center (275 Century Avenue North) Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. Ken Haider, city engineer, said the storm water pond required on the west side of the site should be as large as possible to fit on the property. Commissioner Rossbach said, if the size of the storm pond was not adequate to "do anything worthwhile," the applicant should not be allowed to pave and cover more of their site. Mr. Haider said the pond did provide some treatment and, with the grass swale, was "quite a bit more than what is present on any regular site." Dan Dege of Finn Daniels, Inc., the architects for Precision Tune, was present. He said the storm water pond was engineered by HKS (civil engineers). HKS has assured Mr. Dege that the pond does treat the water. Mr. Dege also pointed out that the vast majority of the existing impervious surface flows directly to Tanners Lake to the east. Grade is being added to the site so that approximately 95 percent of the water from the impervious surface will be directed to the west through the grading swale along the south side of the building. This water will then be treated in the pond. Mr. Dege said they had no objection to the staff recommendation for trees, but they would like the option to possibly tree spade the existing evergreens on the site and relocate them. Commissioner Frost said that it is going to be a definite water-quality improvement to take the storm water runoff away from Tanners Lake. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner Conditional Use Permit and Design Review - St. Paul Hmong Alliance Church 1770 McMenemy Street April 15, 1997 INTRODUCTION Proposal The St. Paul Hmong Alliance Church, at 1770 McMenemy Street, is proposing to build a 2,896-square-foot addition onto the south side of their church. Refer to the maps on pages 7-9. They would use this addition for Sunday school classroom and office space. They are also proposing to add a solarium to the front of the existing building on the south side of the entrance. The Sunday school addition would be brick to match the existing building. The solarium would be glass. Refer to the narrative on page 10 and the enclosed plans. (The building elevations show a Phase II addition as well. The applicant will apply for this expansion in detail at a later time. Staff is not considering Phase II as part of this review since extensive grading and additional parking spaces would be needed and the applicant has not provided those details.) Requests The applicant is requesting: 1. A conditional use permit (CUP) revision for the church expansion. City code requires a CUP for churches. 2. Approval of plans. DISCUSSION Conditional Use Permit This proposal meets the requirements for a CUP. The proposed expansion would be attractive and would be well buffered from any nearby homes by a substantial setback. Also, the city has approved several CUPs for church expansions in the past few years. Landscaping There is no need for any additional landscaping. These additions would not impact any adjacent properties. The only reason for planting any additional trees is if the applicant would remove any of the mature trees in their side yard. The proposed construction may not effect these six trees. If they were removed, however, the woodland alteration ordinance would require that they be replaced with 2 1/2 inch caliper, balled and burlapped trees. The final grading plan should show whether these trees would be removed and, if so, where the church would plant new ones. Grading The applicant did not provide a grading plan. Staff does not feel that there is any concern with grading because of the substantial building setbacks and the fact that no new parking is needed or proposed. The applicant must, however, provide a detailed grading and drainage plan before the city will issue a building permit. Neighbor Concerns Traffic and Parking One neighbor said that this project should be denied because of too much church traffic already. We have not received any traffic complaints and do not anticipate an increase in traffic due to the proposed expansion. The proposed addition is accessory to the church and should not create additional traffic. Also, the Maplewood parking code does not have a parking requirement for classroom space. The city should monitor the parking demand and keep track of any complaints after completion of the expansion. If traffic and parking problems occur, the city council should then require more parking spaces. Buildin.q Desi.qn, Fence and Grounds-Maintenance Concern~ One neighbor does not like the appearance of the church and feels that the addition would hurt the appearance from DeSoto Street. The church has all the elements we look for in building design and materials. The building is attractive and the brick is a preferred exterior material in Maplewood. The roof-line is also interesting and adds to the attractiveness of the building. The proposed would be attractive since it would match the existing church. Three neighbors said that the fence is an eye sore. I would not categorize the fence as an eye sore, but the church should, perhaps, give more attention to scheduled maintenance of the fence and grounds to fix, clean and pick up debris as needed. The city council should schedule annual reviews of this CUP to monitor these issues for complaints. Plan Compliance One neighbor stated that the church did not comply with the approved site and landscape plans. They said there were to be trees planted along with the wooded fence and that the parking lot was to be behind the church, not in front. According to the records of this project, the site has been developed in compliance with the approved plans. Lot Combination On June 24, 1996, the city approved a lot split for the lot to the south so the church could buy the abutting land and enlarge their property. A condition of this split was to combine this new parcel with the existing church property to form one legally-described lot. This did not occur. The applicant should combine these lots before the city will issue a building permit for the proposed expansion. RECOMMENDATION A. Adopt the resolution on pages 13-14 revising the conditional use permit for a church at 1770 McMenemy Street. This permit is based on the standards for approval required by the code and subject to the following conditions (additions to the permit conditions are underlined; deletions are crossed out): 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor chan,qes. ,- ..... · -- ....... ,4 by thc community d~*.Jgn .~.~.. ~'""',4 ~r,r,~,~ !9~6,'""~'"" c chcng: -,.,- ..... 2. 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 duadline for one year. '"';+" · ........ i ..~ .. ~,,.,.I ,,,,,,4; .... ,4 d;3',n3gc ,~ ..... ..,.~ Cng'.~CC:-~. .............. ~ ...... ~ .... 3. Re.qularly maintain the ,qrounds and pick up all debris as well as maintain the decorative wood screenin fences alon the south and north sides of the arkin lot. Prc':!d= ........ ,..,- ~1,-,,.,+;,",~ ,H.,,.,+ ,.,,',, ,I,4 I-,~,, ,",',, ,,',,4 ' thc ~ ....~ b=rmlng ....................... y._.:r ...... :crccn:ng. 4. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 5. The city council may require additional parkin.q spaces if a parkin,q shorta,qe develops. 6~ The plans for Phase II are not approved, The property owner shall submit detailed plans. for the city council's approval prior to be,clinnin,q this phase. Bo Approve the plans date-stamped March 26, 1997, for the Sunday school and solarium additions on the St. Paul Hmong Alliance Church, 1770 McMenemy Street. The property owner shall comply with the following conditions: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this expansion. 2. Provide a grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plan to the city engineer for approval. The erosion control plan shall be comply with ordinance requirements. If the grading plan shows the elimination of any mature trees (eight inches in caliper or more), the applicant shall replace these trees in accordance with the woodland protection ordinance. 3. Resod the lawn that is disturbed by cOnstruction activities. 4.. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if' a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. o b. The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 150% of the cost of the unfinished work. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Legally combine the original church property with the newly acquired lot to the south. The applicant shall do this before the city will issue a building permit for the proposed expansion. CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed owners of the 31 properties within 350 feet of the church property. Of the 12 replies, three were in favor, four objected, three had no comment and two had a miscellaneous comment. In Favor 1. They are clean people. I have had people dump a lot of junk back there. They also use land for gardens. (Lewis, 1766 McMenemy Street) 2. The church has been a good neighbor. (Schreier, 398 Ripley Avenue) 3. I am in favor of this proposal. It helps the Hmong Christians to reach the unbeliever and to know and love God. (1750 McMenemy Street) Opposed 1. Too much traffic already. (Neidermayer, 425 Ripley Avenue) 2. I object because the added building structure only hurts the appearance from DeSoto Street. I wish that my opinion counted as I own the house and land south of the church, but I'll take the time to give it to you anyhow. (Kramer, 1771 DeSoto Street) Also refer to the letter on page 11. 3. I object partly because of the way the movement of the property line fence was handled (it is now an eyesore). It seems no thought was given to the "community" that adjoins it. (Green, 406 Ripley Avenue) 4. There isn't enough parking space available at this time. They park all along the driveway to McMenemy. More spaces should be made available to accommodate the new addition. There is plenty of property to add more parking spaces. St. Paul Hmong Alliance Church are a very good neighbor and a good asset to the community. (Albert, 387 Ripley Avenue) Miscellaneous Comment We wish the fence wasn't such a eyesore, and we were told it would be a full privacy fence & tree lined! Also pop cans, apple cores, etc, have been thrown over the fence into yard. (Peterson, 402 Ripley Avenue) 2. Refer to the letter on page 12. (Colvard, 386 Ripley Avenue) REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Lot size: 7.42 acres Existing land use: The St. Paul Hmong Alliance Church SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Single dwellings South: Single dwellings and the undeveloped back yards of deep lOts East: DeSoto Street and single dwellings West: The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) highway maintenance facility PAST ACTIONS November 24, 1986: December 28, 1987: May 24, 1988: December 22, 1988: December 11, 1989: April 26, 1994: June 24, 1996: The city council granted the CUP. The council reviewed the CUP and required a review again in one year. The CDRB approved the design plans. The council reviewed the CUP and required a review again in one year. The council reviewed the CUP and required a review again in five years. The CDRB approved a 32-square-foot ground sign for the church. The city approved a lot split for the lot to the south so the church could buy the abutting land and enlarge their property. PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: C (church) Zoning: F, (farm residence district) Ordinance Requirements Section 36-437(3) requires a CUP for churches. CRITERIA FOR CUP APPROVAL Section 36-442(a) states that the city may approve a CUP, based on the nine standards for approval in the resolution on pages 13-14. sec17~hmong,cup Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Written Narrative date-stamped March 26, 1997 5. Letter from B. Kramer 6. Letter from Keith Colvard 7. CUP Resolution 8. Plans date-stamped March 26, 1997 (separate attachment) Attachment 1 LITTLE CANADA (Cole,urn Bed) d? ¥£RNON AY 8['LLWOOD SUMMER I~T v £ Rf'~C~ SKIL L IRAN ~/ SA IN T LOCATION MAP Attachment 2 ~mmmm mmmmmmmm mmmm "'"' i~-~ ""~' ' -'I~ mmmmm mmmmmmmmmm mmmm Im mm mm mm ~4~., / .~~ ~eo.' ~.)~e~, 4o2,'4~ ,A4~e~'. ~lll~ ' ' ................. {{{mN .....{{ ', 1B01~l I I ~ / ST. PAUL HMONG ~ I~ ~ ALLIANCE CHURCH ~;~; = -' 1766 '~o '~ ]'' ~ ~'~'~ ~ ~" "', .... · ........ ~, I ~ ,-,',,-~, ~ ~ ~ .'~'"L~,~. ~lg) ~ KINGSTON / ~) ~ ~ PROPERTY LINE..~ I ZONING MAP I[~. ST. PAUL HMONG ALLIANCE CHURCH PROPOSED SUNDAY SCHOOL ADDITION SITE PLAN Attachment 4 THE INTENDED USE OF THE PROPERTY There are many great needs for us to add another building. The current building has only three offices and nine classrooms. We already have four full-time and one part-time workers. Our senior pastor uses one of the offices, three of our workers share one office, our third office is used by our Sunday School, and one of our employees has no office. Three of our nine classrooms are used by our Nursery Department, and only the othe! six classrooms are used by our Sunday School. Our Sunday attendance is averaging between 800-900 in two services every Sunday. Furthermore, our current building plays a very important role for education and many other activities. Our Women's band or Youth band or Church Choir or Children's Choir or other Committees is regularly used our current building at least once a week. Beside the above, we have an ESL class every Tuesday and Thursday nights for people of our church and the community. We allow Relief Time, a program which sponsors by The Greater St. Paul Church Council, teaches a class in our church every Thursday from 2:15-3:00PM. We have a citizen class in the church every Saturday night from 6:00-9:00PM for our members and the community. The church Board or/and other committee(s) usually has/have meeting on one of the weekdays or weekends. It seems that we normally have many things going on at the same time which is hard to keep the noise down. Therefore, it is very important and necessary for us to add the new Sunday School building to our current building. This new building will add another three new offices, fourteen new classrooms, and a new library for our usages. There will be enough offices for our staffs and workers, enough classrooms for our Sunday School, available rooms for conference/meetings, and more quietness for other activities throughout the week. If we do pursue, we will have suitable rooms for future daycare in the church. We strongly believe that the addition of this new building will enhance us to be able to meet the needs of our members and people of the community. 10 Attachment 5 W~ have 1 ived at 1771 Ii~esoto street +or ten years and have recently put our .home on ~the market. We have had .:very 1.,ittte troubl:e.~ith the Hmong Community as they have garOened ne>it door to us for the oast ten years or' so. The church was. constructed after we built our home. ~'.e~ore the.church was bOi'lt they had told~us the building would b~. set up close tO the road. The'parking lot well know it ~r, en be !~--~ '~ behind the church As you ~i~n t ~.~onx out .... ~.t wa'~. If you dr~ve down Be~c, to street. you see the bac~: of a brick square building on top of a mill, mY o~inion is that it looks terr'~~c'!e, I don't know you +eel Ohm sam~. Please take time ~o drive by.and look at it +rom +~-[;es:.oto point of view. Ever=teen trees shrubs couic~ help this immensely. Desoto street has great potential and is a beautiful street, despite all of the t~ees we lost last summer. Wili there be a' playgro~nd .in the back, so there would be more noise? ~ Please look at this as if it were your neighborhood. Since~]l Y, B. Eraser ll Dear Mr. Ekstrand, Attachment 6 I understand the need for additional space that the St. Paul Hmong Church is requesting. Unfortunately, I have a difficult time supporting their request due to present ground appearance and maintenance practices. Specifically, the fence along the north property line. As it was constructed poorly and inconsistently along it's length. (E.G. Different Fence Styles) As well as, the lack of appearance care taken with regards to grounds maintenance. (E.G. Lawnmowing and Debris Removal) As a homeowner, I take pride in my property, as do most of my neighbors. I feel that is not the case with the churches property, problem proposes. anyone, neighborhood opportunity to Should these issues be addresSed, ! would have no endorsing any improvement or additions the church This letter was not intended to discredit or degrade but was to help maintain a high standard of pride and appearance. Thank you for the voice my opinions and concerns. Sincerely, 772-4803 (Home Phone) 12 Attachment CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the St. Paul Hmong Alliance Church applied for a conditional use permit to revised their conditional use permit because of their plans to enlarge their' church building by building a solarium and Sunday school addition. WHEREAS, this permit allows the church and Sunday school. WHEREAS, this permit applies to 1770 McMenemy Street. The legal description is: Except South 95 feet of West 167 feet and except East 200 feet; the North 5 acres and except West 167 feet and except East 200 feet; the North 4 feet of South 5 acres; being in North 10 acres of Southwest 114 of Southwest 1/4 (subject to road and easements) in Section 27, Township 29, Range 22. And Commencing at a point on the West line of Section 17, Township 29, Range 22, said point being 166.98 feet South from the Northwest corner of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 17; running thence East and parallel with the North line of said quarter quarter Section 1308.4 feet to the intersection with the East line of said quarter quarter Section, thence running South along the East line of said quarter quarter Section 166.98 feet; thence running West and parallel with the North line of said quarter quarter Section 1308.4 feet to the intersection with the West line of said Section; thence running North along said last named line 166.98 feet to the place of beginning; excepting therefrom the West 342 feet thereof; and except land described in Document No. 2137431. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On November 24, 1986, the city council granted a conditional use permit for a church at this location. 1. On April 21, 1997, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit revision. 2. The city council held a public hearing on ._, 1997. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit revision, because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, 3.3 o odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 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. 3. Regularly maintain the grounds and pick up all debris as well as maintain the decorative wood screening fences along the south and north sides of the parking lot. 4. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 5. The city council may require additional parking spaces if a parking shortage develops. 6. The plans for Phase II shall be submitted to the city council for approval. Adopted , 99_. 3.4 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager. Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Carey Addition Carey Heights Ddve and County Road D April 15, 1997 INTRODUCTION Project Description Karen Carey Bonner, representing Talmage and Theresia Carey, is proposing to develop lots for 21 single-family homes. They call this development the Carey Addition. It would be on a 7.71- acre site south of County Road D, along the private, unimproved Carey Heights Drive. Refer to the maps on pages 11-14. Requests To build this project, Ms. Bonner and the Careys, the property owners, are requesting that the city approve a preliminary plat for 21 house lots and two outlots for trails. (See the maps on pages 13-14.) City staff is proposing to change the zoning map for the area from F (farm residence) to R-1 (single dwelling). Refer to the property line/zoning map on page 12. BACKGROUND On October 26, 1987, the council initiated a public improvement project for the construction of Carey Heights Drive, between Kohlman Lake Overlook plat and County Road D. On February 27, 1989, the council held a public hearing about building Carey Heights Drive from Kohlman Lake Overlook development to County Road D. At this hearing, the council decided that the project was advisable, expedient and necessary and ordered the city engineer to prepare the plans for the project. However, the effected property owners did not want to provide the necessary public street right-of-way to the city. As such, the city never built the project. DISCUSSION Preliminary Plat Density and Lot Size The proposed preliminary plat would dedicate Carey Heights Drive as a public right-of-way and would replat several existing properties. On the west side of the street, there are two existing lots that are nonconforming because of their size. The lot between 1176 County Road D and 2999 Carey Heights Drive is 9,575 square feet and the lot north of 1174 County Road D is 9,976 square feet. The proposed plat keeps these nonconforming lots in the plat. Several neighbors thought that there were too many lots in this plat and that they were too small. As proposed, the lot sizes range from 9,575 square feet to 21,830 square feet with an average lot size of 12,095 square feet. The existing house lots on the end of Carey Heights Drive ;'nd Frank Street range in size from 10,000 to 11,600 square feet. The city code requires at least 10,000 square feet above a drainage easement and 75 feet of width for new lots. All the proposed new lots meet or exceed city standards. Maplewood cannot reduce the number of lots if the developer is meeting the city's ordinances. Through Street versus cul-de-sacs Some neighbors south of this proposal do not want Carey Heights Drive to go through to County Road D. They have concerns about increased traffic and safety in their neighborhood if Carey Heights Drive connects to County Road D. The neighbors would prefer to see Carey Heights Drive end in a permanent cul-de-sac. However, Maplewood has always intended Carey Heights Drive to continue north past the existing houses toward County Road D. There is no permanent public right-of-way for the existing temporary cul-de-sac on Carey Heights Drive. In fact, the city had the developer of Kohlman Lake Overlook put in a temporary cul-de-sac in front of 2999 Carey Heights Drive so a later developer could extend the street. Public safety officials prefer to have a through street than having more cul-de-sac streets. There is less confusion and time lost when finding an address on a through street than on two or more cul-de-sacs. Having Carey Heights Drive connect to County Road D also will provide another entrance and eXit into the Kohlman lake Overlook neighborhood. A concern of staff with making Carey Heights Drive a permanent cul-de-sac with the proPosed development is the probable length of a dead end street. Carey Heights Drive now ends about 620 feet from Frank Street. To have Carey Heights Drive end in a permanent cul-de-sac in the development, it would probably create a cul-de-sac 1,250 feet long. The city subdivision code sets the maximum cul-de-sac length at 1,000 feet, unless no other reasonable alternative is possible. Here, there is a reasonable alternative - connecting the street to County Road D. Walter Street provides a wider, gentler and more direct access between Beam Avenue and County Road D than would Carey Heights Drive and Frank Street. In addition, many drivers will continue to use Highway 61 for access to the south. As such, most of the people using Carey Heights Ddve should be the residents of the area. Trail The developer's plans show walking paths near the center of the plat. These run east/west from Carey Heights Drive to the properties on either side of the site, including the city park land on the west side of the site. As proposed, the trails would be in 30-foot-wide stdps of land between house lots. City staff is recommending that the developer change the plans to show the strips of land as easements within the lots. This change prevents the creation of small outlots that could become a tax liability for the city. Maplewood requires 8-foot-wide bituminous paths centered in easements that are at least 30 feet wider than the trail for off-street paths. For this site, the easement for the trail needs to be at least 38 feet wide to meet this code requirement. The developer should build a fence on both sides of the trail within this plat. The city should require the developer to install the trail and fences with the street and before final plat approval. This is to ensure that lot buyers know that the trail is there. 2 Public Utilities The proposed plans show sanitary sewer and water extending from the end of Carey Heights Ddve over the hill to County Road D. The developer would then extend these utilities from Care'y Heights Ddve to the west on the south side of County Road D to the east end of the Canada Woods development. This would then complete the looping of these utilities in this part of Maplewood. The city has a policy about neighboring property owners hooking up to public utilities that a private developer has installed near their property. If such a property owner wants to hook up to the new utilities that the developer has installed, the owner would pay the city a cash connection charge. Maplewood bases this charge on the frontage of the lot in question. If the property owner makes this utility connection within 5 years, the city would refund the amount of the cash connection fee back to the developer as outlined in the development agreement. Comer Lot The proposed plat would create a comer lot fronting on Carey Heights Drive and County Road D. Staff is recommending a condition to ensure the driveway for this lot exits onto Carey Heights Drive and not County Road Trees The main tree grouping on this property is on the northeast comer of the site. These are a mix of poplars and oaks. There also are a few large trees scattered around the rest of the site. Maplewood's tree ordinance does not apply to trees under eight inches in diameter or box elder, cottonwoods or poplar trees. The developer would grade much of the site and thus remove many trees on the site. Before grading the site, the city should require the developer to submit a tree plan to staff for approval. Maplewood's tree ordinance requires there be at least ten trees per gross acre on the site after grading if there were at least ten large trees per acre on the site before construction. Dedications Dan Solar, the Ramsey County traffic engineer, said that the applicant should dedicate ten additional feet of fight-of-way along County Road D. This is because the Ramsey County right-of- way plan requires a total right-of-way width of 86 feet (43 feet on each side) for County Road D. Zoning Map Change City staff is recommending changing the zoning map for this site. This change is from F (farm residence) to R-1 (single dwellings). This change would eliminate the possibility of farm activities that could be disruptive to the single-family homes in the area and would be COnsistent with the comprehensive plan. RECOMMENDATIONS A. ^pprove the Carey Addition preliminary plat (received by the city on March 12, 1997). The developer shall complete the following before the city council approves the final plat: 1. Sign an agreement with the city that guarantees that the developer or contractor will: 3 a. Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. c. Have NSP install street lights in two locations - at the intersection of Carey Heights Drive and County Road D and where the proposed trail and Carey Heights Drive intersect. d. Pay the city for the cost of traffic-control, street identification and no parking signs. e. Provide all required and necessary easements. f. Remove all junk, scrap metal, debris, and the shed. go Cap and seal all wells on site that the owners are not using; remove septic systems or drainfields, subject to the environmental health official's approval. Within one year of the contractor installing the sanitary sewer, the owners of the existing houses on Carey Heights Drive shall connect the houses to the sanitary sewer. h. Complete all the curb and gutter on Carey Heights Drive on the south side of the site, repair the temporary cul-de-sac and restore and sod the boulevards. Construct eight-foot-wide paved walkways and fencing between Lot 5, Block 1 and Lot 8, Block 2 and Lot 6, Block 3 and Lot 1, Block 4. These trails shall be between the street and the property lines. The developer also shall provide a fence on both sides of the trails and shall install posts at the end of the trails to prevent cars or trucks from using the trail. The developer shall build the trails and any required fencing with the street. The city engineer must approve these plans. Maplewood is requiring the developer to pay for the trails within the plat since the trail will provide access to the new city park to the residents of the new plat. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, trail and street plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions: a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code. b. The grading plan shall: (1) Include proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each home site. (2) Include contour information for all the land that the construction will disturb. (3) Show housing styles that reduce the grading on sites where the developer can save large trees. (4) Show the proposed street grades as allowed by the city engineer. 4 c** The tree plan shall: (1) Be approved by the city engineer before site grading or final plat approval. (2) Show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. (3) Show the size, species and location of the replaCement trees. The deciduous trees shall be at least two and one half (2 1/2) inches in diameter and shall be a mix of red and white oaks and sugar maples. The coniferous trees shall be at least eight (8) feet tall and shall be a mix of Austrian pine and other species. (4) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. d. The street and utility plans shall show: (1) Paved walkways and fencing between Lot 5, Block 1 and Lot 8, Block 2 and Lot 6, Block 3 and Lot 1, Block 4. These trails shall be between the street and the property lines and the parks and recreation director shall approve their design. (2) The maximum street grade of 8 percent and the maximum street grade within 75 feet of the south edge of County Road D at 2 percent. Change the plat as follows: a. Make the 30-foot-wide walking paths part of the adjacent lots and show them as 38-foot-wide utility and pedestrian easements. b. Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer. c. Show drainage and utility easements along all property lines on the final plat. These easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet wide along the side property lines. d. Show the existing pipeline and NSP easements on the final plat. Secure and provide all required easements for the development including any off-site drainage and utility easements. The applicant or developer shall provide a certificate of survey of the area between the houses at 1174 and 1176 Carey Heights Drive to verify the location of the swimming pool. If necessary, the applicant or developer shall move the proposed property line between Lots 2 and 3, Block 3 to ensure that the pool is completely on the lot with the house at 1174 Carey Heights Drive. Record a deed dedicating 10 feet of additional right-of-way along County Road D for future street widening with the final plat. The applicant shall submit the language for this dedication to the city for approval before recording. 5 7. Record a covenant or deed restriction with the final plat that prohibits the driveway on Lot 1, Block 1 from going onto County Road D. 8. Obtain a permit'from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for grading.. 9. The owners of the properties at 1174 and 1176 County Road D shall change the addresses of their properties to Carey Heights Drive addresses within 30 days of the contractor installing the base bituminous course for the new public street. If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the director of communitY development may waive any conditions that do not apply to the final plat. *The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or approves the final plat. Adopt the resolution on page 16. This resolution changes the zoning for the property south of County Road D along Carey Heights Drive. This change is from F (farm residential) to R-1 (single dwellings). The reasons for this change are those in the code and because the owner plans to develop the property for single dwellings. 6 CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 44 properties within 350 feet of this site. Of the 11 replies, one had no comment, four were for, five objected and one had other comments. For 1. Reduce traffic on Walter and single-family dwellings most preferred development for this area. (Bradt - 1236 Summit Court) 2. I am for this proposal in principal, but my major concern is to set the grading so no drainage goes into the park. (Huntley - 3020 Edward Street) Objections 1. We are concerned about increased traffic, speed of traffic and danger to neighborhood children and the design/size of proposed homes. Set covenants for new homes, keeping with style and size of existing homes. Set Iow speed limits, possibly with speed bumps to keep traffic from accelerating over the hill. Post a sign advising no through traffic at the County Road D entrance. Finish the paving of the street by 2999 Carey Heights drive, part of our yard is currently consumed by the temporary cul-de-sac, and we would wish to have that land returned to our yard if the street goes through and the cul-de-sac is no longer needed. (Krahmer - 2999 Carey Heights Drive) 2. The lots are very small for homes and traffic concerns. Make the lots larger with fewer lots. Address the traffic issue. (Ga!land - 2994 Carey Heights Drive) 3. I would like to see our street (Carey Heights Drive) not go through to County Road D. Please cul-de-sac the street up on the hill two houses from County Road D. (Esch - 2993 Carey Heights Ddve) 4. The increase in population density will provide less habitat for the deer and cause them to ruin the shrubs in my yard. The increase in population and through street on Caray Heights Drive will increase traffic and noise and finally I am concerned with runoff of water on to my property. (Vento - 2998 Frank Street) Also see the letter on page 15. Miscellaneous Comment I have some concern about the increase in traffic when the cul-de-sac is eliminated. (Ellisen - 2980 Carey Heights Drive) 7 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: gross acreage - 7.71 acres, net acreage - 5.54 acres Existing land use: Two single dwellings and a pdvate driveway SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: West: East: Apartments across County Road D in Vadnais Heights Houses on Carey heights Drive City park land and a single dwelling Mining area PAST ACTIONS o o June 1964: The village council approved a preliminary plat for this area. 8-13-64: A second preliminary plat was approved by the council. Council also approved a building permit for Mr. Carey at 1174 County Road D, subject to an agreement between himself and the village that he will not request any village maintenance on his private driveway, nor will he object to the construction of, and assessment for, a standard village street in the future. 10-21-66: The city issued a building permit to Richard Barrett at 1176 E. County Road D. 11-9-66: Richard Barrett signed an agreement waiving his dght to a village street or maintenance of the pdvate ddve to his property and further agreeing to construct and maintain a private drive to his property. 11-10-66: The village engineer reported to the council that the private drive did not meet village street standards and was not constructed to approved plans. Council authorized a building permit to be issued to Mr. Barrett subject to Mr. Barrett complying with the conditions in the engineer's report. 11-17-66: The planning commission recommended approval of a preliminary plat for Richard Barrett consisting of four lots on the west side of Carey Heights Drive and the half streets required by council action of 11-10-66. 11-17-66: Council approved a preliminary plat for the Carey Addition. This plat comprised of only part of the Carey property including right,of-way for Carey Heights Drive, Woodlynn Avenue and Lydia Avenue. 4-4-77: The planning commission recommended that the council table consideration of variances requested by Mr. Novak (build on a substandard lot, without frontage to a dedicated public street) to allow the applicant an opportunity to pursue the matter of dedication of the right-of-way (Carey Heights Drive) and pursuing a vadance to standards of street and utility construction. 8 10. 11. 12. 13. 9-1-77: Mr. Carey petitioned the city to improve Carey Heights Drive from County Road D southward approximately 1500 feet. 9-28-77: Council ordered a feasibility study for the improvement of Carey Heights Drive with public street and utilities. The study showed that the project would be cost-prohibitive. 1-26-78: Council approved a Io~ area variance but denied two street access variances as requested by Mr. Richard Novak, based on the following findings: 1. The street access variances do not meet the "spirit and intent" of the ordinance. 2. A precedent would be set for similar lots in other areas of the city. 3. There may be times of the year when emergency services could not get access to the property. 4. There is no hardship that is "unique to the individual property under consideration." On Apdl 20, 1978, city staff recommended that the council declare the Carey Heights Ddve improvement project not feasible and go no further with the project. Council tabled consideration to allow Mr. Carey "to contact his own source in regard to providing utilities on Carey Heights Drive." On December 18, 1980, the city council approved a lot split request of Aaron Rupert to create a 13,500 square-foot lot on the east side of the private Carey Heights Drive. Mr. Rupert, however, never created the lot as approved by the city council. PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan designation: R-1 (single dwellings) Existing Zoning: F (farm residence) Proposed Zoning: R-1 (single dwellings) Code considerations: Section 9-1(a) states that "No building permits will be issued for any construction within the city unless the building site is located adjacent to an existing street which is dedicated and maintained as a city street, or unless provision for street construction has been made in full compliance with this code and in no case until grading work, as provided in this code, has been completed and certified to the clerk by the city engineer; except that, in isolated instances, the council may enter an agreement with a property owner for special handling of an unusual situation, which agreement shall be recorded so as to run withthe land affected." Public Works. 1. There are no utilities in Carey Heights Drive. The two residences have on-site well and septic tank systems. 2. There is a steep grade in 'Carey Heights Drive from County Road D to the middle of the site that may make it difficult for emergency vehicles to climb during the winter or after a hard rain. 9 Public Safety Each time another residence is built on the pdvate street, it makes it more difficult to deliver emergency services. Findings for Rezoning 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. 2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract frOm the use of 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. 4. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. p:sec 4\careyadd.mem Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Proposed Preliminary Plat 4. Proposed Grading Plan 5. 3-22-97 letter from Gerald Hauge 6. Rezoning Resolution (F to R-l) 7. Plans date-stamped March 12, 1997 (separate attachment) 10 Attachment 1 Li.I Loke PLAZA ¢IR ALVARADO DR BEI..LECREST DR DEAU~LLE DR BEAM AVE. VADNAIS HEIGHTS PALM CT. CON COUNTY ;EX'rANT AVE. GERVNS BURKE CT. JUNCTION LOCATION MAP 11 D 1. SUMMIT CT. 2. COUNTRY~E'W CIR. .'.'5. DULUTH CT. 4. LYDIA ST. BEAM KOHLMAN AVE. ROAD ~ C VIKING SHERREN AVE. Kn,u~od ~ Rotc VADNAIS HEIGHTS Attachment 2 1134 1138 AVl=. f~T~ 3064 3054 SITE PIPELINE F POWER LINES ',' :'" <I - ~, ~ -,i 3~044~ MINING AREA 3034 3026 3020 3oi2 3006' 3000 2990 .4 2997 !2998 ;2999 ~ 29~,6' 2968"i ~,~. ~ ~,~ 29701 PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP 12 Attachment 3 CAREY ADDITION -. 4 H~ljlI Attachment 4 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN OF: CAREY ADDITION ! ! h' / COUNTY L: // I 1I i March 22, 1997 Attachme6t 5 Mr. Kenneth Roberts, Associate Planner City of Maplewood 1830 E County Road B Maplewooch Minnesota 55109 re: Carey Heights Addition Dear Mr. Roberts: From the material provided with your memo of March 19, 1997, it is not clear if the improvements from County Road D to the temporary eul-de sac near 2999 Carey Heights Drive will result in a thoroughfare to Frank Street. If the improvements result in s thoroughfare to Frsnk Street, I vigorously object to the proposal. A second direct connection to County Road D would further increase the traffic levels and therefore significautly reduce the current property value of the homes at the intersection of Carey Heights Drive and Frank Street. In addition the higher traffic vob_~me would adversely impact the quality of life for the residents, in particular the c]fildren, along with the environment. Should the temporary cul-de-sac near 2999 Carey remain and therefore the improvements result in no direct connection from County Koad D to Frank Street, I would.not object to the development sin.. y, _- 2969 Fr_ank Street Maplewood, MN 55109-1092 612490-1688 Attachment 6 RESOLUTION: ZONING MAP CHANGE WHEREAS, the Director of Community Development proposed a change to the zoning map from F (farm residential) to R-1 (single dwellings). WHEREAS, this change applies to the property south of County Road D along Carey Heights Drive. WHEREAS, the legal description is: The east 9.0 acres of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 4, Township 29 North, Range 22 West, Ramsey County Minnesota, except the north 358 feet lying west of the east 130 feet thereof. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. On April 21, 1997, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this change. On May ,1997, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the headng an opportunity to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described change in the zoning map for the following reasons: 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 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. 4. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. 5. The developer is proposing to develop the site with single-family homes. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on May ,1997. 16 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner Setback Variance, Conditional Use Permit Revision and Design Review - St. John's Hospital 1575 Beam Avenue April 16, 1997 INTRODUCTION Proposal HealthEast is proposing several building additions, site changes and interior renovations to St. John's Hospital at 1575 Beam Avenue. Refer to the maps on pages 8-10. The applicant describes this four-phase expansion project in detail in the narrative on pages 11-15. In summary, the proposed changes include the following work: Phase 1: Construction of a two-level parking deck with a possibility to add two more levels. Expansion of the existing parking lot at the north side of the site. Phase 2: Construct a three-story, 100,000-square-foot Ambulatory Care Center. Make interior renovations in the existing building. Extend St. John's Boulevard to Kennard Street. Phase 3: Construct a 95,000-square-foot Medical Specialty Center Phase 4: Make interior renovations in the existing building. The proposed additions would have a variety of materials (brick, precast concret®, tile and aluminum). The proposed parking deck would be precast concrete. Requests The applicant is requesting: 1. A 25-foot front setback variance for the proposed parking deck. The code requires 30 feet. 2. A conditional use permit (CUP) revision for the hospital expansion. City code requires a CUP for hospitals. 3. Approval of site and building design plans. DISCUSSION Parking Deck Setback Variance The applicant is proposing a substantial reduction to the 30-foot setback requirement from the Hazelwood Street right-of-way. Under normal circumstances, staff would not support this reduction to a five-foot setback. In this instance, however, there is such a wide boulevard along Hazelwood Street that this request becomes feasible. The Hazelwood Street boulevard ranges from 30 to 45 feet wide. The proposed parking deck would have a setback ranging from 35 to 53 feet from the street edge. This results in a similar setback found on most streets with 12-foot-wide boulevards. This wider boulevard creates a setback that would meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance. The shape of the site also creates hardship if the code was met. The right-of-way jogs making it difficult to maintain the standard setback along the westerly frontage of the site. Compliance with a 30-foot setback at the point closest to the right-of-way would result in an odd looking setback further north on the site and would result in a poor use of the available land. Conditional Use Permit The proposal meets the requirements for a CUP. Building Design The proposed building proposals would be attractive. Regular Parking The applicant is proposing a total of 1,072 parking spaces with the proposed construction. The plans do not show how many spaces there are currently. The city does not have any criteria for a facility such as this. The applicant, therefore, applied the St. Paul's parking formulas for parking. It appears as though there would be enough parking available. If there proves to be a shortage, HealthEast should provide more. They have room to do so. Handicap-Accessible Parking Carolyn Peterson, representing the Maplewood Seniors and Persons with Disabilities Committee, is requesting that the site plan be revised to place handicap-parking spaces next to the sidewalks nearest the entrances. The committee has been taking an active role to try to improve existing parking lots that are not truly handicap accessible. The committee feels strongly that disabled persons should not be forced to cross traffic lanes to get to the building entrance. Refer to the letter on pages 16--17. The city council should consider requiring plan revisions to require closer, safer and more accessible handicap parking spaces that are next to the sidewalks in front of the buildings. Street Extension The applicant should extend St. John's Boulevard as part of the Phase 2 construction proposal. This will be needed as another means in and out of the site at the time of the new building construction. RECOMMENDATION A. Adopt the resolution on page 19 approving a 25-foot front setback variance for the proposed parking deck at St. John's Hospital, 1575 Beam Avenue. This variance approval is since: The proposed reduced setback would meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance because of the wide boulevard along Hazelwood Street. The wide boulevard would give the proposed parking deck the appearance of having a 30-foot setback. The shape of the site creates hardship if the code was met. The right-of-way jogs making it difficult to maintain the standard setback along the westerly frontage of the site. Compliance with a 30-foot setback at the point closest to the right-of-way would result in an odd looking setback further north on the site and would result in a poor use of the available land. Adopt the resolution on pages 20-21 approving the conditional use permit for a hospital at 1575 Beam Avenue. This permit is based on the standards for approval required by the 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. 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. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The city council may require that the property owner add more parking spaces is a parking shortage develops. 5. The property owner shall construct St. John's Boulevard to Kennard Street along with the work planned for Phase 2 of the expansion project. Approve the plans date-stamped March 18, 1997, for the proposed phased expansion of St. John's Hospital, 1575 Beam Avenue. Approval is subject to the property owner complying with the following conditions: Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for Phase One of this project. Each subsequent phase shall be started within two years of the completion of the previous phase or the design review must be repeated for the remaining phases. 3 Complete the following for staff approval before the city issues a building permit for the parking deck or a grading permit for the proposed parking lot expansion: a. Submit a grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plan to the city engineer for - approval. The erosion control plan shall comply with ordinance requirements. b. Submit a lawn-irrigation plan to staff showing the location of sprinkler heads. c. Submit a revised site plan that provides for handicap parking spaces next to the sidewalks that are near the front doors of the proposed building entrances. d. Submit a detailed landscape plan for approval by the community design review board. This plan shall include: (1) Plant sizes, species locations and quantities. (2) The dollar amount of the landscaping proposed and the cost of the building cost for all phases of this project. (This is a requirement of the Chanhassen ordinance presently used on a trial basis in Maplewood.) Complete the following before occupying the building: a. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. b. Install reflectorized stop signs at all exits, a handicap-parking sign for each handicap- parking space and an address on the building. c. Paint all roof-top mechanical equipment to match the uppermost part of the building. Roof equipment screening is waived in accordance with recent community design review board action. d. Construct a trash dumpster enclosure(s) as city code requires. The enclosure(s) must match the color of the building and have a closeable, 100% opaque gate. e. Install and maintain an in-ground sprinkler system for all new landscaped areas. f. Construct St. John's Boulevard to Kennard Street along with the work planned for Phase 2 of the expansion project. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 150% of the cost of the unfinished work. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed owners of the 20 properties within 350 feet of the church property. Of the six replies, two were in favor, two objected, one had no comment and one had some general questions. In Favor I am in favor of this proposal, however, am not too sure about the location of the parking ramp. Possibly more information on the ramp may change my mind. (Maplewood Professional Center) 2. It will be a great asset to the area and the City of Maplewood. (Hajicek, 1700 County Road D) Opposed 1. Hazelwood must be four lanes north of Beam to accommodate traffic flow. (Owner, 1560 Beam Avenue) 2. Refer to the letter on page 18 opposing the proposed parking deck setback variance. (R. Schreier on behalf of DeSoto Associates Limited Partnership) Questions How long will construction take? What will happen to Hazelwood? Widened? Fixed up? What is phasing schedule? When would they build the future road? Any pad for helicopters? (Peterson, 3016 Hazelwood Street) 5 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Lot size: 35 acres Existing land use: St. John's Hospital SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Single dwellings and undeveloped property zoned F (farm residential) and planned BC (business commercial) South: Beam Avenue and a medical office center East: Maplewood Professional Building, the St. Paul Eye Clinic and Birch Run Station West: Hazelwood Street and undeveloped property zoned M-1 (light manufacturing) PAST ACTION (CUP History) May 20, 1982: May 23, 1983: May 23, 1988: May 22, 1993: The city council approved the CUP. There were no conditions of approval. The city council reviewed the CUP and scheduled review again for 1988. The city council reviewed the CUP and scheduled review again for 1993. The city council agreed not to review the CUP again unless there is a problem. PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: BC Zoning: BC Ordinance Requirements Section 36-437(3) requires a CUP for hospitals. Section 36-28(c)(6)(a) requires a minimum front setback for noncommercial buildings of 30 feet. Criteria for Variance Approval State law requires that the city council make the following findings to approve a variance from the zoning code: 1. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. 2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship", as used in granting of a variance, means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Criteria for CUP Approval Section 36-442(a) states that the city may approve a CUP, based on the nine standards for approval in the resolution on pages 20-21. p:sec3~hospital.cup Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Project Narrative (five pages) 5. Letter from Carolyn Peterson dated March 27, 1997 6. Letter from Richard Schreier dated March 28, 1997 7. Variance Resolution 8. CUP Resolution 9. Plans date-stamped March 18, 1997 (separate attachment) HEIGHTS COUNTY ROAD TY RD. D ~ 1. SUMMIT CT. i 2. COUNTRYVIEW Cll ~ 3. DULUTH CT. 4. LYDtA ST. ~ COURT ~ EDGEHILL RD. GERVNS AVE. AVE. COPE GERVNS z VIKINO SHERREN AVE. AVE. L(ake AVE. LARK AVE. .~ERVNS CT. COPE AVE. ~'\~'~ G~'' LOCATION MAP 8 i I~1 ' BC-M Attachment 3 -1-I ;EAM' AVENUE HealthEast: St. John's Hospital Hospital Addition and Renovation Project DESIGN NARRA~VE PROJECT OVERVIEW Attachment 4 St. John's Hospital, in response to its long-term strategic planning objectives, has embarked on a major building expansion and renovation project, in response to a growing demand for Ambulatory Services within the community. Upon completion of an exhaustive Facility Master Plan Study, St. John's established a set of project directives which created the framework from which the attached Schematic Design Concept was developed. The Final Schematic Design Concept is represented in the following document. The Design Narratives identify the existing conditions and outline the proposed scope of services, as well as a variety of add alternates to the original project scope. The attached drawings have been modified to represent the current strategies with regards to the comprehensive Facility Master Plan. The Building Addition & Renovation Project as defined by the Schematic Design Phase will be the datum line from which the Design Development Phase is based and evaluated. The proposed project will be subdivided into four major phases: Phase 1: Site Master Plan The First Phase of the project, and perhaps the most critical, is the reorganization of the existing site. The expansion of the existing facility will create a significant need to increase the present parking capacity and provide a new organizational scheme which addresses vehicular circulation. Currently, the existing site relies on surface parking which is an issue for both staff and visitors due to the lengthy travel distances from parking lot to hospital entry points. The proposed concept will not only reorganize the site with the separation of vehicular traffic for ambulatory patients, visitors, ER patients, physicians and staff, but also expand the current surface parking. The proposed concept also recommends the construction of a parking deck to be located west of the main entry. The proposed parking deck will provide desperately needed parking adjacent to the hospital entry, as well as provide the separation of visitors, ER, Medical Specialty Center patrons and physician parking areas. The parking deck will also have the capability of two future levels of expansion to accommodate any future building expansion. The development of the comprehensive site plan will involve a well coordinated, multi-faceted work plan with several critical milestones to be monitored in order to insure the overall project success. The Site Master Plan Phase is scheduled to provide an early site package identifying the Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) in order to approve the project cost and allow the construction to begin on the site in the summer of 1997. The project team, consisting of St. John's Hospital, HealthEast Corporate, McGough Construction and OSM will work extremely diligently to successfully complete the project within the outlined project schedule. OSM Project No. 96042.00 - March 13, 1997 j :~96042.00~ch~zone.v ar 11 HealthEast: St. John's Hospital Hospital Addition and Renovation Project DESIGN NARRATIVE PROJECT OVERVIEW Phase 2: Ambulatory Care Center The Second Phase will involve the design and construction of a new 3-story 100,000 square foot Ambulatory Care Center. The new outpatient facility will house the expanding services of general Radiology, Mammography, Ultrasound, Angiography, Future Healing Arts Center, Diabetes Resource, GI Lab, Pharmacy, Cardiac Rehabilitation, Lab and a variety of Administrative Support Services. The construction of the new Ambulatory Care Center will provide the campus with a new main hospital entry which will in turn help to organize and strengthen the campus wayfinding system. The Second Phase of the project will be critical in order to create the necessary swing space for the reorganization of the existing facility. The phase will involve moving current hospital programs from the hospital to the new Ambulatory Care Center and renovating the remaining space, as indicated by the new reorganizational scheme. The construction of the new Ambulatory Care Center will be constructed in conjunction with the new Medical Specialty Center. Phase 3: Medical Specialty Center The Third Phase of the project will involve the design and construction of a 95,000 square foot Medical Specialty Center which will be contiguous to the existing Hospital and Ambulatory Care Center. The development of the Medical Specialty Center will allow the expansion of the current physician referral base through the leasing of severely needed medical office space which is adjacent to the existing hospital. The Medical Specialty Center will also house the relocated Watson Education Center, which will primarily function as the St. John's Hospital Conference Center. The first floor of the building will also be planned and designed to accept a 16,000 square foot future Radiation Therapy Center. The second and third floors will house lease space for physician offices. The building design will incorporate the provisions for a future skyway connecting the Medical Specialty Center to the existing Hospital for physician and staff convenience. The Medical Specialty Center will also be connected to the existing hospital via a sublevel tunnel for the ability to be serviced by the existing hospital. As stated previously, the Medical Specialty Center will be constructed in conjunction with the Ambulatory Care Center, but will maintain its own identity and image separate from the hospital. The building orientation will be developed in order to redirect the focus away from the main hospital entry and create a separate entry servicing the Medical Specialty Center and Watson Education Center. OSM Project No. 96042.00 - March 13, 1997 j A96042.00karch~zone.v ar 'l 2 HealthEast: St. John's Hospital Hospital Addition and Renovation Project DESIGN NARRATIVE PROJECT OVERVIEW Phase 4: Hospital Expansion Renovation The Fourth Phase of the project will involve a series of significant renovations within the existing Hospital totaling nearly 90,000 gross square feet. The expansion of the medical campus will create a domino effect of sorts, where individual departments will be relocated and renovated to accommodate thc reorganization of the existing facility. The areas involved in the hospital renovation will include Surgery, Emergency, Central Services, Nutrition Services, Watson Education Center, as well as a host of building support and administrative functions. The major portion of this phase will involve the relocation of the Watson Education Center to the first level of the new Medical Specialty Center and the relocation and expansion of the Emergency Department to the current education site, located on the ground level of the Maternity Care Center. The desperately needed expansion of emergency services will more than double current space allocation to accommodate the growing patient census. The other significant renovation and expansion projects will involve the total redesign of the existing Surgery Department, excluding the operation rooms; the relocation and expansion of the Inpatient and Outpatient Lab Services; and the expansion of Nutrition Services. These projects will be extremely difficult to execute due to the critical nature of the space, and the fact that the areas must be renovated without major disruption to the existing hospital services. The project team is actively pursuing an accelerated schedule to improve the start date of the Surgery and E.R. expansion projects. However, there are critical issues to be addressed by St. John's administration regarding the relocation of the existing hospital space prior to executing the expansion opportunities. OSM Project NO. 96042.00 - March 13, 1997 j A96042.00k~tch~zone.v ar 13 HealthEast: St. John's Hospital Hospital Addition and Renovation Project DESIGN NARRATIVE CIVIL EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS The existing St. John's Hospital site bordered on the north by undeveloped land, east by Kennard Street, south by Beam Avenue and west by Hazelwood Street consists of an approximate gross of 40 acres, less about 5 acres for street right-of-way. The total site nets about 35 total of developable acres. The site terrain generally slopes from the northeast to the southwest with approximately 75% of the site draining to the southwest. The site currently contains bituminous parking surfaces in each quadrant with the exception of the northeast quadrant which consists of 8.8 acres of undeveloped land. The existing utilities consist of storm sewer, watermain and sanitary sewer systems. The storm sewer system generally directs site drainage to the Beam Avenue/Hazelwood Street for the St. Johns Hospital parcel and east towards Kennard Street from the Maplewood Professional Building parcel. The entire system drains to a trunk sewer located in Beam Avenue and to a sewer located in - Kennard Street. The existing watermain borders the site along Hazelwood Street, Beam Avenue and Kennard Street. The hospital is served by the watermain extending east from Hazelwood Street along St. John's Boulevard to the northeast side of the patient tower building and from the south from Beam Avenue. The professional offices buildings are served from the Kennard Street water system. It appears that the site sanitary sewerage is directed to the Beam Avenue sewer system. Sanitary sewer facilities are also located in Hazelwood Street and Kennard Street for future reference. PROPOSED SITE MASTER PLAN IMPROVEMENTS The proposed project scope will involve significant site modifications that will involve a number of complicated site phasing packages in order to expand the parking capabilities, while at the same time maintaining the operational status. The proposed site design will involve the reorganization of the primary vehicular circulation corridors into and out of the site. St. John's Boulevard will be relocated to provide a true east / west orientation with a sub road servicing the new hospital entry. The new road alignment for St. John's Boulevard will also establish the frame work for future site development as well as provide the opportunity to complete the preferred road looping of the entire site. The reorganization of the site will also provide the necessary separation of vehicular traffic related to Emergency visitors, staff, patients and services. The southern frontage road will be used for ambulance, E.R. and service entries, while the north service road will provide access for patients, visitors and the Medical Specialty Center. OSM Project No. 96042.00 - March 13, 1997 jA96042.00~rch~zone.var ] 4 HealthEast: St. John's Hospital Hospital Addition and Renovation Project DESIGN NARRATIVE CIVIL The proposed site design will involve an eastern expansion of the existing north surface parking lot to accommodate additional parking requirements associated with the 215,000 square foot building addition. The southwest parking lot directly west of the main hospital building will be designed to provide a below grade parking deck for physical parking and surface parking deck to maximize the number of available parking spaces for patients and visitors. The parking ramp will be designed to allow for future vertical expansion should it be required. The fu'st level parking deck will extend the entire length of the existing hospital building to align with the south face of the existing Maternity Care Center and provide covered parking for the Emergency Department. Extensive earthwork is anticipated to reduce the size and location of the berm in the NW quadrant occupied by the expanded parking facility. The First Phase of the project will extend St. John's Boulevard from Hazelwood Street to the new Medical Specialty Center. The Second Phase will extend the Boulevard through to Kennard Street. A two tier retaining wall structure will be required between the vehicular drop-off area of the main hospital entry and the lower frontage road for the emergency department. The site earthwork is proposed to balance on site in an attempt to reduce overall project development costs. The existing watermain and storm sewer and sanitary sewer will require relocation to serve the proposed building layout while maintaining service to the existing buildings. Retainage of stormwater runoff on-site is anticipated and proposed retention sites have been identified on the schematic documents. Watermain service to the existing buildings will need to be relocated to minimize the service routes extending through the proposed building additions. OSM recommends extending the new watermain service from Hazelwood to Kennard Street completing the loop system. This system may be required by the City of Maplewood, it will also equalize the pressure on the system, provide redundancy, improve fn'e protection capacity, as well as allow future expansion opportunities with major utility and infrastructure upgrades. Evaluation of the existing sanitary sewer is under review, but it appears that no significant modification will be required and the design for the new building addition can connect into the existing system. The comprehensive site development strategy will expand on the existing conditions of the site relative to current parking locations upon completion of the schematic design phase. A Preliminary Parking Analysis will be completed to evaluate the additional parking requirements. The preferred site development option will maximize the proximity of the proposed parking relative to the building entries. The option will explain the current site arrangements as well as provide for logical growth expansion for future site development. OSM Project No. 96042.00 - March 13, 1997 j :k96042.00~arch~zone.v ar 15 Attachment 5 16 Attachment 6 DESOTO ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP P. O. BOX 17830 ST. PAUL, MN 55117-7830 (612) 484-0070 March 28, 1997 Thomas Ekstrand City of Maplewood 1530 E. County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 HealthEast/St. John's Hospital Hospital Addition and Renovation Project Dear Ekstrand, I am in receipt of your March 25, 1997, Neighborhood Survey describing some expansion plans of St. John's Hospital. We own the parcel directly across Hazelwood Street to the west, . we would like to strongly object to the variance being requested for the proposed parking ramp set-back from Hazelwood. In fact, it would be best if the parking ramp could be located on another part of the St. John's property or at least set back farther than the thirty (30) feet required. This large proposed parking, ramp will._be, visua!ly de~ '~trknental to.our devel_oPmen~A_~Th.e....v,,i~v~ of this extremely large par~c!ng ramp wm mapact any mrare use o~ our property, s u~,c wa, virtually no view across the street and in fact, the early morning sunshine will be blocked. We have never seen an attractive parking ramp. T_o break the set-back rules to set the huge parking ramp even closer to us would be vigorously opposed. Please make your best efforts to move the parking ramp to another area where it will not be visually detrimental to its neighbors. Sincerely, On behalf of DeSoto Associates Limited Partnership TMS/kl 18 Attachment 7 VARIANCE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, HealthEast applied for a variance from the zoning ordinance. WHEREAS, this variance applies to (1575 Beam Avenue). The legal description is: The Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, MN, except therefrom the South 660 feet of that part of said Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter which lies east of the west 727.75 feet thereof. WHEREAS, Section 36-28(c)(6)(a) of the Maplewood Code of Ordinances requires a minimum front building setback of 30 feet. WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing a front setback for a new four story parking deck with as little as five feet. WHEREAS, this requires a variance of 25 feet. WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows: 1. On April 21, 1997, the planning commission recommended that the city council this variance. The city council held a public hearing on ,1997. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The council gave everyone at the hearing an opportunity to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described variance since: The proposed reduced setback would meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance because of the wide boulevard along Hazelwood Street. The wide boulevard would give the proposed parking deck the appearance of having a 30-foot setback. The shape of the site creates hardship if the code was met. The right-of-way jogs making it difficult to maintain the standard setback along the westerly frontage of the site. Compliance with a 30-foot setback at the point closest to the right-of-way would result in an odd looking setback further north on the site and would result in a poor use of the available land, Adopted on _, 1997. 3.9 Attachment 8 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, HealthEast applied for a conditional use permit revision to enlarge their hospital campus. WHEREAS, this permit allows a hospital and related medical facilities. WHEREAS, this permit applies to 1575 Beam Avenue. The legal description is: The Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, MN, except therefrom the South 660 feet of that part of said Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter which lies east of the west 727.75 feet thereof. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is asfollows: 1. On May 20, 1982, the city council granted a conditional use permit for the hospital. 2. On April 21, 1997, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 3. The city council held a public hearing on _, 1997. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required b~/ law. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit, because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 20 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is 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. 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. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The city council may require that the property owner add more parking spaces is a parking shortage develops. 5. The property owner shall construct St. John's Boulevard to Kennard Street along with the work planned for Phase 2 of the expansion project. Adopted ,199_. 23. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner In-Fill Development Study March 17, 1997 INTRODUCTION The city council directed city staff to study possible zoning or code changes for in-fill development sites. This would be to ensure that new developments are compatible with the characteristics of the existing neighborhood. BACKGROUND On October 28, 1996, the council considered a request of Gonyea Company for a four-lot plat called Pleasantview Park Number 3. This plat would be on Crestview and Lakewood Drives, south of Highwood Avenue. The council tabled action on this plat until November 12, 1996 to: 1. Have legal counsel look at how the plan would affect the valuation of surrounding properties.- 2. Determine if the city has any grounds for looking at how the proposed plat affects the character of the neighborhood. 3. Look at the size of the lots that would not be compatible with the overall neighborhood, the decrease in value of surrounding properties that would result from the project as proposed. On November 12, 1996, the council, on advice from the city attorney, approved the proposed plat as requested by the Gonyea Company. This was because if a proposed plat meets all the requirements of the city, then the city must approve the plat. In this case, the proposed plat met all city standards. On January 6, 1997, the council reviewed the first in-fill study report. In this report, city staff had identified 28 sites that probably will develop with residential land uses. After discussing the study, the council directed staff to explore further the use of conditional use permits (CUP's) for the regulation of in-fill sites. This direction was with the understanding that the city would need to carefully write any such provisions. DISCUSSION Study Review In reviewing this study request from the council, city staff first needed to decide what distinguishing characteristics or features define the character of a neighborhood or area. Staff discussed several possibilities including land uses, lot area, lot width, amounts of tree cover, numbers of trees, house sizes and values, housing styles, street and traffic patterns and property values. These are all items that usually concern neighbors near proposed developments. The city can have regulations about land use, minimum lot area, minimum lot width, wetland preservation and tree protection. All zoning regulations should protect and conserve property values, and should protect the health, safety, morals and welfare of the citizens. The courts have ruled that cities cannot directly try to regulate or legislate home values, house styles and aesthetics or minimum property values if these do not affect the public health, safety, and welfare. Staff then did a review of the city to identify all the probable remaining residential development sites in Maplewood. These are sites that the council has not approved a preliminary plat for that staff expects will develop with. residential land uses. Our review found 28 possible residential . development sites ranging from 1.5 acres to over 50 acres in size. At an average of 2.5 lots per acre, the remaining sites could have from 4 to 138 houses if developed for single-family homes. Of the 28 sites, 17 are less than 9 acres in size. The 10 largest sites range in size from 11.9 acres to over 50 acres in size. Of the 10 largest sites, 6 are south of Lower Afton Road. Another issue for staff was to decide what projects or developments would be "in-fills" and thus would be subject to any new city development standards. That is, when should the characteristics of the existing nearby development dictate (if at all) the standards and design of a new development. A factor in setting this standard is that municipalities must treat similarly situated people alike when applying city standards. In reviewing the size and location of the remaining development sites, staff suggests using 10 acres as a maximum size for in-fill sites. That is, if a site is less than 10 acres, then any new city standards for in-fill developments should apply. Based on this size, 17 of the 28 possible residential development sites would be in-fill sites and they each would have from 4 to 25 lots if developed. The city should not apply any in-fill standards to sites greater than 10 acres. This is because these sites would be large enough to set and create their own standards and characteristics. Staff also recommends that any lots created by administrative lot division be exempt from any new in-fill standards. Other factors and development constraints the city should consider with these sites include pipelines, slopes, wetlands and the availability of public utilities. Another point for the city to consider with these sites is the 1992 open space study. Of the 28 possible residential sites, the open space study had reviewed 9. These were Sites 4, 7, 16, 18, 22, 24, 25, 26 and 28. The overall open space ranking of these sites ranged from 5th (Site 16 - Open Space #156) to 58th (Site 7 - Open Space #121). Of these 9 sites, 2 were less than 10 acres in size (Site 4 and Site 24). The city may now want to consider buying some of these sites with the remaining open space funds. Code Changes Staff believes that adding language to the code that requires in-fill development to use the average lot size of the existing lots within 500 feet of the site to set the average lot sizes in the new plat would address the council concerns for these developments. Such a standard would help insure that lots in a new development would be similar in area to the average lot size of the surrounding area. Thus, the developer would have to design the new lots using the size standard set by the existing neighborhood. However, all city regulations and standards must not be arbitrary. The city cannot deny a plat just because of aesthetics. (Such a denial would be arbitrary if the proposal meets all city requirements.) As such, the city will need to document how any code change is to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens. Similar to creating a standard about nearby lot size, the council also might want to consider the existing tree cover and tree preservation for the in-fill sites. That is, how would the proposed development fit with the "tree character" of the surrounding area. Such an analysis would require more tree inventory work from a subdivision applicant. The tree inventory would have to include the area surrounding the site and the development site. The tree character of the surrounding area would include the amount of tree cover, the size and species of the existing trees, the age of the trees and whether the existing trees were planted or if they are native, to the site. 2 A review of the existing zoning and subdivision ordinances shows that the city could change parts of these codes to meet the council's goals. The city would need to add language to Section 36-69 (R-1 single-family residential) and to Section 30-8 (subdivisions) of the code to require the use of nearby average lot sizes in in-fill developments. A proposed code change for these parts of the code starts on page 4. Specifically, the code change language about preliminary plats (including in-fill sites and tree inventories) is on page 9. In addition, if the council wants to use or require PUD's for in-fill sites, than the city should update and change the PUD ordinance. I have attached a PUD code change starting on page 19. I also have updated much of the language in the proposed code changes to clean up the existing code language. For using the tree character when reviewing an in-fill site, the council would then need to add language to the code. The city could accomplish this two ways; adopt an amendment to the R-1 and subdivision code about in-fill lots or adopt a city wide tree preservation ordinance as the council reviewed earlier. RECOMMENDATION A. Approve the code change beginning on page 46. This ordinance revises Subsection 36-69 (lot dimensions) and Section 30 (Subdivisions) of the city code. B. Approve the code change beginning on page 61. This ordinance revises Subsections 36-438, 36-440, 36-441, 36-442, and 36-443 about conditional use permits and planned unit developments. C. Approve the administrative policy about neighborhood meetings starting on page 66. kr/p/misc/infill.-4 Attachments: 1. List of Potential Residential Development Sites 2. 8 Location Maps 3. 28 Property Line Maps 4. R-1 and Subdivision Code Change 5. PUD Code Change 6. Neighborhood Meeting Administrative Policy Attachment 1 (Pages 4 '- 8) POTENTIAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SITES - 12-18-96 28 total sites, 19 with trees SITE 1 Location: PIN: Trees: Size: Zoning: Comp. Plan: N 1/2 Sec 1 (County Road D and Gall Avenue, east of McKnight Road) 01-29-22-22-0096 Yes 2.5 acres R-1 R-1 SITE 2 Location: PIN: Trees: Size: Zoning: Comp. Plan: S 1/2 Sec 3 (West of Hazelwood, north of County Road C) 03-29-22-31-0004 through 0009 and 03-29-22-34-0001, 0002, 0003, 0004, 0005 Yes 2.6, 1, 0.6, .91, 1.37, .55, .55, 2.9, 2.6 = 13 acres R-1 R-1 SITE 3 Location: PIN: Trees: Size: Zoning: Comp. Plan: N 1/2 Sec 4 (Carey Heights Drive) 04-29-22-12-0001 through 0011 No .28, 2.38, .3, .36, .6, .24, .51, .46, .22, .5, 2.5 = 8.35 acres F R-1 SITES 4, 5 AND 6 Location: N 1/2 Sec 10 (north of Sextant, between Four Seasons park and Barclay Street) PIN: Trees: Size: Zoning: Comp. Plan: (3 sites) 10-29-22-13-0091, 0092, 0023, 0067, 0086 and 10-29-22-21-0001, 0002 and 10-29-22-24-0013 Yes 4.5 acres, 4 acres, 2.3 acres Ail R-1 All R-1 SITE 7 Location: PIN: Trees: Size: Zoning: Comp. Plan: N 1/2 Sec 10 (south of County Road C, west of Hazelwood) 10-29-22-21-0001, 0002 No 17.5 acres R-1 R-1 SITE 8 Location: PIN: Trees: Size: Zoning: Comp. Plan: S 1/2 Sec 1 ! (West of Van Dyke, north of County Road B) 11-29-22-33-0006, 0010, 0012, 0016, 0018, 0020, 0021 Yes 1.21, 1.12, .17, .94, 2.26 = 5.63 acres (34 potential units) BC and R-3 BC and R-3(M) 4 SITE 9 Location: PIN: Trees: Size: Zoning: Comp. Plan: S 1/2 Sec 14 (2135 Larpenteur Avenue) 14-29-22-43-0002 No 3.8 acres F R-3(M) SITE 10 Location: PIN: Trees: Size: Zoning: Comp. Plan: N 1/2 Sec 17 (east of McMenemy, north of Roselawn) 17-29-22-23-0057, 0056, 0073 Yes .94, .91, 1.74 = 3.59 acres R-1 R-1 SITE 11 Location: PIN: Trees: Size: Zoning: Comp. Plan S 1/2 Sec 17 (south of Ripley, along Jessie Street right-of-way) 17-29-22-34-0007 through 0016, 0003 Yes 9 x.11=.99, .16, .35 = 1.5 acres R-1 R-1 SITE 12 Location: PIN: Trees: Size: Zoning: Comp. Plan: S 1/2 sec 17 (east of McMenemy, north of Arkwright) 17-29-22-33-0005, 0007 No 7 acres F R-1 SITE 13 Location: PIN: Trees: Size: Zoning: Comp. Plan N 1/2 Sec 24 (west of Idaho, east of Lakewood Drive) 24-29-22-21-007, 0008, 0054 Yes 14 acres R-1 R-1 SITE 14 Location: PIN: Trees: Size: Zoning: Comp. Plan: N 1/2 Sec 24 (South of Currie Street, east of McKnight Road) 24-29-22-22-0059, 0036, 0034 Yes .89, 1.79, 1.79 = 4.47 acres R-1 R-1 5 SITE 15 Location: PIN: Trees: Size: Zoning: Comp. Plan: S 1/2 Sec 24 (1240 and 1250 McKnight Road, north of Maryland Avenue) 24-29-22-33-0015, 0018 No 6.4 acres R-2 R-2 SITE 16 Location: PIN: Trees: Size: Zoning: Comp. Plan: N 112 Sec 25 (east of Lakewood Drive, south of Maryland Avenue) 25-29-22-21-0009 Yes 25.19 acres (151-250 potential units) R-3 R-3(M) SITE 17 Location: PIN: Trees: Size: Zoning: Comp. Plan S 1/2 Sec 25 (2415 Minnehaha Avenue) 25-29-22-34-0087 No 3.4 acres R-1 R-1 SITE 18 Location: PIN: Trees: Size: Zoning: Comp. plan: N 1/2 Sec 12 (south of Lower Alton Road, north of Conemara) 12-28-22-21-0002, 0003, 0004 Yes 15 acres F R-3(M) SITE 19 Location: PIN: Trees: Size: Zoning: Comp. Plan: S 1/2 Sec 12 (2401 - 2437 Linwood Avenue) 12-28-22-34-0004, 0011, 0012, 0006 Yes 5.6 acres F R-1 SITE 20 Location: PIN: Trees: Size: Zoning: Comp. Plan: S 1/2 Sec 12 (NE comer McKnight Road and Linwood) 12-28-22-33-0077 No 7.5 acres F R-1 SITE 21 Location: PIN: Trees: Size: Zoning: Comp. Plan: N 1/2 Sec 13 (2516 Linwood Avenue - Jim Kaysers) 13-28-22-12-0010 Yes 11.9 acres F R-1 SITE 22 Location: PIN: Trees: Size: Zoning: Comp. Plan: N 1/2 Sec 13 (North of Highwood, west of Century Avenue ) 13-28-22-11-0008, 0013, 0014, 0015, 14-0018, 0019, 0020?, 00217 Yes 50+ acres F R-1 and OS SITE 23 Location: PIN: Trees: Size: Zoning: Comp. Plan: S 1/2 sec 13 (2492 Highwood Avenue) 13-28-22-31-0067 No 3.5 acres F R-1 SITE 24 Location: PIN: Trees: Size: Zoning: Comp. Plan: N 1/2 Sec 24 (2410 Carver Avenue) 24-28-22-24-0010 Yes 8 acres F R-1 SITE 25 Location: PIN: Trees: Size: Zoning: Comp. Plan: N 1/2 Sec 24 (East of Heights Avenue, west of Henry Lane) 24-28-22-31-0009 (2 maps) No 12.6 and 17.5 acres = 30.1 acres F R-1 SITE 26 Location: PIN: Trees: Size: Zoning: Comp. Plan: S 1/2 Sec 24 (west of Henry Lane, south of Fish Creek) 24-28-22-32-0001, 0002, 0003 Yes 29 acres F R-1 SITE 27 Location: PIN: Trees: Size: Zoning: Comp. Plan: N 1/2 Sec 24 (2510 Carver Avenue) 24-28-22-13-0001, 0002 Yes 5 + 5.2 acres = 10.2 acres F R-1 SITE 28 Location: PIN: Trees: Size: Zoning: Comp. Plan: S 1/2 sec 24 (1530 Sterling Street) 24-28-22-42-0007 Yes 38 acres F R-1 krlp:misc/vacntres.mem 8 WHITE B~_.AR LAKE Attachment 2 (pages 9 - 16) ,UNTY COUNTY COURT KOHLMAN ROAD WOOOLYNN AVE. AVE. AVE. AVE. NORTH SAINT PAUL WOODLYNN ~ 1. CHIPPEWA CT ~ 2, BART[LMY LN. RD. 1700.' ,.5400' 5100' 6800' 0" 1" 2" SCALE LOCATION 'SITE I MAP 9 VADNAIS HEIGHTS RD. COUNTY COUNTY ~EXTANT AV~. 1. SUMMIT CT. 2. COUNT~YV~EW CIR. 3. DULUTH CT. 4. LYDIA ST. BEAM Z lad KOHLMAN GERVNS AVE. AVE, EDGEHILL RD. SHERREN AVE, Kn.uJe~"~od~ Loke 1~ It~t AVE. JUNCTION (~) CHAMBERS ST LOCATION SITES 2 - 7 13 MAP ® RADATZ CT. ~ESSABI RAMSEY COUNTY COURT KOHLMAN AVE. AVE. COPE AVE. LOCATION MAP SITES 8 AND 9 11 2400N PLAZA C~R ALVARADO DR BE'LLECREST DR DEAUVILL[ DR MERIDIAN DR J PALM CT. v CONNOF CT. :"': Sandy Lake SKILLMAN AVE. MT. VERNON DOWNS AVE. BELLWOOD AVE. SUMMER AVE. BELMONT SKILLMAN LN. SUMMER VIKING DR. LAURIE CT. BURKE BELMONT AV. BELLWOOD BURKE: CT, LOCATION MAP SITES 10 - 12 12 SAINT PAUL ~ ~ 1. MARYJOE LN. =: 2. TIERNEY AVE. 3, MEADOW DR. ~'~¢SE'Y COUNTY 4, RIPLEY AVE. IG HOME AND ., ~o~~os NORTH SAINT PAUL ! 1. , (J~ ~/ ~ m_ ~ H,,,.,~. ~ 3~  KINGSTON MCKNIG~ .i ~ ~ r REBEC~  PIN~EE ~ 7 RO~NG HI~ ~ ~ --- 8 8 ~~ ~~ ~',~. ~ ~,~ I r ~ ~[ ~ ~ I ~e~t ~ ~, f ~/ I ,~1 ~ MA~OLIA A~. ~,~m ' 960N ~ ~,/~ ~J ~J ~ ~ LOCATION MAP I [~ SITES 9 AND 13 - 16 13 ANTELOPE WAY A/~BERJACK BEV'ER~ R~D BOBCAT L.~ LN HA~I'H ORN E AVE CASE AVE AVE. ST. z qARVESTER BRAND AVE. MINNEHAHA CONWAY [20g 222 HUDSON Tol'lr~eP~ Lake LOCATION MAP SITES 15 - 17 16 1. HUNTINGTON CT. 2. ~RIDGE 17 1. CURRIE CT. 2. VALLEY VIEW 3. LAKEWOOD CT. LOCATION MAP SITES 18 - 23 15 1. HUNTINGTON CT. 2. OAKRIDGE LA. 17 1. CURRIE CT. 2. VALLEY VlEW CT. 3. LAKEWOOD CT. PHYUS CT. VALLEY OAK HEI, CREST AVl. MORELAND BOXWOOD AV. CARVER AVE. Loke ~MSEY COUNTY WASHINGTON COUNTY LOCATION MAP SITES 19 - 28 Attachnent 3 (Pages 17 - 45) 1-694 2292 SITE I (~) __A. GALL. OB ,, z ~ 2310 : PARK EAST 14 ~) s /<. ~3 ~_ SITE I 17 2813 SITE 2 , r,,~, 2747 ~. 2737 '-'~ 2731 "" 2727 /,,. " 5 2707 4~0~ '~:' 2699 OPEN SPACE '? '1 :' ~ 2781 2759 CHURCH 1477 COUNTY ,--COO 1495 1505 -ROAD - 753-4 ~i 'FIRE r ~ Iii SITE 2 18 · .,.~OL,~, -[Y · 7 c<.O LY AVE. VADNAIS HEIGHTS 1134 1138 (~,) SITE 3 ~6WERLINES -i I ' :': '/ ¥, MINING SITE 1174 2999 17<)98 suMMiT CT. SITE 3 19 G~ Ig (~,) (' aOt') $/~ ' "'1~. i,.,/I,,.,IVI~,/I~I I $4' ~) IZ~. 14. 4.00' ~. 3'7 t¢ ) /75 ac '75 ac 2 2474 24680 SEX TANT ~) AVE. ..t.? AVE .-- GERVAIS AVENUE .... ' I "I " I SITE 4 2O AVE. 1522 2467 z! 2o Ig .o~''' : BROOKS AvENuE:'~ JZO ' IZO' (2480 1572 1586 ~2479~ ~,; 2474 SITE5 -- ~/o , ~z$' ~r, GdT 75 ! ~5 '7o I q,4,4 ~ .' .... ao: e&'* ~. '/ _ __ . :1 ~: .- ;i ~ : .... ~2451 / 2452 ~~~ ~ ~:. SEXTANT . ,...... . ,,.. AVE. [ '.'., ': SITE 5 21 · le, O' HARVEST cl'ry or PARK MAPL[WOOD 2467 C~2463 Z.28&c SITE 6 4 2467 GlO _. ~ ~ ?~ : 3 SE~ ,~NT AVE ~ (~ 2480, - SITE 6 22 i 1.:1"": // / // [ ,~.'.'~' I '~° * ~' ,,, . ~ '~11..'1,.: I ~ 5 ~ ' ?t-I":~ i 1477 1495 1505 -- E~ ..... COUNTY ~ '~ HARVEST PARK SITE 7 2517 I~,~PL£ WoOp % SITE 7 23 1534 FIRE STATION 2608 2588 2574 ?~ 2566 ' ',, CHURCH - -2-558. ~_~. ' 2544 = BROOKS .-" ...... ~[. '~ ~ ~ r-~.~.' .L~_~ .... ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ,~. ,~ -Z, '~ -~- COPE .... LARK f~BLEECHERS _~ ',J ~,O ~'LAURIE ': - -- C O U N T Y -- COUNTY ROAD B SITE 8 24 O.L. A 8 ,ol ~-o) O's-) (,,~,) j$,41' 4 ~) .... G,.,~z ,PUMP 1.0~ ~c.. ' ¢ 1695 .%5 o.~. '~, 1689 f~o. 30~' ,: .... (.zo.o~ [~ p,,.o. (82.) \ E~f~T SITE 9 xx PONDING AREA 2135 , 0 2147 12. 2169 ~. ~- _LA_RPENTEUR AVENUE~- SAINT PAUL SITE 9 25 HILLCREST CC ~ (e4)9 I(~) 1993 1983 (~.) 14 AVE. )IN PON'DING AREA 6O SITE 10- '----1~ ~ JO L · ~. ~~ - . ,~:,i, ROSELAWN~ __AVENUE,,,,,, .., -- ~-~- ~J~ ~,;,: ,,..,.' ~,.,~-~-- _,~,.~,~- ' 1 ,' ~o~J ! I ' ~ ------~ CHURCH OF ST. JE OM SITE 10 26 oND 9 f7B~ AVENUE~ ST. PaUl CEME' PLa. t A INGSTON SITE 11 --KINC~TON ,-$ P R lC E LARPENTEUR AVENUE----' SITE 11 2? I I 1 ! I I RKFO RTf4~) 0 UT LOT RIPLEY AVE.. ~ RIPLEY AVE .~ 1766 (- 4-) &.lo~<. CHURCH 1750 1746 1740 ~t" ' r (~) 44E~' Wotka SITi: 12 ?.$, 2,~-iF/ 401.8b' SITE 12 28 APARTMENTS LARPENTEUR AVE 799 n8 i'2402_( 9 2416 SITE ~3 ~. ~75'0.4. 2444 $,o? ,nc. 1617 1611 1603 '~5g~o 1653 2473 IDAHO ~) Io ~' 1562 9 174 4.5 .--= E. HO' FUTURE OAK RIDGE PLAT (2O) I SITEz9 13 J[~ :9?.85 2G$. ~5 ;50.03 .' 5~ .. 1600 (..5 ~) 1580 SITE 14 156o 1540,!-"-;+ '~("RES' 2279~ '- HOYT AV. 2286 4 5 MONTANA 6 1624 1616 4 (~) ~ '~. 7 1605 ,,~1595 0 (,,~0 U T LOT SITE 14 3O .,cO T 1262 1250 15 TILSEN AVE. 19 1245 £ ¢25) 1240 SITE 15 SITE 15 31 MANUFACTURED HOMES -' I RANIUM 9 AVE. 500 2 ROSEWOOD ESTATE MARYLAND AVENUE .2'/~ . ' ' ~;~ ...... SITE 16 1070 (~z) ,1068 (~) UJ ~.J DN I I ~1115 1085 .I 1085 ~?) SITE 16 32 ~ROSE AVE. GERANIUM  SCHOOL, DIST. NZ 6 ?_z Ii ~. ~ (74-) BUSH t "I'~ '.~o.~[ I L ~;.~~ 762 .. n~. 2415 ,.~ !405n '~' -- ~--- -,-~. ,~ SITE 17 ~ ~ 735 I 1.04ar_ I I 4~ \ 21 4\ (z~) 3M PROPERTY 33 ~ ~ -'~-'~ BATTLE CREEK PARK FOR ~, PARK ('~) · LOWER AFTON ROAD ~ -. l 0 L'T LOT A. , PONDING AREA "~'-'~..;F.~- ' ~ ~ - ...... SITE 18 ~ , · 2465 ,.~, ;~, 2 ApAR~MEN ApAChE  O. 50 2445 SITE 18 34 ,LWOOD ' ,4o'~' 4 I st UNTIN SOU , J /4~) h"' .--r-' I(4l~,i (49) OAKRI DGE j I ~ ~ ~o (28.) NILL-Wo0 D DR. IG 7 (~ ~: 2~-S3 2401 SITE 19 · -~ TO~'~ :: 2457 j,~ ~ SPRINGSIDE (~.) 147 . SITE35 19 I~ .+ eJO 0~ 622 Et o,,rd o~c Wo.~er LI NWOOD OUTLOT C u~ EIG OUTL. OT B (~ 5 ¢ SITE 20 D~. O.L.'. B 5P~l NC$~ D E 712 0 U"F I"' 0 'T co u~'r ~I O.L. H O. L_o ('43~ C CT. SHOOTING RANGE 2516 SITE 21 OPEN SPACE FUTURE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK LINWOOD AVENUE:;:: .-- ,--?,m N.,~:L 2616 ~'~ ~ . ~ ' ~' . 6) , HIGHwOOD Fir DR. SHOOTING RANGE -- LINWOOD AVENUE ...... -~'~'? i,~ ,~ ~:~ 2616 2,. m OPEN SPACE 775 ~ DR. SITE 22 (20) 2665 SITE 22 38, Z 0 ~' ~,cARVER REPAIR,; :'~ , NI VALLEY¥1EW AYE '.~ ,,~ ,~,~ VALLEY ' ~ V l [W ~'=~ .~A_-~ ...... ~ , ~;,~', ~, '~r, ~ .'~. ~; -"1 "~ .I , ~O~- ~ 2475 ~ ..~. (.o :~ I II ~ ~'~.'~ '-~ ~'1~: ~2~_ ~ ~ ~ ~l- ~, ~ :~ -z~ ~ ~ II 2511 -- '*~ ~ ~= ~/~' zo~ ; HIGHWOOD AVENUE~~~ ' ' & II 992 1000 1008 (~'1016 1024 o. 1021 (~) 2492 SITE 23 I 1016 '~l 971 4 995 1003 1011 I ' 2. ( O0 o C,o) e G ~ <~) tIl I N EM I'I'Z ~ AX ,7 SITE 23 39 2405 I ' 2410 ,~ SITE 24 OVERLOOK ~$. 6! 2431 2445 1285 , CREEK SITE 24 4O 2371 OVERLOOK ~) 2405 2410 FISH CREEK SITE 25 , I- FISH CREEK "" (~) SITE 25 1481 I · 1501 / / (~) COUNTY OPEN SPACE SITE 25 42 U 1481 COUNTY OPEN SPACE SITE 26 43 ~) 2511 ¢~) ~ 2575 , ~2595 CARVER AVENUE' L ~ I~O' OI 5.OZo~. 2510 SITE 27 ~) COUNTY OPEN SPACE SITE 27 44 I~A'M$rY CO u t',,I "T "y I I J ;OUNTY oPEN SPAC~ ss CAR 1491 ,] I 1525 1635 1645 -~" 1490 1494 1486 ~.) ~ 1530 SITE 28 ' / / / / ~../ L SITE 28 45 ORDINANCE NO. Attadmant 4 (Pages 46 - 65) AN ORDINANCE OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA CHANGING PARTS OF THE CITY CODE ABOUT MINIMUM RESIDENTIAL LOT SIZES, SUBDIVISIONS AND PRELIMINARY PLATS The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances: Section 1' This section changes Section 36-69 as follows: (I have crossed out deletions and underlined the additions.) Sec. 36-69. Lot dimensions. (a~ The minimum lot area in an R-1 Residence Distdct shall be as follows: t=",, ~r.,.,,..,....~.,,v..._,,. (In-,--v~nnn~ (1) Ten thousand (101000) square feet (excludin,cl dra na,cle and wetland easements); except For lot sizes in subdivision or plattin,q sites up to ten (10) acres in ,qross area, see Section 30-5 of the city code for minimum lot size information. For lots with no municipal sanitary sewer available, the minimum lot area shall be determined by the house pad area and enou,qh area to have two on-site sanitary sewer systems, includin,q tanks and drainfields. The owner or developer shall provide the city with site plans showin,q the location of the house pads and the on-site sewer systems. In no case shall such a lot be less than one (1) acre in area (excludin,q draina,qe and wetland easements). ~). The minimum lot width at the building setback line shall be seventy-five (75) feet, except that interior lots-of-record that are sixty (60) feet wide or greater may be allowed by conditional use permit if: f~.evk~ed-tha~ (1) The findings required by code for a conditional use permit can be met=; and (2) There are at least two (2) developed lots-of-record with the same or less width than the proposed lot width, within three hundred fifty (350) feet of the site on the same side of the street. Larger minimum side yard setbacks may be required to ensure adequate ~ separation between adjacent structures. 46 Section 2: This section changes Section 30-1 through Section 30-8 as follows: (I have crossed out deletions and underlined the additions.) SUBDIVISIONS Sec. 30-1. Purpose. The Maplewood City Council finds the following regulations are necessary to: 1~ Protect and promote the public health, safety and !:leneral welfare of the community. 2~ Provide for the orderly, economic and safe development of land. Preserve a.qficultural lands. Provide for adequate transportation, water supply, sanitary sewer disposal, water resource mana.qement, schools, parks, playgrounds, open space and other public services and facilities for residents. To accomplish these purposes, Maplewood adopts subdivision regulations establishing standards, requirements and procedures for the review and approval or disapproval of subdivisions. Sec. 30-2. Definitions. For ~-p~=f~-e~this chapter, the following words, terms and phrases shall have the following meanings respectively ascdbed to them by this section: Alley is a public right-of-way which affords a secondary means of access to abutting property. Boundary lines are lines indicating the bounds or limits of any tract or parcel of land· Building line also called the ~ setback line, means the line beyond which property owners or others have no legal or vested fight to extend a building or any part thereof, without special permission and approval of the proper authorities. City means the City of Maplewood, Minnesota. City council means the city council of Maplewood, Minnesota. Contour map means a map on which in'egularities of land surface are shown by lines connecting points of equal elevations. A contour interval is the vertical height between contour lines. 47 Comer lot is a lot within a plat situated at the comer of a block thereof so that it is bounded on two (2) sides by streets. This term applies to any lot within a plat at street intersections and bounded on two (2) sides by streets. Design standards are the specifications to landowners or subdividers for the preparation of preliminary plans indicating, among other things, the optimum, minimum or maximum dimensions of such features as rights-of-way and blocks, as set forth in Section 30-8 of this chapter. Director of community development means the director of community development of Maplewood, Minnesota. Director of public works means the director of public works of Maplewood, Minnesota. Double-frontage lots means a lot which fronts on two (2) or more public streets. Easement is a grant by a property owner for the use of = :;,".; cf land by the general public, a corporation or certain persons for specific purposes. Final plat is a map or plan of a subdivision and any accompanying material, as described in Section 30-7 of this chapter. Frontage is the width of a lot or building site measured on the line separating it from a public street or way. Lot means a parcel of land described separately from other parcels of land by a plat, metes and bounds, registered land survey, auditor's plat or other accepted means. The lot description must be recorded by Ramsey County. Lot area means the area of a lot, excluding drainage easements, wetlands and land below the ordinary high water mark of public waters. Lot division means the division of a property by metes and bounds description. ~3 '~ .... k ,. ~ ....... k:,-..~ ..~,, ,-~ ...... ,_, .................................................. V: ....... r'~u' -~' ........... Official control or controls means ordinances and regulations which control the physical development of the city or any part thereof or any detail thereof and implement the general objectives of the comprehensive plan. Official controls may include ordinances establishing zoning, subdivision controls, site plan regulations, sanitary codes, building codes and official maps. Outlot is any parcel of land designated as an outlot on any plat in the city. Owner means a person having a vested interest in the property in question, a purchaser, devisee, or fiduciary, and includes his duly authorized agent or attorney-in-fact. 48 Pedestrfan way is a publicv,"- ,.,"'~'""",. _.v right-of-way across a block, or providing access within a block, to be used by pedestrians and '"' '~ ~"'*'~""'~"' ''~ '";"*~" '*'"~° Planning commission means the planning commission of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota. Plat means the drawing or map of a subdivision prepared for filing of record pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 505 and containing all elements and requirements set forth in applicable city regulations, adopted pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.358 and Chapter 505. Preliminary approval means official action taken by the city on an application to create a subdivision which establishes the rights and obligations set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.358 and the applicable subdivision regulation. In accordance with Section 462.358, preliminary approval may be granted only following review and approval of a preliminary plat and other map or drawing establishing, without limitation, the number, layout, and location of lots, tracts, blocks and parcels to be created, location of streets, roads, utilities and facilities, park and drainage facilities, and lands to be dedicated for public use. Preliminary plan or preliminary plat is a tentative map or plan of a proposed subdivision as described in Section 30-5 of this chapter. Public waters means any waters as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 103F.005, Subdivisions 15 and 16. Reserve strips are stdps of land usually withheld from the street right-of-way to form a barrier bet-,¥een certain property and the public street or thoroughfare. Right-of-way is the land covered by a public road, or other land dedicated for public use or for certain private uses, such as land over which a power line passes. Street is a public or pdvate right-of-way which affords primary access by pedestrians and vehicles to abutting properties, whether designated as a street, avenue, highway, road, boulevard, lane or however otherwise designated. Subdivision means the separation of an area, parcel or tract of land into two (2) or more parcels, tracts, lots or long-term leasehold interests for sale, rent or lease, except those separations: (1) Where all the resulting parcels, tracts, lots or interests will be twenty (20) acres or larger in size and five hundred (500) feet in width for residential uses and five (5) acres or larger for all other uses; (2) Creating cemetery lots; (3) Resulting from court orders, or the adjustment of a lot line by the relocation of a common boundary. Subdivision regulation means an ordinance adopted pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.358 regulating the subdivision of land. 49 tho Wetland means a surface water feature classified as a wetland in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Circular No. 39 (1971 edition) or Minnesota Rules Part 8420.0110, Subd. 52. Zoning is the reservation of certain specified areas within the city for buildings and structures for certain purposes, with other limitations such as height, lot coverage and other stipulated requirements. Sec. 30-3. Conformance with existing codes and regulations. (a) The provisions of this chapter are in addition to and not in replacement of the state building code and the city zoning ordinance. Any provisions of the building code and zoning ordinance relating to platting shall remain in full force and effect, except as they may be contradictory to the provisions hereof. (b) Subdivisions, approved by the city, shall be consistent with the city's official controls and comprehensive plan. (c) The city shall not approve a rezonin.q, conditional use permit, subdivision or lot division A · ,r..,,, ..,,, r,.. :pprcv:d unless each new lot would be large enough to accommodate al._]..I =ny existing accessory buildings, as required in Section 36-77(a). (d) The city shall not approve a subdivision where the owner or developer would later need a variance to use the lots for their intended purpose. Sec. 30-4. Applicability. (a) No conveyance of land to which the subdivision regulations are applicable shall be filed or recorded if the land is described in the conveyance by metes and bounds or by reference to an unapproved registered land survey made after April 21, 1961 or to an unapproved plat made after such regulations become effective. The foregoing provision does not apply to a conveyance if the land described: (1) Was a separate parcel of record April 1, 1945 or the date of adoption of subdivision regulations under Laws 1945, Chapter 287, whichever is the later; or (2) Was the subject of a written agreement to convey entered into prior to such time; or (3) Was a separate parcel of not less than two and one-half (2 1/2) acres in area and one hundred fifty (150) feet in width on January 1, 1966; or (4) Was a separate parcel of not less than five (5) acres in area and three hundred (300) feet in width on July 1, 1980; or (5) Is a single parcel of commercial or industrial land of not less than five (5) acres and having a width of not less than three hundred (300) feet and its conveyance does not 5O result in the division of the parcel into two (2) or more lots o'r parcels, any one of which is less than five (5) acres in area or three hundred (300) feet in width; or (6) Is a single parcel of residential or agricultural land of not less than twenty (20) acres and having a width of not less than five hundred (500) feet and its conveyance does not resdlt in the division of the parcel into two (2) or more lots or parcels, any one of which is less than twenty (20) acres in area or five hundred (500) feet in width. (b) In any case in which compliance with the foregoing restrictions will create an unnecessary hardship and failure to comply does not interfere with the purpose of this chapter, the city council may waive such compliance by adoption of a resolution to that effect and the conveyance may then be filed or recorded. Any owner or agent of the owner of land who conveys a lot or parcel in violation of the provisions of this chapter shall forfeit and pay to the city a penalty of not less than one hundred dollars ($100.00) for each lot or parcel so conveyed. The city may enjoin such conveyance or may recover such penalty by a civil action in any court of competent.jurisdiction. Sec. 30-5. Preliminary plat procedure. (a) To plat or divide any orol~erty or tract of land into four (4) or more lots, the followin.q shall aDDI¥; ~ For a tract or property more than ten (10~ .clross acres, a subdivider shall submit _a relimina lat a lication to the director of communit develo ment. The director of communit develo merit shall determine the necessa a lication re uirements and. have them on forms tha_t are available to the ublic at cit hall. The director ma waive an re uirements that do not a I to the, ro osed subdivision. (2~ Foratract or ro eft of ten 10 ross acres or less the followin shall a I: The cit re uires cit council a roval of a conditional use ermit CUP for alanned a. unit develo ment PUD. As such a subdivider or owner of a site 10 acres or less shall submit corn lete a lications for relimina lat a roval and for a conditional use ermit for lanned unit develo ment to the director of communit develo ment. Refer to Article V Sections 36-436 throu h 36-450 of the ci code about conditional b~ The city shall review and process all such planned unit developments pursuant to the. applicable sections of the city code,_ c_. For any such site, the applicant shall only pay the application fee for a preliminary plat. d. The director of communit develo ment shall determine the necessa a lication -- re uirements and have them on forms that are available to the ublic at cit hall. The director ma waive an re uirements that do not a I to the ro osed subdivision. e. Besides all other application requirements, the applicant shall have a tree inventory -- - re ared of the site and all develo ed or im roved ro erties within 500 feet of the site. This invento shall document the size s ecies and location of all ei ht 8 inch or reater diameter deciduous trees and of all 10-foot-tall or reater coniferous trees. 51 If the average area or size of the existin,q single-family lots in Maplewood within 500 feet of the site is at least twelve thousand (12,000) square feet, then the avera,qe lot size of any new lot shall meet or exceed the average size of these existinQ lots, up to a maximum avera,qe size of 20,000 square feet, Lots in Maplewood within 500 feet of the site that are 20,000 square feet or more in area shall each be considered 20,000 square feet for calculating the area avera,qe lot size. This provision does not apply to new lots approved and created by administrative lot division as out!ined in Section 30-15 (Lot divisions). The developer or applicant for any such proposed preliminary plat shall hold a nei,qhborhood meetinl:l. This meetin,q is to discuss the proposal with all orooert¥ owners within 500 feet of the site, The developer shall hold this meeting consistent with the city's policies for such meetings. The city will schedule the item for olannin.cl commission and city council consideration after the developer holds the neighborhood meeting. developer shall be required to pay a fee to defray the expenses incurred by the city in having the preliminary plat reviewed in all particulars. The =mc'.'n: cf fee to be paid for such review shall be imposed, set, established and fixed by the city council, by resolution, from time to time. ~and.,~'~u,-,. -.~'~ I-'-,-"'"':'~ -~" '~'~..'~ The owner or developer shall pay all such fees to the city before the city reviews the proposed preliminary plat. tc th: '~:--""'.,,..-.-, "'-, ....... ~,,..,,-.,,.,;"' (c) The director of community development shall deliver to the city finance director treasure~ for deposit any moneys received as fees herein required with each preliminary plat· ..i....~.._.,. The finance director tr-easur-~ shall credit same to the general fund of the city. All moneys so received shall be used to defray the expenses of processing the application. The director of community development shall prepare a report and recommendation· This report shall then be forwarded to the planning commission..The planning commission shall forward a recommendation to the city council. The city council shall hold a public hearing on the application. The hearing shall be held following publication of notice of the time and place thereof in the official newspaper at least ten (10) days before the day of the hearing, The applicant, property owner, and all other property owners within three hundred fifty (350) feet of the property to be subdivided shall be notified by mail at least ten (10) days before the day of the hearing. A subdivision application shall be 'preliminarily approved or disapproved by the city council within the time limits required by state law, ..,:..;......,., .... .,._ ~., ,..,~,...:.,..._.._ :...._...~., ~'~n~.--~ .:__z, .... ...,.l:..,-.: ~.. :k.. ,~::., unless an extension of the review period has been agreed to by the applicant. When a division or subdivision to which the regulations of the city do not apply is presented to the city, the city clerk shall within ten (10) days certify that the subdivision regulations of the city do not apply to the particular division. If the city fails to preliminarily approve or disapprove an application within the review period, the application shall be 52 deemed preliminarily approved, and upon demand the city shall execute a certificate to that effect. (d) Following preliminary plat approval, the applicant may request final plat approval by the city._; ==d ~:~c= Upon such a request, the city shall certify final plat approval within sixty (60) days o._.~f receiving a complete fi-~al plat application. City staff will only schedule a final plat for city council consideration if city staff receives all necessary information and plans at least fourteen (14) days before a city council meeting. Also, the council will only consider a final plat request if the applicant has complied with all conditions and requirements of applicable regulations and all conditions and requirements upon which the preliminary plat approval is expressly conditioned either through performance or the execution of appropriate agreements assuring performance. If the city fails to certify final plat approval as sc required, and if the applicant has complied with all conditions and requirements, 'the application shall be deemed fina approved , '~"'~ .... "~""""" ~'~ ";+" ~'"" ~ ~" '~ - ~,,,,, ........ I ....~,,~;,,;-: ...... ~,~ ~.,~,~ ....... -~-'~ After the city council approves the final plat, the owner or developer shall record the final plat and all accompanying documents with Ramsey County... (e) For one year following preliminary approval and for two (2) years following final approval, unless the subdivider and the city agree otherwise, no amendment to a comprehensive plan or official control shall apply to or affect the use, development density, lot size, lot layout or dedication or platting required or permitted by the approved application. Thereafter,' pursuant to its regulations, the city may annually extend the preliminary plat approval -I~ · ,; ......+ ,,,~,~ +~, .... ~,,~,,:-~ .... '~ subject to all applicable performance conditions and requirements., c: !t Each year after preliminary plat approval, the city may end the preliminary plat approval and may require submission of a new preliminary plat application, unless substantial physical activity and investment has occurred in reasonable reliance on the approved application and the subdivider will suffer substantial financial damage as a consequence of a requirement to submit a new application. In connection with a subdivision involving planned and staged development, the city may by resolution or agreement grant the dghts referred to herein for such pedods of time longer than two (2) years which it determines to be reasonable and appropriate. (f) A person conveying a new parcel of land which, or the plat for which, has not previously been filed or recorded, and which is part of or would constitute a subdivision to which adopted city subdivision regulations apply, shall attach to the instrument of conveyance either: (1) recordable certification by the city clerk that the subdivision regulations do not apply, or that the subdivision has been approved by the city council, or that the restrictions on the division of taxes and filing and recording have been waived by resolution of the city council because compliance will create an unnecessary hardship and failure to comply will not interfere with the purpose of the regulations; or (2) a statement which names and identifies the location of the appropriate city offices and advises the grantee that city subdivision and zoning regulations may restrict the use or restdct or prohibit the development of the parcel, or construction on it, and that division of taxes and the filing or recording of the conveyance may be prohibited without prior recordable certification of approval, nonapplicability, or waiver from the city. In any action commenced by a buyer of such a parcel against the seller thereof, the misrepresentation of or the failure to disclose material facts in accordance with this subdivision shall be grounds for damages. If the buyer establishes his dght to damages, a distdct court headn9 the matter may in its discretion also award to the buyer an amount sufficient to pay all or any part of the costs incurred in maintaining the action, including 53 reasonable attorney fees, and an amount for punitive damages not exceeding five (5) percent of the purchase price of the land. Sec. 30-6. Qualifications governing approval of preliminary plat. (a) The planning commission may recommend and the city council may require such changes or revisions of a preliminary plan submitted under this chapter as deemed necessary for the health, safety, general welfare and convenience of the city. (b) The approval of a preliminary plat by the planning commission and the city council under this chapter is tentative only, involving merely the general acceptability of the layout as submitted. (c) Before any preliminary plan is approved by the city council under this chapter, the information furnished with said plan must show conclusively that the area proposed to be subdivided is drainable and that the land is of such nature as to make its intended use practical and feasible. If these features are not apparent, the owner shall be required to enter into an agreement guaranteeing that all adverse conditions will be corrected and that drainage will be accomplished in a satisfactory manner. The final decision in this matter shall be made by the city council acting upon the advice and recommendation of its engineer or other authorized representative. (d) The city council may condition its approval on the construction and installation of fully operational sewers, streets, electric, gas, telephone, cable television, storm water mana,qement, dr-ago~3~e, and water facilities, and similar utilities and improvements or, in lieu thereof, on the receipt by the city of a cash deposit, certified check or irrevocable letter of credit in an amount and with surety and conditions sufficient to assure the city that the utilities and improvements will be constructed or installed according to the specifications of the city. The city council may condition its approval on compliance with other requirements reasonably related to the provisions of these regulations and to execute development contracts embodying the terms and conditions of approval. The city may enforce such agreements and conditions by appropriate legal and equitable remedies. (e) The city council may require that a reasonable portion of any proposed subdivision be dedicated to the public or preserved for public use as streets, roads, sewers, electric, gas and water facilities, storm water drainage and holding areas or ponds, and similar utilities and improvements. (f) The city may require that a reasonable portion of any proposed subdivision be dedicated to the public or preserved for public use as parks, playgrounds, trails or open space; provided that: (1) (2) The city may choose to accept an amount in cash from the applicant or building contractors for part or all of the portion required to be dedicated to such public uses or purposes based on the city's park availability charge; Any cash payments received shall be placed in a special fund by the city used only for the purposes for which the money was obtained; (3) In establishing the reasonable portion to be dedicated, the city council may consider the open space, park, recreational or common areas and facilities which the applicant proposes to reserve for the subdivision; (4) (5) The city reasonably determines that it will need to acquire that portion of land for the purposes stated in this subsection as a result of approval of the subdivision; Within the legal boundaries of the city's designated critical area, the city council may require dedication for public open space or scenic easement, bluffiands which are eighteen (18) percent or greater in slope and which are in direct drainage to the Mississippi River Bluffs or Fish Creek. The city council may release the developer in part or in total from a park dedication fee in lieu of the value of the above-dedicated bluffiands. Sec. 30-7. Necessary data for final plat. The final plat required by this chapter shall be prepared by a registered land surveyor and shall conform to all state and county requirements and the provisions of this section. All information required on the final plat application provided by the director of community development shall be shown on the final plat. Sec. 30-8. Minimum subdivision design standards. (a) Generally. A proposed subdivision under this chapter shall meet the minimum subdivision design standards set forth in this section. (b) Streets: (1) Street plan. The arrangement, character, extent, width and location of all streets shall conform to standards for street construction on file in the office of the director of public works, including relation to existing and planned streets, to reasonable circulation of traffic, to topographical conditions, to the mana,qement .~.:',-.cff of storm water, to public convenience and safety and in their apprcpdate relation to the proposed uses of the area to be served. No full-width street shall be less than sixty (60) feet wide. (2) Half-width streets. The use of half-width streets shall be prohibited, except where essential to the reasonable development of the subdivision in conformity with the other requirements of these regulations and the overall plan of the neighborhood in which the plat is situated. Wherever a half street is adjacent to a tract to be subdivided, the other half of the street shall be platted within such tract. (3) Cul-de-sacs. Cul-de-sacs,--when-mmV-, shall be held-re as short a-distar~e as possible between the origin or main street and the end of the cul-de-sacs. In no case shall cul-de- sacs exceed one thousand (1,000) feet in length, unless no other alternative is possible. Each cul-de-sac shall have a terminus of nearly circular shape with a minimum fight-of-way diameter of one hundred twenty (120) feet, and shall meet all city standards. (4) Reserve strips. Privately owned reserve strips controlling access to streets are prohibited. Publicly owned reserve strips may be required by the city council, where necessa~j to assure equitable payment for streets. 55 (d) Trails and pedestrian ways: (1) Trails. Trails shall be a minimum of eight (8) feet wide. Trails between property lines shall be centered within a right-of-way or other public property that is at least ten (10) feet wider than the trail pavement. If the trail is in an easement, the trail shall be centered in an easement that is at least thirty (30) feet wider than the trail pavement. (2) Pedestrian ways. Pedestrian ways, where permitted, shall be at least fifteen (15) feet wide. (e) Easements: Draina,qe and utility easements. Each lot shall have drainage and utility easements that are at least five (5) feet wide on side lot lines and ten (10) feet wide on the front and rear lot lines. This easement shall be ten (10) feet wide on both street sides on comer lots. The city may require additional easements. All the storm water draina,qe within plat or subdivision shall be collected within the plat or subdivision, unless the city determines that this requirement is not feasible, would only have mar,qinal benefit or if the developer Rets the necessary off-site easements. The developer shall install the storm water improvements to direct the storm water to the city storm water system or to approved pondin.q areas. Each sanitary sewer that is not in a street fi,qht-of-way shall have a utility easement centered on the sewer pipe. This easement shall be at least twenty (20) feet wide. Each storm sewer that is not in a street fiRht-of-way shall have an easement with a minimum width of twenty (20) feet. All water mains that are not in a street d,qht-of-way shall have at least a 30-foot-wide easement. The city en.qineer shall approve the size of all easements and may require lar,qer widths for any easements. Pondin,q easements. When a subdivision or plat drains into a pondin,q area that the city does not own or have a draina,qe easement for, the developer or applicant shall acquire a draina,qe easement or fee title for the pondin,q area. The developer or applicant shall convey any such easements or fee ownership to the city. If the pondin,q area is within the plat, the developer shall show the pondin,q area as an outlot and shall dedicate it to the city. The city en,qineer shall approve the pond size and it shall hold an additional vertical one (1) foot of freeboard above the hiRh water level within the easement or outlot. 56 (3) Wetland easements. The city may require a wetland easement over and beyond a wetland. The wetland easement shall prohibit any structures, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the easement. The city shall decide the easement's size based on information from the watershed district and the wetlands quality, the amount and quality of surrounding habitat, the site's building restraints. The city may require a developer to place signs around the easement boundary. These signs shall identify the easement's boundary and restrictions. Lots: (1) Lot dimensions in F and R-1 zones. R-1 zone shall be: The minimum lot dimensions to subdivide in an F or Interior lots. 1. Seventy-five (75) feet wide at the established building setback line; 2. Not less than sixty (60) feet at the front lot line, except that lots located along the outside curves of curvilinear streets or on the bulbs of cul-de-sacs shall be no less than forty (40) feet in width at the front lot line; and 3. Not less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet in area _for lots in plats ,qreater than ten (10) acres in ,qross area.. 4. The followin minimum lot size standard shall a I for new lots in a tract or property of ten (10~ ~ross acres or less:. ~ If the avera · area or size of the existin sin le-famil lots in Ma lewood within 500 feet of the site is at least twelve thousand 12000 s uare feet then the avera · lot size of an new lot shall meet or exceed the avera · size of these existin lots u to a maximum avera e size of 20 000 s uare feet. Lots in Ma lewood within 500 feet of the site that are 20 000 s uare feet or more in area shall each be considered 20 000 s uare feet for calculatin the area avera,cle lot size. This rovision does not a I to new lots a roved and created b administrative lot division as outlined in Section 30-15 Lot divisions. 57 (2) b. Comer lots. 1. One hundred (100) feet wide at the established building setback line; and 2. Not less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet in area, unless a lar,qer lot size is required as in Section 30-8(f)(1)(a)(4)(a) above. Lot dimensions in R-I(S) and R-2 zones. The minimum lot dimensions to subdivide in an R-I(S) or in an R-2 zone shall be: a. Interior lots. 1. Sixty (60) feet wide at the established building setback line and front lot line; 2. Not less than forty (40) feet of width at the front lot line on the bulb of a cul-de-sac or the outside curve of a street; and 3. Not less than seven thousand five hundred (7,500) square feet in area. b. Comer lots. 1. Eighty-five (85) feet wide at the established building setback line; and 2. Not less than seven thousand five hundred (7,500) square feet of area. (3) Rear lot lines. The minimum dimensions at the rear lot line of any lot shall be thirty (30) feet. (4) (5) (6) Location. All lots shall have fronta,qe =but on a publicly dedicated, improved and maintained street. Side lot lines. Side lines of lots shall be substantially at right angles or radial to the street line. Double-frontage lots. Double-frontage lots shall not be permitted, except where topographic or other conditions render subdividing otherwise unreasonable. Such double-frontage lots shall have an additional depth of at least twenty (20) feet ~ to allow space for a protective plant-screen along the back lot line. (Sections 30-8 (f)(7-13), 30-9 (Soil Tests), 30-10 (Residential Zoning) and 30-11 (Variations and exemptions) remain unchanged.) 58 Section 3: This section changes Sections 30-12 through 30-15 as follows: (I have crossed out deletions and underlined the additions.) Sec. 30-12. improvements--Generally. ~ The develo er or contractor shall build eve ublic street within a lat or subdivision with the followin.cl improvements: Sanitary sewerpipes and appurtenances la, lilies; (1) (2) (3) Public water p~pes and appurtenance_s fa~ilk~ies; Storm water pipes and appurtenances_ (4) Street, concrete curb and gutter; (5) Street ~ ~; (6) Boulevard turf establishment; (.8)(7) Street identification and traffic-control signs. T~he city shall_install these si.qns and the developer shall pay all costs. (Sections 30-12 (b) and (c) remain unchanged.) ~ The cit council shall no ...... t~ with all other en ineer certi in that the im rovements ana ~u,=, unfinished public improvementS~ 59 (Section 30-13 remains unchanged.) Sec. 30-13. Reserved. Sec. 30-14. Same-Compliance prerequisite for issuance of building permits. The city will not issue a buildin,q permit for any buildin,cl or structure until the: a. Developer or contractor has met all requirements of this chapter and the city code. b. Development or improvements meet the requirements of the fire code includin.q providin.q water service and an all-weather street surface to the buildin~ site. Sec. 30-15. Lot divisions. (a) A lot division shall not result in the creation of more than three (3) lots. (b)The director of community development may approve or cause to be modified plans for a lot division. The director must first determine, however, that the plans meet all city ordinances and policies, and that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the subject property or surrounding properties. If the director makes a negative determination or the applicant wishes to appeal the decision, the city council shall make the final decision. "' .... ~" ~ .... ' ',', '"~, ,-~,,, ...... ;' ~"' =c'Jon (c) A letter of credit may be required as a condition to lot splits on plats in order to guarantee the proper repair and patching of streets after the installation of utilities in the streets or rights-of- way. ~ The city will accept only one lot division application for up to three {'3) new lots from each lot or tract of land once every five (5) years. (e) Deeds must be filed with Ramsey County within one year of city approval by-the-.s~ of a lot division. If the owner or applicant does not file the deeds within one year of city approval, the approval shall be null and void. Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect after the city council approves it and the official newspaper publishes it. The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on ,1997. 60 Attachment 5 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ABOUT CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS The Maplewood City Council approves the following ordinance: (I have underlined the additions and crossed out the deletions.) Section 1. Section 36-438 is changed as follows: Sec. 36-438. Planned unit developments'. G=.'.=."=!!Y; definition, ~ intent, required plan ~1~. (a) Definition. A planned unit development (PUD) is any new development that the city council approves with a conditional use permit (CUP) for a PUD. A PUD may consist of one or several or buildin,qs uses . 3 ................. (b) Intent. It is the intent ~ of ~ about planned unit developments to.,..,--~ .........,,..,.. *~.~ allow des ~n, flexibility. This may occur with ~ deviations from the provisions of this chapter, including uses, setbacks, height and other regulations. ~at The city may allow deviations for planned unit developments if all of the followinm apply: (1) Ce~ain regulations ~ntained in this chapter should not apply to the proposed PUD ~ bemuse of its unique nature. (2) The PUD would be consistent with the pu~oses of this chapter. (3) The planned unit development would produce a development of equal or supedor quality to that which would result from std~ adhemn~ to the provisions of this chapter. (4) The deviations would not b~ ~ a signifi~nt threat to the pmpe~y values, safety, health or general welfare of the o~ers or occupants of nea~y land. (5) The city requires deviations ~ for reasonable and ~ pm~i~l physi~l development and are not required solely for financial reasons. (c) Required plan. The city requires specific plans with a PUD. The development shall confo~ to the plan(s) as filed with the city. Any substantive changes in the plan(s) shall require a re~mmendation by the planning ~mmission and approval by the city ~uncil after a public hea~ng. The director of communi~ development may approve minor chan~es to the approved plans. 61 (d) PUD Required. The city requires council approval of a conditional use permit for a PUD. for all preliminary plat sites of 10 .qross acres or less. For such a site, the city shall notifv all property owners within 500 feet of the site of all public meetin.qs and all public heafin_as. .(A). A developer, owner or applicant may apply for city approval of a PUD for preliminary plat sites of more than 10 acres. .CO. The city shall not approve a division of the land under an approved PUD, unless the density distribution approved in the PUD is ensured after the land division. Section 2. Sections 36-440 through 36-443 are changed as follows: Sec. 36.440. Application. An erson ma a I ~ for a conditional use permit mcy b: mod: by =.n7 . . · · · ' ' . An applicant also shall for community desi.qn review board approval, if applicable. An applicant shall submit all completed applications ^'' '""~:""'; .... ~'"" ~' .... ~'"'-;"~'~ to the director of community development upon the forms supplied by the city. The director shall not accept an application. that is not complete. The director shall list s ecific ~ application requirements shall-be stated on this form~, ' ..... (1) ..................... ~ -(2) ........................... '~ -(4) An:,' ....................... -~ ...... , · ',,' *~,- '"' ..... """ .'d'.'?..C."; The applicant shall also, at the time of filing such application, pay a fee to the citY. dir. ec,,ter--ef ccmmun[ty d:vclc~m--.n~.. This fee shall b, to defray administrative expenses incurred by the city in handling of the application. The city council shall set this fee~ which f:= :h:ll b: =:'.:~:h-~,'I. ~.., ,~.-. ~-;,,. ~ ..... :~ by ordinance frc..m .! .... '.c Sec. 36-441. Procedure. (a) After a developer submits a complete application, =n :~.;~:c=::c.", ~'"' ~' ..... ~.._:,,,.,4, the director of community development shall prepare a report and recommendation. The director shall submit this report and recommendation ~ to the planning commission and community design review board, as appropriate, for a recommendation to the city council. The planning commission and community design review board shall take-aetk~ act on the application within sixty (60) days of their respective headng dates, unless the applicant aoorove.s, an . ,.,,~,:,.,, ---, .-p.~:'-'-"~ The staff shall then send the report and the extension._ ~ :pT..roved :n ........~, by ............ planning commission's and community design review board's recommendations ~ foP, yarded to the city council. 62 (b) The city council shall hold at least one public hearing on each application for a conditional use permit. The city council shall not hold this -T-his hearing ~ until the council has received-wdtten recommendations or reports from the city staff, planning commission and community design review board~ ' ' ' ' date~. The director of community development shall have a notice of the hearing published in the official newspaper at least ten (10) days before said hearing. The director shall also Gause-a ~ notice te-be-ma~ to each of the owners of property within three hundred fifty (350) feet of the boundary lines of the property ~ which ~ saGh-ase has beer requested ~,--whi~ The city shall mail these, notices er~ to the last known address of such owners at ieast ten (10) days before the date of the hearing. Such notice shall include the date, time and place of the hearing and shall describe the conditional use request. Failure of property owners to receive notice shall not invalidate any of the proceedings in this section. (c) The council may refer the application back to the planning commission when the council finds that ~ion did not consider specific questions or information that may affect the final decision~_ ' ' ' ' ' ~ shall only use this procedureTh!= ~.;cc=d'-';--. -..h=!! cn~;,' --.3 ,.,=.~!.. once for each application. (d) The city council may approve, amend or deny an application for a conditional use permit by a majority vote. (e) All decisions by the city council shall be final, except that any person aggrieved by a decision may, within thirty (30) days of the decision, appeal to the county district court. Sec. 36-442. Standards. · · · ~. c~nd?.!cn"! (a) The ! ~ ..,,.~,,,,~,~ ,., ,~-.-~,~ ased on the following standards for approval, in addition to any standards for a specific conditional use found in this chapter: (1) The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and code of ordinances. (2) The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. (3) The use would not depreciate property values. (4) The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. (5) The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. (6) The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 63 (7) The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. (8) The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. This shall include lar,qe trees, wetlands, slopes and other natural features that the city council deems important or si,qnificant. (9) The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. (10) The city council may waive any of the above requirements for a public building or utility structure, provided the council shall first make a determination that the balancing of public interest between governmental units of the state would be best served by such waiver. (b) The applicant shall have the burden of providing that the use would meet all of the standards required for approval of a conditional use permit. The city may require the applicant provide, at his or her cost, any information, studies or expert testimony necessary to establish whether these standards would be met or to establish conditions for approval. Sec. 36-443. Conditions. (a) The city council, in granting a conditional use permit, may impose such conditions and guarantees that it considers necessary, and as supported by the record of the proceedings, to protect adiacent properties and the public interest, and to achieve the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. (b) Conditions and guarantees may include but are not limited to the following: (1) Controlling the number, area, bulk, height, illumination and location of such uses. (2) Regulating access to the property, with particular reference to vehicle and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic control and emergency vehicle access. (3) Regulating off-street parking and loading areas, inclUding the number and width of parking spaces. (4) The location and design of utilities, including drainage. (5) Berming, fencing, screening and landscaping, including underground sprinkling. (6) Compatibility of appearance with surrounding land uses. (7) Preservation of the site's natural, historic and scenic features in the development design. (8) Limiting the number, size, location or lighting of signage,.notwithstanding the provisions of Article III (sign ordinance). (9) The location, dimensions and upkeep of open space. (10) Increasing required lot size, yard dimensions or setback requirements. (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) Compliance with any plans presented to the city, includin.q the approved site plan(s) and buildinR elevations. A time limit for review of the permit. A written agreement, cash escrow, letter of credit or other guarantee to ensure that the project will be built as approved by the city council. Restrictive covenants. Control of the interior and exterior components of a building, provided that such condition does not conflict with the building code. Such components may include, but not be limited to, the finished exterior materials and installation of elevators. Control, includinfl the size and location, of potential noise generators. Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect upon its passage and publication. The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on , 1997. 65 Attachment 6 ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS Applicants for development proposals located next to or within a residential zoning distdct shall hold a neighborhood meeting for the following applications: preliminary plat, conditional use permit, planned unit development, rezoning or multiple applications. STATEMENT OF POLICY PURPOSE It is the city's intent to expand and enhance the distribution of information to the residents and to encourage involvement by the residents in the planning process. Therefore it is the applicant's responsibility to hold a neighborhood meeting that meets the guidelines described in the following paragraphs. PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES The applicant shall schedule the meeting, send out notices/invitations* at least 10 days before the meetin.q. Meetings shall be scheduled Monday through Thursday evenings after 6 p.m. and not on an evening preceding a holiday and not on Halloween. The applicant shall be the host of the meeting and present the project for questions and answers. The meeting shall be held after the city has accepted the application but before the planning commission meeting on the application. Notices/invitations to the neighborhood meeting shall be sent to those names and addresses listed on the public headng notice list (within 500 feet of the subject property, obtained from Ramsey County). A representative from the city will be present at the meeting as an observer and to be available for city-related questions. o The applicant shall make available s complete description of the request, including copies of printed materials and maps, where appropriate, o City staff will provide the schedule of dates for planning commission and city council meetings, if known. When the meeting notice is mailed to adjacent property owners, a copy of the invitation shall also be sent to the members of the planning staff, planning commissions and city council. Please contact the Maplewood Community Development Department (770-4560) for the current member rosters. See attached sheet. 66 MINIMUM INFORMATION TO BE INCLUDED IN MEETING NOTICE Name of applicant, contact person, address and phone number Proposed development name Property location description (location map) Describe proposed project and application request Meeting time, day and location Provide a copy of notice to: All property owners within 500 feet City staff All city council and planning commission members (see attached list) It is suggested that a location map and a copy of the proposed development plan be provided with the meeting notice/invitation. Also, additional copies of the development plans should be available at the meeting. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. 67