Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/27/1994AGENDA MAPLEWOOD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes a. June 14, 1994 4. Approval of Agenda 5. Commu_n_ications September 27, 1994 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM A a. The Homestead at Maplewood (VOA Assisted Care Living Facility) b. Ramsey County Strategic Plan - Public and Elderly Housing Committee 6. Unfinished Business a. Meeting with City Council - Monday, February 6, 1995 or March 6, 1995 7. New Business a. QSA Maplewood Housing Study - Steve Quam b. Commercial Property Study c. Interviews 8. Date of Next Meeting a. November 8, 1994 9. Adjournment HRAAGEND.MEM MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JUNE 28,1994 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. ROLL CALL HRA Commissioners: Lorraine Fischer, Gary Pearson, Larry Whitcomb, Tom Connelly (present at 7:25 p.m.) City Staff: Ken Roberts 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 10, 1994 Commissioner Whitcomb moved approval of the minutes of May 10, 1994 as submitted. Commissioner Fischer seconded Ayes--all APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Whitcomb moved approval of the amended agenda, moving item 5 a, b, and c after item 7c. Commissioner Fischer seconded Ayes--all 7. NEW BUSINESS a. VOA - Assisted Care Living Facility, Cope and Castle Avenues (Section 11) Ken Roberts presented the staff report and answered questions from the HRA. Dennis Boggio and Jeff Shem, Lantz-Boggio Architects, were present representing the applicant. Chuck Gould, president of VOA Health Facilities, and Doug and Allen Black, consultants for the project, were also present. Mr. Gould gave a presentation about VOA Health Facilities. He explained the project's intent and design. Commissioner Connelly arrived at the meeting during discussion on this item. Commissioner Whitcomb moved the HRA recommend: HRA Minutes of 6-28-94 -2- C. Approval of 84 fewer parking spaces than code requires and no garages, since: 1. Most of the residents would not drive. 2. The City has allowed fewer parking spaces for similar seniors housing developments. The property owner shall add off-street parking if the City determines there is not enough parking. Approval of the resolution which approves a 205-square-foot floor area variance for the studio units, a 115-square-foot floor area variance for the one-bedroom units and a 130-square-foot floor area variance for the two-bedroom units. Approval is based on these findings: 1. Common areas compensate for the reduced unit size. 2. There are fewer people per unit in senior-housing facilities than in conventional apartment buildings. 3. Larger units can be more difficult to get around in for a resident with physical or cognitive impairment. 4. The City approved floor area variances for Rosewood Estates. Approval of the resolution which approves a variance to the City's density standard to use one person per unit for efficiency units. Approval is based on the following reasons: 1. The applicant presented national statistics showing occupancy rates between .9 and 1.0 person per unit for assisted living efficiency units. 2. The City does not have a standard for efficiency units in senior housing. Commissioner Pearson seconded Ayes--all b. Rosewood Estates - Assisted Care Living Facility (Section 25) Ken Roberts, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and answered questions from the HRA. Kirk Vehtt, of BRW Elness Architects Inc., was present representing Rosewood Estates. Mr. Velett explained that the floor area sizes originally proposed were average sizes, rather than the minimum sizes required by the City. Tony Schuster, representing Rosewood Estates, was present and also spoke about the project. HRA Minutes of 6-28-94 -3- Commissioner Connelly moved the HRA recommend adoption of the resolution which approves a 214-square-foot floor area variance for the efficiency units and a 126- square-foot floor area variance for the one-bedroom units. Approval is based on these 1. There are common areas that compensate for the reduced unit size. 2. There are fewer people per unit in senior-housing facilities than in conventional apartment buildings. Commissioner Pearson seconded Ayes--all c. Crime Prevention Coalition Meeting - Carol Nelson, Maplewood Police Sergeant Carol Nelson, Maplewood Police Department, gave a presentation about this program and answered questions from the HRA. Sergeant Nelson explained this program is an effort to have City officials, property owners and managers work together to provide safe and pleasant rental housing conditions. The HRA thanked Sergeant Nelson for her report and asked for updates about the program as it progresses. COMMUNICATIONS a. Carefree Cottages of Maplewood - Phase Three - Tax-Increment Financing Ken Roberts, Associate Planner, explained that Carefree Cottages of Maplewood withdrew their request for tax-increment financing for phase three because of problems acquiring the land for the project. b. Annual Report Ken Roberts, Associate Planner, explained the City Council accepted the HRA annual report at their May 23 meeting and directed the HRA to find out more about the City's crime prevention coalition of apartment managers. c. City Tour - Tuesday, July 19 Ken Roberts, Associate Planner, explained plans for the City tour. HRA Minutes of 6-28-94 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Meeting with City Council The HRA chose December 5 as their meeting date with the City Council. Commissioner Fischer suggested that the HRA ask the Council for direction concerning the truth-in-housing ordinance enforcement. 7. NEW BUSINESS d. Age Requirements - Senior Housing in Maplewood Ken Roberts, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. The I,IRA directed staff to further research the Archer Heights project for age requirements if this project is considered senior housing. e. Interviews The I-IRA interviewed Louis Hoffrnan. Since there was only one applicant for the vacancy, the HRA directed staff to readverdse the opening. 8. DATE OF NEXT MEETING a. July 12, 1994 Staff explained that the meeting scheduled for July 12 will be held only if necessary. 9. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Assodate Planner Substandard Housing Rehabilitation September 22, 1994 INTRODUCTION City staff met with Steve Quam of Quam, Sumnicht and Associates (QSA) about possible housing rehabilitation programs for substandard housing in Maplewood. Mr. Quam will attend the September 27, 1994 HRA meeting to explain the services and programs that his company provides. DISCUSSION In July, 1994, I sent Mr. Quam a list of several properties in Maplewood to review. These were properties that the Environmental Health Officer had identified as substandard or having had problems in the past. (See the map of properties on page 2.) Mr. Quam risked the properties and prepared the attached list of observations and recommendations about them. RECOMMENDATION Make a recommendation to the City Council about a housing rehabilitation program for substandard housing in Maplewood. kr/qsa.mem Attachments: 1. Location Map of Housing Sites 2. 8-26-94 QSA Maplewood Housing Evaluation 3. 9-2-94 letter from Steve Quam CITY OF MAPLENOOD County of Romsey, ldinnesoto (612) 770-4500 55109 Z~,GEND Attachment 1 ! )9 1/2 KOHLMAN AVENUE jl J ' 2005 CASTLE AVENUE T · 1724 SYLVAN STREET: ! - · STREET INDEX ~-~ ,-,.,.,~ ~ K--~ ~ L~ ,, ,o. ,,. ,,. , ~'~'~ '"'~2' ~' ~'"~ ~ ~'" -,,~'F '-' :"~'_____'-'"-"'~. ~_. -,, ...... . ..... , HOUSING SITES 549 FARRELL STREET -- ,,..,~-,, 'l Page 2 Attachment 2 Maplewood Housing Evaluation (Blighted Housing) ~.~ugust ~, 1994 Evaluation of Priority Sites Priority Address Observations Recommendation 2 3 549 Farrell Street 1724 Sylvan Street 1703 Jessie Street Neighborhood - good Trend - stable/up Structure - marginal Siting on lot - bad Raze and replace Note: some adjacent improvement is taking place that should be encouraged. Neighborhood - average Raze and replace Trend - stable/down Note: High site with Structure - marginal open (though Siting on lot - bad eommerdal) view is a possible amenity, Neighborhood - low Trend - unstable/? Structure - poor Siting on lot - O. K. Raze and replace Note: Secluded woods and dead end could be seen as desireable. 4 1724 English Street Trend - stable/down Structure - very poor Siting on lot - poor Neighborhood - average Raze and replace Note: Ragged com- mercial mix at Larpenteur, but pleasing open lots a block behind 5 6 1309 1/2 Kohlman Ave. 2005 Castle Avenue Neighborhood - average Trend - stable/up Structure(s) - fair/poor Siting on lot - problem Neighborhood - poor Trend - threatened Structure(s) - bad/fair Siting on lot - problem Raze/transform(?) Note: attractive terrain, new high value home 3-5 blocks east, two homes on site. Investigate. Raze/redevelop Note: multiple family rental uses and adjacent highway 36 discourage SF use. Prepared by Quam, Sumnicht and Associates, Inc. (QSA) Action Alternatives · Transformation · Spot Replacement · District Redevelopment Recommendation: · Spot Replacement, (possibly implementing a TIF concept), except for priori~ 6, where District Redevelopment would be preferred. Key~ to Coordir~ating a ?ro~am that looks tO the Future: · Clearly defirLing the Communi~ and Neighborhood Needs · Planning Strategies that meet Long Term Goals for Housing Needs · The Next Step Prepared by Quam, Sumnicht and Associates, Inc. (QSA) SEP Attachment 3 September 2, 1994 Mr. Geoff Olson Community Development Director City of Maplewood 1830 E. Country Rd. B Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Mr. Olson: You asked that I outline a Housing Program Concepts Evaluation that QSA, Inc. could provide for possible I-ERA and Council consideration. As you know, we have already examined six housing sites that represent blight or ongoing maintenance problems. From that evaluation and our own review of Maplewood's residential areas we note that Maplewood contains its share of houses that either drag down the quality of their neighborhoods, or are likely to retard the positive neighborhood improvement and maintenance that a first-ring suburb needs if it is to remain optimistic and vital. From dealing with other housing programs (including one in Richfield, which, as Mayor, I conceived, and which subsequently received an AMM Innovative Cities award), we know that it is far more cost effective and rewarding to initiate foresighted housing incentives that build upon the strengths of a city like Maplewood, than it is to postpone dealing with sprouting problems until they become widespread, costly to fix and demoralizing. 5 6421 James Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Telephone 61Z861.2026 Quam, Sumnicht and Associates, Inc. will,/or Five Hundred Dollars, provide our written evaluation and summary of the following Maplewood program issues: 1. The type of programs (home replacement, existing home "transformation", whole district redevelopment, etc.) that would be most effective in updating neighborhoods and conserving existing open lands, o The sources of funding that might be available to Maplewood (internal fund loans, private local lender participation, TIF financing, etc.) to initiate appropriate housing incentives, and The cost effectiveness of the initiatives (For example, could loans to start a program be recovered, along with administrative costs?) and the positive impact they might they have on the taxes and revenues of the dry and its school districts. If this evaluation helps the HRA and/or City Council to decide to further explore these program initiatives, Quam, Sumnicht and Associates, Inc. would then be happy to share, at no additional charge, a multi-media presentation illustrating the program concepts and home design examples that QSA, Inc. believes could be ideal for Maplewood. As you know, at QSA, Inc., we blend experience in public and private finance, housing, architectural and urban design, law, home construction, and public policy planning to provide a unique combination of abilities. The City of Maplewood now seems perfectly poised to build upon its excellent location, its progressive concern for its residential environments and its leadership in providing state of the art public facilities, to address the aging aspects of its existing neighborhoods. Yours y, Steve Quam President/CEO 6 Care ree Cottases of Maplewood ~749 Gervais .~ve #6 Maplewood, Mn. 55~o9 6~2-77o-7687 GRAND OPENING Carefree Cottages of Maplewood 1749 Gervais Avenue Tuesday September 27, 1994 4:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. Formal Ribbon Cutting Ceremony at 5:00 p.m. Please join us to celebrate the completion of the Carefree Cottages of Maplewood. Refreshments will be served on the Community Center Patio. For any questions or further details, contact Patti Mogren at 770-7687 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Director of Community Development Commercial Property Study September 8, 1994 CONIENTS INTRODUCTION 3 BACKGROUND 3 1992 Commercial Study ......................................... 3 The 1993/1994 Study ........................................... 3 DISCUSSION ........................................................... 4 Problem One--lntra-City Land Use Conflicts ....................... '.... 4 Woodbury 1-494/Lake Road Interchange ............................ 5 Century Avenue and Stillwater Road ............................... 5 Century Avenue--Minnehaha Avenue to Brand Street .................. 6 Ariel Street--Highway 36 to Eleventh Avenue ........................ 6 Planning Commission Recommendation on Problem One .............. 6 Problem Two-Blighted Homes Near Commercial ....................... 7 Planning Commission Recommendation on Problem Two ............... 10 Problem Three--Inadequate Buffering of Single Dwellings ................. 10 Screening .................................................. 10 Setbacks from residential property ................................ 11 Planning Commission Recommendations on Problem Three ............. 11 Problem Four--Bothersome Types of Commercial Too Close to Homes ...... 12 Fast-Food Restaurants ........................................ 12 The Methadone Clinic ......................................... 13 Check Cashing Businesses ..................................... 13 Heliports and Helistops ........................................ 13 Gun Shops ................................................. 14 Planning Commission Recommendations on Problem Four ............. 14 Problem Five--Controlling Nuisances from Commercial Uses .............. 14 Noise ..................................................... 14 Trespassing ................................................. 14 Visual Impact ................................................ 14 Traffic Infiltration .............................................. 16 Planning Commission Recommendations on Problem Five .............. 16 Problem Six--Transition Zones ..................................... 17 Planning Commission Recommendation on Problem Six ................ 18 Problem Seven--Commercial Spread Along Major Streets and Into Residential Neighborhoods .............................................. 18 Planning Commission Recommendation on Problem Seven ............. 19 Problem Eight-Nonconforming Commercial Uses ...................... 19 19 Nonconforming uses .......................................... Don John .................................................. 20 Solutions ................................................... 20 Planning Commission Recommendation on Problem Eight .............. 22 Intensity of Commercial Uses .................................... 22 Off-street Parking Requirements .................................. 22 Regulating Businesses Near Residential Neighborhoods With a Conditional Use Permit ................................................... 23 Floor Area Ratios and Lot Coverages .............................. 25 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................... 25 27 REFERENCE ........................................................... CURRENT COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL POLICIES .................. 27 MAPLEWOOD'S COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS ................... 27 NC (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District ...................... 27 Commercial Office (CO) ........................................ 27 BC (Business Commercial) Zoning District .......................... 28 LBC (Limited Business Commercial) Zoning District ................... 28 BC(M) (Business Commercial Modified) Zoning District ................. 28 SC (Shopping Center) Zoning District .............................. 28 M-1 (Light Manufacturing) Zoning District ........................... 29 LAND USE CHANGES FROM COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL AND VICE VERSA29 INTRODUCTION The City Council directed the staff to initiate and coordinate a commercial property study. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between commercial and residential zones and the control of the intensity of use of commercial properW. BACKGROUND 1992 Commercial Study On July 13, 1992, the City completed a study of all of its commercial zones. As a result of this study, the City Council passed an ordinance that changed four commercial zoning districts--the BC (business commercial), B¢-M (business commercial modified), SC (shopping center) and M-1 (light manufacturing) districts. The ordinance made the following changes: 1. Updated the permitted and conditional uses and created consistent wording between districts. 2. Prohibited motor fuel stations and maintenance garages within 350 feet of a residential lot line. 3. Required a conditional use permit in the BC district for buildings or outside uses within 75 feet of a residential building. The 1993/'1994 Study On March 1, 1993, the Planning Commission prepared a proposal to the City Council for a commercial property study. (See the proposal on page 32.) On March 22, 1993, the Council approved the Commission's proposal. The Council directed the staff to initiate and coordinate a commercial property study to evaluate the relationship between commercial and residential zones and the control of the intensity of use of commercial properW. On April 19, 1993, the Commission identified a list of 33 problems to study as part of the commercial property study. The Commission sent these problems to the HRA and Community Design Review Board (CDP, B) for their review. On Suly 6, 1993, the Commission received the comments from the HRA and CDRB and approved a final list of 28 problems. 3 -V--T T .... I On September 7, 1993, the Council considered the Commission's list of 28 problems. The City Council directed the Commission to focus on the first eight problems. These problems were about how to protect single dwelling neighborhoods from commercial uses. The eight problems are discussed later in this report. On May 16, 1994, the Planning Commission referred three recommendations from the commercial property study to the Community Design Review Board (CDRB). These are recommendations 1-3 on pages 11-12. On May 24, 1994, the Community Design Review Board (CDRB) recommended against the three recommendations from the Planning Commission. The Board briefly looked at the Chanhassen landscaping ordinance. (See the ordinance starting on page 35.) The Board did not consider it or make a specific motion about this ordinance. The Board felt that their current landscaping policies were sufficient. On Sune 6, 1994, the Planning Commission discussed the commercial property study with the City Council. They talked about the nine recommendations that the Planning Gommission had prepared to date. It was the consensus of the City Gouncil that the Planning Commission study intensities of commercial land uses and ways to classify and regulate development based on that intensity of use. DISCUSSION On September 7, 1993, the Council asked for a study on eight problems. These eight problems were about protecting single dwelling neighborhoods from commercial uses. The following discussion is about these eight problems. The last section discusses controlling the intensity of commercial uses. Problem Onc Intra-City Land Use Conflicts The City should determine if there are intra-city land use conflicts at the City's boundaries. An example is the effect of a proposed 1-494 interchange in Woodbury on traffic and development in Maplewood. Another example, the area of Century Avenue and Stillwater Road. We identified and studied the following four potential areas of intra-city land use conflicts: 4 Woodbury 1-494/Lake Road Interchange Woodbury started work on the 1-494 and Lake Road interchange in August, 1994. They expect to finish the project in late 1996. Lake Road will intersect Century Avenue north of Linwood Avenue. (See the plan on page 47.) I have attached the Vista Hills and I-flghwood Land Use Plan Maps from the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan. (See pages 48 and 49.) These neighborhoods are closest to the new interchange. The Vista Hills map shows the land west of Century Avenue and north of Linwood Avenue as open space. The County Correctional Facility is using this land for farming. The l-Iighwood Land Use Plan Map shows the land south of Linwood Avenue for single dwellings. Both land use plan maps show Century Avenue as a major arterial street. Woodbury has planned and zoned most of the property on Century Avenue, south of l. inwood Avenue, for single dwellings. They are planning the balance of the frontage for office and high density residential land. Their plan is compatible with Maplewood's plan. (See Woodbury's Land Use Plan and Zoning Maps on pages 50 and 51. The zoning map shows the new interchange.) Woodbury expects the traffic to increase on Century Avenue, north of Lake Road. This pan of Maplewood has the County Correctional Facility and its farm land. The · interchange would not affect this land since the City is planning the County land for open space. Maplewood has been concerned that the traffic from this project will negatively affect the houses on the west side of Century Avenue and add more traffic to Linwood Avenue. The Lake Road intersection with Century Avenue has been designed to minimize this problem. Lake Road will not directly connect to Linwood Avenue. Traffic from or to Lake Road must make three turns to drive between Linwood Avenue and Lake Road. (See the drawing on page 47.) Time will tell if traffic becomes a problem. Since the interchange is under construction, the only action for Maplewood is to consider changing the land use plan. I do not see any reason to consider a change now. Century Avenue and Sfillwater Road The Century Avenue and Stillwater Road intersection does not have any intra-eity land use conflicts. The existing and planned land uses in both Oakdale and Maplewood are compatible. The land is nearly all developed. There is a vacant site on the southeast comer of the intersection. Oakdale is planning this site and the existing commercial businesses near this intersection for commercial land uses. (See the Oakdale Comprehensive Plan Map on page 52.) Maplewood has planned and zoned the land near this intersection for commercial land uses as well. (See the Maplewood Land Use Plan and Zoning Maps on pages 53 and 54.) 5 Century Avenuc Minn~h~ha Avenue to Brand Street There are a variety of land uses on the west side of Century Avenue, between Minnehaha Avenue and Brand Street. The uses include the Holiday Station Store, the A&W Restaurant, the Dairy Queen, the Dege Garden Centez; the Underwater Caverns, eleven houses and two vacant lots. Maplewood has planned and zoned this land with a variety of designations. These designations reflect the existing land uses. (See the maps on pages 55 and 56.) Oakdale has planned the land across Century Avenue from this pan of Maplewood for commercial uses. (See the Oakdale Comprehensive Plan Map on page 57.) The existing land uses in this pan of Oakdale include a Freedom Center Station, two strip centers, a restaurant and office buildings. Maplewood is planning residential uses. Thus, there may be a conflict between land uses. However; Century Avenue creates more of an impact on these homes than the commercial uses in Oakdale. These homes are in a similar situation to the homes on White Bear Avenue, north of Larpenteur Avenue. An option is to ask Oakdale to change their land use plan to single dwellings. I do not recommend this. The commercial land uses in Oakdale are appropriate given the traffic on Century Avenue and the high density residential to the east. Ariel Street---Highway 36 to Eleventh Avenue Ariel Street between Highway 36 and Eleventh Avenue is the border between North St. Paul and Maplewood. Apartments and town houses are on the North St. Paul side. In Maplewood there are two houses and undeveloped property on the southwest corner of Ariel and llth Avenue. (See the Property Line/Zoning Map on page 58.) Maplewood has planned most of this area'for single dwellings and the part on the south side of llth Avenue for office uses. {See the Land Use Plan Map on page 59.) The City's land use plan states that changes in differing types of land use should occur along rear lot lines. As such, the City may want to consider allowing multiple dwellings along Ariel Street, particularly south of the planned commercial on llth Avenue. Before the 1983 update of the Comprehensive Plan, the City was planning the land between llth Avenue and Highway 36 and Ariel Street and White Bear Avenue for high density residential development. The City has received an application to make this change. Planning Commission Recommendation on Problem One The Planning Commission did not recommend any changes. 6 Problem Two--Blighted Homes Near Commercial Single and double dw~_llln~ around commercial uses are becoming blighted. An example is the homes west of Duluth Street on County Road C. The City h~_~ zoned thelll commercial. This discourages property owilers from m:~intaillillg these homes. This problem has two parts. The first part is whether there is a problem with blighted houses near commerdal uses? On February 11, 1994, we did a windshield survey of houses near commercial uses. The maps on pages 60--63 show the general locations of these homes. The maps on pages 64-85 show the property line/zoning maps for these properties. We wanted to see it blight or maintenance was a problem. We found no wide-spread problem. A few houses needed paint or minor repairs. These houses, however; were an exception, not the rule. The number of houses needing maintenance or repair were no more than in other neighborhoods of a similar age. The main reason for maintenance problems was age rather than proximity to commercial uses. The second part of this problem is about properties with homes that the City has zoned commercial. The maps on pages 66, 67, 69-71, 74 and 84 show examples of such properties. Our windshield survey did not find an unusual problem of unmaintained homes. We surveyed the owners of homes that have a commercial zone. We asked the owners if they would be foz; object or have no comment about rezoning their property to residential. Of the 23 surveys we sent out, we received thirteen responses. The owners of twelve properties wanted to keep their commercial zoning and one property owner (1210 County Road C) wanted residential. We received the following comments: I object to changing the zoning of my property because we have commercial on all three sides and we would just as soon stay as we are. (Patwell, 1927 Radatz Avenue E.--map on page 67.) My property is bordered on the east by a McDonald's restaurant and a strip mall across the street is a Holiday gas station and store, a large repair garage and storage lot for their vehicles, and on my west side is a fourplex. With all of the commercial and R-3 properties around me, it has lost value as a residential (single home) property. Therefore, [ would prefer that it remain zoned commercial. (Moritz, 2708 Minnehaha Avenue E.-map on page 84) I object to changing the zoning of my property because it's too late now; we are completely exposed to commercial property. (Peltiez; 2497 Maplewood Drive N.--map on page 71) 7 4. I object to changing the zoning of my property because the location better fits a commercial use and resale would be impossible. (Lund, 2411 Maplewood Drive N.-map on page 71) 5. As owner of this property, I want to go on record as being opposed to anything that would prevent my property from being zoned commercial. This property was purchased as an investment with the intent of eventually building a commercial building on it, and the property is priced accordingl~ In addition, the properties along both sides of Highway 61 in the immediate vicinity are commercial properties. There is no reason why my property should remain residentially zoned. (Brooksbank, owner of property at 2889 Maplewood Drive N.--map on page 69) 6. I object to changing the zoning of my property because of its location on the frontage of Highway 61 and the possible change of its value. (Slomkowski, 1075 Pierce Butler Route) 7. I object to changing the zoning of my property because I would not want to invest more money in a house 100 years old. (Zuerche~; owner of 2911 Maplewood Drive--map on page 69) 8. Since 1986, we have had two appraisals and one market study done on our property, all with the same conclusion, saying the best use of this property would be commercial. In the past, your office has come to the same conclusion. In addition, we now have a new frontage road 25 feet from our property with the improvement project on County Road C, increasing traffic by double, thus making our property less attractive residentially and enhancing it commercially. If our zoning changes, it will not only decrease our property value but decrease our marketability. (Sorenson, 1215 E. County Road C--map on page 70) 9. I object to changing the zoning of my property because value of property would drop. Taxes and house payment would go up. (Graham, 1224 E. County Road C--map on page 70) 10. I object to changing the zoning of my property because of my business. Need room for equipment. (Langness, 1227 E. County Road C--map on page 70) 11. I object to changing the zoning of my property because it is not in my best interest in the future--(property value or home-based business). (Hanson, 1230 E. County Road C--map on page 70) 12. I want it residential. (Munchow, 1210 E. County Road C--map on page 70) 13. I object to changing the zoning of my property because do not want the taxes to be any higher. In regard to rezoning, we have had no business for the last 1S years or 8 more. At that time, the flash floods mined my back properW. It killed fruit trees, raspberries and blackberries and garden land and did at least $i~,000 damage to business property. You keep raising my taxes, but 1/2 of my property isn't of any use to me. I would be willlr~g to sell some of the back property if someone had use for it for commercial property. (Nienas, ! 706 Parkway Drive E.--map on page 74) We wanted to know the effect on property taxes of changing the zoning of a house from commercial to residential. We talked to Kent Smith in the County Property Records and Revenue Department. He told us that such a zoning change would not change the property taxes if the lot is too small for a commercial use or standard size for a residence. (See his letter on page 86.) There are five options the City could consider to improve the maintenance of homes in and around commercial uses: 1. Increase the City's enforcement of the housing code next to commercial uses. The City only enforces the housing code when we get a complaint. Offer financial aid through grants or low-interest loans for home remodeling. The State already offers a low-interest loan program for low- to- moderate-income residents for home improvements. The State also has a grant program for families with incomes below $10,000 per year. The City may want to supplement these programs. The City could buy up substandard homes, fix them up and resell them or demolish them and sell the lot to a builder: The staff is exploring this option. We have identified five or six houses that would be the most likely candidates. Only one of the houses is near a commercial district. 4. Increase the enforcement of the maintenance code for businesses next to residences. The City Code requires businesses to maintain their properties in at least as good a condition as when originally built. Keeping surrounding businesses looking good may encourage adjacent homeowners to improve their properties. The City only enforces this code when we receive a complaint. 5. Rezone properties that the City has zoned commercial or industrial but the owners are using for residential purposes. This option would probably not be effective. The City changed the land use plan from commercial to residential for the homes on White Bear Avenue, between Frost Avenue and Larpenteur Avenue. The maintenance of these homes has not changed. For now, housing maintenance is no more of a problem in and around commercial uses than in the rest of the Ci~. The problem may appear worse because the homes are more visible. Most of the problem homes that we are aware of are in residential neighborhoods, rather than next to commercial areas. We are not recommending any changes. We should watch these homes and act in the future if housing maintenance becomes more of a problem. The City should explore the removal or rehabilitation of substandard homes. These homes may or may not be around commercial buildings. Planning Commission Recommendation on Problem TWo The Planning Commission did not recommend any changes. Problem Three--Inadequate Buffering of Single Dwellings There is not enough buffer between R-1 (single dwe11ing) and commercial or multiple dwell~r~gs. (The Commission excluded mixed use planned unit developments from this problem_) Buffers between different types of land uses are to protect less intense (single family) land uses from more intense (commercial or multiple-dwelling) land uses. Owners and developers can do buffering with screening or larger-than-normal setbacks. Pages 87-90 show the City's landscaping, screening and setback standards. The requirements include at least a 20-foot-wide landscaped yard between single or double dwellings and other land use types. Landscaping does not always mean screening. Landscaping may only be grass and low bushes. The Community Design Review Board can require more landscaping if they feel it is needed. Screening means: a fence, berm, landscaping or combination of these three that provides at least an 80% opaque screen. The City only requires screening where: 1. The light from automobile headlights and other sources would be directed into residential windows. 2. There would be exterior storage of goods or materials that could annoy or endanger property owners. 3. Mechanical equipment on the ground or roof would be visible from public streets or adjoining property. 10 4. A parking lot is next to a single or double dwelling or the City is planning the property for single or double-dwelling use. The Code allows the use of a screening fence, a planting screen, a berm or a combination of these for screening. Setbacks from residential property The City Code requires commercial and multiple dwellings to be at least fifty feet from a residential property line (Section 136-28[c] [6]). A developer must increase this setback to a maximum of 75 feet for buildings exceeding 25 feet in height or having an exterior wall with more than 2,000 square feet of area that faces a residentially-zoned property. The Code allows the City Council to approve a conditional use permit for additions within a required setback. (See Subpart (7) on page 89.) Planning Commission Recommendations on Problem Three Change Subsection 36-27(a) of the City Code. This section requires a landscaped yard of not less than twenty feet in width. Landscaping could mean just grass. The Commission recommended that the Council change this subsection to require trees or shrubs in addition to grass. Staff Comment: The Community Design Review Board (CDP, B) recommended against this change. The CDRB's main concern with this recommendation was the lack of flexibility in the wording. The neighbors may not need or want screening. A compromise solution would be to require trees or shrubs in addition to grass, but allow the CDRB to waive the requirement where the adjacent owners object. Change Subsections 36-27(c) and (d). They require that owners or developers satisfy screening with a screening fence, planting screen, berm or combination thereof. If the owner or developer uses fencing, the Commission recommended that the City require trees or shrubs. Staff Comment: The CDRB recommended against this change. The current ordinance already allows the CDRB to require landscaping in addition to fencing. The CDRB wants the flexibility to deal with individual situations. Some neighbors may prefer not to have landscaping with the fencing, particularly if they feel that the landscaping may become a maintenance problem. There may be other cases where existing vegetation may screen the fence and new vegetation is not needed. In other cases, neighbors may prefer just a fence for security or trespassing reasons. 3. Change Subsection 36-28(c)(6). This subsection requires a minimum se{back between residential and commercial property. The Commission recommended that the Council increase the minimum setback from 50 feet to 75 feet. The ordinance requires a larger setback for large and tall buildings. The Commission is recommending that the Council increase the maximum setback for large and tall buildings from 75 feet to 100 feet. Staff Comm~nt: The Commission's main concern with this recommendation has been with tall or large buildings next to residences. The CDRB feels that requiring a larger setback for all commercial buildings may be too restrictive. The Board noted several smaller commercial buildings, such as Rainbow Cleaning Systems on Duluth Street or the veterinary clinic on Cope Avenue that would not need a larger setback. They are compatible with residences. I recommend a compromise--leave the minimum setback at SO feet, but increase the maximum setback for large or tall buildings from 7S to 100 feet. This would not keep the current fifty-foot setback for small and low buildings but would require larger setbacks for large or tall buildings. Problem Four.-Bo~f~r~:~m~ Tyi~ of Oommerc~l Too ~ to ~ Bothersome types of commercial, such as fast food, are too dose to single dwellings. These cornmer~nl uses create nuisances, such as litter: For the purposes of this study, I am defining 'bothersome types of commercial' as those that create a nuisance to adjacent homes. Controlling such uses is a function of the zoning ordinance. The Planning Commission reviewed all the types of commercial in the zoning ordinance and recommended that the City Council make the changes shown on the chart on page 91. I have singled out the uses below for discussion because the Commission spent more time discussing them than the other changes. The Commission used fast food as an example of a bothersome commerdal use. The City limits fast-food restaurants to BC (business commercial) zones. The City requires a conditional use permit for a BC use that would be within 75 feet of a residential building. One of the main reasons for this permit is to assure that the commercial use would be compatible with any surrounding homes. The only residences next to fast-food restaurants are on Minnehaha Avenue and Radatz Avenue. The house on Minnehaha Avenue is west of the McDonald's on Century Avenue. The City rezoned this house from a residential zone to a commerdal zone. The zoning change was to allow McDonald's to expand their parking lot. After the City rezoned the house, McDonald's decided not to buy the property. There is a house on the north side of Radatz Avenue that is south of the Kentucky Fried Ghicken and Burger King. The City has zoned and planned this house, like the one on Minnehaha Avenue, for commercial use. I do not know of a problem with the two situations just described. 12 The Methadone The neighbors around the White Bear Avenue methadone clinic consider the clinic to be a bothersome use. The neighbors have given the City a list of complaints. None of these complaints violate City ordinances. The staff prepared an ordinance that would have required a conditional use permit for clinics that primarily treat chemical dependency. This was done at the City Council's request. (See the staff report starting on page 92.) The Planning Commission recommended against this ordinance. The City Council passed a moratorium to give the City time to finish this commercial property study Check Cashin~ Bu~llesses Saint Paul is working on a zoning code ordinance amendment. The new ordinance would allow Check cashing businesses as a permitted use in commercial districts if they were at least 100 feet from a residential district. Saint Paul found that check cashing businesses had significantly higher police calls than other financial businesses, such as banks. Neither Saint Paul nor Maplewood license these uses. Howevez; the State does license them. The Commission recommended that we add check cashing businesses as a permitted use in commercial districts if they are at least 350 feet from residential districts. Heliports and H,~li~ops The Planning Commission asked the staff to investigate rules for the location of heliports. I contacted the Metropolitan Council and Saint Paul. The Metropolitan Council has a model ordinance that recommends allowing heliports as a conditional use in any zoning district. Saint Paul has definitions for heliports, helistops, private heliports or helistops and public heliports or helistops in their Zoning Code. They define a heliport as a place for the landing or takeoff of helicopters (including maintenance and fueling). A helistop is a place for one helicopter to land or take off, but does not include maintenance or fueling operations. By conditional use permit, Saint Paul allows private helistops as an accessory use for a hospital. A condition for a hospital helistop is that it must be at least 250 feet from a residential property line. Saint Paul also allows public and private heliports and helistops at an airport with a conditional use permit. They require that a heliport or helistop at an airport be at least 1,000 feet from a residential property line. Saint Paul requires all heliport and helistop applicants to do noise studies and to follow the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations. The noise study is to find out if the heliport or helistop will meet the State noise regulations. Saint Paul will only allow heliports at an airport and not at a business. Saint Paul only allows helistops at airports or hospitals, not at businesses. BM told us that they do not have or plan to have a helistop. 13 The Commission recommended that the City change heliport to helistop since we do not have an airport or plans for an airport. They also recommended that we define helistop, limit them to hospitals and prohibit them within 350 feet of residential districts. Minnesota Pollution Control and FAA regulations would appb: Gun Shops The Commission is recommending that the City prohibit gun shops anywhere in the City. (See their list of changes in uses on page 91.) The City Attorney has advised me that it is highly unlikely that there is statutory authority to exclude gun shops. (See the attorney's opinion starting on page 101.) Planning Commission Recommendations on Problem Four 4. Change the commercial districts to conform to the Commission's list on page 91. S. Make no change to clinics, and lift the moratorium on new or expanding clinics. Problem Frye: Controlling Nuisances from Commercial Uses The City needs to ease and relieve commerdal noise, trespassing, visual impact and Waffic infiltration through single-dwelling neighborhoods. Noise The City follows the State noise regulations in approving development. I am not aware of any problems with these regulations. rresvassias Trespassing can occur from neighbors cutting through the residential yards that abut a commercial use. The City does not require a business to put up fencing unless required for screening. The Community Design Review Board could require additional fencing if they anticipate a trespassing problem. The Board should consider this on a case-by-case basis. Residential owners may not want or need fencing. Visual Impact The Community Design Review Board reviews all new commercial development. The Board must make the following findings: 14 That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the City's comprehensive municipal plan. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. Visual impact is in the eye of the beholden An example is the conditional use permit for the Kinderberry Hill Day-Care Genter (586 Carlton Street). A thick tree and shrub screen separates the day-care center from the adjacent homes to the east. A neighboring resident had cut down the vegetation behind his home. He testified at the hearing that he did not want screening because it interfered with his view of the 3M buildings. The Planning Commission discussed three subjects about visual impact--building maintenance, the Ghanhassen Landscaping Ordinance and reserve parking. Building Maintenance As far as existing buildings, the City requires that property owners maintain their building and grounds in at least as good a condition as when originally completed (Section 36-28[b]). Maintenance shall include: 1. Replacing any landscaping shown on the approved plan that dies. 2. Picking up all trash and debris from the grounds. 3. Removing all noxious weeds. 4. Watering the grass, trees and shrubs. 5. Repairing any exterior parts of the building that deteriorate or break. Chanhassen Landscaping Ordinance One of the planning commissioners suggested that we look at the Chanhassen landscaping ordinance (pages 35-46). This ordinance is very detailed and specific. A concern of the CDRB is that an ordinance like this may limit their flexibility. Another concern is that minimum standards can become maximum standards. As an example, the Chanhassen ordinance requires that 1% or 2o/o of the project value be in landscaping. This may be enough in some cases or too little in other cases. Developers 15 may provide only the minimum ordinance requirement, when they may have done more without the ordinance. Ordinances can be serf-defeating if the City writes them with too much detail. Because of the detailed requirements, the City should informally use the Chanhassen standards before adopting them. It would be like test-al_dying a car before buying it. Reserve Parking The Planning Commission has recommended that the City allow part of the required parking spaces to be deferred in a reserve strip until needed. This would create more open space and reduce storm water nm-off. Traffic Infiltration Traffic infiltration means commercial traffic going through residential neighborhoods on local, rather than collector or arterial streets. The City has planned its streets and commercial areas to prevent commercial traffic from going through local residential streets. As such, the City has planned certain streets for through traffic. The City has shown these streets on the land use plan as collector and arterial streets. Most' of these streets have homes on them. People should expect more traffic if they live on these streets. I am not aware of anywhere in the City where commercial traffic is causing a problem by infiltrating through local residential streets. The only recent case I know of has been the controversy about traffic from Mounds Park Academy going through the neighborhood to the west. The City Council solved this problem by closing the driveway from the 'school to PHce Avenue. Planning Commission Recommendations on Probl,~m Five 6. Use the monetary standards, vehicular~ foundation and aesthetic plantings, landscaping materials and definitions of the Chanhassen ordinance for a one-year trial. The staff would apply the ordinance to each project and report the results to the Community Design Review Board. Since it is not a Maplewood ordinance, the Board can use or ignore the Chanhassen standards on a case by case basis. At the end of the year; the Board shall recommend whether the City should add all or some of the Chanhassen ordinance to the Maplewood Code. 7. Direct the staff to write an ordinance that allows the City to replace some of the required parking with reserve land. 16 Problem Six--Transition Zones Is the City planning transition uses between commercial and single or double dwelling~ or following the market? The City has tried to use transition zones. Maplewood, however; did not do its first land use plan until 1973. Development had occurred in much of the City by then. The City designed all of its commercial districts except the BC (business commercial), SC (shopping center), M-1 (light manufacturing) and M-2 (heavy manufacturing) to be compatible with surrounding residences. The commercial districts that the City intends to be next to residential uses are as follows: NC (Neighborhood Commercial) Section 36-126 of the City Code lists the intent of the NC (neighborhood commercial) district. It says, "the intent of this district is to preserve land for the use of businesses that are compatible and adjacent residential land uses. Uses are limited to offices and smaller retail uses that cater to convenience shopping.* CO (Commercial Office) Section 36-136 g/ves the purpose and intent of the CO (commercial office) district. It says, 'the ¢O district is established primarily to provide areas for the development of professional and administrative offices, related uses together with supportive, low intensity commercial uses in locations in close proximity to residential areas...' It also says, 'This district is intended to be located primarily on heavily traveled streets or adjacent to commercial or industrial districts, and is designed to lessen the impact of these uses on residential areas.' LBC (Limited Business Commercial) The City designed the LBC district to be compatible with nearby residential uses. Offices, medical or health clinics and day-care centers are the only uses that the City allows in the LBC district. BC(M) (Business Commercial-Modified) The BC(M) zoning district allows a variety of commercial uses. The City added the BC(M) (business commercial-modified) to the City Code in 1976. The City created this zone as a buffer between the businesses on the north side of Beam Avenue and the homes on Radatz Avenue. Section 36-155 of the City Code g/ves the intent of the BC-M zoning district. It says that "The BC(M) district is intended to provide for the orderly transition between more intensive commercial uses and low- or medium-density 17 residential areas. Restrictions on, but not limited to, building height, setbacks, orientation, parking lot location, or location of building entrances may be required to ensure compatibility with abutting residential uses.' The zoning ordinance does not specifically state that the City intends the following districts to be next to residential uses. They are, however- BC (Business Commercial) The BC zoning district is the City's most permissive commercial district. The City allows a wide range of commercial uses in the BC zoning district. The Code requires a conditional use permit for any BC use within 75 feet of a residential building. SC (Shopping Center) The SC (shopping center) zoning district allows many types of commercial land uses. The Plaza 3000 Shopping Center is the only place in the City that has this zone. M-1 and M-2 (light and heavy manufacturing) The zoning code does not specifically say that the City intended these districts to be next to residential neighborhoods. The M-1 district, however~ often is. Both districts require a conditional use permit for any use within 350 feet of a residential lot line. This requirement protects residential neighborhoods and allows the City to use the M-1 district near residential neighborhoods. If the City feels that a commercial zone next to a residential property is too intense, they should rezone to a less intense commercial zone. Planning Commission Recommendation on Problem Six Change the intent section of the BC(M) zoning district. Drop the first sentence. This sentence states that "The BC(M) Business Commercial District (Modified) is intended to provide for the orderly transition between more intensive commercial uses and low or medium density residential areas." The Commission did not feel that the BC(M) district was a buffer between commercial and residential uses. Problem Seven--Commercial Spread Along Major Streets and Into Residential Neighborhoods Continuous commercial spread along major streets and around the comer into residential neighborhoods. 18 Problem Seven uses the term "continuous commercial spread." The City has had steady commercial growth over the last 20 years. Most of this growth has occurred on land that the City had planned for commercial use. I can find little evidence of 'creeping commercialism' in land use plan changes. In the last five years, the City has changed about as much land from commercial to residential use as from residential to commercial use. (See the Hsr of land use changes starting on page 29.) None of these were significant changes. The City made most of these changes as pan of the updating of the Comprehensive Plan in 1989-1991. The plan is a guide. As conditions change, the City should adjust and change its plan. However; most of the changes to commercial locations have been adjustments, rather than major policy changes. There is one exception to the above. The City has recently received a proposal to redevelop the homes between White Bear Avenue, 11th Avenue, Highway 36 and Ariel Street from residential to commercial. Planning Commission Recommendation on Probl~m Seven The Planning Commission did not recommend any change. Problem Eight--Nonconforming Commercial Uses Nonconforming commercial uses in residential zones, such as Don John's commercial business on Stillwater Avenue. Nonconform/ng uses The City Code defines a nonconforming use as 'A building, or a use of land or of a building, existing at the effective date of any provision of this chapter which does not conform with the requirements of such provision of this chapter; or a use authorized under Article III of this chapter' In other words, a nonconforming use is a use that was legal, but no longer conforms to the current zoning laws because of a change in the law. The Code allows a legal nonconforming use to continue as long as it does not expand or end for one year or more. The City may allow a nonconforming use to expand by approving a conditional use permit. Zoning ordinances are not retroactive. Existing land uses that do not conform to a new ordinance can continue as a nonconforming use. For example, if the City rezoned a welding shop to a single-family zoning, the welding shop could continue as a nonconforming use. Most communities do not allow an expansion of a nonconforming use that would prolong its use. This is because a nonconforming use may not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Maplewood requires a conditional use 19 permit to expand a nonconforming use. If natural causes destroy a nonconforming building, the owner has one year to reconstruct it or he must rebuild following the current rules. If the owner abandons or does not use a nonconforming building for one year, then the building or use must conform to the current ordinance and standards. Don John Don John's property (Still,vater 1load) is the nonconforming use that we have had the most complaints about. The City created this problem by approving a spot commercial zone. Three years late~; the City tried to correct this error by rezoning the site to 11-3. Unfortunately, Mr. John's use became a legal nonconforming use. While he cannot expand, he can continue to operate. On October 22, 1979, Don John applied for a rezoning from R-1 (single dwelling) and 11-3 (multiple d,velling) to BC (business commercial). Mr. John applied for this rezoning to park construction vehicles on his property and to build a commercial storage garage. On December 2, 1979, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council rezone the site to BC(lVi) (Business Commercial Modified) and change the land use plan for this lot to commercial. The Commission based their decision on neighborhood support for the rezoning and the unlikely development of that area into high density residential use. The staff recommended that the Council deny the request. The Commission asked the staff to investigate changing the surrounding properties to commercial as well. On February 7, 1980, the City Council approved the rezoning and land use plan change. On February 14, 1983, the City Council rezoned Mr. John's property to 1t-3. The City started fl~is change after many complaints from the neighborhood. On January 14, 1991, the City Council changed the land use plan and zoning maps for Mr. John's property and the properties around it. These changes were from KH (high- density residential) to RL (lo,v-density residential) and 11-3 (multiple dwellings) to 11-1 (single d,vellings). Solutions The City has two options for desHng with nonconforming uses: 1. Buy or condemn the property. 2. Change the ordinance to allow the City to amortize nonconforming uses. Buying or condemning the property is the surest and fastest option. This option would cost the City money. Condemnation would add legal costs. The other option is for the 9O City to amortize the use. Amortization also may result in legal costs. Since most other dries do not amortize nonconforming uses, except signs, owners of nonconforming uses may decide to sue the City to try to keep their businesses. Gurmar Isberg, in his book Local .and Re .giona! planning in Minr~esotz' says: 'Some dries have adopted provisions in the zoning ordinances which attempt to eliminate or amortize the nonconforming use over a period of time. The time period varies and is dependent upon such factors as the amount of investment in the use, the losses due to the elimination, and the cost of relocation. In addition, the time period usually is shorter for uses which may cause a nuisance adversely affecting the public health. For such nonconforming uses the amortization period may be 6-12 months, whereas for the type of uses which present less danger to the public health or where the investment is substantial, the amortization period may be five or more years or may be allowed to continue in perpetuity. In Minnesota, the courts have ruled that dries do have the authority to amortize at least some nonconforming uses.' We tried to find a dty that amortizes nonconforming uses. We surveyed thirteen of the closest cities to Maplewood in population. None of the thirteen cities amortize nonconforming uses. Brooklyn Center adopted an ordinance around 1980 to eliminate a specific nonconforming use. The target was a fertilizer plant that was a considerable nuisance in a residential neighborhood. The ordinance provided for an amortization period of several years. The fertilizer plant owners challenged the amortization ordinance. While negotiations were underway, a fire significantly damaged part of the plant. The part of the plant that the fire damaged was not nonconforming. Howeve];'the ~ provided the City with an opportunity to use another provision of its code. This provision held that a nonconforming use that is significantly damaged cannot be rebuilt unless in conformance with Codes. The City thereby forced the plant to rebuild with significant site improvements (curb and guttex; buffering and landscaping). The plant owners challenged these efforts by the City as well. The suit went to court. The City planner could not remember whether the amortization ordinance itself was tried before the court, or whether the City simply dropped the issue out of court as part of settlement negotiations. The upshot, however; was that the City abolished the nonconforming amortization ordinance in 1981. A positive note was that the City =stuck it out" on the site improvement issue and won in court. The Maplewood City Attorney's opinion is that a City can amortize nonconforming uses ff the amortization period is reasonable. (See the Attorney's opinion starting on page 103.) The problem is that the City cannot arbitrarily enforce such an ordinance, ff we amortize Don John's business, the City must also amortize other commercial uses in residential zones. If the City Council passes an amortization ordinance, they should rezone uses that they do not want to amortize. The question is whether the City can write an ordinance that is fair and provides for reasonable amortization periods, ff this option interests the Council, they should initiate an ordinance. We could then study this issue in more detail. Planll~ Commission R~ommetldation ol1 Problem Eight 9. Initiate an ordinance to amortize nonconforming commerdal uses in residential neighborhoods. Int~ of Oommeroi~ ~ On June 6, 1994, the Planning Commission met with the City Council to discuss the commercial property study. The Council asked the Planning Commission to study the intensity of commercial uses in the commercial property study. A concern of the Council was inadequate parking, particularly when there is a change in use from a less intense to a more intense commercial use. A councilmember used the methadone clinic, as an example. The first step in dealing with this problem is to define what intensity of commercial uses means. Are we talking about parking, traffic generated, size of building, type of use (noise created or outdoor activity) or amount of green space left on the lot? Without first defining this problem, it is difficult to propose solutions. Parking problems relate to the intensity of use. Inadequate parking leads to problems with on-street parking in adjacent residential streets or on adjacent commerdal parking lots. The amount of city-required parking effects the intensity of use by limiting the site area for building. While buildings can go higher, this increases the cost per square foot. The Council mentioned parking as one of the main concerns with the methadone clinic. The clinic does most of its business in the morning. Parking was inadequate at times and customers were parking on the streets and adjacent parking lots. The rest of the day the lot was nearly erupt. The Council resolved the on-street parking problem by putting up 'no parking' signs. The staff obtained the off-street parking requirements of several suburbs. We attached Maplewood's Code requirements (page 110) and summarized the parking space requirements for five other cities (starling on page 111). We included these five cities because they have more uses listed in their requirements than the Maplewood Code has. Maplewood's commerdal requirements are similar to these cities. The problem with requiring minimum parking spaces is that similar uses may have different parking needs, depending on how successful their businesses are. Best Buy is an example. They used to be in the Pier One Import store on Beam Avenue. The parking standard is the same for Pier One as for Best Bu~ Parking was inadequate when Best Buy was there, but is fine for Pier One. Another problem is peak demand. Some uses, such as the methadone clinic, do most of their business during certain peak times and the rest of the day they have empty parking spaces. Parking demand can also be seasonal. The Mall needs more parking at Christmas than other times of the ye~ Parking standards are based on averages and minimum needs. If the City required enough parking to meet all needs at all times, we would have more asphalt. One of the recommendations of the Planning Commission is to limit parking lots to create more open space and less storm water nm-off. Regulating Businesses Near Residential Neighborhoods With a Conditional Use Permit One method of controlling nuisances from commercial uses around residential neighborhoods is to require a conditional use permit. The CUP gives the City some control over land uses. The public hearing gives neighbors a chance to have input into the design and operation of adjacent commercial uses. The City has used CUPs 'to periodleally review businesses, regulate hours of operation or limit outside storage. The City does not need a CUP to regulate the design of commercial buildings or site plans. The Community Design Review Board (CDP, B) already has this authority. The question is what types of changes or uses should the City require a permit foe_ There are at least three options: 1. Require a CUP for each new commercial building or expansion that is close to a residential property line. The City could add this option to some or all the commercial zones and could include all or potential nuisance uses. The City already requires a conditional use permit for new uses in the following zoning districts: a. In M-1 (light manufacturing) districts where the use would be within 350 feet of a residential district. b. In BC (business commercial) districts where the use would be within 75 feet of a residential building. This option would cover new buildings or expansions but would not cover changes in use within an existing building, such as happened with the Methadone Clinic. 23 Require a conditional use permit for every change in type of business that is close to a residential lot line. This option would give the City more control over specific businesses near residences. The City could make this change to some or all the eomrnereial zones and could include all or potential nuisanee uses. As an example, the City may approve a CUP for a video store. A change from one video store to another video store would not require a CUP, A change from a video store to an athletic store would require a CUP, The City would have to be specific in the permit about the type of business the permit is for. The disadvantage is that this option would take more of the City's time and would delay changes in tenancy. The City could lessen this disadvantage by issuing conditional use permits for broad types of uses rather than specific uses. As an example, the City could issue a permit for a medical clinic, rather than a specific type of clinic. Another disadvantage is enforcement. The City might not know about such a change unless the owner applies for a building permit. The City Code requires a conditional use permit when one nonconforming use replaces another. As part of the conditional use permit the Council could require that the new use follow as many of the City's current standards as practical. These standards could include more parking, lands,aping, screening or building maintenance. The City Attorney advises me that the City must relate any such requirements to the impact of the development. As an example, the City should not require that a business build an off-site trail that is not related to the business. (See the attorney's letter starting on page 116.) This requirement would not have affected the methadone clinic. The methadone clinic meets the City's current parking space requirement. The Code requires fourteen parking spaces. The clinic has twenty spaces. To solve a similar problem in the future, the City would have to increase the required spaces for clinics. Howevez; the current requirement has been adequate for the other clinics. The City's parking space requirements are minimum standards. There will be uses that need more than the minimum number of spaces. Requiring a CUP for every use in the BC(M), NC, CO or LBC districts that is near a residential district seems impractical. The City designed these districts to be next to residences. If a specific zone is causing a problem, the City should rezone it to a less intense commercial zone. There are BC zones adjacent to residential neighborhoods. The BC zone was not intended to be next to residential neighborhoods. Some of the permitted uses in the BC district require a CUP or are prohibited in the other commercial distrlets. To solve this problem, the City could rezone all the BC zones near residential neighborhoods or 24 requires a CUP in the BC zone for any use within 75 feet of a residence. The City should require a CUP for some BC uses that are within 350 feet of a residential property line. The City should require a CUP for uses that require a CUP or that the Code prohibits in the BC(M) district. These uses include: restaurants, new car sales, parking lots as a principal use and CNG or LPG dispensing facilities. The other option would be to rezone all BC properties that are within 350 feet of a residential lot line. These rezonings would take a lot of time. Simply changing the Code to require a CUP for more uses would accomplish the same purpose and save much time and consternation by prop,ny owners. The Planning Commission recommended changing the permitted and conditional uses in the commercial zones to help protect residential land uses. (See the proposed list on page 91.) Floor Area Ratios and Lot Coverages Another way to control the intensity of business use is to create floor area ratios. Floor area ratios limit the ratio of commercial floor area to the area of the lot. If the primary concern is green area, rather than floor area, the City could adopt maximum lot coverage requirements. Planning Commission Recommendation 10. The Planning Commission recommended that they address the intensity of commercial uses by study/ng traffic, floor area ratios and lot coverage over the next six months. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS (The numbers refer to the numbers of the Planning Comm/ssion's recommendations in this report.) Initiate an ordinance that changes Subsection 36-27(a) of the City Code to require trees and shrubs in addition to grass, but allow the CDRB to waive the requirement where the adjacent owners object. (See page 11.) 2. Initiate an ordinance that states that the City may require landscaping with any required screening fencing. (See page 11.) Initiate an ordinance that changes Subsection 36-28(c)(6). This change would increase the maximum setback for large and tall buildings from 75 feet to 100 feet. (See pages 11-12.) Initiate an ordinance to change the commercial districts to conform to the Planning Commission's list on page 91. Exclude the prohibition on gun shops. (See page 14.) 25 | I I I e 10. Make no change to clinics in the zoning ordinance, and lift the moratorium on new or expanding clinics. (See page 14.) Use the monetary standards, vehicular; foundation and aesthetic plantings, landscaping materials and definitions of the Charthassen ordinance for a one-year trial. The staff shall apply the ordinance to each project and report the results to the Community Design Review Board. Since it is not a Maplewood ordinance, the Board can use or ignore the Chanhassen standards on a case by case basis. At the end of the year; the Board shall recommend whether the City should add all or some of the Chanhassen ordinance to the Maplewood Code. (See page 16.) Initiate an ordinance that allows the City to replace some of the required parking with reserve land. (See page 16.) Initiate an ordinance that would drop the first sentence of the intent section of the BC(M) zoning district. This sentence states that ~ne BC(M) Business Commercial District (Modified) is intended to provide for the orderly transition between more intensive commercial uses and low or medium density residential areas.' (See page 18.) Initiate an ordinance to amortize nonconforming commercial uses in residential zones. (See page 22.) Direct the Planning Commission to study the intensity of commercial development. The study should include the following: a. Define what intensity of commercial development means. b. Decide whether the City needs to control the intensity of commercial development. ff the Commision decides that the City needs to control intensity, recommend ways to do it. The Commission should consider regulating maximum lot coverages and floor area to lot area ratios. REFERENCE CURRENT COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL POUCIES The City's commercial and industrial development policies are on pages 22-23 of the Comprehensive Plan. The following five of these policies relate to protecting residential properties: 1. Avoid disruption of adjacent residential areas. 2. Use planned unit developments wherever practical. Maintain orderly transitions between commercial and residential areas. 3. Require commercial and industrial developers to make all necessary improvements to ensure compatibility with surrounding residential uses. 4. Require adequate screening or buffering of new or expanded commercial areas from any adjacent existing or planned residential development. 5. Plan land uses and streets to route nonresidential traffic around residential neighborhoods. MAPI FWOOD'S COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS (Refer to the attached sections from the Zoning Code on pages 118-125 for specific types of uses allowed and prohibited in each zone.) NC (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District The Code says that the City intends the NC (neighborhood commercial) district for activities and businesses that are compatible with adjacent residential uses. The Code limits the uses in this district to offices and smaller retail uses that cater to convenience shopping. Each NC zone has residential uses on at least two sides. Commercial Offioe (00) The commercial office classification is for offices and related uses, such as supportive, low-intensity commercial uses. These zones should be close to residential neighborhoods to conveniently serve the public. These zones should be on heavily traveled streets or adjacent to commercial or industrial districts, to lessen their impact on residential areas. BC (Business Commercial) Zoning District The BC zone is the general commercial zoning district in Maplewood. The BC zone allows a wide variety of commercial land uses in this district. The City may permit high- intensity commercial uses, such as fast-food restaurants and gas stations, subject to specific guidelines. The City Code does not state that this zone is intended to be next to residences. There are some examples of this however- In 1992, the City Council changed the Code to provide more protection for adjacent residential uses. The changes included not allowing a motor fuel station within 350 feet of a residential use and requiring a CUP for any building or outside use within 75 feet of a residential building. LBC (Umited Business Commercial) Zoning District The City intends this district for offices, medical clinics and child-care facilities that would be adjacent to residential uses. It also may serve as a transition zone between residential and more intense commercial uses. The permitted uses in the LBC are compatible with residential uses. LBC uses are usually not open during evenings or weekends. The LBC zones have a residential use on at least one side. This zoning district does not have conditional or prohibited uses. BC(M) (Business Commercial Modified) Zoning District The City Code says that the intent of the BC(M) district is to provide for the orderly transition between more intense commercial uses and low and medium density residential uses. The City may require restrictions on building height, setbacks, orientation and parking lot location to insure compatibility with abutting residential uses. There are eight areas in Maplewood with the BC(M) zoning. These areas have residential uses on at least one side. The conditional and permitted uses in the BC(M) zone limit the activities that could occur in this zone. These limits help protect the nearby residential uses. SC (Shopping Center) Zoning District The permitted uses in the SC zone are similar to the permitted uses in the BC(M) zone. The only SC zone is the Plaza 3000 shopping center- This center is north of Lydia Avenue between White Bear Avenue and Ariel Street. 28 M-1 (Ught Manufacturing) Zoning District The M-1 zone allows the permitted uses of the BC zoning district and a variety of industrial uses. These include wholesale businesses, contractors shops, manufacturing plants, laboratories or research facilities and warehouses. The conditional uses in the M-1 zone include the conditional uses in the BC zone, trucking yard or terminal and privately-owned recycling facilities. The M-1 zone also requires a CUP for any building or exterior use within 350 feet of a residential district. This helps protect residential uses from the effects of potentially disruptive nearby commercial and industrial uses. LAND USE CHANGES FROM COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL AND VICE VERSA 1982 The City changed the land use plan for the west side of White Bear Avenue, between Larpenteur and Frost Avenues. This change was from LSC (limited service commercial) to low-density residential. 1989 The City changed the zoning on the west side of Highway 61 between County Road C and Beam Avenue. This change was from commercial to F (farm residential). Most of this land is wetland owned by I(STP. 1990 The City zoned 1881-1889 Clarence (south of Frost Avenue) from BC (business commercial) to R-1 (single dwellings). The owner had developed these two lots with single dwellings. The City changed the land use plan and zoning behind Guldens and 3065 Highway 61 from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-1. The City changed the land use plan and zoning at 1765 County Road D from multiple dwelling to commercial for the expansion of Frank's Nursery The City rezoned about one acre of Hillcrest Development land on AHel Street, between Cope and Castle Avenues, from commercial to R-1. The City rezoned 2708 Minnehaha Avenue (next to McDonald's) from R-1 to IBC (limited business commercial). This change was to allow McDonald's to expand their parking lot. (McDonald's decided not to expand the parking lot.) [ I I I The City rezoned a 2.5-acre parcel in the middle of Battle Creek Park from commercial to F (farm residential). The City rezoned several properties west of Highway 61, between Gervais Avenue and County Road C from residential to commercial and vice versa. The Council made these changes as pan of the updating of the Comprehensive Plan. 1991 The City rezoned the rear of the Maplewood Drive-In property from BC (business commercial) to R-1S (small-lot single dwellings). The City rezoned the land behind the former Carlton Racquetball Club (600 Carlton Street) from R-1 to M-1 (light manufacturing). The rezoning allowed 3M to expand the parking lot for a training centen The City changed the land use plan and zoning from R-1 to LBC (limited business commercial) for the property at 2702 Stillwater Road. The Council made this change to allow Knowlan's Supermarket and the Midvale Center to expand. The City changed the land use plan from medium-density residential to M-1 (light manufacturing) for the south side of Frost Avenue, east of Phalen Place. The City had already zoned this land commercially and the owner was using the site for commercial use. 1~32 The City 'approved a planned unit development (PUD) on the north side of Gervais Avenue for the Care Free Cottages of Maplewood. The City has zoned this property LBC (limited business commercial). The City changed the land use plan and zoning map from medium-density residential to single dwelling for the north side of Frisbee Avenue, west of English Street. The City made these changes for the 14-lot Frisbee Hill plat for single dwellings. 1993 The City changed the zoning map from M-1 (light manufacturing) to R-2 (single and double dwellings) for the south side of Duluth Street, south of County Road C. The City made this change to allow Goff Homes to build double dwellings on the site. The City changed the land use plan from LBC 0imited business commercial) to C (church) for the property at 2425 White Bear Avenue. The City made this change to convert the former Montgomery Ward's office building to a church. 30 go:b-7:commprl 1 .mem (4.55) Attachments: o 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16-19. 20-41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. The February 23, 1993 Planning Commission Proposal Chanhassen Landscaping Ordinance 1993 Lake Road/I-494 Interchange Plan Vista Hills Land Use Plan Map Highwood Land Use Plan Map Woodbury Land Use Plan Map Woodbury Zoning Map Oakdale Comprehensive Plan Map (District 6) Beaver Lake Land Use Plan Map (Stillwater Road and Century Avenue) Property Line/Zoning Map (Stillwater Road and Century Avenue) Beaver Lake Land Use Plan Map (Century, norlh of Minnehaha) Property Line/Zoning Map (Century, north of Minnehaha) Oakdale Comprehensive Plan Map (District 8) Property Line/Zoning Map (Ariel, north of Highway 36) Land Use Plan, north of Highway 36 at Ariel Street Location Maps for Homes Near Commercial Uses Property Line/Zoning Maps and Land Use Maps 2-18-94 letter from Kent Smith Sections 36-27 and 36-28 of the City Code (Landscaping and Screening) Proposed Changes in Commercial Uses by Zoning District Memo on Chemical Abuse Clinics Ordinance City Attorney's Letter on Gun Shops City Attorney's Memo on Amortizing Nonconforming Uses Maplewood Off-street Parking Requirements Blaine Parking Requirements Bloomington Parking Requirements Brooklyn Center Parking Requirements Golden Valley Parking Requirements Richfield Parking Requirements City Attorney's Letter on Requiring Conditions of Changes in Nonconforming Uses Commercial Zoning Districts 31 Attachment 1 TO= MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL FROM= MAPLEWOOD PLANNING CO~ISSI~ TOPIC= CO~HERCIAL PROPERTY STUDY DATE= FEBRUARY 23, 1993 The planning commission has a concern with commercial development in Maplewood with special concerns in areas were commercial zoning and residential zoning adjoin each other. These concerns come from some basic beliefs they are, 1) The residents of Maplewood are the foundation of the city and as such should receive all due benefits and protection in development matters. 2) Commercial development is a convenience to the residents. It does have benefits to the city which do deserve consideration but these considerations should not be allowed to overwhelm existing residents or burden the future residential areas of the city. 3) Commercial development can have a deteriorating effect' on residential areas. Over the long term a vicious cycle of encroachment of commercial development, deterioration of residential, and expansion of commercial into residential can take place. 4) Consideration of all areas where commercial and residential land uses adjoin should receive the same consideration. Areas of future residential development should be protected in the same manner as existing residential areas. In doing so'the city will be creating the best situation to attract better quality residential developments to these areas. 5) Some intense or bothersome commerical uses which generate excessive noise, fumes, or traffic should not be allowed to adjoin residential areas. 6) The city should have the ability to regulate the intensity of use on commercial property, much like it does with residential property. There are a number of areas which could be looked at to regulate the buffer zone between residential and commercial development areas. A) Make some changes to the existing zoning codes. B) Rezone land to create buffer zones. C) Change the comprehensive plan. D) P.U.D. ordinance update. 32 The most likely situation to affect changes which would have some impact now and into the future would be to put in place a combination of these options. The following are some examples of items which could be reviewed by a commercial property study. These are just examples and may not encompass all possible options. Increase the amount of landscaped area. In our concept the i~ea is to create some distance and aesthetic value to the area between commercial and residential uses. Take a close look at any land which has residential zoning but is being used for commercial purposes also review any land which is zone~ for commercial use but is being used residentially. We believe that the city's screening ordinances along with all required setbacks should be reviewed and updated to offer the greatest protection to residential areas as is deeme~ possible. A study shoul~ also look at the city's existing farm zoning areas and update these areas to minimize or eliminate the farm zone. The commercial property study should also ad~ress some aspects of the commercial zones. We should review what can be done to improve the overall appearance of commercial areas and how to introduce more green area into commercial development. The regulation of commercial intensity is also an area of concern. Ail the residential zones are governed by density tables as a means to control intensity of use. We could look at floor area, percentage of building coverage of property, traffic generation, etc. as some ways to regulate the intensity of use of commercial property. Rezoning some properties to create a buffer zone may be a possibility in some areas, a review of the city's zoning and land use maps may turn up some areas which could be changed. This action would have to include a review of the comprehensive plan as well. We would suggest that a review of commercial property, both existing development areas and future commercial areas be done to determine= A) How many areas exist with BC adjoining R-l, BC adjoining R-2, BC (M) adjoining R-1 and R-2, etc. B) What existing roads are in place and are they adequate. C) What future roads might be needed to handle future development. D) Other infrastructure needs for development. 33 E~ F~ Gather information from existing developments as to density or intensity of use. Special situations which might need addressing for future development on any particular parcel of land. I.e. wet- lands or terrain. These items if cataloged could serve as guidelines for the staff, planning commission and council when a development is proposed and eliminate some reacting to proposals with concerns thought out in advance. 'One other tool which has been under consideration which should be used in concert with these proposals is a revised P.U.D. ordinance. To what affect it may play a role is yet to be determined. Howeverv if the P.U.D. was imposed as an overlay zone, then the underlaying zone still serves as a basis to code changes and variances as modified by the P.U.D. and if some stronger ordinances are in place in the underlaying zone then the cityls position can only be strengthened. In conclusion the city should initiate a study to look at commercial areas of the city and their relationship to residential areas. The study should encompass, improving the overall appearance of commercial areas, and studying the intensity of use on commercial property. The study would include all existing and proposed commercial land and would locate trouble spots and gather information for future use. Ordinances should be reviewed to find areas were changes could be made to improve the residential environment. The study should include input from the city council, planning commission, design review board, engineering department, the community development department and any other department or groups which have input. Recommendation- Direct staff to initiate and coordinate a commercial property study to evaluate the relationship between commercial and residential zones and the control of the intensity of use of commercial property. 34 Attachment 2 CHANHASSEN C3TY CODE D]¥IS]ON 2. TREE PRESERVATION The section below will be amended with the adoption of the Tree Preservation Ordinance proposed for subdivision. Sec. 20-1178. Generally. DIVISION 3. LANDSCAP~O STAND~S Sec. 20-1179. Landscape budget. (a) Landscaping shall be provided that meets the minimum landscaping budget provided in the table below. Project value* (~Is building construction, site preparan'on, and the site improvements) Below $1,000,000 $1,000,001- 2,000,000 2,000,001- 3,000,000 3,000,001- 4,000,000 Over $4,000,000 Minimum l. andscape Value** (Is the minimum landscape value and shall include only expenditures on trees and plant material excluding sod or seed, e~:cluding labor and grading.) 2% 20,000 + 1% of project value in excess of $1,000,000 $30,000 + 0.75% of project value in excess of $2,000,000 $37,~00 + 0.25~ of pro~ect value in excess of $3,OOO,OOO (b) At '=h: '~:--.'-....j . ~...:...:--- '--. The value of tree preservation may be utilized to offset landscaping requirements, if there is a finding of significant trees that are worthy of preservation. The following formula shall be used for calculating the value of tree preservation: 35 Cross-sectional ArP~ NOTE: Council. Dollars Per Species Condition Location Dollar Tree x Square lnch x Factor x Factor x Factor = Value The formula used may be changed by resolution approved by the City (see definitions section) Add definition of Interior Landscaping (area exclusive of mandated setback). Sec. 20.1180. Screening for visual impacts. (a) Visual impacts must be screened ~ as required by the city. These shall include, but not be limited to, truck loading areas, trash storage, parking lots, interior lot areas and perimeters, outdoor storage areas, large unadorned building massing, garage doors associated with auto-oriented uses and vehicular stacking areas for drive-through uses. (1) Required screening ~ for any visual impact may be achieved with fences, walls, earth berms, hedges or other landscape materials. All walls and fences shall be architecturally harmonious with the principal building. The use of wooden screen fences or chain link fences equipped with slats is prohibited. Earth berms shall not exceed a slope of 3:1 unless provided with landscaping designed to minimize maintenance. The screen shall be designed to employ materials which provide effective visual barrier during all seasons. (2) All required screening e~eag-e~it~ shall be located on the lot occupied by the use, building, facility or slructure to be screened. No landscape screening shall be located on any public right-of-way or within eight (8) feet of the lraveled portion of any street or highway. (3) Screening ~ required by this section shall be of a height needed to accomplish the goals of this section. Height of plantings required under this section shall be measured at the time of installation. (b) The following uses shall be screened er-bager~ in accordance with the requirements of this subdivision: (1) Principal buildings and structures and any building or siructure accessory thereto located in any business, industrial or planned unit development district containing nonresidential uses shall be ~ greened from lots used for any residential purpose. (2) Principal buildings and structures and any building or slructure accessory thereto located in any R4, RS, R12, R16 district or planned unit development district containing residential development at densities exceeding four (4) units per acre shall be ~ screened from lots located in any Al, A2, RR or RSF district (3) Additional buffer yard requirements arc established by thc city comprehensive plan and listed in individual district standards. (4) Outside storage in any district subject to these provisions and allowed by other provisions of this ordinance, shall be screened from all public views. Sec. 20-1181. Vehicular areas. (a) Parking lot perimeters where vehicular areas, including driveways and drive aisles, are not entirely screened visually by an intervening building or smicture from any abutting right-of-way, there shall be provided landscaping designed to buffer direct views of cars and hard surface areas. The goal of this section is to break up expanses of hard surface areas, help to visually define boulevards and soften direct views of parking areas and provide for reforestation with overstory tree from the approved tree species list identified for parking or other species as approved by city staff. Ail new planting areas must have an irrigation system installed a~tHable. (b) Interior landscaping for vehicular use areas: (1) Any open ve cular use areas ,.~ . . .... ~, ...... ., ..... .* -~ ....'""~ _...--~ ....~"'- ...o....,..,-*:-'-:~'-' containing more than six thousand (6,000) square feet of area, or twenty (20) or more vehicular parking spaces, shall provide interior landscaping in accordance with this division in addition to "perimeter" landscaping. Interior landscaping may be peninsular or island types. (2) For each one hundred (100) square feet, or fraction thereof, of vehicular use area, ~ eight (8) square feet of landscaped area shall be provided. (3) The minimum landscape area pcrmi~ shall be ci~.~' '.._ .... '~",.., two hundred (200) square feet, with afc: :::: six foot minimum dimension to all u'ees from edge of pavement where vehicles overhang and a four foot minimum dimension to all trees where vehicles do not overhang. ~7 i I i I (4) In order to encourage the required landscape areas to be properly dispersed, no re- quired landscape area shall be larger than '"'-- ~"'~"~ ~'~"' ~'~ seven hundred twenty (720) square feet in vehicular use areas under thirty thousand (30,000) square feet, unless there is a preservation area. In both cases, the least dimension of any required area shall be four-foot minimum dimension to all trees from edge of pavement where vehicles overhang. Landscape areas larger than above are permit~zi as long as the additional areas are in excess of the required minimum. (5) A minimum of one (1) tree shall be required for each two hundred fifty (250) square feet or fraction thereof, of required landscape area. Trees shall have a clear trunk of at least five (5) feet above the ground, and the remaining area shall be landscaped with shrubs, or ground cover (not to include rocks or gravel except as a mulch around shrubs and ground cover), not to exceed two (2) feet in height. -'*" _.~ ,,,o14:' fi)l/.\ ~' * .o . v,--,,., ~,., 1' v.-~,...'~,- '.~' v (?) All landscaped areas shall be protected by concrete curbing. · (8) All landscaping area shall have the proper soil preparation, to ensure the viabihty of the vegetation to survive. The landscaping plan shall provide specifications for proper soil preparation. Sec. 20-1182. Foundation and aesthetic plantings. (a) Landscaping plans shall provide for an appropriate mix of plantings around thc exterior footprint of all buildings. The intent of this section is to improve the appearance of the structures and, where necessary, break up large unadorned building elevations. These plantings are not intended to obscure views of the building or accessory signage. (b) All undeveloped areas of the site, excluding protected wetlands and tree preservation areas, shall be seeded or sodded. In addition, an appropriate mix of trees and other plant material shall be provided to create an aesthetically pleasing site. (c) Boulevard and streetscape plantings, Where undeveloped or open areas of a site are located adjacent to public right-of-way, the plan shall provide for over-swry boulevard trees. A minimum of one (1) tree for every thirty (30) feet of frontage is required. The city may approve alternatives if it meets the intent of thc ordinance from approved tree species list or as approved by city staff. Sec. 20-1183. Landscaping materials. (a) The landscaping materials shall consist of the following: 38 (1) Walls and fences. Walls shall be constructed of natural stone, brick or other appropriate materials. Fences shall be consu~ucted of wood. Chain link fencing will be permitted only if covered with plant material or otherwise screened. 2) Earth berms. Earth berms shall be physical barriers which block or screen the view similar to a hedge, fence, or wall. Mounds shall be constructed with proper and adequate plant material to prevent erosion. A difference in elevation between areas requiring screening does not constitute an existing earth mound, and shall not be considered as fulfilling any screening requirement. (3) Plants. All plant materials shall be living plants; artificial plants are prohibited. Plant materials shall meet the following requirements: a. Deciduous trees. Shall be species having an average crown spread of greater than fifteen (15) feet and having trunk(s) which can be maintained with over five (5) feet of clear wood in areas which have visibility requirements, except at vehicular use area intersections where an eight-foot clear wood requirement will control. Trees having an average mature spread of crown less than fifteen (15) feet may be substituted by grouping of the same so as to create the equivalent of a fifteen foot crown spread. A minimum of ten (10) feet overan height or minimum caliper (trunk diameter, measured six (6) inches above ground for trees up to four (4) inches caliper) of at least two and one-half (2½) inches immediately after planting shall be required. Trees of species whose roots are known to cause damage to public roadways or other public works shall not be placed closer than fff'teen (15) feet to such public works, unless the tree root system is completely contained within a barrier for which the minimum interior containing dimensions shall be five (5) feet square and five (5) feet deep and for which the construction requirements shall be four (4) inches fi'tick, reinforced concrete. Trees shall be selected from the approved list of tree species or as approved by city staff. b. Evergreen trees. Evergreen trees shall be a minimum of six (6) feet high with minimum caliper of one and one-half (1½) inches when planted. c. Shrubs and hedges. Deciduous shrubs shall be at least two (2) feet in average height when planted, and shall conform to the opacity and other requirements within four (4) years after planting Evergreen shrubs shall be at least two (2) feet in average height and two (2) feet in diameter. Materials to be selected from approved list or as approved by city staff. d. Vines. Vines shall be at least twelve (12) inches high at planting, and ar~ generally used in conjunction with walls or fences. Materials to be selected from approved list or as approved by city staff. e. Grass or ground cover. Grass shall be planted in species normally grown as permanent lawns, and may be sodded, plugged, sprigged, or seeded; except in swales or other areas subject to erosion, where solid sod, erosion reducing net, or suitable mulch shall be used, nurse-grass seed shall be sown for immediate protection until complete coverage otherwise is achieved. Grass sod shall be clean and free of weeds and noxious pests or diseases. Ground cover such as organic material shall be planted in such a manner as to present a finished appearance and seventy-five ('/5) percent of complete coverage after two (2) complete growing seasons, with a maximum of fifteen (15) inches on center. In certain cases, ground cover also may consist of rocks, pebbles, sand and similar ~ materials if approved by the city. Materials to be selected from approved list or ss approved by city staff. f. Retaining. Retaining walls exceeding ~ four (4) feet in height, including stage walls which cumulatively exceed C~-5) four (4) in height, must be constructed in accordance with plans prepared by a registered engineer or landscape architect of brick, concrete or natural stone. Artificial material may be approved if appropriate. A building permit is required. DIVISION 4. MAINTENANCE AND INSTALLATION Sec. 20-118~,. Generally. The owner, assigns, tenant, and their respective agents shall be held jointly and severally responsible to continually maintain their property and landscaping ss approved with the official site plan in a condition presenting a healthy, neat and orderly appearance and free from refuse and debris. Plants and ground cover which are required by an approved site or landscape plan and which have died shall be replaced within three (3) months of notificatior~ by the city. However, the time for compliance may be extended up to nine (9) months by the director of planning in order to allow for seasonal or weather conditions. Sec. 20-1156--20-1260. Reserved. DEFINITIONS: Screening- ¥is.ually shielding or obscuring stru~ures or .?s throu.gh the. use of. densely planted vegetaUon, Vegetation shall include a nux of deciduous ana com~erous to provide year round screening, Cross. Sectional Area - is a measure of tree size, It is calcul, ated from the trunk diameter using the formula 0,78Sd2 where d2 is the trunk dmmeter .of the tFee measured in inches squared, Diameter measurements should be taken at a point on the trunk 4~ feet above the level. 4O Dollars per square Inch. is the value determined by the Council of Trees and Landscape appraisers. The current value is $27.00 per square inch. Species Factor. is the measure of the relative value of each shade or ornamen~ tree species. See attached list with values ( Attachment A). Condition Factor. is the measure of an individual tFee and its relative physical condition compared to a tree of the same species which has perfect health and form (Attachment B), Location Factor * is the function vah,e of a tree based on its location in the landscape. The location factor may vary from 0 to 100 percent with 100 percent representing a perfect location. Its greater value is due to its aesthetic and functional impact on the property. Positive functions such as providing shade, controlling snow drifting, or providing wildlife habitat enhances a tree's location value. Negative functions such as interference with public safety, utilities, sidewalks, building or other properties can lessen the value. List of Desirable Tree Spedes for Planting in Chanhassen means the following list tree species. List of Desirable Tree Species for Planting in Chanhassen Key to notations used: ST - Relatively tolerant to deicing salt DT -- Relatively tolerant to drought oF dry sites Size: (in terms of expected mature height) L = Large (over/f0 fee0 M = Medium (between 25 to $0 fee0 S = Small (less than 2/$ feet) Blvd = Suitable for boulevard planting and parking lot Pkg = Suitable for parking lots Suitable Tree Species Broadleaf Species Size Tolerance Location Notes Ash, Mountain M BLVD Protect from sunscald Sorbus spp. Birch, River M Relatively tolerant of wet Betula nigra sites Coffeetree, L DT BLVD Kentucky PKG Gymnocladus dioicus Corktree, Amur M DT Phellodendron Crabapple, S BLVD Many varieties available; check for disease Flowering resistance; protect from Malus spp. sunscald Ginkgo M BLVD Male trees only Ginkgo biloba --- Hackberry L DT ST PKG Celtis occidentalis Hawthorn S DT ST ?KG Thomless varieties available Crataegus spp. .--.---. ---'--- Hickory, Shagbark L DT Carya ovata -- Honeylocust M-L ST BLVD/PKG Prote~t from sunscald. Thornless varieties Gleditsia popular ~iacanthos Ironwood M Grows well under shade Ostrya virginiana of other trees Lilac, Japanese S ST BLVD Tree Syringa reticulata __. --' Linden, American L BLVD/PKG A.K.A Basswood; Relatively tolerant of wet Tilia americana sites Linden, Littleleaf M BLVD Tilia cordata Locust, Black L DT PKG Robinia pseuedoacacia Maple, Amur S Shade tolerant. Acer ginnala Maple, Norway M-L ST BLVD/PKG Protect from sunscald. Acer platanoides Maple, Red M-L BLVD Protect from ~mscald. Acer rubrurn Csrows best on moists, acid soils. Maple, Sugar L BLVD Protect from sunscald. Acer saccharum PKG Prefers heavy, moist soils. Shade tolerant. Northern Catalpa M-L DT Catalpa speciosa Oak, White L Quercus alba Oak, Bur L DT ST BLVD/PKG macrocarpa Oak, Red L ST BLVD/PKG ~uercus rubra Oak, Swamp L PKG Relatively tolerant of wet White sites Quercus bicolor Ohio Buckeye M BLVD Aesculus glabra Walnut, Black L Juglans nigra CONIFERS Arborvitae, M American Thuja occidentalis 43 Fir, Balsam M Relatively tolerant of wet Abie$ balsamea sites. Shade tolerant. Fir, White M DT Abies concolor Pine, Austrian M Pinus nigra Pine, Red L DT State tree Pinus resinosa Spruce, Black M Hills Picea glauca densata Spruce, Colorado M Picea pungens Spruce, Norway L Picea abies Spruce, White L Picea glauca Tamarack L Tolerant of wet sites. Only conifer that drops Larix laricina its needles each year in fall. 8/26/93 9/22/93 44 LIST OF DESIRABLE GROUND COVER AND HERBACEOUS PERENNIAL ST = Relatively Salt Tolerant SN = Relatively Tolerant of Snow Loading Botanical Name Common Name Size Tolerance Notes Achillea Fllperd Yarruw 24" PT DT SN Art~misia Sdunidtiana 'Silver King' A~mtsia 36" DT ST SN Astilbe slap. Astilbe 12"-30" SN Partial Shade Aegepodium Podograria Goutweed/ 12" SN Snow On The Mountain Baptisia AmsU-alin False Indigo 36" ST DT SN Shrub Like Euophorbia Epithymoides Cushion Spurge 18" DT SN Festica Ovina q31auca' Blue Fescue 12" DT SN Fail Sun Hemerocallus spp. Day Lily 12"-30" ST DT SN Hosta spp. Plantain Lily 12"-30" SN Partial Shade Huechera Sanguinea Coral Bells 18" ST SN Hypericum Calycinum St. Johns Wort 18"-24" PT SN Lamiurn Maculatum Penal Nettle Ill" SN Sun or Shade Linum Perenne Per,finial Blue Flax 24" DT SN Monarda Didyma Beebalm 24" ST SN Partheno Cissus Virginia C~eper 15" SN Partial Shade Quinguefolia Polygonum Tricuspidatam Fleece Flower 24" DT SN Can Be 'Compactum' Invasive Pennisetum Alopecur~ides Foutaai~ Grass 36" SN Rudbeckia Fulgida Black-eyed Susan 24" ST SN 'Goldsturm' Sporobolus Heterolepis Prairie Drapseed 24" ST DT SN Full Sun Veronica spp. Speedwell 24" SN 45 Shrubs Continued 2 Botanical Name Common Name Size Tolerance Notes Yucca Filamentosa Yucca 24" ST DT Full Sun Sedum Spectabile Stone Crop 18" ST DT SN 'Ao_mmn Joy' Iris Siberica Siberian Iris 24" ST DT SN Co_m__us Alba *Red Elf" Dogwood 'Red Elf' 36" Diervilla Lonicera Dwarf Bush Honeysuckle 36" SN Juniperus Horizontalis Juniper 18" DT SN 'Hughes' Juniperus Sabina Juniper 18" DT SN 'Arcndia' Junipers Sabina 'Baffalo' Juniper 18" DT SN Lonicera Xxylosteum Honeysuckle 24" 'Emerald Mound_' PotenBl!a Fruticosa McKay's White Potentilla 30" DT SN Potentilla Fruticosa Potentilla 30" PT SN 'Gold Finger' Rosa spp. Carefree Beauty Rose 36" DT Rosa spp.' Nearly Wild Rose 36" DT Spires Japonica 'Alpina' Alpine Spirea 12" SN Spirea Japonica 'Alpina' Alpine Spirea 12" SN * NOTE: Other materials may be used subject to city approval. 46 Attachment 3 ~/ L ' ,~ / /~ ~ ~ Y ~//~ / /~ ~ ~8 ~ INTERCHANGE, PLAN ~~~-~ ~ 47 Attachment I i REVISED I I [on.in ~.n. '------, ~ ~ i ~.--- I l~-- J£ minor collector II. / i ~~~-'i 48 Figure 20 Attachmenl Linwoocl R-1 ¢olleotor HiOhwood: ~11 minor I I1"c~'l~¢t °r I P R-1 o o ¢lrVtr REVISED OS 49 Figure 21 LD MD CITY OF WOODBURY LAND USE PLAN LD LOW DENSITY RESID. MD MED. DENSITY RESID. HD HIGH DENSITY RESID. O OFFICE I INDUSTRY C COMMERCIAL RETAIL 5O R-4 FD-I Attachment..7 I FD-Z I R-4 SGL. FAMILY B-2 GENERAl. BUS. FD-1 FREEWAY BUS. ~ B-1 OFFICE PARK ~ I-1 LIMITED INDUSTRY FD-2 FREEWAY IMPACT 51 \\ MD D \ LD RICHARD_ WALTON MEMORIAL MUNICIPAL BUIL01NG ~ :~ LD - LO'~I/DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MD - MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL Hi) - HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 'p . PUBLIC SP - SEMI-PUBLIC C - COMMERCIAL I/O . INDUSTRIAL/OFFICE Gl - GENERAL INDUSTRIAL ] WETLANDS ] WOODLANDS ~/ STEEP SLOPES · -~r EXISTING TRAILS e'e® PROPOSED TRAILS FUTURE STREETS OAKDALE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Oakdale Minnesota Planning District 6 Attachment.8 . --I R-3 I BC(M BC f M-1 R-3 M-1 [ NC :~ R-3(M) '~ -R- CEM 'i LAND USE MAP 53 R-3(M) ector llect Attachment 9 . Ivy Ave. R-2 R-IS Ave. Stillwat Dr Rd. BC ~ BCI Harvester Ave. C LBC0 ehaha Ave. BC LBC N Attachment 10 2700 ii FIRE _YOCUM OIL 'EXACO, 1077 PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP 54 Attachment .11 ~: Marylan d Ave. Stillwater Rd. BC "'""' BC(M) BC / i 'R"i:~::: ; ,,, larvester Ave. -:g.~.: ~-.;: ~'!! _~ i~-//~?'', i; ,r~------sc= I :; ~-:l:I I ,, · .. ,:,, aC(M, j f 2_!!.-__;. ~j:.i{ . . LBC.~' mml. ~.,.= ~. mm,am.~,~,_ r'~innehaha Ave. / ..... t'-;~ ~ -ac _1 M.'m _ '~u.?JJ.~ ~ ~ -'LAC ~1 ~~ ~ ~~, -R-,~(H) ~1 -- '..: ~:'~')'E.i ,.'-os IL major, qollector )l~U~::-~~ mmm.ll. / ' ,. a, -...mmm.rmi~.onway Ave. II u-2,..j ./,,. · Attachment 12 BRAND "Ii ~ c~,~l I I I'" I I I CHURCH s~915 · ,ST. ,,7, ; 865 ~851 KPARTMENTS'7~ DEGE GARDEN CENTER DAIRY ~JEEN' 771~ (,,,~.) 749 A&W HOLIDAY STORE , , I----- PROPERTY LINE 56 / ZONING MAP N HARVESTER BRAND': OVERPASS LD - LOW DENSITY RESB)ENTIAL MI). MEI)KAI DENSITY RESIDENTIAL HD - HIGH D~Y RESIDENTIAL 'P - PUBMCISEMI-PUBMC C - COMMERCIAL I/O - INDUSTRIAL!:3FFICE Gl - GENERAL BtDUSTRIAL [] WETLANDS E~ WOODLANDS :~/ STEEP SLOPES mm' EXISTING TRAILS eee PROPOSF.3) TRAILS ~ FUTURE STREETS 57 Attachment 13 Oakdale Minnesota Planning District 8 Attachment 14 AV£.~ EVE NTI-I ~ PL APARTMENTS PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MaP 58 M-1 P BC(~,~) I R-3(M R-2 OS Attachment 15 OS LBC c 3(~) inte!ri:hahge LAND USE MAP 59 Attachment 16 A hi 0 0 B SKIM.~ AV~ I~. V~NON AV~. KINGS"rON ~ B[LLWOOD AV~. SUMME~ AV~- A 0 0 0 BELMONT C C 2640N 2+OON ®, $ MI~IIDMiP~ ml~ 3 LAURIE ~T. BURKE BELLWO00 ~AV~_ SAINT D LOCATION MAP PAUL E Ld 0 Homes Near Commercial 60 N Attachment 17 I /l't~b~ CI~ 3 Kq.L.ClK~'T M 4 OK.,4L/~L.~ O~ A'V~.. .~,. , .,. · ......,~., o: .~. ;:..'. -." .. mum B~D A~ S~F.N (~) C~I~UBi~S ST ROSEWOOD AVF_ Attachment 18 WHITE B~_AR LAKE t A~-tX CO~t NORTH SAINT PAUL Scale 1700' O' 1700' 3400' I"= 1700' 2,. I1F. RNLrY AVE. 4. ItlPL~Y AV~. NORTH SAINT PAUL LOCATION MAP Homes Near Commercial 62 Attachment 19 1200N 9 960N 10 720N 11 480N 12 240N 13 il ® AV~ eR,,~o AY?.... :. 9 10 11 1200N 12 960N 720N 480N 240N 00 ~ '" ~"===%~ ~°====" ~-~ - LOCATION MAP Homes Near Commercial 63 Attachment 20 ItI \, 0OPE AVENUE · LAURIE ROAD G LARK AVENUE · · · · < 0 .J Z --COUN~ Attachment 21 i GERVAIS AVENUE I ~BC 2462' 2456 2444 2434 2428 2422 2416, ~ G£RVAI$ 2382 2374 C: 2366.7 · · · · · 8.GO &,e.. F IKVE. AVE.~ PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MaP II Attachment 22 2462 2456 2444 2434 2428 2422 2416 (,,~) 66 / ZONING MAP PROPERTY LINE & Attachment 23 BANK ~-'- RADATZ AVE. TOWN HOUSES ~FFICE ...... BUILDING LBC.-' 2785 '~ 2755 O) PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP 67 Attachment 24 EDGEHILL /~ l~ ~mm ,.,~. ,,,,,' I ~ II 2480 m m m'm J mIi m ------ '8. PROPE Y LINE / ZONING MaP 68 MOGRENS Attachment 25 2999 PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP 69 Attachment 26 i (48)! mmmmmmmm! 672'~.~ .COUNTY ROAD C- ''-" 1194; CHURCH (.~,) MITSUBISHI OUTLOT A "- ~' WET LAND 4 PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP 7O N Attachment 27 DEIdONTI ~ ~ AVE .CONNOI~ AVl' MOBILE HOME PARK N.W. CAMERA z b"E'aC HER ' ~,2483 · WELL O_.RILLING /''i .'...'em,. · , I ' HIGHWAY 36 ETHAN m PROPERTY LINE 71 / ZONING MAP N Attachment 28 -, ' - ~ ............ F-l_ [_, ~ ,~,,, .~: I t :_~1,~ ~..-- _-__~_-'_~_~_~ ~.-~. ~ / I , -- " · ~ ~ ~ ..... g ,.' ~:,:: ~ ~1I~ [ ~.?1~,,-~, ~ 60 ~~_~~ ~.~' ~ ., ' ~ -. - . · (,,), , ',~ ...' ~.~ ':_,,~,]/ '.2__." ,~3 [ '.~) ol/ .~57 ' ,' ~ ,',o,~ . ~, , / % ~ ~" ~1 · ~ _ ~sSoc.~ ~~-~' ..... ---- _jJJ{ JmJmm J{]' J' ,,.,. ~~ x~ ~'x ~ ~ ~ ~-~~ 3]_ PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP '72 , N .f' Attachment 29 ~A"~'! op MINN. F PROPERTY LINE 73 / ZONING MAP Attachment 30 ! I · · · l' W "R Y A ' '1 X , GOLF COURSE -'~^ B 4 I.t'~ M- SAINT PAUL ._.. 74 Attachment 31 12 ~49 8 ¢~) ,oI '~) ~ 12 I C:oj l I &o7 (~ g (,'?J 8 ~) 7 I (,) 1745 1737 1709 IZ (4Il) ~ ~) -(4,) HILLSIDE CENTER L ^ ,-, p ~.,-,-~- U,-, PROPERTY LINE 75 / ZONING MAP T--'--T ................... --'T- T i r' i Attachment 32 IG.'30 ed.. ~) / F m BUILDER'S SQUARE ~)KINGSTO BC PRICE IKE~. Attachment 33 .% (44 4,? ('~1, 44. 41, ,"Jr.) · m (u) ALDRICH ARENA (&; ~) SKINGSTOI PRICE BC PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP 77 Attachment 34 YAN ~ II SUMMER ~ AV £ PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP 78 N Attachment 35 I FROST AVE. mmmmmmmm Av£.m AVE. I I, 1~9~7 ~r- I I~vC m ,, I , ., ~ , ~' ~' lmmmm mmm,mmmmmmmmm r£ PROPERTY LINE 79 / ZONING MAP Attachment 36 SARRACKS I ,'I PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP 80 *i / / Attachment 37 7 ---I AUTO PARTS TOM THUMB ~.- I)- 0 I UPPER AFTON ROAD SCHOOL DIST. Na622 F PROPERTY LINE 81 / ZONING MAP N Attachment 38 LAkE UT'iLO'r, IlO? · ': 't a~. f HUD: ! MERIT CHEVY: L_ 131,15 I / / APARTMENTS Al PROPERTY LINE 82 / ZONING MAP Attachment 39 · :! BI 543 537 529 521 513 PROPERTY ' I I LINE 83 / ZONING MAP N Attachment 40 I E ....... MINNEHAHA &VE. ~"iiW7'.,~ ' ~ ' ;' ii .q ~ . . . ! · - ~,'~':~:?.,-~"r--~ ~:~ ". "_ ':..%i . ' I ' ' i . I I ~ / ("~ '. I '1 ~ (~°) I ',' , ~ll i[.~ [ENTURY cENTER .~1 ,~ ~ .. '--. . I ',, I I~ ,~-. ,-.~.~ ~,,'.~ ~ . ~ . , .. ,,.. ..[ I, I · ~ I ~ ; ~ ~ · POND · ' I - I , - ', ~ I ~ MARGARET ~V~. . Ie I - , I ~ .... u_u__ ~===aii. ~--/---~~~ ,1: 4 I~17 ~1-~ ~,*) * ~ -----~ ....... ~ _ , .__ ~-.~,-. . . r..~-~,~'.. '1 z~ ¥ r {~.~ ~~~" ~' "' ~a It ~,.) ~.)/~. , ..... PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP Attachment 41 NATURE CENTER BRAND ST. ts G I I I SEVENTH ST. (,~) i , I I F'- .( 0 PROPERTY LINE 85 / ZONING MAP I i .................... Ti PROPERTY RECORDS AND REVENUE LOU McKENNA Di~ctor Attachment 42 Division Managar BRIAN DUCKLOW February 18, 1994 Ken Roberts, Associate Planner City of Maplewood 1830 E. County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 FEB 2 2 Dear Ken: This is a follow-up to our discussion February 14, 1994, regarding properties zoned commercially, but being used residentially. There are two issues dealt with by the Assessor's office that impact this type of property: classification and valuation. Classification of a property; examples being residential homestead, apartment or commercial-industrial, is determined by the use of the property. Zoning has no impact on classification unless the property is unimproved vacant land. Valuation of property is based on the concept of highest and best use. Highest and best use relies on four tests: 1. legally permissible, 2. physically possible, 3. economically feasible, and 4. maximally productive. The question in this case depends on highest and best use, which typically for an improved parcel, is its' current use. Highest and best use can be something other than its' current use. If, for example, a house of minimal value sits on a very large lot that is zoned commercially, the highest and best use could be as a vacant commercial site. Unless a residential property has a highest and best use different than its' current use, the taxes would likely be the same whether zoned residential or commercial. In situations where the issues dealing with zoning changes take place, we look at parcels on a case by case basis if warranted. Sincerely Appraiser KS:sp 86 RAMSEY COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER WEST * 50 WEST KELLOGG BOULEVARD, SUITE 840 · ST. PAUL. MN 55102-1695 FAX 266-2199 * T'rD # 266-2002 Attachment 43 (a) mh~n (1) (2) 36-2~. Landscaping and scr~eui-g. A landscaped area of not less than twenty (20) feet in width be provided where: A nonresidential use abuts a residentially zoned property. A multiple dwelling abuts a property zoned for single or double dwellings. The requirements of this subsection shall not apply where the residentially zoned property is being used or is designated on the city's land use plan for a nonresidential use. (b) Screening shall be provided where: (1) The light from automobile headlights and other sources would be directed into residential windows. (2) There would be exterior storage ofgeeds or materials which could annoy or endanger property owners. (3) Mechanical equipment on the ground or roof would be vis- ible from public streets or adjoining property. Mechanical equipment shall not include chimneys, antennas or vents. The city ahall not require screening for single dwellings, double dwellings, mobile homes or equipment for indi- vidual town house units. Equipment that serves more than one town house unit shall be ~n'eened. The community design review board may waive the ~creening requirement for mechanical equipment ff they determine that screening would not improve the building appearance or protect prop- erty values. If the board waives this requirement, {hey shall require that the mechanical equipment be painted to match the building. Such screening shall be compatible with the materials and design of the principal building and subject to staff or design review beard approval. Approval shall be based on creativity in design to enhance the esthetics, durability of the structure and materials, and the per- cent of screening afforded. The screening and mechan- ical equipment shall be painted or stained to match the building. (4) A parking lot is constructed next to a property that is used or shown on the city's land use plan for single- or double- dwelling use. The community design review board may waive this requirement if they determine that screening would not be needed or would not protect surrounding prop- erty values. (c) Screening shall be satisfied by the use of a screening fence, planting screen, berm or combination thereof. If the topography, natural growth of vegetation, permanent buildings, or other bar- riers meet the standards of subsections (1) and (2) below, they may be substituted for all or part of the screening fence or planting 87 (1) A planting screen shall consist of evergreen plantings. Trees shall be a minimum of two and one-half (2¥2) inches in trunk diameter, two (2) feet above grade. Shrubs may be used in combination with a berm and shall be a minimum of two (2) feet in height. Spacing of trees and shrubs shall be so as to create an eighty (80) percent opaque screening at least six (6) feet in height. (2) Berms shall have mowable side slopes. Slopes greater than two and one-half (2V2) to one may be used if the slopes are stepped with retaining walls. Plant materials resistant to erosion may be substituted for sod when approved by the community design review board. (3) Screening fences shall bo painted or stained whenever nec- essary, so as not to fade, chip or discolor. Broken or knocked down fences shall be repaired. Planting screens shall be maintained in a neat and healthy condition. Plantin~ that have died shall be promptly replaced. (d) Screening may be satisfied with a screening fence. A screening fence shall be attractive, compatible with the principal building and surrounding land uses, at least six (6} feet in height, and provide a miuimum opaqueness of eighty (80) percent. (e) Trash container enclosures shall be provided around all trash containers and shall be one hundred (100) percent opaque. They shall be protected by concrete-f'filed steel posts, or the equivalent, anchored in the ground at the front comers of the structure. If the enclosure is masonry, the protective posts may be omitted. In all instances, the enclosure must be of a design, material and color compatible with the building and be kept in good repair. A gate that provides one hundred (100) percent opaqueness shall be provided. The community design review board may waive any part of these requirements if they find that the trash container would be hidden from adjacent properties and streets. (Ord. No. 530, § 1, 11-22-82; Ord. No. 580, § 1, 2-11-85; Ord. No. 633, § 1, 10-10-88; Ord. No. 710, § 1, 3-8-93) Sec. 36-28. Additional design standards. (a) All con~;.raction and landscaping shall comply with the plans approved by the city. Co) The property owners shall maintain their building and grounds in at least as good a condition as when originally com- pleted. Maintenance shall include: (1) Rep!~c~ng any landscaping shown on the approved plan that dies. (2) Picking up all trash and debris from the grounds. (3) Removing all noxious weeds. (4) Watering the gras~, trees and shrubs. 88 (5) Repairing any exterior parts of the buildir~ that deterio- rate or break (c) The developer of any Project, other than single or double dwellings, shall do the following. (1) Install parking lot lighting. Lighting shall not be directly visible from any residential area or public street. Lighting shall not exceed one footcandle at a residential property line. Residential areas are areas planned or used for resi- dential purposes. (2) Drain all stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces to an underground, on-site stormwater collection system that is connected to a public stormwater system. (3) Restore any public fight-of-way, a~acent property or prop- erty irons disturbed by the construction. (4) Install stop signs, handicap signs and building address signs as required by the city. (5) Construct parking lots with the following minimum setbacks: a. Fifteen (15) feet from a street righbof-way. b. Five (5) feet from all other property lines. Thls setback shall be increased to twenty (20) feet ff the a~acent property is used or shown on the city's land use plan for residential use. (6) Construct all buildings, except single- and two-family homes, with the following minimum setbacks: a~ Thirty (30) feet from a street right.f-way. b. Fifty (50) feet from property that is used or shown on the city's land use plan for residential use. This set- back shall be increased up to seventy-five (75) feet based on the more restrictive of the following requirements: 1. Building height: The building setbacks shall be increased two (2) feet for each one foot the building exceeds twenty-five (25) feet in height. 2. Exterior wall area: Where an exterior wall faces a residentially zoned property, the wall setback shall be increased five (5) feet for each one thousand (1,000) squ are feet, or part thereof, in excess of two thousand i2,000) square feet. (7) The city council may approve a conditional use permit to allow an addition within a required setback if: The required f'mdings in section 36-442 for a condi- tional use permit are met. b. The setback would be consistent with the setbacks for surrounding properties. c. At least eighty (80) percent of the addition would be screened from property that is used or shown on the city's land use plan for residential use. 89 (8) Plant trees with the following mi~irn,rn sizes: a. Large deciduous trees, two and one-half (2¥2) inches in diameter, balled and burlapped. b. Small deciduous (ornamental) trees, one and one-half (1¥2) inches in diameter, balled and burlapped. c. Evergreen trees, six (6) feet in height. (9) Install a lawn irrigation system that will not spray on public streets or sidewAll~s. (10) Use low-maintenance materials on buildings. (11) Use building materials that are compatible in quality with similar development in the area. (12) Locate any bike racks so they do not interfere with vehic- ~_~1~- or pedestrian traffic or fire lanes. (13) Preserve significant natural features, such as wetlands and large trees, as required in the environmental protection ordinance (Chapter 9, Article IX). (14) Provide on-site loading and unloading space where needed so that public streets are not used for this purpose. (Ord. Bio. 652, § 3, 9-11-89; Ord. Bio. 676, § 4, 11-26-90) Sees. 36-29-36-40. Reserved. 9O Attachment 44 PROPOSED CHANGES IN COMMERCIAL USES BY ZONING DISTRICT CUP = a use that should have a conditional use permit (CUP) if within 350 feet of a property that the City is planning for residential use 350 feet = a use that should be at least 350 feet away from a property that the City is planning for residential use BC (Business Commercial) Permitted Uses: On-sale liquor that is not part of a restaurant--B50 feet Craftsman's shop-CUP Motor vehicle sales (new only or new and used)--350 feet CNG (compressed natural gas) or LPG (liquid petroleum gas) dispensing facilities (limited capadty)--350 feet Add check cashing businesses--350 feet Conditional Uses: Sale of used cars--350 feet Omit heliport (see below) Major motor fuel station, vehicle wash or maintenance garages--350 feet M-1 (Ught Manufacturing) Permitted Uses: Contractors' shops--350 feet Manufacturing, assembly, or processing of products--350 feet Conditional use: Mining or material recycling--350 feet Other Changes Gun shops (or sales)--prohibit anywhere in the City Add helistop as an accessory use to a hospital, if it is not within 350 feet of a residential district. Define helistop as a place for one helicopter to land or takeoff, but does not include maintenance or fueling operations. 91 Attachment 45 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Director of Community Development Ch~nlcal Abuse clinics Or~;n-nce November 12, 1993 INTRODUCTION On September 27, !993, the City Coun~ directed the staff to study changes to the zoning ordinance about cllnics. The Council heard complaints from residents near 2223 White Bear Avenue. A methadone clinic is at this address. The clinic concerned the residents because it is so close to their neighborhood. On October 25, 1993, the Council considered first reading of the attached ordinance. The Council tabled first reading and referred the ordinance to the Planning Commission and Human Relations Commission. Both commissions have recommended against an ordinance regulating clinics. The Planning Commission felt that the City should look at all commercial uses near residential areas. BACKGROUND The City permits clinics in all commercial and industrial zones. The zoning code does not define clinics or differentiate between types of clinics. We use the dictionary when the zoning code does not define a term. The dictionary defines clinics as: 1. A class of medical instruction in which patients are examined and discussed. 2. A group meeting devoted to the analysis and solution of concrete problems or to the acquiring of specific skills or knowledge. 3. A facility (as of a hospital) for diagnosis and treatment of outpatients. 4. A group practice in which several physicians work cooperativel~ OPTIONS 1. Prohibk all chemical abuse clinics. 2. Prohibit all chemical abuse clinics within 350 feet of a residential lot line. 3. Require a conditional use permit for all chemical abuse clinics. 92 4. Require a conditional use permit for all chemical abuse clinics w/thin 350 feet of a residential lot line. 5. Take no action. DISCUSSION On November 8, 1993, the Council passed a moratorium on new or expanding clinics until February 28, 1994. The Council wanted to look at the 'big picture'--all commercial uses around residential areas. Because of the moratorium there is no need to adopt an ordinance regulating clinics now. The Council is leaning towards a mo.e comprehensive study by the end of Febmar~ The Planning Commission has already started work on this stud~ The Commission will discuss the regulation of clinics as a part of this stud]t If the Council wants to adopt an ordinance on clinics now, I have attached an ordinance on page 4. The attached ordinance requires a conditional use permit (CUP) for clinics that primarily treat chemical abuse and are within 350 feet of a residential property line (Option 4). The CUP would give the City the authority to regulate or prohibit such uses. The City requires a public hearing for a CUP. A hearing would give the residents a chance to ask questions and get information before a clinic opens. The City Attorney advised me to be careful when creating regulations that or. ly apply to certain clinic types. There must be a rational basis for protecting the health, safety and welfare of the residents. I contacted six other cities about how they regulate clinics. None of these cities have special conditions or rules about outpatient clinics. Four of the six dries have these types of Clinics. The cities w/th these clinics were not aware of any special problerns. Our police department checked w/th the police departments in other cities. The other cities reported no problems or minor problems, such as loitering. (See the reference section on page 3 and the police report on page 8.) I cannot fred any evidence for prohibiting clinics. RECOMMENDATION Take no action on a clinic ordinance now. The Council may reconsider this ordinance when the Planning Commission finishes their broader study of commercial uses near residential neighborhoods. 93 REFERENCE OTHER CreES--ZONING REGULATIONS FOR CUNICS There ~re thirteen outpatient treatment programs in Ramsey Count. Eight are in St. Paul and five are in the suburbs. Two of these cli~cs are in Maplewood. One is the methadone c[inic. The other is an adolescent chemical dependency clinic at 1707 Cope Avenue. I contacted the planning offices in six other cities. I asked how they regulate drug treatment or other outpatient cllnics. I also asked about any problems these clinics '. caused. I contacted Bloomington, Minneapolis, Saint Paul, Atlanta Georgia, Orlando Florida and Ocala Florida. Each city considers such clinics as a permitted use in commercial and office zoning districts. The Colonial Group (the operators of the Maplewood clinic) has clinics in the last three cities. The plmuxer in Orlando told me there are two of the Colonial Cli~cs in Orlando. The plarmer in Ocala told me that the chemical dependency c[inic there has been open about seven years. The clinic is in a medical office park. None of the planners was aware of any problems with these types of clinics. The po[ice report on page 8 did not ~md any serious problems with these clinics, other than loitering before the clinics open. go/'o-5:c[inic3.mem (5.1) Attachment: 1. Ordinance 2. Po[ice Report 94 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ABOUT CUNICS IN THE LBC (UMITED BUSINESS COMMERCIAL). BC-M (BUSINESS COMMERCIAL MODIFIED), BC (BUSINESS COMMERCIAL), NC (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL) AND CO (COMMERCIAL OFFICE) DISTRICTS THE MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL APPROVES THE FOLLOWING ORDINANCE: (l crossed out the deletions and underlined the additions.) Section 1. This section changes subsection 36-154(a) and adds subsection 36-154cb) to the LBC, Limited Business Commercial District as follows: fa) Permitted Uses. The Ci_tY shall only permit the followin~ uses bv right' (1) Offices. (2) Clinics. exceot those that primarily treat chemical abuse and are within 350 feet of a residential lot line. Day care centex~. Conditional Uses. The following uses must have a conditional use permit. Clinics that primarily treat chemical abuse and are within 350 feet of a residential lot line. Section 2. This section changes subsection 36-155cb)(1) and adds 36-15S(c)(8) to the BC(M) Business Commercial District (Modified) as follows: Cb) Permitted uses. The City shall only permit the following uses by right: (1) Retail or commercial rental activities, offices, clinics, except those that primarily treat chemical abuse and are within $50 feet of a residential lot line, dL-Je, studio, bank, personal service, day care centex; craftsmen's shop or mortuary All business, storage or display, except signs and parking, shall be in a closed building. (c) Conditional uses. The following uses must have a conditional use permit: (8) Cllnics that primarily treat chemical abuse and are within ~lSO feet of ~, residential lot line, 95 I I ~ I I Section 3. This section changes subsections 36-151(a)(3) and (b)(8) of Division 7 of Chapter 36 of The BC (Business Commercial District) as follows: (a) Permitted uses. The City shall only permit The following uses by right: (3) Retail or commercial rental activities, restaurant, on-sale liquor business (subject to license), office, ' ' s exce t those at rim ' eat chemic bus . are within ;350 feet of a residential lot line. -':._r-'-':, studio, bank, personal service, day care centez; craftsmen's shop or mortuar~ All business, storage or display, except signs and parking, shall be in a dosed building. (b) Conditional uses. The following uses must have a conditional use permit: (8) ' 'cs tha ' ' at ch mical buse and are wi ' et residential lot line. ~ Section 4. This section changes subsections 36-173(a)(1) and CD)(3) of Division 8 of Chapter 36 of the SC, Shopping Center District as follows: la) Permitted uses. The City shall only permit The following uses by right: (1) Retail or commercial rental activities, restaurant, on-sale liquor business (subject to license), office, ~linlcs. except those that vrimarilv treat chemlc~ abuse and are within 950 feet of a residential lot line. -':.~.r-'-':, studio, bank, pe_~onal service, day care cente~; craftsmen's shop or mortuary. All business, storage or display, except signs and parking, sb~ll be ii1 a dosed building. (b) Conditional uses. The following uses must have a conditional use permit: (3) Clinics that rimaril treat chemical abuse and · within eet of residential lot line. Section 5. This section changes subsection 36-127, Permitted Uses, of The NC Neighborhood Commercial District as follows: Sec. 26-127. Permitted Uses. (a) Pe-',',itted uses. The Ci~ sb_s11 o_--l_y permit the following uses by right, z)rovided that the floor a~ea of all buildin_es in any one NC zone sb__~!! laot exceed Three Thousand ¢3.000) square feet;. 96 (1) Bakery or candy shop. Any_ eoods_ produced on the premises must be sold on the (2) Beauty parlor or barber shop. (3) Dry cleaner or laundromat. All odors must be controlled so as not to be noticeable to adjacent residents. Office. (5) Repair shop, except for motorized vehicles. All business, storage or display shall be in a closed buildinst" ..... .,. ~.,-,, ~.. _._cA_.~ A....:~. ~ .~.. ~...:,~:__ (6) Drug, hardware or grocery store. (7) Studio. (8) Tailor or dressmaker shop. (9) Veterinary or grooming clinic where there are no outside kennels or storage. (10) Video gore C11) Printin~ shop. fl2) Clinics. exceot those that primarily treat chemical abuse and are within ~50 feet of a residential lot line. Section 6. This section changes subsection 36-129, Conditional Uses, of the NC Neighborhood Commercial District as follows: ia) Conditional uses. The following uses must have a conditional use permit. In addition, the floor area of all buildings in any one NC; zone shall r~ot exceed ei_~llt thousand (~,0001 square feet: .~--,- .1...11 (1) Any permitted use listed in Section 36-127. 97 (2) Club, lodge or hall. (3) private school, day care center or community service use. (4) Taxi stand or bus stop. Restaurant, where there are rio drive-up order windows of serving food to patrons in their automobiles. All cooking odors must be controlled so as to not be noticeable to adjacent residents. (6) Other uses, where the City Council finds that the use would be compatible with the neighborhood and the intent of this division. (7~ C~11nics that primarily treat chemic~ abuse and are within 350 feet of a residential lot line. Section 7. This ordinance shall become effective after publication. Passed by the Maplewood City Council on ,'1993. 98 MEMORANDUM September 16, 1993 To: From: Subject: Chief Kenneth Collins~ Sergeant Michael Ryan St. Paul Metro Treatment Center I have contacted several of the names listed as renting office space to treatment centers located in several states. These sites vary from business district/industrial areas to sharing facilities with other medical related clinics and shopping center or store front areas. The locations also seem to be varied from high traffic, main street locations to other locations that could be described as "off the beaten path." When asked about the clinics, the renters almost universally replied that they initially were apprehensive about renting to such facilities but admitted that they have had only minor problems. For the most part, these seem to be related to clients leaving coffee cups and cigarette butts at the clinic sites'. None of those questioned had any negative comments and felt the clinics were good tenants. I contacted police departments in Ocala and Temple Terrace, Florida to inquire about their clinics. Ocala reported only one incident at their clinic, that being a burglary in March of 1992. Temple Terrace Police Department advised that they were familiar with the clinic in their area. They have had many complaints that mostly deal with the clients loitering in the area. Temple Terrace has done some surveillance work on their clinic. Temple Terrace referred me to Sherry Miller with the DEA at (813) 228-2486. In speaking with her, I found that Dr. Randall Green, the clinic owner, operates in accordance with all FDA and DEA rules and regulations. Miller told me that their concern was with the philosophy behind the "for profit" clinic where addicts are not urged to get off methadone or other substances. Miller did not have any negative information about the clinics. I contacted police departments in Atlanta and Ft. Oglethorpe, Georgia. Atlanta advised that complaints deal with the loitering clients. They also advised that they have had incidents of clients buying other drugs at the clinic site and also selling their methadone, especially their take home doses on weekends. The Atlanta clinic hires outside security for their site. Ft. Oglethorpe Police advised that their clinic, while in Georgia, is only 10 miles from Chattanooga, Tennessee. They reported many problems with transients related to crimes in the area. Most of their crime consisted of shoplifting and shoplifting rings operating in the area. The clinic is located in a business district. They also reported that they have incidents of people 99 buying the methadone from the clinic clients. Ft. Oglethorpe Police felt that most of their problems came from persons that were from outside the area stating they come from Nashville, Knoxville and Florida. 'ous olice problems appear to be related to Generally, the var1 -? · _ ~ ~ a~ear that the most ~ ~~ons of the cllnl ..... ~-~ occurs prior ~"~ ...... . ...... -~ ~ with the lol~erln~ ~ police common comp£al~ nu~ ~ ~v ' Ot to the clinic opening in the early morning- departments suggested that police presence seemed to help and they often made warrant arrests of clients waiting at the clinic. 100 JOHN F. BANNIGAN, JR. PATRICK J. KELLY JAMES J. HANTON JANET M. WILEBSKI JOHN W. QUARNSTROM Bannig y ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1750 NORTH CENTRAL LIFE TOWER 445 MINNESOTA STREET SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 Attachment 46 (612) 224-3781 FAX (612) 223-8019 March 31, 1994 Mr. Geoff Olson Director of Community Development City of Maplewood 1830 E. County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 RE: Maplewood Planning Commission/Gun Shop Regulation Dear Mr. Olson: Pursuant to our earlier telephone conversation, I did contact the St. Paul City Attorney's office regarding the studies which have been initiated by the St. Paul Planning Commission to regulate gun shops. I was referred to Mr. Lawrence Soderholm with the St. Paul Department of Planning and Economic Development. Mr. Soderholm was extremely cooperative and willing to provide access to his file. In fact, Mr. Soderholm indicated that he would be more than happy to meet with you to discuss the matter further. I am enclosing a variety of documents which I excerpted from Mr. Soderholm's file. The particular proposal before the St. Paul Planning Commission is presently tabled. There is a sense that the legislature might take further action this session with respect to gun control and gun shops. As a result, the Planning Commission is waiting to determine what steps, if any, the legislature might take. Mr. Soderholm has collected an enormous amount of materials and literature regarding gun shop regulations. I would estimate that Mr. Soderholm has several files totalling perhaps one foot of documentation. The documentation includes a large number of studies, reports and statistical surveys. I have not copied any of those materials at this time. I would suggest that you review the materials which I am currently enclosing. You will note that St. Paul is not attempting to exclude gun shops. In fact, you will not in the gun shop zoning study dated January, 1994 that there is a section addressing the authority of local 101 I 'T T"- 1- I Mr. Geoff Olson Page 2 March 31, 1994 municipalities to regulate the location of businesses that sell guns (see page four). The study specifically makes reference to Minn. Stat. S471.635 which provides that "a governmental subdivision may regulate by reasonable, non-discriminatory and non-arbitrary zoning ordinances, the location of businesses where firearms are sold by a firearms dealer." As I mentioned in my previous correspondence, there is no question that pursuant to this statute, the City of Maplewood can take some action to regulate, by zoning, the location of gun shops. However, it is highly unlikely that this statutory authority can be construed so as to permit the exclusion of all gun shops. I hope that this information will be of some assistance to you as you consult with the Planning Commission. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact me. C: Mr. Michael McGuire Sincerely yours, BANNIGAN & KELLY, P.A. 102 From: Date: Re: MEMO Director of Community Development City Attorney February 6, 1994 Legal Opinion/Amo~n of Non-Confotmb~ Uses Attachment 47 On February 3, 1994, this office received from you a request for a legal opinion to be discussed with the Planning Commission on February 7, 1994. You have raised the following question: Whether the City has the legal authority to adopt an ordinance for the purpose of amortizing non-conforming uses? It is the opinion of this office that the adoption of a zoning ordinance including an amortization provision is authorized and legal. ANALYSIS The controlling case in Minnesota is that of Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company v. Village of Minnetonka, 162 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1968). In that decision, the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the legality and constitutionality of a municipal zoning ordinance which required the removal of non-conforming uses after a specified amortization period. A copy of that decision is enclosed.. The Minnesota Supreme Court specifically concluded that the use of an amortization provision was constitutional "on its face." The Supreme Court went on to consider whether the particular amortization provision could be held unconstitutional when applied to that particular property owner. In essence, the Supreme Court analyzed whether an amortization period of three years was reasonable for the interest of that particular owner. The Supreme Court ultimately concluded that the three year amortization period was reasonable. As noted above, it is the opinion of this office that the Minnesota Supreme Court has previously acknowledged the constitutionality of amortization provisions contained within zoning ordinances. The primary focus on such ordinances will be concerned with the "reasonableness" of an amortization requirement when applied to a particular situation. It should also be noted that the establishment of an amortization requirement or schedule should be linked in some manner to the promotion of the public health, safety or welfare. Therefore, shorter amortization periods should be linked to greater public risks. It is also important to note that any application of an amortization provision should be enforced equally in order to withstand any constitutional challenges. 103 I T ~ [ [ Memorandum Page Two February 6, 1994 In determining a reasonable period of amortization, there are a number of factors which should be considered: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) how severe a risk is presented by the particular non-conforming use; will the amortization of that use advance some legitimate public objective; how much investment does the owner have in the use; has the owner had sufficient time to recover his/her investment; has the owner financially benefitted from enjoying a "monopoly" in the area. There may be other factors as well. 104 105 106 107 108 Attachment 48 See. 36*22. Off. street pm*kinf, (a) The following types of uses shall provide additional off- street parking space, ~s indicated, unless otherwise authorized by a street or alle~ arid 8hall be located on or near tile lot Oll WhiCh such use it situated; (1) Single.family dwelling: Two (2) spaces. (2) Multiple dwelling: Two (2) spaces for each housekeeping unit. One of these spaces must be enclosed. (3} Hotel or fourif! cabin court: One space for each rental room or suite. (4) ReJtaurant, cafe or tea room: One space for each fifty (50) square feet of floor space devoted to patron use. (5) Theater, auditorium, church or other place of public a~- ~emblag~' A minimum of one apace for every four (4) Mats. Schools must have a minimum of one space for every twenty (20) auditorium Mats. (6) Commercial, office or recreational building use, other than tho~e specified abas' One space for each two hundred (200) square feet, or portion thereof, of' floor area. (7) Shopping centers having enclose~ nonleasable oommon arm~ One space for each two hundred (200) square feet, or por- tion thereof, of iemble floor area. (8) Manufacturing and warehouse establishment&' One space for each two (2) employees, or one space for each four hundred (400) square feet of manufacturing space and one space for each one thousand (1,000) square feet of ware- house space, whichever is greater. (9) Motor fuel station&' Four (4) spaces, plus three (3) addi- tional spaces for each service stall If there is a conve- nience store or restaurant as~ciated with the fuel station, additional parking shall be provided in ~ccerdance with this section. (10) Off.street parking faciliti¢&' Shall not be reduced below the requirements of subparagraph (a). (11) Motor oehicle repa/r. Two (2) spaces for each service stall, one space for e~ch employee and one space for each busi- nm vehicle stored on the site. 110 Attachment 49 PARKING IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS - CITY OF BLAINE BY SQ. BY NO. BY NO. USE CATEGORY FOOT OF SEATS EMPLOY'D OTHER AUTO SVCE. STATION 1 / 1 2 / STALL BRDING/ROOMING HOUSE ...::.: i' I PER 3 ACCOMM'D (2 MINIMUM) BOWLING ALLEY · ' · ~ i ' 7 / ALLEY {MIN.) BUSINESS/PROF/ADMIN 1 / 200 CHURCH/SYNAGOGUE 1 / 4 FOOD/DRINK ESTABS. 1 / 100 FURNITURE/APPLIANCE i .. : ~ : HOSPITAL . ' ' t/4(STAFF) I PER 2 BEDS ' it/2(M.D.s) HOTEL ' ' m ; t/3 SEPARATE ROOM LIBRARY & MUSEUM 1 / 500 . · · : :. i . ' MFG.(W/O RETAIL) : 1 :/500 PLUS 6:' MED./DEmAL CLiNic "':' ' 1 Zi:: 2 PER TRTMT.ROOM MOTEL · : ' · I l 1 I PER ROOM PRIVATE CLUB/LODGE I f 16 I 1 2.5 * WHICHEVER MORE (ASSBLY.) PUBLIC UTILITY/SVCE. t / 3 MORE FOR VISITORS REC./COMMUNITY CTR. ' '. ' TO.BE DETERMINED SCHOOL' I / t MORE FOR STUDENTS SUPERMARKET & HIGH : : ::: . : . VOLUME RETAIL ;l'l 200 . : ' · UNDERTAKING/FUNERAL ·" ' 10 PER PARLOR WAREHOUSE/STORAGE t/2000 t / 2 * WHICHEVER MORE (1) REQUIREMENTS ARE CUMULATIVE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ABOVE. (2) OTHER USES FIGURED ON BASIS AS FOR MOST SIMILAR USE ABOVE. i : ]--CATEGORIESNOTINMAPLEWOODCODE(MAY BE A SUBDIVISION OF A MAPLEWOOD CATEGORY) 111 Attachment 50 PARKING IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS - BLOOMINGTON BY SQ. BY NO. BY NO. USE CATEGORY FOOT OF SEATS EMPL'D OTHER / (COMMENT) THEATER/AUDITORIUM, ARENA/ASSEMBLY . CHURCH : : : : . 1 1 3 · ADD IF ASSOC'D USE HOSPITAL ' ! I t 1 PER BED MED/DENTAL CLINIC ~ 1 1 1 5 PER M.D./D.D.S. BUS. & PROF. OFFICE 1 1 200 · ' (LEASABLE SPACE) RETAIL SHOPPING I / as (RETAIL ,SPACE) MOTEL 1 / 1 I PER UNIT RESTAURANT/CLUB 1 / 25* 1 / 2.5 *(MEETING/BANQUET) SERVICE STATION 1 / 1 3 PER BAY 5 PER LANE BOWLING ALLEY 15 IF SERVES FOOD & DRIVE-IN . 10 IF NOT (MIN.) 'OTHER BUS./INDUSTRY & WHOLESALE 1 / 800 1 / 2 1 PER CO. VEHIC. 6 STACKING SPACES DRIVE-IN BANK PER LANE WAREHOUSE ~ ' 1 / t 1 PER CO. VEHIC. REST/NURSING HOME I 1 / t · 1 PER 4 BEDS (I) FOR OTHER BUS./INDUST., BASE IS EMPL 'D STANDARD, THEN ADD THE GREATER OF FLOOR SPACE OR COMPANY VEHICS. STANDARD (2) REQUIREMENTS ARE CUMULATIVE UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED (3) BLOOMINGTON HAS SPECIAL PRO VISIONS FOR JOINT FACILITIES I: CA TEGORIES NOT IN MAPLEWOOD CODE (MA Y BE A SUBDIVISION OF A MAPLEWOOD CATEGORY) 112 Attachment 51 PARKING IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS - BROOKLYN CTR. BY SQ. BY NO. BY NO. USE CATEGORY FOOT OF SEATS EMPL'D OTHER / (COMMENT) EATING & DRINKING 1 / 2 1 / 2 SERVICE STATION I / 1 3 PER BAY & I PER CO. VEHIC. RETAIL & FINANCI~ 1 t/lst 2000 '' : ' · '5.5~ADDED loft) .:.' MOTEL & HOTEL 1 / 1 I PER UNIT BOWLING ALLEY ' · ' '5 PER LANE MEDICAL&DENTAL'* '. ' '11150' . i .' .I/2 3.PERM.D./D.D.S. OFFICE BLDGS.: 0 - 20,000 GFA 1 / 200 20,000- 220,000 (FORMULA)** ~ · OVER 220,000 ... I ! 300 !i ' OTHER COMMERCIAL (NO WHOLESALE) . 1/200 · RACQUET/SWIM/SPA 20/lst 1000 ~ 2 PER OUDOOR ' · 1/ADDED 300 TENNIS CT. INDUSTRY/WHOLESALE 1 / 800 1 / 2 WHICHEVER GREATER 3 PER M.D. IS BASE, THEN ADD GREATER OF SQ. FT. OR EMPLOYEE STANDARD FORMULA IS: G.F.A. DMDED BY (.0005 TIMES G.F.A.) PLUS 190 NOTE: REQUIREMENTS ARE CUMULATIVE UNLESS OTHER WISE INDICA TED CATEGORIES NOT IN MAPLEWOOD CODE (MAY BE A SUBDIVISION OF A MAPLEWOOD CATEGORY) 113 Attachment 52. PARKING IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS - GOLDEN VALLEY BY SQ. BY NO. BY NO. USE CATEGORY FOOT OF SEATS EMPL'D OTHER / (COMMENT) RETAIL & SERVICE I / 1~0 (PER RETAIL SPACE) STORAGE .I / 500 (STRG.USE ONLY) (GROSS OPFICE SPACE) OFFICE 1 / 250 (PUBLIC AREA) CLASS I RESTAURANT 1 / 40 I / 80 (NON-PUBLIC AREA) CLASS II REsTAuRANT 1/35 (GFA) 1 / 3 · WHICHEVER MORE CLASS III RESTAURANT 1/25 (BAR) . ' ' :~ .i ' 1/40 (PUBLIC) (CUMULATIVE) : 1/S0(NON-PUB) BOWLING & SKATING 1/300 (RINK) .1 / 6 * WHICHEVER MORE . THEATER/GYM/REC. 1 / 400 1 / 4 * WHICHEVER MORE HOTEL & MOTEL 1 / 3 1 PER SLEEPING UNIT SERVICE STATION 1 / 3 4 PER STALL & I PER CO. VEHIC. CAR WASH ~ I/3 4 PER STALL & 1 PER CO. VEHIC. ,TRADE/TRNG. SCHL, 1 / t 1 / 1 SALES SHOWROOM I / I000 1 / 3 (SQ.FT. BASED ON IN & OUTSIDE SHOW AREA) MORTUARIES 1 /400 1 /3 (1) REQUIREMENTS ARE CUMULATIVE EXCEPT AS NOTED (2) RESTAURANTS I ~ III ARE CUMULATIVE, WHILE REST. II IS 'EITHER/OR' I --- CA TECrORIES NOT IN MAPLEWOOD CODE (MA Y BE A SUBDMSION OF A MAPLEWOOD CA TEGOR Y) 114 Attac~men~ 5~ PARKING IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS - RICHFIELD BY SQ. BY NO. BY NO. USE CATEGORY FOOT OF SEATS EMPL'D OTHER / (COMMENT) THEATER I / 3 (IF IN SHOPG. CTR.) 1 / 2.5 (IF FI~E-STANDING) ~HURCH/ASSEMBLY I / 2.5 GEN'L OI'YICE/BANK I / 250 (10 SPACE MINIMUM) RETAIL I / 250 SHOPPING CEN'rl/R: < 50,000 S.F. . I / 2'2'2 . >50,000S-F: I:/1~2 ".i ' HOTEL 1 / 1 I PER UNIT & 1/4.5 SEATS OF ASSOC. USE RESTAURANT: NO LIQUOR: .. 1/60 I/2,5 : (WHICHEVER MORE) : :LIQUOR: '::: / /50: /2 ~ (WHICHEVER MORE) FAST FOOD ' : : ::: I ] 60 ~ :: : . ' SERVICE STATION I / 50 2 / STALL BASE OF 4 SPACES BOWLING:ALLEy : ,:~ sEATS oF ASsoc. uSE WAREHOUSE/WHOLESALE 1 / 1000 HEALTI"I/I~'f fNESS :1/225: MINI-GOLF I ,. 1.5 PER HOLE (1) PARKING FOR USES NOT SPECIFIED DETERMINED B Y CITY PLANNER [ [ -- CATEGORIES NOT IN MAPLEWGOD CODE (MA Y BE A SUBDIVISION OF A MAPLEWOOD CATEGORY) 115 JOHN F. BANNIGAN, JR. PATRICK J. KELLY JAMES J. HANTON JANET M. WILEBSKI JOHN W. QUARNSTROM B annig Y A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W 1750 NORTH CENTRAL LIFE TOWER 445 MINNESOTA STREET SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 July 22, 1994 Attachment 54 (612) 224-3781 FAX (612)223-8019 JUL .. $ Mr. Geoff Olson Director of Community Development and Planning Maplewood City Hall 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Re: Nonconforming Uses/Additional Use Permit Dear Mr. Olson: In a letter dated July 7, 1994, you asked whether the City could be successfully defended if the City imposes, upon new nonconforming uses, a requirement that the new use comply with as may of the City's current zoning standards as practical. I have verbally advised you that the success or failure of any such defense would depend largely upon the facts of each particular situation. I believe you already have a copy of the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court entitled Dolan v. City of Tigard. As you know, that decision was only issued on June 24, 1994. There has been virtually no opportunity for the Minnesota Courts to issue any local application in light of that Supreme Court decision. I believe that decision will have a bearing upon any future litigation which might arise from the issuance of a conditional use permit. The Dolcaz analysis may be applicable whenever the City makes an adjudicative decision to impose conditions upon an individual property as opposed to a legislative classification of an entire area of the City. According to previous court decisions, the court must first determine whether a legitimate state interest is being served. Under your proposed scenario, I believe it is highly probable that a court would conclude that adopted zoning standards do serve legitimate state interests. The second question requires the determination whether an "essential nexus" exists between those legitimate state interests and the actual conditions being imposed. Again, I think it is highly likely that the City could defend the existence of this "essential nexus." The Dolan case has clarified the next portion of the analysis. According to Dolan, the court must then determine whether the scope of that "nexus" is sufficiently substantial so as to 116 Mr. Geoff Olson Page 2 July 22, 1994 pass judicial examination. Perhaps most troubling is the requirement that the "the City must make some sort of individualized determination that the required condition is related both in nature and extent to the impact to the proposed development." There is certainly a strong possibility that a court will be~n to impose a much greater burden upon municipalities to make an affirmative showing as to this relationship. In the past, the burden was on the applicant to show that a relationship did not exist. The Supreme Court has now held that the burden is upon the municipality to show that the relationship did exist. For this reason, I am hesitant to provide a clear assurance that the imposition of any such condition can be successfully defended. I believe that the City must be prepared to make a greater showing or substantiation as to the conditions that it imposes on the individual properties or applications. I believe that the blanket endorsement of conditional use permits and their conditions will be subject to a great deal of challenge. Please let me know if you wish to discuss this further. PJK:~ c Michael McGuire Sincerely, BANNIGAN & KELLY, P.A. Patrick J. Kelly 117 Attachment 55 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 Planning Commission Minutes of 9-6-94 -2- V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Commercial Property Study Secretary Olson presented the staff report. Commissioner Rossbach disagreed with the staff recommendation that trees or shrubs be required on the residential side of a fence. Mr. Rossbach said that he wants a combination offence and plantings, but does not want to require the plantings on either one or both sides of the fence. Commissioner Kittridge moved to amend the last sentence in #2 on page 11 to read: If the owner or developer uses fencing, the Commission recommends that the City require trees or shrubs to be used in conjunction with the fence. Commissioner Rossbach seconded Ayes--all The motion passed. The Commission discussed using the Chanhassen ordinance as a guide for possible future Maplewood ordinance changes. They discussed either possibly rezoning BC zones near residential neighborhoods or requiting a conditional use permit for some uses in that zone. Commissioner Pearson moved to strike from page 91 "Gun shops (or sales)--prohibit anywhere in the City" for consideration in this recommendation. commissioner Rossbach seconded Ayes--Rossbach, Pearson, Sandell Nays--Axdalfl, Fischer, Frost, Gerke, Kittridge, Kopesky The motion failed. Commissioner Kittfidge said that at a previous meeting he understood that this item was to be omitted from this report and submitted to the Council separately in order to allow the Council to consider this item, along with the City Attorney's opinion, separatdy. Commissioner Fischer expressed concern that, if approved as presented, the report was contradictory and misleading because the Commission's view on prohibiting gun shops was on page 14, the staffs recommendation allowing them was on pages 25 and 26. A person reading it might not realize these contradictions were there. It was decided that the Commissioner representing the Planning Commission before the Council would be responsible for informing the Council of the differences and concerns in this area. Some other Commissioners did not feel this was a concern since all of the information, discussion and voting record on the gun shop issue would be included to the Council. Planning Commission Minutes of 9-6-94 -3- Commissioner Frost moved the Planning Commission over the next six months address the intensity of' commercial uses by studying traffic, floor area ratios and lot coverage to control the amount of intensity of development in Maplewood. Commissioner Rossbach seconded Ayes-all The motion passed. Commissioner Rossbach moved that the Planning Commission submit the Commercial Property Study to the CitY Council for their review. Commissioner Pearson seconded Ayes--all The motion passed. VI. NEW BUSINESS Ao Ordinance Olson presented the discussed nonconfo: back into the shorek revising :' Commi: The motion It was decid~ VII. VISITOR PRESE There were no VIII. and answered questions from the Commission. The requirements and possibly adding height ~er Frost moved :le IX, g Commission recommend approval of the ordinance District and Other Related Sections of the Code. Ayes--all item be submitted to the HRA for their consideration. COMMISSI~ PRESEN; IONS A. Augu~f22 Council Meeting: Commissioner Frost reported B. Representative for the September 12 Council Meeting: Conunissioner Kittridge MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner tn A Appointment September 22, 1994 INTRODUCTION There is a vacancy on the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) created by the resignation of Lori Tauer. Ms. Tauer's term expires in March 1996. I have attached the applications of three applicants. I advertised this opening in the Maplewood Review, the Saint Paul Pioneer Press and in the Maplewood in Motion. These announcements ran in August, 1994, on July 13, 1994 and on July 20, 1994. RECOMMENDATION Appoint a person to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) to fill Ms. Tauer's term. kr/hraapt.mem Attachments: 1. A1 Carlson application 2. Diane Hovey application Thomas Schiff application A~]-12-199~ 13:48 FRCK'I FROM ST. F~LIL F'ED · ~ ~;~; ~.~ i~,~.J't~dl_ I'~.lPI~,~, I'1"1. CITY OP MAPL BOARDS AND TO 97704~0~, F'.OI 04 APPUCANT n~'FORMATION Doe-~ your emplo~t require travel or berg away fzom th~ commtmity which would make regular attendance at meetings ~t? __._Yes On wl, dch Board or Commission are you interested in serving? ~Coiml'lunit~ Design Review Board Housing & Redevelopment Authority ._.__Human Relado~ Comraission _..__park & p. ecreatlori Commission. Plazmlng Commission Police Civil ~'vice Corem_ t-~sion Do you have any _spedfi~ areas of. ~ter~st withlzz ~ Board's or Commission's scope of responsibilities? List other orgap, tzadons or clubs in the Community in which you have been or are an acdve Why would you like to serve on this Board or Commission? ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: mb~rm\boards AL~-12-1994 13:48 FRL-~I FF3'~4 ST. PALE PEb TO 9770J$06 F'.02 04 Attachment A Vs~y would you like to ser~e on this Board or Commission? I have extensive professional experience in housing and economic development. As ~ resident, I would like to volunteer my expextlse and insights as a resource to the City of Maplewood to further goals and policies which support the following objectives: A. A physically sound housing stock. B. A broad, stable tax base. A holistic approach to neighborhood development and improvement which meets the physically and human needs of residents. Housing opportuniti~ for current and potential residents which addresses the large spectrum of household incomes and composition. ~ a long term resident I have benefited greatly from the variety of programs and services that have been offered by the City of Mapk*,vood. I would like to give something back to the City. C.~en my professional background, I think I can be most useful to the City by serving on the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. AUG-12-19'5~I 1.3:49 FF.{~'I FF.E~"I ST. PAUL F'E[~ Ti:l 9770-35.0~:, f'.O_-', 04 Attachment B Allen Carlson 946 Connor Avenue East Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE 1983 - present D~epartment of Plannlng and EconomicD_ev¢looment of the Ci.ty of Saint P=auL Position: Proje~-'t Manager Responstbilttias: Perform highly responsible professional and supervisory work directing the day-to-day operations of multi,faeeted programs and development projects with substantial budgets as well as extremely complex coordination requirements. I specifically manage the Department's federa] Partnership Program which has an annual budget of. $2 million, the City's 19 housing tax increment districts, multifamily rental finance programs, federal iow income housing tax credit program. I also act as thc departments lead financial analyst on multifamily rental developments including revenue bond financing developments. 1978-1.982 _Gi _ty of Columbia HeiSts and the. Housin~z and Redevelopment AuthorLW of the City of Columbia Hei_~ts. Minnesota Posittolt' Director of City Planning Re~ponsibilitie. v: Develop, implement, and manage the comprehensive land use plan, economic development activities, capital improvement programs, departmental budgeting, personnel management, and zoning and land use regulations. 197S -1976 St, Louis County Planning and Zoning De0artment, Duluth. Minnesota Position: Planner Rezponsibtltti~: Prepare zoning and land use studies and policies. Conduct analysis of economic conditions within the county. EDUCATION 1983 - 1986 LIniversilv of St. Thomas. Saint Paul Minnesota, Master of Business Administration summa cum laurie. 1976- 1977 Mankato State University_. Mankato, Minnea:)ta, Master of Arts (a.b.d.) in urban and regional planning. AUG-12-199.4 15:49 FROI'4 FROM ST. PAUL PE[:, TO .q?704506 P.04 04 1970- 1.976 Unlversi~ of Minne~p~/a. Duluth. Minne~ta. economics and urban planning. Bachelor of Arts cum laude in 198~ New York U~niveraity. New York. New York, Certificate. Government Project Management 1985 National DevelopmentC, ounc[L New York. Economic Development Finance Professional CcrtificatSon. KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, AND ABILITIF_~: Thorough knowledge of urban renewal processes, land use and zoning re~datinns~ city gnvr. rnme, nt and planning, fe. dGraJ and ac~:~ houaing ~la~i,vna and law~. real estate development and financing, revenue bond and tax increment financing, working with neighborhood-baaed organizations, and negotiating with a variety of pubUc and/or private representatives. TATAL F'.O4 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS APPLICANT INFORMATION DATE: PHONE: CH) :~,~-~1 ~ ZIP CODE ~_~3 i c ~ How long have you lived in the City of Maplewood? /--:'e ~,a Does your employment require navel or being away from the community which would make regular attendance at meetings difficult? Yes X' No On which Board or Commission are you interested in serving? X Commu~ty Desi~'n Review Board Housing & Redevelopment Authority Human Relations Commission Park & Recreation Commission Plm~'dng Commission Police Civil Service Commission Do you have any specific areas of interest within this Board's or Commission's scope of responsibilities? List other organizations or clubs in the Community in which you have been or ~re an active participant: Why would you like to serve on this Board or Conunission? ~ .~ ~.I~..V~ i'r t,~ il,~F'o~'r-,t,,l,,'T- '1-o ~g ,,~c-1"i~'~' it,,,' t,,'/d ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: r~, .? ~c:,,~_ mbXfrm\boards INVOLVEMENT IN PROFESSIONAL AND COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS Host Family - to a woman from Kenya studying in the United States. Host Family - to a woman from Japan studying in the United States. American Association of Housing Educators Phi Upsilon Omicron Kappa Omicron Nu Special Education Advisory Committee for School District/~522 Advisory Board for a Cross-Cultural Study on the Meaning of Disability and Chronic Hiness. Minnesota Women in Housing ARC Ramsey County - Active in legislative issues. The Children, Youth, and Family Consortium - Advocacy Committee Design Housing and Apparel Graduate Student Organization - Treasurer Graduate Faculty Committee - Graduate Student Representative Family Unity - Chair - developing Family Support Policy for families who have a member with disabilities or chronic illness. Parent Advisory Board - Rondo Early Childhood Special Education Girl Scouts - Assisted troop when needed. Interagency Early Intervention Committee '93-94 '89-93 '92-94 91-94' '93 -94 '92-94 '92-93 90-94 '90-93 92-93 '91-93 92-93 '91-92 '90-92 '90-92 '90-91 CITY OF MAPLEWOOD BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS $ APPLICANT INFORMATION NAME ADDRESS 1. 2. How long have you lived in the City of Maplewood? ~ ~ _~..?" Does your employment require travel or being away from the community which would make regular attendance at meetings difficult? ,Yes X No On which Board or Commission are you interested in serving? , Commtmity Design Review Board _ Park & Recreation Commission X Housing & Redevelopment Authority .... Planning Commission Police Civil Service Commission Human Relations Commission Do you have any ~ areas of interest within this Board's or Commission's scope of responsibilities? List other urg~fizafions or clubs in the Corm-t,m,';ty are an active participaf?t: , , 6. Why would you like to serve on this Board or Commission? ADDITIONAL, COMMENTS: mbXlvm\boards