Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/20/2009 AGENDA MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 20, 2009 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. January 6, 2009 5. Public Hearings a. 7:00 pm: Code Amendment and Property Rezoning Requests: 1) Code Amendment for the R-1 R, Rural Single-Dwelling Residence District Requirements, with a Name Change to "Rural Conservation District." 2) Rezoning (Zoning Map Changes) from F, Farm Residence District, to R-1R, Rural Conservation District. . 6. New Business 7. Unfinished Business 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations a. January 26 2009 City Council Meeting: Items Include, Richie Place Subdivision and land Use Plan Amendment, Menard's Conditional Use Permit for a Proposed Storage Building and Feed Products North Conditional Use Permit and lot Division for a Proposed Office Building. Commissioner Hess is scheduled to attend. 10. Staff Presentations a. Amendment to Rules of Procedure-Special-Meeting Requirements 11. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JANUARY 6,2009 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Joseph Boeser Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Chairperson lorraine Fischer Commissioner Harland Hess Commissioner Robert Martin Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Joe Walton Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Absent Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present City Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand. Senior Planner Steve Kummer. Staff Enqineer III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the agenda as presented. Commissioner Trippler seconded The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. November 18, 2008 Ayes - all Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the minutes of November 18, 2008 as submitted. Commissioner Hess seconded Ayes - all The motion passed. b. December 2, 2008 Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the amended minutes of December 2, 2008 changing "of addressing" to read "of the addresses" in the first sentence of the third paragraph of Item V. a. Commissioner Desai seconded The motion passed. V. PUBLIC HEARING Ayes-Desai, Fischer, Hess, Martin, Trippler, Walton, Yarwood Abstention - Pearson a. 7:07 p.m. - Feed Products North Office Building,1300 McKnight Road . Conditional Use Permit to Build Within 350 feet of Residential Property . lot Division Planning Commission Minutes of 01-06-09 -2- Senior Planner Tom Ekstrand presented the staff report for this request by John Fallin, owner of Feed Products North, to build a 5,800-square-foot, two-story office building for his business on the westerly portion of his property, east of McKnight Road and west of the lakewood Drive bridge. Mr. Ekstrand mentioned in reviewing this request the city observed there is a residence to the south of Feed Products North with code violations and staff is in the process of getting that property's violations resolved. Commissioner Trippler said lakewood Drive is elevated and the plans do not include a retaining wall and asked staff if there might be a problem with lakewood Drive sliding into the parking lot. Staff engineer Steve Kummer said a revised plan was done that includes a retaining wall, but there have also been discussions to move some of the parking spaces to the other side of the building. Commissioner Trippler asked what kind of easement the parking lot would be built over and who would need to repair the lot if maintenance needed to be done. Staff engineer Kummer said it is a water main easement and it is the responsibility of the utility owner to repave and make any needed repairs to the parking lot. Commissioner Trippler asked if runoff is planned to flow to the wetland area. Staff engineer Kummer responded that the runoff flows toward the wetlands but will be treated outside of the wetland buffer. Commissioner Martin asked staff if the applicant's 1998 plan is available and how similar it is to the current proposal. Planner Ekstrand showed the commission the 1998 plan. Mr. Ekstrand said a full review was done for the current proposal and, with the city's criteria and wetland requirements being stricter today than in 1998, he feels this is a better plan. Commissioner Yarwood asked staff to comment on the lighting plan to potentially shield the lighting from the neighbors. Staff said the proposed lighting intensities at the property lines are high and the plan must be modified to limit the lighting maximum to .4 foot candles at the perimeter of the site. Bob Moser of Moser Homes, representing the applicant, addressed the commission and apologized that applicant John Fallin was out of town and unable to attend the meeting. Mr. Moser presented to the commission an updated plan that proposes a three and one-half-foot retaining wall located between lakewood Drive and the parking lot. Mr. Moser said another addition to the plan is that an angle has been added to the parking lot to be certain that the lot conforms to the required setback guidelines. Commissioner Hess asked if there is a lower basement level planned for the building that is not shown on the plans. Mr. Moser responded there is a lower level planned that will be unfinished, but it is intended for use by a future tenant. Mr. Moser said he would like to go on record regarding staff's earlier comments about the city requiring the property owner to the south, who is in violation of city code, to conform to city ordinances. Mr. Moser said Mr. Fallin appreciates staff's efforts to resolve the outside storage issues and the other code violations on the adjacent property. Mr. Moser said Mr. Fallin will be doing a lot to make the area look good and he would like adjacent properties to abide by similar requirements. The public hearing was opened for comments from the public. The following people spoke: Planning Commission Minutes of 01-06-09 -3- Eugene Stepaniak, of 2249 Tilsen Ave in St. Paul, was concerned about an underground stream across the street that there may be spilling in the ground area that runs to Beaver Lake. Mr. Stepaniak said he now lives in St. Paul and wondered why St. Paul is not shown on the maps used at the meeting and also, that he was not included by Maplewood in the survey. Planner Ekstrand said Mr. Stepaniak received a letter notifying him of this meeting, which is a legal requirement, and further explained that the Maplewood site maps used at the meeting do not include any properties of neighboring cities. In this case, Maplewood's property maps stop at McKnight Road and don't include St. Paul. Commissioner Pearson asked whether soil borings have been taken on this site. Staff engineer Kummer responded he has not received soil borings from the site, but they will take as many as needed to construct the building. Mr. Pearson suggested that borings be taken on this area. Mr. Kummer responded that soil borings are typically taken on every project site, including city projects. Commissioner Hess asked staff if the underground stream referred to by Mr. Stepaniak is shown on the city's maps. Engineer Kummer responded there are no maps that show groundwater flow in the city, but staff will look into the concern of an underground stream. David Thorwick, 2285 Tilsen Court, said his concern is vehicle lights from the driveway shining onto his property. Planner Ekstrand responded that city code requires an eighty percent screening with dense evergreens or a wooden fence to block headlights between the parking lot and drive. Mr. Ekstrand said this is included as one of staff's recommendations in the staff report. Bob Moser, the applicant's representative, said some soil borings have been taken on the site and he will submit them to city staff. Mr. Moser said he is not aware of a water table elevation problem, but this will be checked. Mr. Moser reiterated that they have no intention of using or disposing of any hazardous materials or unapproved matter on the site. Mr. Moser said the purpose of this building is as an office and this would include any additional tenants. Mr. Moser said they are receptive to a lighting plan that will minimize inconvenience to adjacent properties including whatever is dictated by the city. Toni Thorwick, 2285 Tilsen Court, asked for clarification on the height of the proposed parking lot as opposed to her property. Commissioner Trippler noted the elevations involved and said the proposed eighty percent opaque screening required by the city should take care of lighting on her property. There were no further comments from the public. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Yarwood suggested a lighting recommendation be included stating the lighting be shielded or directed to shine into the interior of the applicant's property. Planner Ekstrand said lighting is a community design review board recommendation, but it would be an appropriate item to add. Commissioner Yarwood also suggested a condition be added to include a retaining wall. Commissioner Trippler moved the planning commission recommend: a. Adoption of the resolution approving a conditional use permit for the Feed Products North office building, located at 1300 McKnight Road. This permit allows the construction of an office building on land zoned M1 (light manufacturing) within 350 feet of residential property. Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. Staff may approve minor changes. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-06-09 -4- 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval. The city council may extend this permit one additional year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. After two years the permit shall end unless construction has started. 4. Compliance with conditions in the report by Steve Kummer, Maplewood staff engineer, dated December 2, 2008. An addition of a retaining wall east of the east parking lot shall be included. 5. Compliance with conditions in the report by Ginny Gaynor, open space naturalist with the city, in her report dated November 26, 2008. 6. Compliance with conditions in the report by Shann Finwall, environmental planner with the city, dated December 26, 2008. 7. Provide wetland-protection signs along the wetland buffer as required by ordinance. The number and placement of these signs shall be determined by the environmental planner. These signs shall prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping in or around the wetland. 8. To develop this site adjacent to residential property, the applicant shall provide a screening buffer that is at least six feet tall and 80 percent opaque upon installation. This buffer may be comprised of evergreen trees or a decorative wood fence. Such screening shall be subject to staff approval. b. Approval of the lot split to separate the office site from the main part of the applicant's property located at 1300 McKnight Road, subject to the following conditions: 1. The property owner shall dedicate cross easements on the west property that cover the utilities (sanitary and storm) which serve the lot east of Lakewood Drive. 2. The applicant shall dedicate a public drainage and utility easement over the 24-inch culvert on the property if it is fo,und to belong to Ramsey County. Commissioner Pearson seconded The motion passed. Ayes - all Commissioner Yarwood asked if a motion was needed on the lighting issue or if it would be noted to the design review board. Planner Ekstrand said if time allows the addition would be made in the staff report to go out the next day if possible or would be verbally noted at the review board meeting, and also it would be revised for the city council's review. VI. NEW BUSINESS a. Sustainable Maplewood City planner Tom Ekstrand presented discs from environmental planner Shann Finwall to the commissioners for their review. Mr. Ekstrand said Ms. Finwall will attend a future meeting to discuss this item. b. Rural Residential Conservation-Approach Ordinance Amendment Planning Commission Minutes of 01-06-09 -5- City planner Ekstrand introduced consultant Jennifer Haskamp of Pulse Land Group, who presented preliminary information regarding a draft code amendment proposed to modify the rural single dwelling district (R-1R) to become the rural conservation dwelling district. Ms. Haskamp said the city council recommended the draft comprehensive plan on December 8 and guided the south Maplewood area for a density range of .5 to 1.5 units per acre. Ms. Haskamp explained the council then directed that an ordinance be prepared to protect this area in the interim until the comprehensive plan is legally adopted. Ms. Haskamp explained how the proposed ordinance will work and then reviewed the draft ordinance with the commission. Commissioner Yarwood said he is concerned that the wording in the ordinance is fuzzy, such as defining what credit given means when exceeding standards such as in the steep slopes ordinances and how much is needed to exceed in order to receive this credit. Commissioner Desai suggested the wording from the comprehensive plan be adopted as an ordinance until the comprehensive plan is legally adopted. Ms. Haskamp responded that the amended densities cannot legally be amended in that way. Ms. Haskamp said that legally the zoning must match the land use. Ms. Haskamp explained this ordinance would legally allow the city to encourage developers to do things do get additional density. In reply to the commissioner's comments on fuzzy ordinance wording in the ordinance, Ms. Haskamp said further defining the wording would take considerable time and the ordinance needs to go into effect as soon as possible in order to stop undesirable development which would be allowable under the current comprehensive plan. Commissioner Walton asked if all of the density incentives are equal. Ms. Haskamp responded that in theory the densities are all equally weighted, but the ordinance would allow staff to have discussions with developers to encourage the conservation principles that would meet the intent of the ordinance. Commissioner Trippler questioned why the city does not again put a moratorium on this property prohibiting development for another year. Council member John Nephew, who was attending the meeting, responded saying the city council previously enacted a moratorium and then extended that moratorium. Mr. Nephew understood the city's ability to again "extend" the moratorium were used up. Commissioner Fischer said the word "view" used in the ordinance could be further defined, since beauty is in the eye of the beholder and watching the language may prevent a problem as a matter of definition. Ms. Haskamp agreed that defining what constitutes a view is challenging and said without a view shed study, defining what corridors to preserve and defining what that would mean would be subjective. Ms. Haskamp said the list of conservation principles was identified previously by the various commissions and advisory groups and that list could be modified. Commissioner Yarwood suggested the item referring to cluster housing be removed from the ordinance, since housing closely spaced was something they wanted to avoid. Commissioner Fischer disagreed with Commissioner Yarwood's suggestion saying that sometimes the kindest thing for the environment is to cluster housing rather than to spread it over the entire area. Commissioner Desai asked if restricting a developer from building townhouses or condos was included in the ordinance. Ms. Haskamp responded that permitted uses are any uses that are permitted in the R-1 R district and that would not include townhouses or condos. Planning Commission Minutes of 01-06-09 -6- Ms. Haskamp said this discussion has been very helpful and she will take a took at making clearer and tighter definitions and defining where possible what a credit might be. Ms. Haskamp said this item would be brought back before the commission for a public hearing and reconsideration on January 20. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Carolyn Petersen, 1801 Gervais Avenue, said she felt the R 1 R ordinance needs lot of further review. Ms. Petersen said she has studied and read on cluster development and she feels it is a good way to go to encourage trail development and natural areas. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS . Commissioner Yarwood reported on the December 8 city council meeting. . January 12 City Council Meeting - Commissioner Fischerwill attend. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS City planner Ekstrand reviewed the current schedule for commission representative attendance at city council meetings and explained he rnoved Commissioners Desai and Yarwood to the bottom of the list since they attended recent meetings. The commission had no changes. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:37 p.m. MEMO TO: DuWayne Konewko, Community Development and Parks Director Planning Commission FROM: Jennifer Haskamp, Pulse Land Group DATE: RE: January 12, 2009 Amendment and additions to the R-1 R Zoning District Rezoning of Farm District properties in the south Maplewood Area Conservation Approach INTRODUCTION At the Planning Commission meeting on January 6, 2009 staff introduced the interim ordinance amending the R-1 R zoning district which is specifically located in the south Maplewood area. As stated at the first meeting, the City Council directed staff and consultants to prepare an interim ordinance to protect the natural resources in south Maplewood while legally allowing for the maximum entitlement of 4.3 units per acre in the area. In response to this directive, staff and consultants have prepared the attached interim ordinance which is simply an amendment to the R-1 R zoning district. The intent is to create an ordinance that will allow an initial entitlement of 0.5 units per acre (2.0 acre lots), and will only be allowed the maximum entitlement by working with staff and commissions to identify conservation principles that meet the city's goals and objectives for conservation in south Maplewood. At the Planning Commission meeting several questions were identified with respect to the draft ordinance. Staff and consultants have responded to those concerns below for your review and consideration. Additionally, we have included the action items we need in order to move the ordinance forward. As stated at the last meeting, timing is critical. We want to get the interim ordinance in place as soon as possible to make sure we are protected in the interim time period. Increased detail in section 44-128 Definitions and Conservation Principles Staff and consultants reviewed the draft ordinance and made some minor edits to strengthen and clarify the process for achieving additional density in the R-1 R district. Staff added language prior to the Conservation Principles table 44-128.1 to clearly communicate that it is the discretion of the City to determine if a developer has met the intent of the conservation principles, and whether they will receive the density bonus. Additionally, language was added to the Tree Preservation, Historic Preservation, Slop Buffer Preservation, and Passive Parks definitions to help further clarify how, and what, a developer would need to do in order to meet that conservation principle. The Viewshed/Corridor Preservation definition and incentive was removed. Finally some clarifying language was added into Sec. 44-129 to reinforce that the City has the ability to determine the appropriate Conservation Principles for a site, but that this will all be conducted during the Concept Planning phase prior to the formal Preliminary Plat application. Leqal Opinion reqardinq Moratorium Staff contacted Mr. Kantrud, the City's Attorney for a legal explanation of why we cannot utilize a moratorium in the interim period to protect south Maplewood. Staff asked him to prepare a short memo to further explain the situation. The memo is attached for your review and consideration. Metropolitan Council response to CPA Request At the January 6'h meeting Commissioners requested staff inquire to the Metropolitan Council as to whether or not they would consider a Comprehensive Plan Amendment at this time. Staff spoke with the Metropolitan Council and was told that Comprehensive Plan Amendments will not be considered until the 2030 Comprehensive Plan is adopted. City staff was told by the Metropolitan Council that it would start a preliminary review of the draft plan in an effort to complete the review process in a more timely fashion. Staff has sent draft copies of the plan to Metropolitan Council staff. ACTION ITEMS After the Planning Commission has heard comments during the public hearing regarding the rezoning and amended text of the R-1 R zoning district, staff is request the commission to make two separate recommendations to the City Council: . Staff is requesting a motion from the Planning Commission to recommend approval of the rezoning of the Farm zoned land in the south Maplewood area as defined by the attached map. . Staff is requesting a motion from the Planning Commission recommending approval of the amended text to the R-1 R zoning district with any recommendations or conditions. P:IPlanninglOrdinance UpdateslR1 RUpdate_1231 081012009.Public Hearing_PCI012009PCMemo.doc Attachments: 1. Draft Rl R (Rural Conservation. Dwelling District) Ordinance 2. Memo from City Attorney Alan Kantrud Attachment 1 PROPOSED ORDINANCE MODIFYING THE R-1 R (RURAL SINGLE-DWELLING RESIDENCE) ZONING DISTRICT THE MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL the following changes to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances: (Deletions are crossed out and additions are underlined.) Section 1. This section changes Section 44.9 as follows: Section 44-9. Zoning Districts. The city is herby divided into the following zoning districts: F, Farm Residence District. R-1, Residence District (Single Dwelling). R-1 R, Rural Sin~le D'.'Iellin~ District Rural Conservation DwellinQ District R-1 S, Small-Low Single-Dwelling District. R-2, Residence District (Double Dwelling). R-3, Residence District (Multiple Dwelling). R-E, Residence Estate District. NC, Neighborhood Commercial District. CO, Commercial Office District. BC, Business and Commercial District. LBC, Limited Business Commercial District. BC(M) Business Commercial Modified District. SC, Shopping Center District. M-1, Light Manufacturing District. M-2, Heavy manufacturing District. Section 2. This section deletes, modifies and adds to Sections 44-117 through Section 44.150 as follows: DIVISION 3.5 R-1(R) RURAL SINGLE DWElLING DISTRICT RURAL CONSERVATION DWELLING DISTRICT Sec. 44.117. Purpose and Intent. The City of Maplewood finds that there is a direct link between the natural systems and character that exists throuQhout certain areas of the community. The requirements of this Rural Conservation DwellinQ District are meant to preserve and enhance the ecoloQical/aesthetic character by incentivizinQ: 1) reinforcement and establishment of ecoloQical connections throuQhout the city: 2) protection and enhancement of drainaQeways and water Quality: 3) protection and enhancement of ecoloqical communities; 4) preservation and improvement of views: and 5) preservation or reinterpretation of local historical landmarks. Maplewoes intenss Ie ~rolest and enhance the character of ar-oas ef the eity thai, ~eoa~se ef lep09ra~hy er ether factors, do not have, nor soes the oily ex~eot to have, fII~nioipal sanitary se':ler or water servioe. To allow for and to protect a very low sensity, semi-rural, residential life style, the city creates the R-1 R zoning district that is intended to encourage conservation based development. This zoning district is for the areas of Maplewood that are not suitable 1 Attachment 1 for suburban or tract development because of topography, vegetation or other factors that make the area unique. -lI1e installation of fII~nioipal sanitary sewer ~nlikely. The city finds the most suitable use of these areas is single dwellings on large lots, but is interested in protectinQ the natural resources and will encouraQe developments to follow the conservation principles and initiatives identified in subsequent sections of this ordinance. SuoA-Low- density residential development and conservation development will lessen grading and soil erosion and will help protect ground water, vegetation and wooded areas. Tho lets and ~aroels in the R 1 R zoning distFict are generally fII~oh larger than those in the R 1 (single dwelling) district and those with fII~nicipal sewer and water. Sec. 44-118. Uses. The City shall only allow the following uses: (a) Permitted Uses: 1) Any permitted use in the R-1 District, subject to its regulations. (b) Conditional uses. The City may permit the following by conditional use permit: 1) Any use allowed by conditional use permit in the R-1 (single dwelling) District. 2) Commercial faming or gardening, including the use or storage or associated equipment, when on a property with a single dwelling. 3) Stands for the sale of agricultural products grown or produced on the property. 4) Metal storage buildings, commonly known as pole barns or agri-buildings, subject to the applicable size and height requirements. (c) Prohibited uses. The city prohibits the following uses in the R-1(R) zoning district: 1) Accessory buildings without an associated single dwelling on the same property. 2) Reserved. Sec. 44-119. Height of buildings. The maximum height of a single-family dwelling shall be thirty-five (35) feet. Sec. 44.120. Lot dimensions, lot area, width requirements, and side yards. (a) No person shall build a single dwelling on a site less than eighty seven thousand one hundred twenty (87,120) square feet (2 acres) in area; unless the conservation desiQn principles are applied as described in Section 3. (b) Each lot or parcel shall have enough area or usable space for a house, driveway, well and individual sewage treatment system (ISTS) with a primary and secondary site or an acceptable desiQn and plan for a community septic system or reQional sewer. (c) Each dwellinQ and any accessory structurels) shall have side yard setbacks as defined in table 44-120.1 and shall be measured from the property line to the structure. of at 10:Jst lhirt./ (30) feet fr-ofll :J side pr-operlv liRec- The followinQ exceptions to this standard shall apply: 1) The side yard on the street side of a corner lot shall have a width of at least thirty (30) feet. 2) When a property owner uses two (2) or more adioininQ lots as a sinQle-buildinq site. the side yard requirements shall apply only to the outside lot lines. (d) No ~ert;en shall b~ild :J single dwelling on a let '.'lith less than one h~ndred twenty (12Q) feet of width at the front b~ilding setbaok line. The followinQ table identifies the minimum lot area and lot width based on the conservation tiers: 2 Attachment 1 Table 44-120.1 Conservation Tier Density Minimum Area Minimum Side Yard Front Yard Ranoe Frontane Setback Setback Tier I (0-2 0.5 -1.5 UtA 15.000 SF 100' 30' 50' Principles) Tier II (3-5 1.6 - 3.5 UtA 10.000 SF 80' 15' 30' Principles) Tier III (6-7 3.6 - 4.3 UtA 7.500 SF 50' 10' 20' Principles) (e) Each interior lot shall have at least fifty (50) feet of frontage on an improved public street. <n Each corner lot or parcel shall have at least eighty (80) feet of frontage on each of the public streets. Sec. 44-121. Front Yards. (a) Each dwelling and any accessory structure(s) shall have a front yard setback as defined in table 44-120.1. Except that: 1) If each ofthe lots next to an interior lot has a dwelling, the minimum setback shall be the setback of the adjacent dwelling closest to the street. The maximum setback shall be the setback of the adjacent dwelling farthest from the street. 2) If subsection (a)(1) above does not apply and there is a predominant setback, a dwelling shall be no further forward and no more than five feet to the rear of the predominant setback. 3) Regardless of tihe above, if the city council has approved special setbacks for a development, those setbacks shall apply. City approval of a preliminary plat with building pads does not constitute approval of special setbacks. 4) Regardless of the above, homeowners may add on to their homes using the existing setback. 5) In all cases, the accessory structures shall be no closer than the principle structure unless approved by the City Council. (b) The director of community development may allow a different front yard setback if the proposed setback would not adversely affect the drainage of surrounding properties and if any of the following conditions apply: 1) The proposed setback would not affect the privacy of adjacent homes. 2) The proposed setback would save significant natural features, as defined in section 9-188. 3) The proposed setback is necessary to meet city, state or federal regulations, such as pipeline setback or noise regulations. 4) The proposed setback is necessary for energy saving, health or safety reasons. Sec. H 122. Side yar~s. (Moved to previous section and Table) EacR d'::ellinQ and ::my accassory structure(s) shall Rave side yare seleacks of at least thirty (30) feet Imm a side property line. TRe followinQ eXGeptions to IRis standard shnll apply: (a) TRe side ynr<l on the Elreet side of a Garner let shall Ra'le a widlh of at lenEt ~fty (SO) feot. (e) WRen a pmperty owner ~ses l'lie (2) or mom ndjoininQ lots as a sinQle e~ildinQ site, the side ynrd req~irements sRall apply enly to IRa e~tsida let lines. (G) ReQar<lless of the nbo'Je, homeo'::ners mny add on Ie IReir Remes ~sinQ tRe existing setenck. Sec. 44.123. Rear Yards. 3 Attachment 1 (a) Single dwellings shall have a rear yard setback of at least twenty (20) percent of the lot depth. or a A1inim~m rear setback of fifty (50) feet, wl1icl1ever is larger. (b) Accessory buildings shall have a rear yard setback of at least thirty (30) feet. Sec. 44.124. Tower, antenna and flagpole setbacks. Antennas and flagpoles for residential (non-commercial) use in the R-1 (R) zoning district shall meet the same setbacks as accessory buildings in the R-1 (single dwelling) district. Sec. 44-125. Minimum foundation areas; room requirements. (a) The minimum foundation area shall be at least: 1) A one-story dwelling, nine hundred fifty (950) square feet. 2) A one and one-half story dwelling, seven hundred twenty (720) square feet. 3) A bi-Ievel dwelling, eight hundred sixteen (816) square feet. 4) A tri-Ievel dwelling, seven hundred sixty five (765) square feet. 5) A two storey dwelling, five hundred twenty-eight (528) square feet. (b) Room size and number shall be consistent with the standards of the International Residential Code. Sec. 44-126. Building-width requirements. The minimum building width on the primary frontaQe any side shall be at least twenty-one (21) feet. The building width shall not include entryways or other appurtenances that do not run the fully depth of the building. Sec.44.127. Accessory buildings. (a) Section 44-114 (Accessory buildings) in the R-1 District shall apply to the use and height of accessory buildings and garages in the R-1 Rzoning district. (b) For lots of at least 2 acres in size the R-1 R zoning district, the following size standards shall apply to accessory buildings and garages: graduated by tier or size of lot? Table 44-127 1 Accessory Sizes Detached Buildings (Max Attached Garages (Max Combination of detach Area, Square Feet) Area, Square Feet) buildings and attached Garage (Max Area) Tier I 1,400 (garages), 1,100 1,400 2,800 (other)' Tier II 1.000 SF Total 1,000 1480 Tier III 850 SF Total 850 1,000 Section 3. This section adds the conservation principles and conservation desiqn standards to the R-1 R zoninq district. Sec. 44.128. Definitions and Conservation Principles. The conservation principles in the followinQ table shall represent the conservation incentives for this ordinance. The definitions of each principle follow the table. All incentives shall only be Qranted IF they exceed the minimum standards set forth in the existinq City ordinances that relate to environmental protection as identified in Ordinance Chapters 12 and 44. 4 Attachment 1 It shall be noted that the City has several ordinances that control and define natural resources and environmental Qualitv, in all cases. the more restrictive ordinance shall apply and it is the developer's responsibilitv to discuss any issues or Questions reQardinQ the applicable ordinances with the City Planner. Additionallv, the developer shall be aware that the conservation principles shall be subiect to the approval of the city staff. planninq commission and ultimatelv the City Council. As stated in Sec. 44-129 the Developer shall be required to work closelv with these bodies to develop a plan that supports the qoals and objectives for the R-1 R District. Without the approval of these bodies the Developer will be entitled to a base entitlement of a minimum of 2.0 acre lots. Table 44-128.1 Conservation Principles for Densitv Incentives Enhance/Preserve larQe wooded areas or forest Prairie Restoration Preserve and Establish Natural Area Greenwavs Enhance Wetlands. Create ManaQement Plan Tree Preservation Create/Develop Trail Connections Clusterinq Slope Buffer Preservation Historic Preservation Create Passive Parks Additional Shoreline Buffers EnerQV Efficiencv LEED Certified BuildinQs/Development Creek Restoration Manaqement Low Impact Development (LID) View Shed/Corridor Preservation Dedicate 50% Open Space Additional Stormwater ManaQement Enhance/preserve larae wooded areas or forest: An act of deliberatelv avoidinq the removal of clusters of structurallv healthv mature trees and understory trees which are native to the area and non-invasive. individual heritaqe trees which are structurallv healthv and Qreater than 20 caliper inches in order to protect the present or future value for their use in protection from erosion. for their landscape and aesthetic value. for their use in screeninq development or for other environmental or intrinsic benefits. To meet this standard. the developer must prepare a health assessment of the trees on site. and must show a polVQon area on the site with permanent protection plan. that the developer shall implement. for the areas to be preserved and a manaQement plan includinQ removal of invasive species on the site. Preserve and Establish Natural Area Greenwavs: The dedication. maintenance or manaQement of an area identified on the City's Natural Areas Greenway map. The Natural Area Greenway is defined as larQe contiQuous areas of natural habitat that cross ownership boundaries. Tree Preservation: ThrouQh means of a tree inventory. identifyinq the most siQnificant trees on a site and permanently protectinQ them. The Developer shall be required to present a plan for protection of these trees. and will be required to demonstrate how these trees will be inteQrated as a key component of the development. Examples include protectinQ a larQe. healthy, Oak tree on a site from beinQ removed for a roadway. Clusterina: A desiQn technique that Qroups housinQ or development sites in a manner that allows for the conservation and preservation of open spaces such as farmland. natural areas. includinQ habitat areas and open views. Historic Preservation: IdentifyinQ and protectinQ throuQh permanent means. any historically siQnificant areas on a specific site. Examples include protectinq an archaeoloqically siQnificant area. restorinQ a historical barn. or 5 Attachment 1 preservinQ an important trail. To reinforce the historical Quality, a siQnaQe plan shall be included to clearly communicate the historical siQnificance of the area or artifact. Additional Shoreline Buffers: Beyond those already identified in the Shoreland Overlay District. the creation and plan for permanent protection of protective buffers around those areas which are more sensitive to the neQative impacts of development. especially areas that are defined as bluffs or steep slopes, where critical habitat may dwell, near historic tree clusters or heritaQe trees etcetera for which the additional buffers may vary or be averaQed near the location of protection importance, LEED certified buildinos/deve/opment (3 Practices): A national set of standards for buildinQs and neiQhborhoods that focuses on the principles of Qreen buildinQ . smart Qrowth, sustainability and healthy livinq. The LEED for NeiQhborhood Development Ratinq System provides independent. third-party verification that a development's location and desiQn meet accepted hiQh levels of environmentally responsible, sustainable development. Credit will be Qiven for a minimum of 3 practices in the LEED standards certification criteria. Developers are encouraqed to seek for LEED certification. Low Impact Development (LID): An ecoloQically friendly approach to site development and storm water manaQement that aims to mitiQate development impacts to land, water and air. The approach emphasizes the inteQration of site desiQn and planninQ techniques that conserve the natural systems and hydroloQic functions of a site. . In order to achieve this principle the developer must demonstrate how they will achieve these principles. For example, number and Quantity of rain qardens, the use of porous pavement. reduction of impervious surface and road widths. Dedicate 50% Open Space: Open space is defined as public and private land that is Qenerally natural in character and contains relatively few human-made structures. Credit will be qiven for dedication of 50% of a site to open space. This conservation principle will be mandatory to achieve the full density allocation. If wetlands or open water are present on a site the maximum contribution for wetland or open water to this standard shall be 25 percent. and the remaininQ area comprised of other upland areas. Prairie Restoration: After performinQ a historical analysis to determine pre-settlement conditions, prepare a plan for prairie restoration with a specific manaQement strateQY, that the developer shall implement. over the course of five years in order to assure that the prairie establishes. This plan shall be submitted and approved by the City's Natural Resource Coordinator to determine if it meets this requirements and subsequently Qualifies for the density bonus. Enhance wetlands, create a Comprehensive Wetland Manaoement Plan (CWMP): A plan to resolve development and protection conflicts where wetlands affect a siQnificant portion of a community. The plan encompasses the identification, study. and evaluation of wetland functions and community values, and development needs and investments with reQard to wetlands protection, enhancement and reQulation. The applicant shall be required to create a plan, that the developer shall implement. that exceeds the standards of the adopted Wetland Ordinance. Creafe/Develop trail connections: A plan that illustrates the development of trails that are indicated on the Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan map as part of the subdivision process, whether active or passive in nature, with an emphasis on creatinq trail connections to existinQ trails. Credit will be Qiven for the development and construction of the trail not for the land dedication which will be considered part of the city's parkland dedication fees. 6 Attachment 1 Slope buffer preselVation: A development plan that deliberately avoids placinQ any structures. or lots, in the buffer area of a siqnificant slope. The developer shall establish a buffer with permanent protection to demonstrate how the buffer and slope is protected and the purpose of the protection measures. Credit will be Qiven for those plans that exceed the standards identified in the current steep slopes ordinance, Create passive parks: An area set aside throuQh the development process that is environmentally sensitive and mav or may not be developable. These parks may support passive uses such as walkinQ trails, boardwalks and nature observation areas, but some areas may be too environmentally sensitive to accommodate any public access. Credit will only be Qiven for passive dedication areas that are permanently protected and that are dedicated to a public entity. Enemyefficiency: UsinQ the Minnesota Greenstar ProQram. develop enerQY efficient and Greenstar rated proiects and buildinQs. Credit will be Qiven when the developer utilizes the proQram to create a 'theme' in a development and uses the Greenstar and conservation principles in marketinQ the proiect. Creek restoration manaaement: Restoration projects that the City believes would assist in the restoration of the stream or natural creek that compensate for the loss of past uses of the watershed due to contamination, erosion and other influences or issues. Specific types of proiects proposed for implementation as part of a development plan would be those that enhance habitat. water Quality, and flow reQime such as stormwater manaQement. stream channel stabilization or Qreenways by implementinQ conservation easements, or additional buffers in riparian corridors. View shed/co.-door lJ.-eser.<atieR: ,^. site ~Ian or ~e'lele~ment ~allem that is desiqne~ s~eGilicall',' Ie ~roteGt an ar€a on or near the development site t~at is vie'::ed as ~rime Gonstituent fer the feelinq of the sense of ~laGe, 'I.'~elher the features in t~e view are cultural. historical or nalural or whet~er the'! are ':ie'.'.'e~ !rem the street or .....ilhin I~e development site. Additional Stormwater Manaaement: The City has existinQ stormwater manaQement policies, but there is opportunity to further improve the stormwater manaQement on a site. The developer shall be Qiven credit for a stormwater manaQement plan, and implementation that exceeds the City's existinQ policy. Sec. 44.129 Application Requirements and Procedures. The developer shall follow the steps outlined below as part of the development review process. The developer shall be required to review the contents of this ordinance and prepare a plan consistinQ of written and visual documents to support the proposed development. (a) The developer shall review this ordinance and available natural resource data. The intent is to establish the property's ecoloqical connections both within Maplewood and as part of the reQional ecoloQical system. If the developer chooses not to use a conservation approach the developer may develop at the base entitlement of one (1) unit per two (2) acres of land and skip to step e. If the developer is interested in additional units and smaller lot sizes, then the developer shall follow steps b-e. (b) The developer shall prepare and submit a natural resources evaluation of the site. includinQ all of the followinq elements. this step is in preparation for meetinQ with the City Planner and should be completed prior to developinQ a concept plan: 1) Tree survey, includinQ all siQnificant individual trees Qreater than 6 inches in diameter, and stands of trees. identifvinQ tree species and size. 7 Attachment 1 2) Wetland inventory, includinQ delineation reports; and MnRAM verification 3) Topoqraphic survev indicatinQ existinQ drainaQe patterns. This shall include one foot (1') contours for steep slope areas to better understand where the top and bottom of the slopes are for preservation and placement (c) The developer shall set UP a meetinQ with the Citv Planner to discuss and establish the intent and qoal for the subdivision. The process shall include a discussion reQardinQ the appropriate conservation principles as identified in Table 44-128.1 for the specific site and shall be based on the preliminary natural resource information collected in step (b). The principles utilized to achieve hiqher densities on a site must be approved bv the Citv Staff, Planninq Commission and Citv Council. The conservation principles and correspondinq density bonuses are shown in table 44-130.1 (d) The developer shall create a Concept Plan that includes the followinQ information: 1) A base vield plan, which demonstrates the number of allowed lots as determined bv the base entitlement of one unit per two acres. 2) A description of the conservation principles that are used and the correspondinQ density bonus and unit count as the developer understands it. This shall also include information and data that supports how the concept plan addresses the conservation principle and how the plan meets and exceeds the standards of the City's existinQ natural resource ordinances. 3) A Qraphic that demonstrates Qenerallv how the lots would be laid out and the unit tvpes proposed as part of the development. 4) A narrative that describes the conservation principles used in the concept plan and supportinQ data demonstratinQ how the concept meets the standards of existinQ ordinances. and data demonstratinQ how the concept plan exceeds them. 5) The developer shall submit. with their concept plans, data and reports related to the conservation principles performed bv a reputable ecoloQist or ecoloQical firm. The City shall reserve the riQht. if needed, to hire their own ecoloQical expert at the cost of the developer to verify and further understand the plans submitted bv the Applicant. 6) Submit twenty (20) copies of items 1 throuQh 4 for informal or non-bindinQ comments bv City Staff, PlanninQ Commission and Citv Council. Each bodv will provide feedback and recommendations to the Developer so that thev understand the chanQes thev need to make movinQ forward to the preliminary plat.. It will be UP to the Citv Council to make the final decision with respect to the implementation of the Conservation Principles and final density of a proiect. (e) After the concept plan review, the developer shall take and inteQrate the sUQQestions and recommendations and prepare a preliminary plat and final plat submittal in accordance with section 34-5 of the subdivision ordinance. (D A full developer's aQreement as well as anv necessary aqreements or documents that document the conservation principles and how thev will be upheld will be required as a part of anv final plat approval. This shall also include. if applicable. anv dedication or transfer of propertv for the purpose of permanent conservation shall be completed prior to final plat approval or buildinq permits. 8 Attachment 1 Sec. 44.130 Densitv Bonus Standards The followinq density bonuses shall be rewarded based on the number of conservation principles (as identified in Table 44-128.1) inteQrated within a development. The conservation principles and their application must be aQreed to by both the developer and the city. (a) The units obtained throuqh the density bonus calculation shall always be rounded down to the nearest whole number. (b) The density and number of units shall be calculated on a net area basis. Net density shall be defined as the number of dwellinQ units per acre exclusive of arterial streets and riQht of ways, wetlands and water features, and other publicly dedicated improvements such as parks. Table 44-130.1 Density Bonus Allotment for Conservation Principles The followinQ table identifies the baseline entitlement for all property zoned R-1R of 0.5 Units per acre. All density bonuses are cumulative and the percentaQe bonus calculated as such. Densitv Ranqe Tier 1: 0.5-1.5 Tier 2: 1.6-3.5 Tier 3: 3.6 - 4.3 Number of Conservation Principles Q 1 2 ~ 1 5 2 7* Densitv Bonus (HousinQ Units) None - base entitlement of 2 Acre Lots 50% 100% 50% 100% 20% The asterisk in Table 44-130.1 denotes a mandatory conservation principle of protectinQ fifty percent(50%) of a proposed proiect in open space. A manaqement plan for all protected open space shall be required to achieve final plat approval. Potential options include manaQement by a Homeowners Association, dedicated to a public use or interested aQency. 9 Attachment 2 Knaak & Kantrud, P .A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW OF COUNSEL: TOlllDailey DOll Kohler H. ,'Jan Kanlrud h,J\antrud@klaw,lIs alan .1uultrlH.I@maplewood.ci.nllLus clircct: (j51.2d.9~2052 MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: RE: 12.lanu,uy 2009 Michacllvlartin, City Planncr Moratoriullls/llltcriln Ordin'lI1ces INTRODUCTION At your request I am writing to addrcss, "why the city could not enact another moratorium for the south Maplewood area." This question is undoubtedly being asked due to the expiralion of the previous moratoria and the lack of another plan to guide the City. While tempting, the use of another moratorium or interim ordinance to completely forestall development in south Maplewood would not be advisable. The statutory ability to enact such a dramatic prophylactic (albeit temporary) ordinance was premised on the timeline roughly called out in the same statute (462.355) for updating, amending or creating a comprehensive plan. If a municipality 'runs overtime' or fails to act, the statl1te is silent as to the availability of //lore moratoria or extensions. In a statutory city the power to act is strictly interpreted and has to be authorized by state law. Milmesota Statute 462.355 authorizes those moratoria and only authorizes extensions for specific reasons and for finite lengths of time. It is my opinion that the only way a new moratorium/interim ordinance could be enacted would be if1he City were to initiate another new amendment process for the Comprehensive Plan. Landowners have a right to use their land and develop their land as they see fit within the boundaries of reasonable regulation; to completely estop them from doing so is an extraordinary remedy for cities and it was not created/authorizecl for serial-use. c~ MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Planning Commission Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner Planning Commission Rules of Procedure January 13, 2009 for the January 20 Planning Commission Meeting DISCUSSION Last year the Environmental and Natural Resources (ENR) Commission adopted rules of procedure. The ENR used the existing rules of procedures from the Planning Commission, Community Design Review Board, and Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) as templates when drafting their rules. All of these rules of procedure require at least 48 hours notice prior to conducting a special meeting. During the city council's review of the ENR rules of procedure it was noted that the special meeting notification should be modified to ensure it meets the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, which requires at least 72 hours notice for special meetings (Attachment 1). In order to ensure consistency with state law, the special meeting notification requirements for all of the city's commission and board rules of procedure must be amended to reflect a 72 hour notice. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the changes proposed to the Planning Commission rules of procedure. This change will modify Section A.3. (Meetings) to be consistent with the Minnesota Open Meeting Law which requires at least 72 hours notice for special meetings. P;\com-dev\pc\rules\1-20-09 PC rules memo Attachments: 1. Minnesota Open Meeting Law 2. Planning Commission Rules of Procedure Attachment 1 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2008 13D.04 13D.04 NOTICE OF MEETINGS. Subdivision 1. Regular meetings. A schedule ofthe regular meetings of a public body shall be kept on file at its primary offices. If a public body decides to hold a regular meeting at a time or ptace different from the time or place stated in its schedule of regular meetings, it shall give the same notice of the meeting that is provided in this section for a special meeting. Subd. 2. Special meetings. (a) For a special meeting, except an emergency meeting or a special meeting for which a notice requirement is otherwise expressly established by statute, the public body shall post written notice of the date, time, place, and purpose of the meeting on the principal bulletin board of the public body, or if the public body has no principal bulletin board, on the door of its usual meeting room. -.j (b) The notice shall also be mailed or otherwise delivered to each person who has filed a written request for notice of special meetings with the public body. This notice shall be posted and mailed or delivered at least three days before the date of the meeting. (c) As an alternative to mailing or otherwise delivering notice to persons who have fiicd a written request for notice of special meetings, the public body may publish the notice once, at least three days before the meeting, in the official newspaper of the public body or, if there is none, in a qualified newspaper of general circutation within the area of the public body's authority. (d) A person filing a request fQr notice of special meetings may limit the reqliest to notification of meetings concerning particular subjects, in wbich case the public body is required to send notice to that person only concerning special meetings involving tbose subjects. ( e) A public body may establish an expiration date for requests for notices of special meetings pursuant to this subdivision and require refiling of the request once each year. (f) Not more than 60.days before the expiration date of a request for notice, the public body shall send notice of the refiling requirement to each person who filed during the preceding year. Subd. 3. Emergency meetings. (a) For an emergency meeting, the public body shall make good faith efforts to provide notice of the meeting to each news medium that has filed a written request for notice if the request inctudes the news medium's tetephone number. (b) Notice of the emergency meeting shall be given by telephone or by any other method used to notifY the members of the public body. (c) Notice shall be provided to each news medium which has filed a written request for notice as soon as reasonably practicable after notice has becn given to the members. ,. Copyright 0 2008 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved Attachment 2 RULES OF PROCEDURE Approved by the Planning Commission on February 21, 1983 Revision on February 17, 1999 Revision adopted on January 3, 2005 Last Revision proposed on July 17, 2007 Januarv 21. 2009 We, the members of the Planning Commission of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, created pursuant to Chapter 2, as amended, of the Maplewood Code of Ordinances, do hereby accept the following Rules of Procedure, subject to the provisions of said ordinances, which are hereby made a part of these rules: A. MEETINGS 1. All meetings shall be held in City Hall unless othervvise directed by the chairperson, in which case at least 24 hours notice will be given to all members. 2. Regular meetings shall be held at 7 p.m. on the first and third Tuesdays of each month. If a regular meeting falls on a legal holiday, such meeting shall be rescheduled as a special meeting, if needed. 3. Special meetings shall be held upon call by the chairperson, or in their absence, by the vice chairperson, or by any other member with the concurrence of five other members of the Commission. At least 72 48 hours notice shall be given to all members for special meetings. B. QUORUM 1. A simple majority of the current membership of the Commission shall constitute a quorum. 2. Any member having a conflict of interest shall declare the same before discussion of the item in which he or she has a conflict. Any member who abstains from voting on a question because of possible conflict of interest shall not be considered a member of the Commission for determining a quorum for the consideration of that issue. 3. Approvai of any motion shall require the affirmative vote of a majority of the members present. C. DUTIES OF CHAIRPERSON In addition to the duties prescribed in Section 2-249 of the Code of Ordinances, the chairperson shall appoint such standing committees and temporary committees as are required, and such committees will be charged with the duties, examinations, investigations, and inquiries about the subjects assigned by the chairperson. No standing or temporary committee shall have the power to commit the Commission to the endorsement of any plan or program without its submission to the full Commission. 1 D. ELECTION OF OFFICERS 1. A chairperson and vice chairperson shall be elected at the first planning commission meeting in June, and will serve until their successors have been elected. 2. In the absence of the chairperson, the vice chairperson shall perform all duties required of the chairperson. When both the chairperson and the vice chairperson are absent, the attending members shall elect a chairperson pro tem. 3. If the chairperson resigns from or is othervvise no longer on the planning commission, the vice chairperson shall become the acting chairperson until the planning commission can hold an election for new officers. If the vice chairperson resigns or is othervvise no longer on the planning commission, the planning commission will elect a new vice chairperson at the next possible planning commission meeting. E. REPRESENTATION AT COUNCIL MEETINGS A representative from the Commission shall appear at each Council meeting, where a planning item is on the agenda, to present the Commission's recommendation and to answer questions from the City Council regarding the decision. The Commission shall adopt a rotating schedule of its members at the first meeting of each year to attend these meetings. F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT In addition to carrying out the duties prescribed in Section 2-254 of the Code of Ordinances, the city planning staff shall: 1. Prepare the agenda and minutes for each meeting of the Commission. 2. Act as technical advisor to the Commission. 3. Present written alternatives and make recommendations on matters referred to the Commission. 4. Maintain a record of all agenda items from application to final action by the City Council. G. AGENDA 1. Copies of the agenda, together with pertinent planning office reports and copies of the minutes of the previous meeting, shall be distributed so that the members of the Commission shall have a copy at least three days prior to the meeting concerned. 2. The agenda shall consist of the following order of business: a. Call to Order b. Roll Call c. Approval of Minutes d. Approval of Agenda 2 e. Public Hearings f. Unfinished Business g. New Business h. Visitor Presentations I. Commission Presentations j. Staff Presentations k. Adjournment 3. No item that is not on the agenda shall be considered by the Commission. H. Except as herein provided, Robert's Rules of Order, Revised and Robert's Parliamentary Law shall be accepted as the authority on parliamentary practice. I. Amendments to the comprehensive plan shall require that the Planning Commission follow the same procedure for hearings and notices as required by State law for zoning ordinances. J. APPOINTMENTS The city council shall make all appointments to the planning commission by following the current city appointment policy. K. AMENDMENT 1. Any of these rules may be temporarily suspended by the vote of two-thirds majority of the members present. 2. These Rules of Procedure may be amended at any regular meeting of the Commission by a majority vote of the entire membership and submitted to the City Council for approval. L. These "Rules of Procedure" shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission at the first meeting of each year. . p:lcommdvptlpclpcrules.2009 January 3