HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/03/2009
AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, March 3, 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. February 17, 2009
5. Public Hearings
a. 7:00 pm: Conditional Use Permit-Community Gardens Proposal, Southwest Corner County
Road C and Hazelwood Street
b. 7:15 pm: Rezoning Request-R-1 R, Rural Single Dwelling Residential, to R-1S, Small Lot Single
Dwelling Residential, for the Property East of 2510 Carver Avenue
6. New Business
a. City Attorney Discussion-Open Meeting Law
7. Unfinished Business
8. Visitor Presentations
a. Report by Commissioner Martin (sitting in for Commissioner Boeser) on the February 23,2009
City Council Meeting. Items reviewed were the second reading of the R1 R Code Amendment
and the F to R1R Rezoning Proposals.
b. Upcoming City Council Meeting of March 9, 2009. Item scheduled at this time is the Mountain of
Fire and Miracle Ministries Church Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Pearson is scheduled
to attend.
9. Commission Presentations
10. Staff Presentations
11. Adjournment
WELCOME TO THIS MEETING. OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
This outline has been prepared to help you understand the public meeting process.
The review of an item usually takes the following form:
1. The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed and
ask for the staff report on the subject.
2. Staff presents their report on the matter.
3. The Commission will then ask City staff questions about the proposal.
4. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to
comment on the proposal.
5. This is the time for the public to make comments or ask questions about the proposal.
Please step up to tne podium, speak clearly, first giving your name and address and
then your comments.
6. After eVeryone in the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the
chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting.
7. The Commission will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are
allowed.
8. The Commission will then make its recommendation or decision.
9. All decisions by the Planning Commission are recommendations to the City Council.
The City Council makes the final decision.
jw/pclpcagd
Revised: 01/95
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 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
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Present
City Staff Present:
Michael Martin. Planner
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Hess moved to approve the amended agenda tabling item 6.a.-City Attorney
Discussion.
Commissioner Desai seconded
The motion passed.
Ayes - all
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. January 20, 2009
Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the minutes of January 20, 2009 as submitted.
Commissioner Pearson seconded
Ayes - Boeser, Fischer, Martin, Pearson, Trippler, Walton
Abstention - Desai, Hess, Yarwood
The motion passed.
V. PUBLIC HEARING
a. 7:00 p.m. - Conditional Use Permit-Mountain of Fire and Miracle Ministries Church,
2020 Rice Street
Planner Martin presented the staff report for the request for a conditional use permit by
Mountain of Fire and Miracle Ministries to open a church in an existing 13,292 square-foot
building located at 2020 Rice Street. The building site had previously housed an Abra Autobody
business. Planner Martin explained that currently the owner of the site is contracting to store
trucks on the east side of the lot and if this conditional use permit is approved, the trucks will no
longer be able to be stored on the site. Planner Martin said the church has indicated that at this
time no exterior remodeling would take place and they would use the interior of the building as it
is.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 02-17-09
-2-
Planner Martin explained that the citizen comments received largely regarded parking concerns.
Planner Martin said the church would be required to constantly monitor its parking to ensure
compliance with city code and if the church finds that it cannot continue to meet parking
requirements, it would need to consider alternatives such as holding multiple services or
establishing a shared parking agreement.
Commissioner Boeser asked for clarification on whether the conditional use permit applies to
the person or the site and if the building is leased if the CUP will still apply. Planner Martin
explained that the CUP runs with the property rather than a specific property owner and if the
church were not to go through with this purchase, the CUP would expire after a year.
Commissioner Hess asked if the building has been checked for hazardous materials since it
was previously used for auto repair. Planner Martin responded that part of the CUP approval
would be conditioned on the building official's staff report requirements.
Pastor Lekan Litan, representative for Mountain of Fire and Miracle Ministries, suggested that
additional parking could be extended on the east side of the site or the area behind the current
parking could be filled for additional parking should the need arise.
Chair Fischer asked if there was any problem with the conditions required in the staff report.
Pastor Litan responded that there was no problem with those conditions.
Commissioner Yarwood asked Pastor Litan if they expect much use of the church during the
week. Pastor Litan responded that the building would be used on Fridays, but the highest traffic
use would be on Sundays.
Commissioner Hess asked what the width of the parking stalls will be. Planner Martin responded
that they will be 9 Yz feet, the same as required of the Abra Autobody facility.
The representative said they would like to have another church's members join them once or
twice a year for a retreat and worship, possibly during the week rather than on Sunday.
The public hearing was opened for comments from the public.
Carolyn Peterson, 1801 Gervais Avenue, asked how many handicapped parking spaces are
planned. Planner Martin responded that the site has three, but conditions of the building official
listed in the staff report and by current city code require that accessible parking be provided
Ms. Peterson also questioned the church's plans to use the second floor for worship services
that was not handicapped accessible. Planner Martin responded that the building official's staff
report comments also note a condition requiring verification of the second level use and that the
occupant load is based on building code.
Commissioner Boeser commented that from the procedural standpoint for the ADA, the building
codes would be updated to reflect the standards legally required in the ADA. Mr. Boeser also
mentioned that the city would be working with the church to make sure everything is up to code
before the building is occupied.
Commissioner Pearson asked whether the CUP for the auto body shop would be discontinued.
Planner Martin responded that the auto body CUP that existed on the site has already expired.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 02-17-09
-3-
There were no further public comments; the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Hess moved to recommend adoption of the condition use permit for Mountain of
Fire and Miracle Ministries to operate a church in the building at 2020 Rice Street, Maplewood.
bases this permit on the findings required by code and subject to the following conditions:
1. The proposed church must be started in this location within one year after council approval
or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year.
2. The owner and the church operators shall ensure that the church space meets all the
requirements of the building code as determined by the building official and the fire marshal.
In addition, city staff shall determine the maximum capacity of the church upon review of the
final floor and building plans.
3. The proposed church must ensure compliance with the city's parking requirements. If the
church were to grow in membership making it difficult to provide the required parking, the
church would be obligated to utilize alternatives such as holding multiple services,
establishing a shared parking agreement or seeking a new site.
4. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
Commissioner Boeser seconded
The motion passed.
Ayes - all
VI. NEW BUSINESS
None
VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
None
IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS
a. Commissioner Hess reported on the January 26 city council meeting.
b. Commissioner Martin reported on the February 9 City Council Meeting
c. February 23 City Council Meeting - Commissioner Martin volunteered to attend.
X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
None
XI. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:51 p.m.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
Acting City Manager
Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
Community Garden Plots-Conditional Use Permit
Southwest Corner County Road C and Hazelwood Street
February 20, 2009
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
First Evangelical Free Church and Maplewood City Staff are proposing to put in
community garden plots on vacant property the Church owns at the southwest corner of
County Road C and Hazelwood Street. This property has been previously farmed for
sweet corn for many years. The church approached city staff offering the use of their
land in a partnership with the city. Eventually, they plan to move their church campus to
this location. The city would enter into a lease agreement with the church for the use of
this site and rent garden plots to residents. It is anticipated that the city could use this
land for five years before the church builds.
Request
The site would consist of 25 parking spaces on a gravel parking lot and 80, 15- by 15-
foot garden plots. Refer to the attached maps, site plan and letter from John Gregerson
of First Evangelical.
The city had community garden plots twice in the past. The first was at the former
Maplewood Heritage Center on Edgerton Street and the second in the location of the
Ramsey County Courthouse south of the Maplewood Community Center.
This proposal will require a conditional use permit (CUP) for a public service use. Part of
this approval would be allowing a temporary gravel parking lot since city code requires
paved parking surfaces.
BACKGROUND
The Parks and Recreation Commission and the Environmental and Natural Resources
Commission have identified community gardens in their 2009 goals as a program they
would like to see initiated.
CUSS ION
Iditional Use Permit
nmunity gardens would be a benefit to the residents of Maplewood. Staff's main
cern is the close proximity to the home on the land locked parcel to the south at 1448
Inty Road C. This home is being rented. Staff has spoken to one of the owners who
review this proposal with her partners before commenting. Staff has not heard from
yet and will present any comments we receive at the planning commission meeting.
'f has tried to keep the proposed garden site as far away from this house as possible
onsideration of using existing grades and what would be the most feasible parking
Ition.
ff feels that this program would not be a disruption to the neighborhood in terms of
vity, noise or traffic generation. The "rules" for gardening that the city would create
lid cover issues like: clean up, no composting (again to keep the site clean) and
rs of use. The city would also enter into a lease agreement with First Evangelical
3rding the use of their land.
;ts
r personnel would grade and prepare the garden plots, grade and install the gravel
king lot, provide picnic benches and mowed pathways for the gardeners. Other than
)r hours and the equipment to do that work, the estimated costs to the city to provide
gardens project would be:
Gravel for the parking lot: $14,000
Water line installation with one water spigot: $5,000 to $7,000
(An alternative is having a refillable water tank on 'site.)
Water billing (estimate based on the average from other cities' with community
gardens): $1,500
Jenue
, city would stand to make $2,000 in rents from the proposed 80 garden plots (80
ts x $25 each = $2,000.
lse Cost
, city would be paying for any costs associated with this project, but there would not
any cost for the lease of the property from the Church.
rkinq
mentioned above, city code does not allow gravel parking lots. In this case, however,
lould be appropriate. Paved parking would be a waste of money and materials since
, Church plans to build a new church on this property in five years.
2
The city allowed a CUP recently for a temporary gravel parking lot for Maplewood
Toyota for their open parking lot south of Gulden's Roadhouse. The reason was that the
owner of Maplewood Toyota is planning to build a permanent building in upcoming years
and a paved "temporary" parking lot would have been wasteful, same as the current
proposal.
City Department Comments
One last aspect of this proposed parking lot is that there is no parking requirement for
this type of use. Staff is proposing 25 parking spaces which, based on the city's past
experience at the two previous garden sites, would be an appropriate number. The
proposed parking area would meet the required 15-foot minimum parking setback from
street right-of-ways and have the overall size to meet the typical parking stall and drive
aisle dimensional requirements.
Enqineerinq
Buildinq Official. Fire Marshal and Police
Steve Kummer, staff engineer, said that water service is available in County Road C.
All had no comment.
CONCLUSION
Staff is awaiting a reply from the owners of 1448 County Road C, the land-locked parcel
surrounded by the Church property. At this time, we have no comment from them which
would support or be contrary to this proposal. Staff's view is that this is a positive
program for the community and one that would cause minimal or no impact to the
neighborhood.
RECOMMENDATION
1. All construction shall follow the approved site plan. The planning staff may approve
minor changes.
Adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit for the proposed community
gardens site at the southwest corner of County Road C and Hazelwood Street. Approval
is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions:
2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council
approval or the permit shall become null and void.
3. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
3
4. The city shall enter into a lease agreement with the property owner for the use of this
property as a temporary community gardens site. The details of that lease shall be
worked out with the Community and Parks Development Director or his designee.
5. Grading and drainage plans shall be designed by the city's engineering staff.
6. Approval of this permit includes the installation of a gravel parking lot rather than
hard surfaced parking.
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Property size: 16.2 gross acres; site size one acre
Existing Use: Undeveloped with the seasonal farming of sweet corn
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: County Road C and single dwellings
South: Harvest Park and Holy Redeemer Parish
East: Hazelwood Street, Maplewood Fire Station and single dwellings
West: Vento Trail and single dwellings
PLANNING
Land Use Plan: R 1, single dwelling residential
Zoning: R1, single dwelling residential
APPLICATION DATE
The city initiated this request on February 9, 2009. State statute requires a decision by
the city within 60 days of receiving an application. City staff initiated this proposal in lieu
of the typical application submittal requirements. Staff, however, is still working on
concluding this review within the standard 60-day timeframe. The deadline for this
review on that basis is April 10, 2009.
p:sec10\Garden Plots C and Hazelwood 2 09 te
Attachments:
1. Location Map and Land Use Map
2. Zoning Map
3. Site Plan
4. Ariel Photo
5. Letter from John Gregerson of First Evangelical Free Church dated February 5, 2009
6. CUP Resolution
4
~3
a
o~
o
a22f
IJ
~
::J
EJ
o
o
::J
o
CJ
~
J
EII
g
a
p
l:CI
o
EJ
~
;;t
r::
;;t
COUNTY ROAD C
D
PROPOSED PROPOSED
GARDEN PLOTS PARKING LOT
a
~D
a
o
o
BROOKS AVE
o
G
a
o
;:\
~
r1
o 0501
....
III
"
o
~
W
N
<(
:z:
f7l
LOCATION MAP AND LAND USE PLAN
CD
t~
]
'2lJ?r
o
COUNTY ROAD C
~o
n
r1
2561
f-
m
"
~
()
'"
<(
m
o
CJ
8IJ
G3
~
r1
[J
o
o
E:3
~Q ~
;!: '!!
;\
PROPOSED PROPOSED
GARDEN PLOTS PARKING LOT
l-
t/)
a
o
o
~
w
~ 26
:J:
[J
2,J;iL,
W
lI'1
25~
o
2588 0
o
E21
2555
Holy RedeemerParisil
o
0"
\>
2~
diiJ I2P
\iiJ 0:') r=J
f"-~~
~ ;!:
~01
~ 0
~
111 ~""
ZONING MAP
Attachment 3
()
o
s::
s:: s:: 0
c)>
Z-o
-l' ~
-< f'Tl '"
::E 0
C'l0
)>0
;:00 0
o 0
f'Tl
Z
Vl
~'EPARTMEm OF PUBLIC WORKS
. '"'1f51f} ENGINEERING DIVISION
~~
(651) 249-2400 FAX (651) 249-2409
COMMUNITY GARDENS
ON COUNTY RD C
2696 Hazelwood Street
Maplewood, MN
55109
651.777.5180 (phone)
651.777.1945 (fax)
wwwfirstefi:.org
February 5, 2009
II~~ @ ~ 0 [V] ~I~
~ ~ 0 9 2009 [~:
To the City of Maplewood,
By
On behalf of First Evangelical Free Church, we are very pleased to offer
approximately 4 acres of our property at 1534 County Road C to the City
of Maplewood for the purpose of operating Community Gardens for the
2009 growing season. We hope this will turn into the first of many such
years of Community Gardens on this property.
The Church grants the City the right to set fees and manage the gardens
as deemed appropriate by the City. We would, however, appreciate an
attribute statement in communications regarding the gardens that "Use
of the land is a gift to the community by First Evangelical Free Church".
It is the Church's understanding that this arrangement will be
formalized with a lease initiated by City and that any direct costs of
preparation ",nd administration of the gardens will be covered by the
fees as established by theCity.
Well, here's to a successful growing season and a growing association
between First Free and the City of Maplewood.
,
\
\
\
John Gregerson
Chairman, Project Beacon
First Evangelical Free Church of St. Paul, Maplewood
Attachment 6
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, John Gregerson, of First Evangelical Free Church, and the City of
Maplewood applied for a conditional use permit to operate community gardens on vacant
property owned by the church.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property located at the southwest corner of County
Road C and Hazelwood Avenue. The legal description is:
SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 29, RANGE 22, SUBJECT TO ROAD AND EASEMENTS AND
EXCEPT RY RfW AND EX S 103 FT OF N 393 FT OF W 207 5/10 FT OF E 659 8/10 FT
AND EX S 105 FT OF N 395 FT OF W 2075/10 FT OF E 867 3/10 FT OF THE N Y, OF NE
Y. OF NW Y. OF SEC 10, TN 29, RN 22.
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
1. On March 3, 2009, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff
published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property
owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak
and present written statements. The planning commission also considered the
reports and recommendation of city staff. The planning commission recommended
that the city council approve this permit.
2. On , 2009, the city council considered reports and recommendations
of the city staff and planning commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council
described conditional use permit, because:
the above-
1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in
conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances.
2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding
area.
3. The use would not depreciate property values.
4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of
operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a
nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke,
dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general
unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances.
5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not
create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets.
5
6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including
streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems,
schools and parks.
7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services.
8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and
scenic features into the development design.
9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects.
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. All construction shall follow the approved site plan. The planning staff may
approve minor changes.
2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of
council approval or the permit shall become null and void.
3. The city council shall review this permit in one year.
4. The city shall enter into a lease agreement with the property owner for the use of
this property as a temporary community gardens site. The details of that lease
shall be worked out with the Community and Parks Development Director or his
designee.
5. Grading and drainage plans shall be designed by the city's engineering staff.
6. Approval of this permit includes the installation of a gravel parking lot rather than
hard surfaced parking.
The Maplewood City Council
this resolution on
,2009.
6
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Acting City Manager
Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
Rezoning Request-R-R1, Rural Single-Dwelling Residence District, to
R-1S, Small Lot Single-Dwelling District
Saint Clair Hills
Carver Avenue, east of 2510 Carver Avenue
February 24, 2009
PROJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Mr. Jamie Jensen of Tyrus Land Company is requesting city approval of a zoning map change. His
plan is to eventually subdivide a 5.22 acre tract to create 16 single-dwelling lots. At this time,
though, he is first requesting approval of a rezoning from R-1 R, Rural Single-Dwelling Residence
District to R-1 S, Small Lot Single-Dwelling District. The subject property is located on the south
side of Carver Avenue east of 2510 Carver Avenue. Refer to the attachments.
Request
As stated, Mr. Jensen is requesting approval of a rezoning from R-1R, Rural Single-Dwelling
Residence District to R-1 S, Small Lot Single-Dwelling District.
The R-1 R zoning restricts the lot size minimum to two acres. The proposed R-1 R zoning would
allow lots to be as small as 7,500 square feet. Typical single-dwelling lots have at least 10,000
square feet of area. Five of Mr. Jensen's proposed lots would be less than 10,000 square feet.
BACKGROUND
In 2006, Mr. Jensen requested approval of a rezoning of this same property to R-1, single dwelling
residential, and was proposing 14 lots. He had proposed this rezoning during the South
Maplewood Development Moratorium and, consequently, also applied for a variance from the
moratorium for the consideration of this rezoning.
1. Strict enforcement of the moratorium ordinance would not cause an undue hardship
to the property or to the property owner. The applicant knew the property in question
was zoned R-1 R (which limits the type of development possible on the property)
when he purchased it and that the property could be subject to a moratorium when
he made application to the city.
On February 12, 2007, the city council denied the proposed moratorium variance and rezoning to
R-1 as follows:
A. The city council denied the moratorium variance request because:
2. There are no special circumstances or conditions in this case that warrant the city
approving a variance to the moratorium.
3. The proposed rezoning (and then the proposed subdivision) would be premature
and would not be compatible with the R-1 R zoning designation.
4. The proposed rezoning and subdivision would not meet the spirit and intent of the
moratorium ordinance. This is because the city put the moratorium ordinance in
place to study land use and zoning patterns in this area (among other things). The
proposed variance would remove the subject property from the study and thus from
any possible changes that the city decides to make to the land use and zoning
designations as a part of the study.
1. The request does not meet all the criteria required by the city for a zoning map
change. This is because the city cannot determine if the proposed zoning change
would have any negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension
of public services and facilities.
B. The city council denied the proposed zoning map change because:
2. Staff recommended that the city not grant the variance to the moratorium. The
moratorium prohibits the city from considering rezoning or development requests,
unless the city approves a variance to the moratorium.
3. The proposed rezoning was not consistent with the R-1 R zoning that the city
intended to use to preserve the semi-rural lifestyle and to minimize tract housing.
The city expects the R-1 R zoning and any development consistent with that zoning
to have lots at least two acres in size and to have wells and individual septic systems
(not using city sewer and water). The proposed plan as shown by the applicant for
the rezoning was not consistent with the R-1R zoning as it showed 10,OOO-square-
foot lots and the use of city water and sewer to serve the new lots.
DISCUSSION
Proposed Development
Mr. Jensen's conceptual subdivision plan is similar to his previous proposal in 2006, however he
has added two more lots, (from 14 to 16). The current lot sizes range from 8,441 square feet to
23,307 square feet in area. Five lots would be less than 10,000 square feet which would meet the
R-1 S lot size requirements if approved.
Comprehensive Plan Update Status
On December 8, 2008, the city council moved approval of the Comprehensive Plan Update which
allowed it to be forwarded to surrounding communities for their review and comment. When that is
completed, the Plan Update will then be submitted to the Metropolitan Council for their review.
A predominant aspect of the Plan Update is focusing on the importance of environmental
preservation and that development be guided toward applying conversation principles in order to
preserve and enhance the city ecologically and environmentally.
2
Current Plan vs. Plan Update
The current land use plan designates this property as R1, Single Dwelling Residential, with a
maximum density allowed of 4.3 units per acre or up to twenty 1 O,OOO-square-foot minimum single-
dwelling lots depending on the topography and other natural features of the site. The proposed
land use classification would be Rural/Low Density Residential which would allow a density range
of .5 to 1.5 units per acre or two to 7 single dwellings. The current land use plan classification
would potentially allow more density.
Interim R-1 R Code Amendment
Being that the Comprehensive Plan Update will not be fully adopted until later this year, the city
council has approved an interim ordinance which would allow the currently permitted development
density of 4.3 units per acre while providing environmental protections. This interim ordinance is an
amendment to the current R-1 R, Rural Single-Dwelling Residence District.
On February 23, 2009, the city council gave second reading to approving a revision to the
R-1 R zoning district by renaming it the Rural Conservation Dwelling District. The content of this
zoning district also was revised to allow the currently permitted development density maximum of
4.3 units per acre, provided a developer applies environmental practices that would safeguard the
land. A developer would have a choice of 18 environmental practices to choose from in order to
increase the density. For instance, these conservation principles or density incentives include
practices such as prairie restoration, clustering of homes, additional storm water management
practices and increased tree preservation to name a few. Refer to the attached ordinance.
Under the new ordinance amendment, the allowed density on property zoned R-1 R would begin at
.5 units per acre (a two-acre lot) up to the maximum density of 4.3 units per acre (a 10,000 square
foot lot), provided enough conservation principles were applied as density incentives to reach this
density. Staff does not know how many density incentives it would take since that would require a
thorough study of the property to evaluate any unknown features of the site such as wetlands,
steep slopes, vegetative cover or historic impacts.
Proposed Rezoning to R-1S
The applicant could proceed to develop his 5.22 acre parcel under the terms of the revised R-1 R
ordinance without a rezoning. To do so, however, he would have to apply several conservation
principles to achieve the proposed .33 units per acre.
Mr. Jensen, however, has applied for R-1 S zoning and this is what the city still needs to evaluate.
Section 44-1165 of the zoning code requires that, to rezone property, the city council make the
following findings:
1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code;
2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring
property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property
adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded;
3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community,
where applicable, and the public welfare;
3
4. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and
economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police
and fire protection and schools.
In considering these criteria, staff cannot make the determination that these findings would be met.
First, the proposed change to R-1 S would not be consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the
zoning code which is to preserve larger lots of a two-acre minimum in this area. Granted, the
maximum allowed density yields a higher number of lots. The recent R-1 R code amendment,
would preserve the density allowance in the current comprehensive plan while addressing the
council's goals for conservation and environmental protection.
Second, the proposal for R-1 S zoning would not be in character with the neighborhood. There are
no nearby lots that have been developed in this configuration or density.
Third, the city has just spend three years in discussions and neighborhood meetings with area
residents due to the south Maplewood development moratorium and the comprehensive plan
update process. The outcome was the council's goal for environmentally-sensitive and lower-
density development in the area around Carver Avenue.
Fourth, public utilities are near but not next to the property in question. They are now located to the
west of the site near the intersection of Carver Avenue and Sterling Street. The city or the
developer would need to extend the sanitary sewer and water to the east to serve this site to allow
the developer to construct the proposed subdivision. Before the city would allow such utility
extensions to occur, however, the city would require the completion of a feasibility study for the
public improvements. Such a study would help the city determine the size and location of the new
utilities and would ensure that such improvements wouid be done in a logical, efficient, and cost-
effective manner. The feasibility study also would include a financing plan for covering the costs of
the improvements including the preliminary assessments for each affected property.
Since there are not utilities immediately available to the site, and since the city has not done a
feasibility study for the extension of public utilities in this area, staff cannot determine if the
proposed zoning change would have any negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical
extension of public services and facilities. Therefore, the city should not approve the rezoning
request from R-1 R to R-1 S for the Saint Clair Hills development.
Department Comments
Enqineerinq-Steve Kummer. Staff Enqineer
. A cul-de-sac will be required at the end of the roadway.
. Most of the site appears to be within the shoreland overlay. Fish Creek would be considered a
protected water under the shoreland overlay and, therefore, would be subject to slope
development stipulations. At least six of the 10 lots on the east side of the proposed street may
be subject to bluff provisions (no development on a bluff-considered 18% slope or greater for
50 feet or more with a 40-foot, no disturb buffer near the toe and top of the bluff).
. The developer should be aware that an erosion control plan with construction phasing and
maintenance plan would be required with this development given the slopes and proximity to
Fish Creek.
4
Environmental Planner-Shann Finwall
. Development must comply with the tree ordinance for removal and the shoreland ordinance for
setbacks to the creek.
. Houses must be sound proofed to ensure that they meet state noise levels for housing near a
freeway.
Police-Lieutenant Shortreed
. Appropriate security and street lighting should be provided and maintained within the
development in order to assure that addresses are readily recognizable and accessible.
. Each residential unit within the development should have its own unique address number to
assure that emergency responses are not delayed.
. The developer should be encouraged to provide enough vehicle parking spaces for the
residents and their guests during special events and occasions.
,
. Construction site thefts and burglaries are commonplace and affect many construction projects
in the Twin Cities. When it comes time for building, the contractor should be encouraged to
plan and provide for site security during the construction process. On-site security, alarm
systems and any other appropriate security measures would be highly encouraged to deter and
report theft and suspicious activity incidents in a timely manner.
Conclusion
As stated above, Mr. Jensen could proceed with a development under the terms of the revised
R-1 R ordinance without a rezoning to R-1 S. However, in response to the request for rezoning,
staff cannot find that this request is.justified for the following reasons:
. A rezoning would not be consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code which
is to provide larger lots.
. The proposed R-1 S zoning would not be character with the neighborhood.
. The proposed change would not serve the best interests of the community.
· It cannot be determined, without first completing a feasibility study, whether public utilities can
be extended to this site.
. The possible environmental impacts are unknown so the city cannot foresee whether this lot
configuration is feasible based on the site's natural features like slopes, wetlands, trees and
creek setback requirements.
5
RECOMMENDATION
Deny the proposed zoning map change from R-1 R, Rural Single Dwelling Residence District to
R-1 S, Small Lot Single Dwelling District for the proposed 16-lot Saint Clair Hills single-dwelling
housing development east of 2510 Carver Avenue, based on the following reasons:
1. A rezoning would not be consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code which
is to provide larger lots.
2. The proposed R-1S zoning would not be character with the neighborhood since this
neighborhood is not developed with lots of this small size.
3. The proposed change would not serve the best interests of the community since the city
council, based on substantial citizen input, has determined that a lower density in this
neighborhood is preferred.
4. It cannot be determined, without first completing a feasibility study, whether public utilities can
be extended to this site.
5. It is unknown whether there would be environmental impacts to this site if developed in the
layout proposed.
6
CITIZEN COMMENTS
In 2006, staff surveyed the 16 surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the subject property
for their comments regarding Mr. Jensen's proposal. Since the current proposal is essentially for
the same lot layout, with the exception of two additional lots, staff did not resurvey the neighbors.
Those original comments are included below.
FOR
1. The rezoning is the right thing to do. We need to push for full development in this part of
Maplewood. My property taxes for 2007 are going up 28%, this on top of a 100% increase over
2005 and 2006. How can I, or anyone else, live under these conditions? The only way our
property is worth what the county is saying is to have it fully developed. It is great for the
neighbors to have rural atmosphere, but on whose nickel, or $7,300 in this case? It is time for a
reality check down here by all neighbors. Thanks. (Jay Libby - 2591 Carver Avenue)
AGAINST
1. We are opposed to the rezoning because we think it should remain rural. The taxes are so high
now that we could not afford city sewer and water assessment costs on top of that. They should
only be allowed to put two houses on that lot as it is currently. It is unfair to include the Ledo
property in the development when no deal has been made with the Ledosll (Schlomka - 2511
Carver Avenue)
2. I am for the moratorium as is! I am also opposed to the rezoning at any time. I moved to this
neighborhood because of the nature, the wild deer that you are killing off every fall. Now we
have wild turkey and other habitat in the area. With new homes and new residents, you will
have to destroy them too! Also is Fish Creek going to handle the run off, not only us up on the
hill, but also on the down side. We have a very unique part of Maplewood and it would be much
better to keep as is. Land developers are a dime a dozen and destroy much of our natural
beauty - and they say the housing market is downl (Woog - 2595 Carver Avenue)
3. Please see the e-mail message from Patty Gearin.
4. Please see the letter from Jim Kerrigan.
5. Please see the e-mail message from Tom Horwath.
6. Please see the e-mail message from Douglas Coombs.
7. Please see the e-mail message from Connie and Mark Wiegel.
8. Please see the e-mail message from Amy Kaiser.
9. Please see the e-mail message from Chris and Jane Jenkins.
7
10. Please see the e-mail message from the Baileys.
11. Please see the e-mail message from Sue Bonitz.
12. Please see the e-mail message from Mark Bonitz.
13. Please see the e-mail message from Ted Cyptar.
14. Please see the e-mail message from Patrick Bailey.
15. Please see the e-mail message from Nona Johnson.
16. Please see the e-mail message from Claire Jensen.
17. Please see the e-mail message from Jeff Jensen.
18. Please see the e-mail message from the Calhouns.
19. Please see the e-mail message from Uyen Campbell.
20. Please see the e-mail message from Dick Stehr.
21. Please see the e-mail message from Greg and Carol Thompson.
22. Please see the e-mail message from Carl Erb.
23. Please see the e-mail message from Carolyn Peterson.
8
REFERENCE INFORMATION
: DESCRIPTION
,ize: 5.22 acres
ing land use: Undeveloped
ROUNDING LAND USES
!: Single dwellings across Carver Avenue
1 and East: Ramsey County Open Space, Fish Creek and one single dwelling
Single dwelling at 2510 Carver Avenue
'JNING
Use Plan designation: R-1 (single dwellings)
ng Zoning: R-1 R (rural single-dwelling residential)
lsed Zoning: R-1S (small lot single-dwelling residential)
'ia for Rezoning Approval
>n 44-1165 of the zoning code requires that the city council make the following findings to
e property:
The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code;
The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring
property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property
adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded;
The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community,
where applicable, and the public welfare;
The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and
economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police
and fire protection and schools.
.lCATION DATE AND REVIEW DEADLINE
9
ty received this application on October 10, 2008. State law requires that the city council take
on this request within 60 days of receiving the request, however, the city may extend this
. deadline for an additional 60 days. Subsequent extensions of this review period must be
e applicant's written approval. Mr. Jensen has agreed in writing to extend his review
le twice. The current review deadline for this proposal is now April 8, 2009.
p:sec24-28\St Clair Hills Rezoning Request 3 09 #2 te
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Land Use Plan
3. Zoning Map
4. Address Map
5. Conceptual Preliminary Plat
6. 2006 Preliminary Plat Proposal
7. Applicant's Letter of Rezoning Request date-stamped October 10, 2008
8. Applicant's Addendum to Rezoning Request Letter date-stamped October 10, 2008
9. e-mail message from Patty Gearin
10. Letter from Jim Kerrigan
11. e-mail message from Tom Horwath
12. e-mail message from Douglas Coombs
13. e-mail message from Connie Wiegel
14. e-mail message from Amy Kaiser
15. e-mail message from Chris Jenkins
16. e-mail message from the Baileys
17. e-mail message from Sue Bonitz
18. e-mail message from Mark Bonitz
19. e-mail message from Ted Cyptar
20. e-mail message from Patrick Bailey
21. e-mail message from Nona Johnson
22. e-mail message from Claire Jensen
23. e-mail message from Jeff Jensen
24. e-mail message from the Calhouns
25. e-mail message from Uyen Campbell
26. e-mail message from Dick Stehr
27. e-mail message from Gre9 Thompson
28. e-mail message from Carl Erb .
29. e-mail message from Carolyn Peterson
30. R-1 R Zoning Ordinance Amendment
10
Attachment 1
Location Map
St Clair Hills
Carver Avenue
0:
W
f-
OJ
-;,
/-10
("
L,-,-'-'-_P
~
u:;
N
o
u:;
N
"-
OJ
'"
'if
O!
f::i
OJ
l.:.J
~
L. . ~",
1450,-,
L.J
~ . 'C=-.\ tJ'-:
'"~- -,:". ,
i,\' -~:..,
l.\
"-,.....--c'--:"
\i'"-'-'--~'
Ii
H
;(
\>:::>
'~~>.
""'-.
"":~:-\'
,j
)
o
D
G
"'
""
"'
N
~
0>
"'
N
"'
0>
"'
N
Carver Ave
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
r1
f1~IlCm!).\
Q;\(,!';
Sp9()'J
os
RAMSEY COUNTY
OPEN SPACE
LAND USE MAP
I I
o
N
<D
N
r1
!~
N
Attachment 3
,
Zoning Map
Sf Clair Hills
Carver Avenue
i.:\
N
Attachment 4
OU
,0 00
"
::J 000
'0
'"
'" .,
~
~
14.00
1440
Q
1447
o
o
::...---- \
Address Map
Sf Clair Hills
Carver Avenue
<~
~i
\-...!
[b~
~!
81
Attachment 5
l'
I! /
-/-\--/-
/
/
I,
I
I I
I:
I:
I:
c~~l
I
I :
I I
I :
I:
I:
I:
----1 I
I:
I:
--I :
I:
I :
I I
I:
I:
.-----1 :
I:
I :
I:
___---I I
I:
I :
I:
I :
I I
I :
I:
~:
I
I I
I :
I :
/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ -----------------
j-r-------------
i I
J ( / "-
..\ //---~,.......
\...........-.. /,./ ............
'- ..-'- ......."
.,..~::::=:;;;.::...-::~\\
1\
\.~~_:s.
.........-::--........
".;".
'\:::::::::::=.::~,.
~
"
~. ~.
~ ~ ., ~
/ I !
,,, ~
OJ' ! - I
:! E! I
, I I
L-_._~
~.- ~ -m "" ~,-
-.
I
L,
I
I
I
z
"\.
\'-..
." \
\i
II
\\
\ ""
"', "
/J~\~'::c.
~I
~I
~!
!
!
b
.
.
. \.
.
/
\
j
~
~
~
'"
'JoN"'''''''ooom~''t._,____,oa,~_'o<N'
I
I J
11/
I ffiQ [ 2575 I I 2595 I(!
m~ \
'C'-' I ",n "'UMB~P I I PiD NU",i8ER II.
2511 I ,,~j :';"'-0'';',,:',\1;;, 21.2622120007 .)','
I ~~J I ,", '".m," I I I.,
. - L _ _ _ _ _ _ ~.L..:~ _.L _ _ _ _ _ -1_ - ...L - - - - - - ~"i- - - - - - - __
CARVER AVE (C.S.A.H NO. 43} ';I: I ...
N 89'01)'37'" [ 6JUl .._..._..._..._..._..............
~ ~8
~~
PiD NUtviBER
2/,2822120017
R
R
R CARVER AVE.
r-
__--1
N 69'00' 'S-1<IO,o(I'"" '11:
/~:""-"_" b
i .I ~"'i)
, l
\. ",
\ '.
. \
\ '
, (
\\
i'
. I
//
.1/
//
.1/
/ .'
. /
i i
i '
. \
\. '
..1
\\
"
./
/,
.,..../
f"?:~:'/'
~;"j !
Ji j/-
(1;,//
..\~) .I
---./ Pi.... ...'......ER
' (' i U :'l\..IlVI~ _,
J -.' 21.2822130003
II
/ !
, i
I,
, /
I..
1.1
'j
./.,
.//
j (
./.~.:.=.::::::::._:
//
,t""........... /./
:..-:-..-..j ,......... \. .//
-.-.) \ i ("/
\ l jj
\. ",. ./ /
.,.., .::~:;...:::::::.::../..
"
,---------,
"If I
"I 1
1
I
"'"
5
'Hi NUMBER
~1::1a22'130001
r
I
1
I
I
L
r
I
~ .I
. 1
1
L
r
I
.I
I
I
L
2
,,.,
4
174.4
1
3
202.8
c
I
"I
I
I
I
:;: l.., I
8'" '
~ '
. ,
" '
z,' J?
170.1
I
1
1
-I
~
1
1
1
L
.
OPEN SPACE
'"
NB9",4'35"E
199.99
Att1lcltment 6
PIG NUtviBER
2l.2B22110002
----L
i
!
!
!
!
!
Ei,~. J:I.tjJ~8E~.. I.
':!t~O~L 1/.OOl).~
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
i
!
)
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
i
i
PRELIMINARY PLAT
d- 006 f>Y'l:\P07 ~ I
\r
N
Attachment 7
Tyrus Land Company
9314 62nd Place West
Mukilteo, Washington 98275
651 633-5010
~~O~T ~~'~B~W
Application for Zoning Change
May 16,2008
By
Introduction:
Tyros Land Company would like to develop 5.22 acres ofland near the intersection of
CarVer Avenue and Sterling Street into Rl S single family residential lots. The land is currently
zoned RlR We request a zoning change to RlS. This area of Maple wood is one of the most
studied areas in Maplewood history so we do not attempt to describe the area in detail. The
zoning change, without overall development plan, is needed to allow us to begin talks with
potential builders. The overall plan will be presented, when created, along with an application
for plat approval.
This request came before the Maplewood City Council at the end of 2006. At that time
we requested a rezone to RI and to develop the parcel into 14 single family 10,000 square foot
lots. Since that time the City Council has approved a development by Copar for lots as small as
6,000 square feet. Since Copar will be the driving force in the area we are planning lots of
similar size (7,500 square feet). It is still our intention to develop 14 lots but we will be watching
Copar to see if we should match their plan. The eventual plan will most likely be decided by a
builder.
a. The site plan for this parcel is attached. It is identical to the earlier site
plan except that it allows for two more lots. Due to its topography, size,
and configuration this parcel can only be developed with this footprint.
Zoning Application Filing Requirements
1. Attached please find a copy of the Maplewood Zoning Map showing the subject
property and a copy. of the plat showing the dimensions of the parcel
b. The appearance of any new construction will be similar to the surrounding
area and those homes built by Copar in the area. All new construction will
be in line with Maplewood Code requirements.
2. The property is intended to be used as a site for single family detached homes.
The City Council shonld approve this request because it is the proper use of the
land and comports with all code requirements of the City of Maplewood.
a, b, c. 1bis portion asks how the development will promote public welfare. The
law of this state does n<;lt require that a development promote public
. welfare but simply that it does not excessively burden the City. Single
family development of this parcel is the highest and best use of the land.
There are adequate public facilities at or near the parcel
3. There are no recent proj ect statements or narratives
4. A list of property owners within 500 feet is attached to this application or will be
supplied shortly.
5. There are no recent project plans for this project.
6. The application fee is enclosed.
Land Company
Attachment 8
Tyros Land Company
9314 62Ild Place West
Mukilteo, Washington 98275
651 633-5010
1fD)~@~Oill~~
illJ OCT 1 () 2008 ill.
Addendum to Application for Zoning Change
October 8, 2008
By
2.
Promote the public welfare by:
a
1. Reduce Traffic Congestion: This project would allow for the reduction of
traffic congestion by creating single family dwellings, rather than mlJlti-
family dwellings that would significantly add to congestion. Single family
use is the lowest traffic use of the land and therefore would remove this
property as a source of future traffic congestion.
2. Improve safety from fire and other dangers: Necessary fire hydrants would
be installed for the benefit of all surrounding property owners.
Development of the parcel will also remove the property from possible
sites for the dumping of junk cars, worthless appliances and other trash.
3. Providing adequate light and open space: Part of the expense of
development is the payment of a park dedication fee which is used to create
or protect light and open space.
4. Avoid Overcrowding: The proposed plat would allow for nearly the lowest
density allowed by the Metropolitan Council and the Comprehensive Plan
adopted by the City of Maplewood, thereby protecting against
overcrowding.
5. Conserve Property Values: By installing fire hydrants, as necessary, and
protecting the land from becoming a dumping site, plus the improvement of
the land with new homes, yards and neighbors, the surrounding property
values will undoubtedly be increased.
The proposed plat is a better use of the property for the City of Maple wood and for the
surrounding homeowners and others in the are. ~ n
\ I
October 8, 2008 _ JP;;yf), 1,\
J~ JensenU
President, Tyros Land Company
Attachment 9
Ken Roberts
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
wipersplus@comcast.net
Friday, December 08, 2006 9:43 AM
Ken Roberts
hrcbailey@comcast.net
A against a development Carver area
2575 carver ave Patty Gearin is for the moratorium and opposed to the re zoning of land at
any time. Needed nature wild life in this area. This would kill off and destroy all the
wild life. Fish Creek needs repair as is has been damaged and can not handle any more run
off. Not only us but on the hill and the other side. Keep as is and land developers out as
they are a dime a dozen. So make this clear I am against Tyrus Land Co. and any
developments any where in south Maplewood area.
P.S. This is in reference to reply needed for the city council of Maplewood,
Thank You
Patty Gearin
Wipers Recycling LLC
Shop 651-222-7247
Cell 651-231-3973
Attachment 10
'"',-,.-
,~.-- ~
December 5, 2006
Jim Kerrigan
2620 Carver Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55119
Ken Roberts
City of Maplewood
1830 County Road BEast
Maplewood, MN 55109
Re: St. Clair Hills Housing Development, Carver Avenue & Sterling Street
Dear Ken:
This will serve to respond to your neighborhood survey dated November 30, 2006, for
the following two requests by Jamie Jensen of Tyrus Land Company:
. Variance to the south Carver Avenue development moratorium
. Rezoning from R1 (R) to R1
At this time I do not support approval of either of these two requests by Tyrus. In a
letter I previously provided to your office, I detailed my concerns on the rezoning (see
attached letter dated October 26, 2006).
As relates to the development moratorium, it was put in place in order to provide the
City and interested parties a period of time to study and determine the appropriate
future land use for the south Carver Avenue area. The proposed Tyrus development is
located almost in the middle of the study area. Allowing them to build now may be
inconsistent with what is determined appropriate land uses for the area; furthermore,
allowing development of this site now may eliminate use options for the area.
A neighborhood group, Fish Creek Initiative, has now been formed to provide input to
the City in its study effort. This group recently held its first meeting with approximately
20 neighbors in attendance. It was very evident that they do not wish to see any
development in this area built to R1 density. There was a general consensus that no
development should be allowed to occur in this area until all input has been considered
through the study process.
Letter to Ken Roberts, City of Maplewood, December 5, 2006 - Page 2
The rezoning request by Tyrus is exactly what has been requested by Copar for their
proposed residential project in this area. As you are aware, Copar has now brought
legal action against the City following denial of their project by the City. It would seem
that if Tyrusis allowed to proceed forward, such action could be interpreted as arbitrary
and capricious and compromise the City's legal position with Copar. ~
With the development moratorium now in place, it seems most logical to study the south
Carver Avenue area as a whole and not allow any exceptions. Once the planning study
has been completed, Tyrus, if still interested, can undertake a project that is in
accordance with the agreed-upon findings.
Finally, I respectfully request that if action on the request by Tyrus moves forward
that this letter (and the attached October 26, 2006, letter) be included in your
staff report to the Zoning and Planning Commission and City Council. I would
also ask that I be provided staff reports on this matter. You may e-mail them to
me at the following: ikerriqan@hopkinsmn.com. If you have any questions,
please give me a call at 952-548-6340.
/!
Sin~r7lY /
c-' 1~>7/1~ / /?
',-~l<'1 i>::~/ ~
0im Kerrign
Attachment
lonse to neighborhood survey/moratorium variance and rezoning request - south of Carver A... Page 1 of 1
Attachment 11
n Roberts
lm: Tom Horwath [THorwath@ci.edina.mn.us]
nt: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 8:16 AM
Ken Roberts
bject: Response to neighborhood survey/moratorium variance and rezoning request - south of Carver Ave.
Ken
lppreciate an opportunity to formally respond to above mentioned subject. I do wish to make some specific
nents regarding the proposal/requests of Jamie Jensen, and some general concerns regarding any further
lopment in the area south of Carver Ave.
y family has been living on our lot on Carver Ave. for 15 years now. We first purchased the lot 20 years ago. Our lot
,elected after an extensive lot search in the east metro area. We found nothing comparable to it at that time. The
lot size, variable topography, and most important the density of trees not only on our land, but also throughout the
Iborhood. The area was, and still is, of rural character, yet so close to the Twin Cities where both my wife and I
~d to live, work and raise our family.
lave been a City Forester for 27 years. I have a great appreciation and love for trees. My favorite
,cape/environmental areas are forests or woodlots which are basically managed in a natural way - allowed to function
ninimal interferences and thus in a manner guided by nature's laws. Because of the proximity of our land, and that of
urrounding neighborhood, to the Mississipppi River, I regard the natural extended area to be classified as Riverine
,t Type. This type of forest is characterized by a more expanded diversity of species of trees than other forest types
enous to this area. As such, this forest type and other environmental characteristics of this Mississippi Bluff area
.rise a unique addition to the City of Maplewood. As such I think it would be desirable to protect wisely and with
on through the planning process. Both myself and my neighbors recognize the inevitability of some type of
lopment occurring in this area. I also regard my properly as an investment. The fine line is, what part of it is financial
itment, and what part is investment for the future generations of owners to enjoy the same natural conditions that we
and enjoy so much now.
: this point, for the sake of brevity, let me respond directly to some specific comments in the letter I received in your
cation packet. The statement in the letter from Tyrus Land Company that "The freeway has sapped the area of any
ining rural character" I found easy to disagree with. Wh!ln I walk my own land, or further through the neighborhood,
gh the extended woods, or even drive on the local roads which are surrounded by natural woodlots running almost
nuously, I see a rural look and feel a rural character. The continuity of this wooded area is what defines this
Iborhood. The preservation of this aspect is what we all hope can be addressed throughout the planning process and
9 any inevitable future development. I am aware of a DNR initiative in the metro area to connect, or re-connect the
Ired woodlots and natural wildlife corridors as much as possible - both on public lands and private as well. It would
I wise planning to me to not unnecessarily disconnect them in the first place.
hink the claim that the area is sapped of rural character displays a worrisome attitude which lacks any motivations to
Ipt to minimize environmental impacts, or preserve the broader characteristics of the neighborhood.
lother statement I wish to make comment on concerned the "benefit" for properties on the south side of Carver Ave.
[tending services. Since we have already purchased, and maintain a functional well and septic system, I don't see
:e extensions as a benefit, but only as an unnecessary and expensive financial burden.
lank you for the opportunity to respond. We appreciate the opportunity to have our voices heard in the decision
19 process which so greatly affects our quality of life in this wonderful neighborhood.
2670
c:.fli2.J:!3-IC. II \I~ .
12006
Page 1 of 1
Attachment 12
Ken Roberts
From: Coombsmpl@aol.com
Sent: Friday, December 08, 200610:26 AM
To: Ken Roberts
Subject: South Maplewood moratorium
Dear Ken,
Thank you for the notices on the moratorium and Public hearing notice regarding Tyrus Land Co. It is nice to be
informed.
I was not, nor am I now for or against the passing of the moratorium. But now that the City has passed it I believe it
should be enforced. I do not like flip flopping around.
The rules for South Maplewood change frequently and usually without any notice to those of us south of 494. I believe
the City needs to take the time afforded by the moratorium and develop rules for south of Carver that are consistent
with those of the rest of the city....and stick to them.
For example; there is a 1.27 acre lot across the street from me. Why should someone be allowed to build on it when I
cannot split my lot down to 1.27 acre parcels??????
Why were homes permitted to be built on the hills NW of me, interfering with my TV's and cordless phones without me
being included in the decision process. The city does not allow me cable, satellite, or regular clear TV. Yet my
property taxes soar because of the new homes which have all the amenities.
So tell me, why should we like it when everyone wants to destroy what rural surroundings we still have.
I think theTyrus land project is mostly good. Of course I would prefer it stay undeveloped, but that would not be fair the
the property owners who would like to sell, as many others in the area have already done.
I would like to see bike trails, safely connecting the parks in South Maplewood and Woodbury, and along fish creek
down to the Point Douglas Bike route. I would like to see a fire hydrant on the most eastward edge ofthe project on
Carver Avenue. I would like to see cable access required to this area and ALL of South Maplewood. I would Like to see
minimum lot sizes consistent with those in the area. I would like to see the area to have it's own water retention pond.
And a tornado siren in the development or within a few blocks.
I would like to see the business off the corner of Sterling on Carver removed Qt has insufficient off street parking and to
much traffic for a residential area).
Sincerely ,
Douglas Coombs
2700 Carver Avenue
12/8/2006
Page 1 of 1
Attachment 13
Ken Roberts
From: Connie Wiegel [conniewiegel@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 200611:55 AM
To: Ken Roberts
Cc: Diana Longrie (ExternaO; City Council
Subject: Moratorium variance and rezoning requests - St. Clair Hills Housing Development - Carver Avenue and
Sterling Street
RE: The Moratorium variance and rezoning requests - St. Clair Hills Housing Development -
Carver Avenue and Sterling Street (East ofI-494) Maplewood - requested by Jamie Jensen of
the Tyrus Land Company.
Dear Mr. Roberts,
We are writing to urge you to uphold the one-year moratorium on development that was
recently passed for the area south of Carver Avenue. The decision to do so indicates to us that
city leaders want to take a thoughtful, well-researched approach to potential development in this
entire area. This is exactly what we must do. Allowing any piece of the area to be sliced off
and developed without concern for the effect on the entire whole negates the purpose of the
moratorium and would be irresponsible.
I would also like to express my concern about how and who gets notified about these types of
issues. We live less than y,. mile from the proposed development site and did not receive
notification of the variance and rezoning request. It is only through a large network of actively
engaged neighbors that we were made aware of the situation. I ask that you reconsider your
policy on notification so that it is realistic for all areas of the city.
We are hopeful that the city will engage in this process fairly and transparently, in a way that
the concerns and input of all parties are respected.
Sincerely,
Connie and Mark Wiegel
2720 Carver Avenue, Maplewood
651-329-3776
12/7/2006
Attachment 14
Ken Roberts
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Amy Kaiser [amy.kaiser@hotmail.comj
Friday, December 08,20064:19 PM
Ken Roberts
Diana Longrie (External)
Response to Neighborhood Survey letter Dated 11-30-06
Dear Mayor Longrie, City Staff, and Council Members,
In response to the neighborhood survey that my husband and I received dated November 30,
2006, we are against the variance and rezoning request that Jamie Jensen of the Tyrus Land
Company is asking the city to grant him.
This moratorium was put in to place to give the city time to study the area.
There are Native American artifacts that have been found within feet of this piece of
property. If Jamie Jensen or any other person is allowed to develop, this could cause
conflicts and interfere with the moratorium.
This area is very unique and we must carefully consider the impact we have on the area.
The residents of this area live here because this is the type of lifestyle they choose to
live. I ask the Council to support the Comprehensive Plan honoring the citizens the right
to live the lifestyle they choose.
I also ask the Council to thoroughly survey the area for it's historical value. This
needs to become a priority included with the moratorium in order to honor the
Comprehensive Plans historical preservation corornittment.
I also would like to reguest that in the future all land owners in the moratorium area be
notified of any requests made that require a variance to the moratorium so that they may
respond also.
Thank you,
Amy Kaiser
Get the latest Windows Live Messenger 8.1 Beta version. Join now.
http://ideas.live.com
6'--';:: f2 L I N6
-=STR--Eb--i '$,
o~
Page 1 of!
Attachment 15
Ken Roberts
From: chrisjenkins@usfamily.net
Sent: Wednesday, December 06,20066:38 PM
To: Ken Roberts
Cc: hrcbailey@comcast.net; Diana Longrie (ExternaQ
Subject: The Moratorium variance and rezoning requests - St. Clair Hills Housing Development - Carver Avenue and
Sterling Street (East of 1-494) Maplewood - requested by Jamie Jensen of the Tyrus Land Company.
Mr. Roberts, We are emailing you regarding the request for a variance and rezoning by Tyrus Land Company. We
oppose the City of Maplewood granting this request due to the recent City of Maplewood imposed Moratorium so that all
the issues surrounding development in this area can be studied as a whole. To grant this to one developer, leaves the
door open for other developers to request the same treatment before the moratorium and studies can even be started.
Thank you for hearing us on this issue.
Chris and Jane Jenkins
1435 Sterling Street South
Maplewood, MN 55119
651-776-1651
--- USFamilv.Net - $8.25/mo! -- Highspeed - $19.99/mo! m
12/7/2006
Attachment 16
To: City of Maple wood
Ken Roberts - Planner Ken.Roberts@CI.Maplewood..l\1N.US.
Cc: Mayor Diana Longre mavorlongre@vahoo.com
December 5, 2006
RE: The MoratoriUIll variance and rezoning requests - St. Clair Hills Housing
Development - Carver Avenue and Sterling Street (East ofI-494) Maplewood-
requested by Jamie Jensen of the Tyrus Land Company.
My COIllIllents on the request:
I am against this variance and rezoning request because it will disrupt and
interfere with the one-year moratoriUIll that the City of Maple wood has had the
foresight to recently put into place.
This unique area needs to be studied as whole for its historic value,
potential traffic problems, the lifestyle preference of the present residents and
many other issues. Because it is important to study the area as one complete
piece, it is not appropriate to allow any pieces to be excluded - especially the
particular site in question, that directly borders on Fish Creek and is close to
areas where Native American artifacts have been found (artifacts have been
found on both sides ofI-494 east and west).
The City Council chose to support the Maplewood's Comprehensive Plan
that specifically honors historical areas and citizen's lifestyle choices. I support
the city's moratoriUIll and its plan to take responsible action. It is important to
bring together staff and the proper committees to research and study all of the
area included in the moratorium, so that well thought out decisions can be made
as to how this area can be responsibly conserved, zoned and developed in a way
that respects the Comprehensive Plan, the land, and the neighborhood lifestyle.
The site that Tyrus Land Company wants a variance and rezoning on is an
integral part of the area to be studied. It is directly related to Fish Creek and on
the path that ties the Mississippi River Corridor to Carver Lake. Therefore, I
want this variance and rezoning request denied.
I trust that the city will engage in this process with all parties involved to
insure that the thoughts, opinions, and perspectives of all its citizens are
respected.
Sincerely, Joe and Michael Bailey
::5-nE {ZL/N6
.;-r:
s,
Page 1 of 1
Attachment 17
Ken Roberts
From: Sue.Bonilz@deluxe.com
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 11 :42 AM
To: City Council
Cc: Ken Roberts
Subject: Tyrus Land Co. variance and rezoning request
Dear Mayor Longrie and City Council Mernbersr
First, I would like to thank you for listening to the citizens of Maplewood and passing the 1 year moratorium on
development south of Carver. The time needs to be taken to study it and it's effects to the area. The area can only be
developed once and it should be done right.
I strongly feel the request for a variance of the moratorium and rezoning by Tyrus Land Co. not be granted. Why should
we give one developer a variance until the whole area is looked at. Then the next developer will want one. The whole
area needs to be looked at as planned by the moratorium.
There were a many things that bothered me about Tyrus's reasoning behind why he should have variance and how the area
should be rezoned. Here are just a couple things that I felt they were really reaching on.
"We have not encountered any current resident that would prefer to have the property remain rural, save for Mr and
Ms. Bailey" Well I know for a fact, because I was at the city council meeting the night the moratorium passed (and
Tyrus was there too) that a lot of people spoke up against over-developing the area, myself included. Not to mention
people north of Carver and a couple residents from the North part of Maplewood.
- "The freeway has sapped the area of any remaining rural character." I feel is false. Our property backs up to the
freeway and we have a wonderful view of woods and nature from every window. We bought here because of the feel of rural
while still having close access to the city. Just because there is a freeway somewhere does not mean we can not
preserve what is left. Freeways do not always mean development. Look at other areas of the state where 35 and 94 run.
It is really OK to preserve the feel of the area, Fish Creek and the abundance of nature it provides.
What angers me is Tyrus and the other developers came in and bought this property knowing full well the zoning are now
holding the city hostage. Most developers option the land until every thing is approved. I know they have a right to
develop there land, but do it to the way it was zoned and responsibly. Maplewood is in compliance w2th the Metropolitan
council. It is OK to have land that is left a:bit open and to save areas of great beauty and that have great
environmental impact.
Finally, a note on the city's request for feedback by Ken Roberts was forwarded to me by a neighbor. I am upset that
the whole area in question was not sent the notification. I understand that their is a 500 foot rule. Which for this
area is not actually asking for a lot of feedback. It should go out to the whole area effected. It makes me feel that
the City really does not want a honest responses.
Sincerely,
Sue Bonitz
1635 Sterling St. S.
12/8/2006
.i
Tryus Land Company Requests For Zoning Change & Variance
Page 1 of3
Attachment 18
Ken Roberts
From: Bonitz Mark [Mark.Bonitz@thomson.netj
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 2:49 PM
To: City Council; Ken Roberts
Subject: Tryus Land Company Requests For Zoning Change & Variance
Importance: High
Dear Mayor, City Council Members & Ken Roberts:
Earlier this week I was made aware that the Tryus Land Company submitted a combined request
for a zoning change and variance to the current development moratorium in south Maplewood. I
was not made aware of this by the city even though I live in the area of south Maplewood that
is under the current moratorium. Someone needs to review the City of Maplewood' s notification
policy. I can assure you from comments of other concerned residents the policy is not working!
Common sense should have dictated that at an absolute minimum, the City should have
notify all of the landowners currently under the moratorium as this developer is requesting
a variance from the moratorium itself.
As a resident landowner in south Maplewood I urge you to respectfully deny both of these
requests without preJudice. The ink has barely dried on the enactment of the development
moratorium. Most certainly, now it is not the time to be examining snapshots of "islands" in
south Maplewood. Instead, we need to take the time to explore and refine the vision for this
area. Not just for the developers but for the current and future residents of south
Maplewood. Again. I urge you to enforce the current zoning and develooment moratorium
to allow us time to complete the work we have already agreed needs to be done.
Furthermore, in response to the Tryus Land Company's specific justification I submit the
following for your consideration:
On "Ripeness for Development":
Mr. Jensen states in his request "From a political standpoint the past actions of the City have
prepared the land for development" Mr. Jensen has a point. The City imposed a development
moratorium in 2002 at the request of south Maplewood residents. In 2003, the City, based on
the findings of fact established the R-l(R) zoning classification which among other criteria was
established to "protect the rural character of south Maplewood." In 2006 the City Planning
Commission unanimously rejected another developers request for a change in zoning that
involved a increase in density over its current RI-R classification. In short, the City has
prepared the land for development by listening to the residents of south Maplewood in the first
place and enacting the R-l(R) zoning classification.
12/8/2006
Tryus Land Company Requests For Zoning Change & Variance
Page 2 of3
Mr. Jensen makes reference to "...a study of the area...". I believe he is referring to the
E.A.W. study conducted on the property West of 494 that did not involve the Tryus Land
Company's property which resides to the East of 494. As I have pointed out in previous
correspondence, an E.A.W. applies only to a specific development plan. The environmental
conclusions identified in the original study apply to the subject property West of 494 and can
not be reasonably extended to the Tryus property. In fact, given the Tryus properties
proximity to Fish Creek I would urge the City to explore the need for a complete E.A.W. on any
development boarding the creek, including this site before any plan is approved.
On "Two Properties as a Island":
Unless the Tryus Land Company's proposal includes digging a moat around the property it is, not
in any way, means, shape or form an island on to itself. It is however a integrated and
significant part of the whole south Maplewood picture. Let us stay the course and work through
the tasks outlined in the moratorium.
On "Existing Zoning":
I agree! - today the land in question is zoned R-l(R) The Tryus Land Company knew this upfront
when they purchased the property out right. Moratorium not withstanding, why is it that
developers in this area of south Maplewood never really embrace the existing look and feel of
the surround neighborhood? Why do they always want more? Perhaps they just can't get no
satisfaction.....
On "Area Desire For Development";
Mr. Jensen states that he has not encountered any current resident that would prefer to have
the property remain rural. Sounds like a severe case of selective memory to me. Is he not the
same Jamie Jensen that attended the second reading for the currently adopted development
moratorium proposal? Did the fact that nearly everyone who voiced their comments, with the
exception of himself and one other developer, expressed their desire for the area to retain it's
rural look and feel. If not selective memory, perhaps developer ears.
On" Area Properties":
Tryus attempts to conclude that rising property valuations and taxes equate to an area's
ripeness for development. Truth is - most everyone's property evaluations and property taxes
have risen in recent years due to the shifting tides of revenue away from cities and counties by
the State.
On "The Broader Picture":
In response to Mr. Jensen's statement "The freeway has sapped the area of any remaining
12/8/2006
Tryus Land Company Requests For Zoning Change & Variance
Page 3 00
rural charm" That's a mouthful! I would suggest Mr. Jensen ask the Governor of Minnesota to
issue a proclamation that any land abutting a freeway, or that planes fly over, or that a
developer says so.....is hereby stripped of it "Rural Charm & Character" and is thereby declared
"ripe" for development. I'm sure the Governor will get right on it. You just can't make this
kind of stuff up.
Respectfully Submitted:
Mark J. Bonitz
A proud owner of Rural Charm in south Maplewood
12/8/2006
Page 1 of 1
Attachment 19
Ken Roberts
From: Ted L. Cyptar Investigations [tlcinvestigations@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 07,20069:51 AM
To: Ken Roberts
Subject: st. clair hills
it has come to my attention tyrus is requesting an. exemption from the moratorium. i would like the city council to first
make a decision on aligning the city zoning with the comprehensive plan. i also have heard there are live (5) developers
wanting to build developements not in compliance with city zoning within one mile of my residence. it seems to me these
developers have unreasonable expectations that the city does not respect and follow their own zoning rules. ted cyptar,
1645 sterling st. so. 651.459.9669. i would appreciate a response.
12/7/2006
Page 1 1
Attachment 20
Ken Roberts
From: Pat Bailey [pat.bailey@baileynursery.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 1:19 PM
To: City Council; Ken Roberts
Subject: Tryus Land Company Requests For Zoning Change & Variance
Dear Mayor, City Council Members, and Ken Roberts:
I'm writing to respectfully urge you to deny a recent variance and rezoning request made by the Tyrus
Land Company.
I support the recently enacted moratorium, as the whole area needs to be considered with respect to
Fish Creek, traffic issues, conservation considerations, and area residents' desires.
To grant anyone party a variance is wrong. Let's wisely use the one-year moratorium to ensure a
thoroughly well-thought plan for this unique area.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Patrick Bailey
1678 Sterling St S
Maplewood MN
12/1112006
Attachment 21
Ken Roberts
From: Johnson, Nona M [Nona.M.Johnson@HealthPartners.Com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 3:13 PM
To: Ken Roberts
Cc: mayorlongre@yahoo.com; hrcbailey@comcast.net
Subject: Moratorium Variance and Rezoning Requests - made by Jamie Jensen of the Tyrus Land Company
To: City of Maple wood
Ken Roberts - Planner
Cc: Mayor Diana Longre
December 6, 2006
RE: The moratorium variance and rezoning requests
- St. Clair Hills Housing Development - Carver Avenue and Sterling Street (East ofI-494)
Maplewood - requested by Jamie Jensen of the Tyros Land Company.
My comments on this request:
We have lived at 2513 Haller Lane (just off of Sterling Street) for six years and really enjoy
the quiet lifestyle this area gives us. The rezoning request that would give Tyros Land Company
the ability to go against the moratorium currently in place would disrupt and interfere with not only
the historic value and wildlife of this area but it would also cause the present residents many other
issues. Thus I am against this variance and rezoning request.
This unique area needs to be studied as whole for its historic value, potential traffic problems, the
lifestyle preference of the present residents and many other issues. Because ids important to study
the area as one complete piece, it is not appropriate to allow any pieces to be excluded - especially
the particular site in question, that directly borders on Fish Creek and is close to areas where
Native American artifacts have been found (artifacts have been found on both sides ofI-494 east
and west).
The City Council chose to support the Maplewood's Comprehensive Plan that specifically
honors historical areas and citizen's lifestyle choices. I support the city's moratorium and its plan
to take responsible action. It is important to bring together staff and the proper committees to
research and study all of the area included in the moratorium, so that well thought out decisions
can be made as to how this area can be responsibly conserved, zoned and developed in a way that
respects the Comprehensive Plan, the land, and the neighborhood lifestyle.
The site that Tyros Land Company wants a variance and rezoning on is an integral part of the area
to be studied. It is directly related to Fish Creek and on the path that ties the Mississippi River
Corridor to Carver Lake. Therefore, I want this variance and rezoning request denied.
I trust that the city will engage in this process with all parties involved to insure that the
thoughts, opinions, and perspectives of all its citizens are respected.
Moratorium Variance and Rezoning Requests - made by Jamie Jensen of the Tyros Land Company Page 2 of 2
Sincerely,
Nona Johnson and Vince Bastiani
Attachment 22
Ken Roberts
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Claire Jensen [clairejensen@visi.com]
Sunday, December 10, 2006 8:47 PM
City Council; Ken Roberts
Diana Longrie (Extemal>
Tyrus Land Company Request for Rezoning of Carver & Sterling area.
City Council, Mr. Roberts, and Mayor Longrie,
I understand that the Tyrus Company is trying to sneak through a Zoning change to our
beautiful, rural part of South Maplewood that is part of the newly imposed moratorium.
I find it very disturbing that the said company thinks that they can just push forward and
show no recognition or respect to the fact that the moratorium is in place. It should be
upheld 100% - NO EXCEPTIONS, otherwise, what is the point of having one?
The reason we moved here 5 years ago, was because of the the rural nature of this area,
please do not let it be destroyed and used up by money hungry developers.
Please also ensure that in future, that all residents of the moratorium area are
officially notified by your goodselves of any requests to defy the moratorium, instead of
finding out on the grapevine!!!!
Sincerely,
Claire B Jensen
2533 Haller Lane E
Maplewood, MN 55119
Attachment 23
Ken Roberts
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jeff Jensen ~effjensen@upstairstechnology.comI
Sunday, December 10, 2006 8:47 PM
Ken Roberts
City Council; Diana Longrie (Extemal)
Fish Creek area moratorium and zoning change requests
Dear Mr. Roberts,
~y neighbors and I are worried about certain types of development ruining our
oeighborhood.
~ few years ago, the city council voted to implement the RIR zoning in our area. We
Nelcomed this zoning change to maintain the living look and feel of this area.
~ecently, the city council passed a development moratorium for our area to allow
ievelopment study and holistically planning the area. We welcomed this decision too.
rhere are reasons the city council enacted the zoning change. Nothing has changed since
:hen, except land ownership. The original reasons still exist.
rhere are reasons the city council enacted the moratorium.
ve can execute the research and holistically plan the area,
iisconnected separate plans and intense density levels.
Let's uphold that decision so
instead of destroy it with
~e must uphold these city council decisions.
1e cannot allow one entity an exception, as then others will require it too.
1e must not build medium to high density dwellings in the Fish Creek area.
~he residents live there because of the low density, natural surroundings, and-wildlife.
[igher on the hills is one of the few places in the metro where one can see both
linneapolis and St. Paul downtowns. It is a special area from which to watch the 4th of
ruly fireworks with the neighbors, because of the visibility to many surrounding areas.
tedium and high density development will gestroy this pleasure, the wildlife, the natural
etting.
dditionally, the existing road infrastructure cannot handle the increased traffic load.
then the Wakota bridge project caused the routing of traffic up Sterling, just getting on
terling from our street, Haller Lane E, was regularly difficult in the morning, waiting
or an entrance spot in the illegally speeding traffic. That -time period was enough
nsight to understand the inadequacy of the existing roads and the impact of the speeding
raffic. Still, the Bailey and Sterling intersection is a problem.
lease uphold the existing moratorium and the zoning of RIR; we must not destroy the look
nd feel of this area, and must use the granted time to cohesively plan together.
incerely,
eff Jensen
533 Haller Lane E
aplewood, MN 55119
Attachment 24
To: City of Maple wood
Ken Roberts - Planner Ken.Roberts@CI.Maplewood.MN.US
Cc: Mayor Diana Longre mavorlongre@vahoo.com
December 5, 2006
RE: The Moratorium variance and rezoning requests - S1. Clair Hills Housing
Development - Carver Avenue and Sterling Street (East ofI-494) Maplewood-
requested by Jamie Jensen of the Tyros Land Company.
My Comments on the request:
I am against this variance and rezoning request because it will disrupt and
interfere with the one-year moratorium that the City of Maplewood has had the
foresight to recently put into place.
This unique area needs to be studied as whole for its historic value, potential
traffic problems, the lifestyle preference of the present residents and many other
issues. Because it is important to study the area as one complete piece, it is not
appropriate to allow any pieces to be excluded - especially the particular site in
question, that directly borders on Fish Creek and is close to areas where Native
American artifacts have been found (artifacts have been found on both sides ofI-
494 east and west).
The City Council chose. to support the Maplewood's Comprehensive Plan
that specifically honors historical areas andcitizen's lifestyle choices. I support
the city's moratorium and its plan to take responsible action. It is important to
bring together staff and the proper committees to research and study all of the area
included in the moratorium, so that well thought out decisions can be made as to
how this area can be responsibly conserved, zoned and developed in a way that
respects the Comprehensive Plan, the land, and the neighborhood lifestyle.
The site that Tyros Land Company wants a variance and rezoning on is an
integral part of the area to be studied. It is directly related to Fish Creek and on the
path that ties the Mississippi River Corridor to Carver Lake. Therefore, I want this
variance and rezoning request denied.
I trust that the city will engage in this process with all parties involved to
insure that the thoughts, opinions, and perspectives of all its citizens are respected.
Sincerely,
Paul & Cari Calhoun
2553 Haller Lane
Page 1 of2
Attachment 25
;
Campbell [ucampbeIl2@comcast.net]
lay, December 11, 2006 9:33 AM
~oberts
:ouncil; Diana Longrie (External)
, Land Company Variance and Rezoning Request
voice our ABSOLUTE OPPOSITION to Tyrus Land Company's request for a variance to the moratorium
rezoning in the Carver Avenue and Sterling Street area east of 1-494.
luments made by Mark Bonitz (a copy of which is attached below), George Gonzalez, Joe Bailey, Ron
lY many others in this area, in opposition to the requests by the Tyrus Land Company.
19 to request that we be added to the City's mailing list for notices regarding any development in this
ld Sterling Street area. Our mailing address is noted below.
ttention. We look forward to seeing you and other members of the Planning Commision on December
ote our opposition to Tyrus Land Company's requests.
ampbell
;5119
ler 08r 2006 2:49 PM
laplewood.mn.us'; 'Ken Roberts'
nd Company Requests For Zoning Change & Variance
'ouncil Members & Ken Roberts:
was made aware that the Tryus Land Company submitted a combined request for a zoning change and
'rent development moratorium in south Maplewood. I was not made aware of this by the city even though I
louth Maplewood that is under the current moratorium. Someone needs to review the City of Maplewood's
I can aSSure you from comments of other concerned residents the policy is not working!
should have dictated that at an absolute minimum. the City should have notify all of the landowners
under the moratorium os this developer is requesting 0 variance from the moratorium itself.
wner in south Maplewood I urqe you to respectfully deny both of these requests without preJudice. The
~ on the enactment of the development moratorium. Most certainly, now it is not the time to be examining
~s" in south Maplewood. Instead, we need to take the time to explore and refine the vision for this area.
evelopers but for the current and future residents of south Maplewood . Again, I urqe you to enforce the
f development moratorium to allow us time to complete the work we have already agreed needs to be
lponse to the Tryus Land Company's specific justification I submit the following for your consideration:
Page 1 of!
Attachment 26
Ken Roberts
From: dickstehr@earthlink.net
Sent: Thursday, December 07,2006 1 :02 PM
To: Diana Longrie (External); Ken Roberts
Cc: hrcbailey@comcast.net
Subject: Do not approve the variance request of Tyrus Land Co
Ken Roberts
Mayor Longrie
I oppose the Moratorium variance and re-zoning request by Tyrus Land Company for the St Clair Hills Housing at Carver
and Sterling.
This unique historic and natural area must be studied with in the context of an overall plan for the Fish Creek Area. This
is a critical site bordering the creek. The Comprehensive plan should be supported and a participative process used to
develop a vision for the area that includes the input of all the stakeholders and particularly the residents of the Fish Creek
area.
To approve the variance at this critical juncture of the newly initiated effort to develop a vision for the area would severely
limit options for connecting key resource areas ofthe Fish Creek and encourage a wide spread push to develop areas
before a study gets a chance to mature. Please retain the moratorium and do not grant the variance or rezoning request!
Sincerely,
Dick Stehr
2573 Haller Lane E
Maplewood, MN
12/7/2006
Attachment 27
::
Ken Roberts
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
GREGORY THOMPSON [thompsong@prodigy.net]
Sunday, December 10, 2006 8:24 PM
Ken Roberts
Diana Longrie (Extemal)
Re: rezoning Carver Avenue property
To: City of Maplewood
Ken Robers - Planner
cc: Mayor Longrie
December 10, 2006
Re: Moratorium variance and rezoning requests submitted by Mr. Jensen of Tyrus Land
Company
Mr. Roberts:
We have reviewed the request submitted by Mr. Jensen of the Tyrus Land Company for a
variance on the moratorium currently in place for land south of Carver Avenue. The
moratorium was put in place by the City Council in November so the effects of development
in the Fish Creek area could be studied. It is our understanding that the land to be
developed by Tyrus Land Company abuts the Fish Creek open space and would impact the creek
area.
Mr. Jensen has also requested that the area be rezoned from Rl-R to Rl. This was also
one of the items that the City Council specifically addressed at the meeting in November
and was to be included in the study under the moratorium.
It is our desire that Mr. Jensen's request be denied.
Sincerely,
Greg and Carol Thompson
1528 Haller Ct. S.
Maplewood, MN 55119
Page 1 of 1
Attachment 28
Ken Roberts
From: Jucaerb@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 200611:18 PM
To: City Council; Ken Roberts
Subject: Request for Variance/So.Mplwd
ltIayor Longrie,
::ouncil Members,
ItIr. Ken Roberts
have become aware of a developer formal request for zoning change and variance from the south Maplewood
noratorium, on property east of 494.
wish to again confirm my support for the moratorium on all property south of Carver Ave. The contractor/developer
:onclusion that, 'The subject property is ripe for regular residential development", is an opinion contrary to the
najority view of interested organizations and citizens of Maplewood.
Nhat is regular? The word itself lacks limits. Let's take the time to address inconsistencies in zoning and land use in
:his beautiful and unique area of the city. We need to balance development within parameters recommended by the
Jlanning commission.
_et's take the time to do it right. When it's gone it's gone.
~espectfully ,
::arl Erb
1354 Heights Ave. E.
v1aplewood, MN 55119
2/7/2006
Attachment 29
To: City of Maple wood
Ken Roberts - Planner Ken.Roberts@CLMaplewood.MN.US.
Cc: Mayor Diana Longre mayorlongre@yahoo.com
December 5, 2006
RE: The Moratorium variance and rezoning requests - St. Clair Hills
Housing Development - Carver Avenue and Sterling Street (East ofI-494)
Maplewood - requested by Jamie Jensen of the Tyros Land Company.
My Comments on the request:
I am against this variance and rezoning request because it will disrupt
and interfere with the one-year moratorium that the City of Maplewood has
had the foresight to recently put into place.
This unique area needs to be studied as whole for its historic value,
potential traffic problems, the lifestyle preference of the present residents
and many other issues. Because it is important to study the area as one
complete piece, it is not appropriate to allow any pieces to be excluded -
especially the particular site in question, that directly borders on Fish Creek
and is close to areas where Native American artifacts have been found
(artifacts have been found on both sides ofI-494 east and west).
The City Council chose to support the Maplewood's Comprehensive
Plan that specifically honors historical areas and citizen's lifestyle choices. I
support the city's moratorium and its plan to take responsible action. It is
important to bring together staff and the proper committees to research and
study all of the area included in the moratorium, SO that well thought out
decisions can be made as to how this area can be responsibly conserved,
zoned and developed in a way that respects the Comprehensive Plan, the
land, and the neighborhood lifestyle.
The site that Tyros Land Company wants a variance and rezoning on
is an integral part of the area to be studied. It is directly related to Fish
Creek and on the path that ties the Mississippi River Corridor to Carver
Lake. Therefore, I want this variance and rezoning request denied.
I trust that the city will engage in this process with all parties involved
to insure that the thoughts, opinions, and perspectives of all its citizens are
respected.
Sincerely,
__173V1
6'Ef~.-,-j Ft 6
;+ v E-N I/'E--
c:P~
~
Attachment 30
PROPOSED ORDINANCE MODIFYING THE R-1R (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.)
This ordinance shall take effect after the city publishes it in the official newspaper.
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, RUFGI Single DwelliR~ DictriGt Rural Conservation DwellinG 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) RUR.^.L 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
throuGhout certain areas of the community. The reGuirements of Ihis Rural Conservation DwellinG District are meant
to preserve and enhance the ecolOGical/aesthetic character by providinG incentives that: 1) reinforce and establish
ecolOGical connections throUGhout the city: 2) protect and enhance of drainaGeways and water Guality: 3) protect and
enhance ecolOGical communities: 4) preserve and improve of vistas: and 5) preserve or reinterpret local historical
landmarks.
Maplewood intenss te ~rotoct and onhanco tho cRm3cter of arms of tRe oity tRat, eecause of topography or other
mctors, de Ret Ravo, nor does tho city expect to have, municipal sanitary sewer or '/later service. To allow for and to
protect a very 10'11 density, 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
Packet Page Number
42 of 188
for suburban or tract development because of topography, vegetation or other factors that make the area unique.--llie
installation of munici~al sanitarj sowor ~nlil\8ly. 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 orinciples and initiatives identified in subsequent sections of this ordinance. To further
support the rural qualitv of the area, the densitv calculations in the R-1 R district shall be calculated on a net acre
basis which is further described Section 44-130 (b) of this ordinance. &\Jffi-Low-density residential development and
conservation development will lessen grading and soil erosion and will help protect ground water, vegetation and
wooded areas. The lots ami ~arccls in tho R 1 R zoning Elistrict are ~onorally much Ial1ler than those in Iho R 1
(sin~le dwelling) eistrict ane those with munici~al sowar anEl 'IIator.
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 Dr gardening, including the use or storage Dr 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 Dr 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 structure(s) shall have side yard setbacks as defined in table 44-120.1
and shall be measured from the property line to the structure. of 3t least thirty (30) foot from 3 side PFOPort'l
ltfI&.- 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.
Packet Page Number
43 of 188
(d) ~Io person sl1all build a siRgle dwolling OR a lot with loss thaR eRe l1umlred tWORty (120) feet ofwiath at the
Ir-eRt BuilaiRg setBael1 Iino. The followino table idenlifies the minimum lot area and lot width based on Ihe
conservation tiers:
Table 44-1201
Conservation Tier Densitv Minimum Area Minimum Side Yard Front Yard
Ranoe Frontaoe 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' IT 30'
Principles)
Tier III (6-7 3.6 - 4.3 UtA 7.500 SF 50' 1.Q: 20'
Principles)
(e) Each interior lot shall have at least fifty (50) feet of frontage on an improved public street.
(0 Each corner lot or parcel shall have at least eighty (80) feet of frontage on each of Ihe public streets.
Sec. 44.121. Front Yards.
(a) Each dwelling and any accessory struclure(s) shall have a front yard setback as defined in table 44-120.1.
Except that:
1) If each of the 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 the above, if the city council has approved special setbacks for a developmenl,
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 t.he existing setback.
5) In all cases, the accessorv structures shall be no closer than the principle structure unless
approved bv the Citv 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, heaith Dr safety reasons.
Sec. 41122, Side yards, (Moved to previous section and Table)
Eacl1 d'Nelling aRd any accoscory strustur-e(s) shalll1a'le sido yare sotbaclls of at loast tl1irtj (30) foot from a sido
proporty Iino. The following QxcoptioRs to this standanJ shall apply:
tat Tho sido yarD on tho strDot siae of a SOrRor lot sl1alll1avo a wirjlh of at leaot fifty (€iO) foot.
f9l When a pr-eporty OWRor usos two (2) or fRora aajoining lots as a singlo Building sito, Iho siae yard
ra~UirOfRORts shall apply only to tile outsido lot liRos.
Packet Page Number
4401188
(Gt R00ar<Jloss of the 3bo'18, 110R1oowRors may add OR to thoir homos ~GiR0 tho oxistiR0 sotlJaek.
Sec. 44-123. Rear Yards.
(a) Sin01e dwellin0s shall have a rear yard setback of at least Iwenty (20) percent of the lot depth. or a R1iRim~m
[{Jar sotbael( of fifty (5Q) feet. '.'Ihiel1e'lor is lar0er.
(b) Accessory buildin0s shall have a rear yard setback of at least thirty (30) feet.
Sec. 44-124. Tower, antenna and flagpole setbacks.
Antennas and fla0Poles for residential (non-commercial) use in the R-1 (R) zonin0 district shall meet the same
setbacks as accessory buildin0s in the R-1 (single dwellln0) district.
Sec. 44-125. Minimum foundation areas; room requirements.
(a) The minimum foundation area shall be at least:
1) A one-story dwellin0, nine hundred fifty (950) square feet.
2) A one and one-half story dwelling, seven hundred twenty (720) square feet.
3) A bi-Ievel dwellin0, eight hundred sixteen (816) square feet.
4) A tri-Ievel dwellin0, seven hundred sixty five (765) square feet.
5) A two story 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 primarv frontaqe any sido 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 0arages in the R-1 R zoning 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 44-1271 Accessorv Sizes
Detached BUildings (Max Attached Garages (Max Combination of detach
Area, Square Feet) Area, Square Feet) buildin0s and attached
Garage (Max Area)
Tier I 1.400 (garages), 1,100 1.400 2,800
(other)"
Tier II 1 000 SF Total 1000 1480
Tier III 850 SF Total 850 1,000
Section 3. This section adds the conservation principles and conservation desiqn standards to the R-1R
zonina 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, and subsequent density bonuses as described in Table
Packet Page Number
45 of 188
44-130.1. shall onlv be aranted IF they exceed the minimum standards set forth in the existino Citv ordinances that
relate to environmental protection as identified in. but are not limited to. Ordinance Chapters 12 and 44.
It shall be noted that the City has several ordinances that control and define natural resources and environmental
oualitv. in all cases. the more restrictive ordinance shall applv and it is the developer's responsibilitv to discuss any
issues or ~uestions reoardino the applicable ordinances wilh the City Planner.
The developer shall be aware that the conservation principles shall be subiect to the recommendations of
the city staff. applicable commissions. planninq commission and ultimate approval bv 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 Council approval the Developer will be
entitled to a base entitlement of one unit per two acres with a 2.0 acre lot minimum.
In all cases. the Developer shall receive a density bonus as described in Table 44-130.1 ONLY if the development
inteorates the Conservation Principle as a dominant Iheme throuohout the proposed development. This shall be
re~uired of all proposed conservation principles. The City's oblective is to maintain the rural oualitv of the R-1 R
district and encouraoe conservation principles and development in the citv's areas with natural resource oualitv.
Table 44-128.1 identifies the Conservation Principles that mav oualifv for densitv incentives. The table is cateoorized
into two oroups: Group A - Natural Characteristics and Group B - Desion Characteristics. The shall be reouired to
present a diverse set of conservation principles for a site. Additionallv. the developer is encouraoed to use a mix of
conservation principles and mav not duplicate principles and receive a densitv incentive in exchanoe. For example if
the developer proposes to preserve a laroe wooded area and conseouentlv preserves an important stand of oak
trees. the developer will receive the densitv incentive for one conservation principle not two.
Table 44-1281 Conservation Principles for Densitv Incentives
Group A: Natural Characteristics Group B: Desiqn Characteristics
Additional Shoreline Buffers Clusterino
Additional Stormwater Manaoement Create/Develop Trail Connections
Creek Restoration Manaoement Create Passive Parks
Dedicate 50% Open Space Enerov Efficiencv
Enhance/Preserve laroe wooded areas or forest Historic Preservation
Enhance Wetlands. Create Manaoement Plan LEED Certified Buildinos/Development
Prairie Restoration Low Impact Development (LID)
Slope Buffer Preservation Preserve and Establish Natural Area Greenwavs
Tree Preservation Vista Shed/Corridor Preservation
GROUP A: Natural Characteristics
The fOllowino conservation principles are defined for this ordinance as natural characteristics because the directlv
applv specificallV to naturallv occurrino characteristics on a site. The principles are presented in alphabetical order.
Additional Shoreline Buffers: Bevond those alreadv identified in the Shoreland Overlav District. the creation and plan
for permanent protection of protective buffers around those areas which are more sensitive to the neoative impacts of
development. especiallV areas that are defined as bluffs or steep slopes. where critical habitat mav dwell, near
Packet Page Number
46 of 188
historic tree clusters or heritaqe trees etcetera for which the additional buffers may yarv or be ayeraqed near the
location of protection importance.
Addffional Stormwater Manaaement: The City has existinq stormwater manaqement policies, but there is opportunitv
to further improve the stormwater manaqement on a site. The deyeloper shall be qiven a density bonus GFOOif.for a
stormwater manaqement plan, and implementation that exceeds the City'sexistiJ1q policy.
Creek restoration manaaement: Restoration proiects that the Citv belieyes would assist in the restoration of Ihe
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 tvpes 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 qreenwavs by implementinq conservation easements. or additional buffers in riparian
corridors.
Dedicate 50% Open Space: Open space is defined as public or publicly held and privata land that is qenerally
natural in character and contains relatively few human-made structures. Crodit will bo qiyen The Developer can
achieve a density bonus for dedication of 50% of a site to open space. If wetlands or opon water are present on a
sito tRe Il1Glcill1~R1 contrisution lor wotlaml or opon wator te tllis standard shall bo 25 porcont. and tRe rOll1alninq GrOG
cOR1prisod of othor upland aroas. The open space dedication must be developable or have buildable qualities in
order to achieve this principle. This conservation principle will be mandatorv to achieve the full density allocation.
Enhance/preseNe lame wooded areas or forest: An act of deliberatelv avoidinq the removal of clusters of structurallv
healthy mature trees and understorv trees which are native to the area and non-invasive, individual heritaqe trees
which are structurally 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
qf the trees on site, and must show a polyqon area on the site with permanent protection plan, that the developer
shall impiement. for the areas to be preserved and a manaqement plan includinq removal of invasive species on the
site.
Enhance wetlands, create a Comprehensive Wetland Manaaement Plan ICWMP): 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 developmenl 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.
Prairie Restoration: After performinq a historical analysis to determine pre-settlement conditions, prepare a plan for
prairie restoration with a specific manaqement strateqv that the developer shall impiement. 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.
Slope buffer preseNation: A development plan that deliberatelY avoids placinq any structuros or lots, in the buffer
area of a slope exceedinq 12 percent. or as described in the city's slope ordinance section 44-1238 and buildinq
code section 12-308. 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 and how it exceeds the current slope ordinance
Packet Page Number
47 of 188
requirements. GfeGi! A density bonus will be Given for those plans that exceed the standards identified in the current
steep slopes ordinance.
Tree Preservation: Throuqh means of a tree inventory, identifyinG the most siGnificant trees on a site and
permanently protectinG them. The Deyeloper shall be reGuired to present a plan for protection.of these trees, and will _
be reGuired to demonstrate how these trees will be inteGrated as a key component of the development. Examplos
inslusa pmtestinq a luFflO, hoallRY, Oal\ treo on a silo fFOm Beinq romoved for a roadway.
GROUP B: Desiqn Characteristics
The followinq conservation principies relate to the desiqn of a proiect or of a site. The principles are presented in
alphabetical order.
ClusterinG: A desiGn techniGue that Groups housinG 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 vistas views.
Create/Develop trail connections: A plan that illustrates the deyelopment 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 existinG trails. GfeGit.A densitv bonus will be qiven for the development and
construction of the trail not for the land dedication which will be considered part of the citv's parkland dedication fees.
Create passive parks: An area set aside throuqh Ihe deveiopment process that is environmentally sensitive and may
or may not be developable. These parks may support passive uses such as walkinG trails. boardwalks and nature
observation areas, bul some areas mav be too environmentally sensitive to accommodate any public access. GfeGi!
A density bonus will only be Given for passive dedicalion areas that are permanently protected and that are dedicated
to a public entitv.
Enemvefficiencv: UsinG the Minnesota Greenstar ProGram, develop enerGV efficient and Greenstar rated proiects
and buildinGS. GfeGit.A densitv bonus will be Given when the developer utilizes the prOGram to creale a 'theme' in a
development and uses the Greenstar and conservation principles In marketinG the proiect.
Historic Preservation: IdentifyinG and protectinG throuGh permanent means, any historically siGnificant areas on a
specific site. Examsles incluse srotoclina an arsRaooloaically sianificant aroa, rGstorina 3 historical barn, or
sresorvina aR imoortunt trail. If historical preservation is proposed as a conservation principles, the city's Historical
Preservation Commission shall review and provide recommendations to the City Council reqardinG this principle. To
reinforce the historical Guality, a siqnaGe plan shall be included to clearly communicate the historical siGnificance of
the area or artifact.
LEED certified buildinGs/development 13 Practices per structure): A national set of standards for buildinqs and
neiGhborhoods that focuses on the principles of Green buildinG, smart qrowth, sustainability and healthv livinG. The
tEED for NeiGhborhood Development Ratinq Svstem provides independent. third-partv verification that a
development's location and desiGn meet accepted hiGh levels of environmentally responsible, sustainable
development. GfeGit.A densitv bonus will be qiven for a minimum of 3 practices in the tEED standards certification
criteria. The density bonus shall onlv be Given if the LEED standards are applied to all structures throuqhout a
development. Deyelopers are encouraGed to seek LEED certification.
Packet Page Number
4801188
Low Impact Development IUD): An ecoloqicallv friend Iv 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 svstems and hvdroloqic functions of a site. In all cases.
the developer must minimize the impervious surface coveraqe to achieve low impact deveiopment. and must be a
minimum of 5% below the 30% coveraqe standard allowed. This must be accomplished in conlunction with other LID
techniques to achieve this principle. In order to achieve this principle the developer must demonstrate how thev will
achieve these principles. For Q)(3A1sle. number and quantity of rain qaFElens. the use of sorous paveA1ent. roduction
of impervious suFfuso aAd road widths.
Preserve and Establish Natural Area Greenwavs: The dedication. maintenance or manaqement of an area identified
on the Citv's Natural Areas Greenwav map. The Natural Area Greenwav is defined as lame contiquous areas of
natural habitat that cross ownership boundaries.
Vista shed/corrldor preservation: A site plan or development pattern that is desiqned specificallv to protect an area on
or near the development site that Is viewed as inteqral to protectinq the sense of place. whether the features in the
vista are cultural. historical or natural or whether thev are viewed from the street or within the development site.
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
propertv's ecoloqical connections both within Maplewood and as part of the reqlonal ecoloqical svstem. If
the developer chooses not to use a conservation approach the developer mav 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, submil a natural resources evaluation of the site. includinq all of the
followlnq elements. this step is in preparation for meetinq with the Citv Planner and should be completed
prior to developinG a concept plan:
1) Tree survev. includinq all siqnificant individual trees Greater than 6 inches in diameler. and stands
of trees. identifvinG tree species and size.
2) Wetland inventorv. includinq delineation reports: and MnRAM verification
3) TOPOGraphic survev indicatinq existinq drainaqe patterns. This shall include one foot 11') contours
for steep slope areas 10 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 preliminarv natural resource
information collected in step (b). The principles utilized to achieve hiqher densities on a site must be
aaare'led reviewed and recommended by the City Staff. PlanninG Commission and approved by the
City Council. The conservation principles and correspondinq densitv 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.
Packet Page Number
49 of 188
2) A description of the conservalion principies that are used and the correspondino density bonus and
unit count as the developer understands it. This shall aiso 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 Citv's exislino natural resource ordinances.
3) A oraphlc that demonstrates oenerallv how the lots would be laid ouLand the unit tVJJes proposed
as part of the development.
4) A narrative that describes the conservation principles used in the concept plan and supportino data
demonstratino how the concept meets the standards of existino ordinances, and data
demonstratino 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 ecolooist or ecolooical firm. The City shall reserve the rioht. if
needed, to hire their own ecolooical expert at the cost of the developer 10 verify and further
understand the plans submitted bv the Applicant.
6) Submit twenty (20) copies of items 1 throuoh 4 for informal or non-bindino comments bv City Staff,
Plan nino Commission and Citv Council. Each body will provide feedback and recommendalions to
the Developer so that they understand the chanoes they need to make movinq forward to the
preliminarv plat. It will be UP to the City 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 inteqrale the suoqeslions and recommendations
and prepare a preliminarv plat and final plat submiltal in accordance with section 34-5 of the subdivision
ordinance.
(D A full developer's aoreement as well as any necessarv aqreements or documents that document the
conservation principles and how thev will be upheld will be re~uired as a part of any final plat approval. This
shall also include, if applicable, any dedication or transfer of property for the purpose of permanent
conservation shall be compieted prior to final plat approval or buildinq permits or the issuance of any
buildino permit.
Packet Page Number
5001188
Sec. 44.130 Densitv Bonus Standards
The followino densitv bonuses shall be rewarded based on the number of conservation principles (as identified in
Table 44-128.1) inteorated within a deveiopment. The conservation principles and their application must be aoreed
to bv both the developer and the citv.
(a) The units obtained throuoh the densitv bonus calculation shall aiwavs be rounded down to the nearest
whole number.
(b) The densitv and number of units shall be calculated on a net area basis. Net densitv shall be defined as the
number of dweilino units per acre exclusive of arterial streets and rioht of wavs, steep slopes (in excess of
18%), wetiands and water features, and other publiclv dedicated improvements such as ~arks.
T abie 44-130.1 Densitv Bonus Allotment for Conservation Principles
The followino table identifies the baseline entitiement for all propertv zoned R-1 R of 0.5 Units per acre. All densitv
bonuses are cumulative and the percentaoe bonus calculated as such.
Densitv Number of
Ranqe Conservation
Principles
Tier1: Q
0.5-1.5 1
2
Tier2: ~
1.6 - 3.5 1
5
Tier 3: 2
3.6-4.3 7'
Densitv Bonus fHousinq Units)
Number of Lots on a 10 Acre'
Site (Example)
None - base entitiement of 2 Acre Lots
50%
100%
5 Lots
llots
10 lots
16 lots
24 lots
32 lots
36 lots
43 lots
50%
100%
20%
The asterisk in Table 44-130,1 denotes a mandatorv conservation principle of protectino fiftv percent (50%) of a
proposed proiect in oPen space. A manaoement plan for all protected open space shall be reouired to achieve final
plat approval. Potential options include manaoement bv a Homeowners Association, dedicated.to a public use Dr
interested aoencv.
The City Council approved the second reading of this ordinance on
,2009.
The City Council approved the first reading of this ordinance on February 9, 2009.
Mayor
Attest:
Packet Page Number
51 of 188
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Planning Commission
Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner
Open Meeting Law Discussion
February 25, 2009 for the March 3 Planning Commission
Meeting
The Minnesota Open Meeting Law (Minnesota Statutes, section 130) requires
that meetings of governmental bodies generally be open to the public. The
Minnesota Supreme Court has articulated three purposes of the law:
1. Prohibit actions being taken at a secret meeting where it is impossible
for the interested public to become fully informed about a public
board's decision or to detect improper influences.
2. To assure the public's right to be informed.
3. To afford the public an opportunity to present its views to the public
body.
Alan Kantrud, city attorney, will be present at the March 3 Planning Commission
meeting to summarize the Minnesota Open Meeting Law and how it impacts the
commission.
Attachments:
1. Minnesota House of Representatives Open Meeling Law Information Brief
2. Minnesota Open Meeting Law
3. Alan Kantrud Open Meetin9 Law White Sheet (2-3-09)
A1tQGhme{]-t-j
-_'liil\-""'~}t""'"
~~ _ .D~..
Research Department
"'1Mi....-tQ'u;-..Q"'".<;,B.!ln_...'..,fiues,.,
~fI.!2'~~~~J.~i. ~~2M~~~&.,%-tt1t
600 State Office Building
St. Paul, MN 55155
Deborah A. Dyson, Legislative Analyst
651-296-8291
Revised~lI'
Minnesota Open Meeting Law
~""'''''''~\iI_~_Jliu~lequires that meetings of governmental
bodies generally be open to the public. The Minnesota Supreme Court has
articulated three purposes of the law:
· To prohibit actions being taken at a secret meeting where it is impossible
for the interested public to become fully informed about a public board's
decisions or to detect improper influences
· To assure tbe public's right to be informed
· To afford the public an opportunity to present its views to the public body'
This information brief discusses the groups and types of meetings covered by the
open meeting law, and then reviews the requirements of and exceptions to the law
and the penalties for its violation.
Contents
Groups and Meetings Governed by the Open Meeting Law ...................................2
Requirements of the Open Meeting Law.................................................................5
Exceptions to the Open Meeting Law......................................................................7
Penalties..... .................................. ................. ......... ........ .......................... ............ ..II
Advice ....................................................................................................................12
I Minn. Stat. ch. 13D (recoded from Minn. Stat. ~ 471.705 in 2000). The Minnesota Open Meeting Law was
originally enacted in Laws 1957, chapter 773, section 1.
, Prior Lake American v. Mader, 642 N.W.2d 729, 735 (Minn. 2002) (citing Sf. Cloud Newspapers. Inc. v.
District 742 Community Schools, 332 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Minn. 1983)). While the courts consistently say that the open
meeting law is to afford the pnblic an opportunity to present its views to the public body, there is no general right for
members of the public to speak at a meeting. Some statutes, and perhaps some home rule charters, specifY that a
hearing on a particular matter must be held at which anyone who wishes to address the public body may do so. See,
e.g.. Minn. Stat. ~ 117.0412, subd. 2.
Copies of this publication may be obtained by calling 651-296-6753. This document can be made available in
alternative formats for people with disabilities by calling 651-296-6753 or the Minnesota State Relay Service at
711 or 1-800-627-3529 (TTY). Many House Research Department publications are also available on the
Internet at: www.house.mn/hrd/hrd.htm.
House Research Departmeut
Minnesota Opeu Meeting Law
Revised: November 2008
Page 2
Groups and Meetings Governed by the Open Meeting Law
The law applies to all levels of state and local government.
The open meeting law applies to:
· a state agency, board, commission, or department when it is required or permitted by law
to transact public business in a meeting;
· the governing body of any school district, unorganized territory, county, city, town, or
other public body;
. a committee, subcommittee, board, department, Dr commission of a public body subject
to the law; and
. the governing body or a committee of a statewide or local public pension plan.'
"Public body" is not defined but the Minnesota Supreme Court has stated that "[i]n common
understanding, 'public body' is possibly the broadest expression for the category of
governmental entities that perform functions for the public benefit.'''
In determining whether the open meeting law applies to a particular entity, one should look at all
of the entity's characteristics. For example, in a 1998 case, the Minnesota Supreme Court held
that because the statute authorizing creation of a municipal power agency authorized an agency
to conduct its affairs as a private corporation, it could hold closed meetings.' The court held so
notwithstanding the statute that provides for municipal power agencies to be political
subdivisions ofthe state.'
The open meeting law and the Government Data Practices Act apply to the University of
Minnesota Board of Regents, and the application of these laws to the university does not violate
the university's constitutional autonomy.'
'Minn. Stat. ~ 13Dm, subd. 1.
4 Star Tribune Co. v. University a/Minnesota Board o/Regents, 683 N.W.2d 274, 280 (Minn. 2004).
'Southern Minn. Mun. Power Agency v. Boyne, 578 N.W.2d 362, 364 (Minn. I 998)(citing Minn. Stat. ~
453.54, subd. 21, and discussing the factors that distinguish a public corporation from a private corporation).
'Minn. Stat. ~ 453.53, subd. 1,11 (I) (The agency agreement shall state: "(I) That the municipal power agency
is created and incorporated. .. as a municipal corporation and a political subdivision ofthe s~ate. to exercise
thereunder a part ofthe sovereign powers of the state:").
, Star Tribune Co., 683 N.W.2d 274. In 2002, Mark Yudofresigned from the presidency of the University of
Minnesota. When finalists for the position had been selected but not announced, the Board of Regents closed a
meeting to interview them, ensuring their privacy. The university asserted that its constitutional autonomy meant it
was not subject to these laws. A number of newspapers sued, claiming that the university is subject to the open
meeting law and data practices act, and that it violated both laws. The district court and court of appeals agreed with
the newspapers, and the state supreme court affirmed those decisions.
louse Research Departmeut
linnesota Open Meeting Law
Revised: November 2008
Page 3
:he law generally applies to nonprofit corporations created by governmental entities.
'he list of groups covered by the open meeting law does not refer to nonprofit corporations
reated by a governmental entity. However, the law creating a specific public nonprofit
orporation may specifY that it is subject to the open meeting law.' In addition, corporations
reated by political subdivisions are clearly subject to the open meeting law.'
;atherings of less than a quornm ofa public body are not subject to the law; a "meeting"
I held when the group is capable of exercising decision-making powers. '
he Minnesota Supreme Court has held that the open meeting law applies only to a quorum or
lore of members of the governing body or a committee, subcommittee, board, department, or
Jmmission of the governing body.IO Serial meetings in groups ofless than a quorum held in
rder to avoid open meeting law requirements may also be found to be a violation, depending on
Ie facts ofthe case.l1
. public body subject to the law should be cautious about using e-mail to communicate with
ther members of the body. Although the statute does not specifically address the use of e-mail,
is likely that the court would analyze use of e-mail in the same way as it has telephone
Jnversations and letters. I' That is, communication about official business through telephone
Jnversations or letters by a quorum of a public body subject to the law would violate the law.
erial communication through telephone conversations or letters by less than a quorum with the
Itent to avoid a public hearing or to come to an agreement on an issue relating to official
~siness could also violate the law.
I a 1993 case, the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the open meeting law was not violated
hen two of five city council me~bers attended private mediation sessions related to city
, E.g.. Minn. Stat. ss 62Q.03, subd. 6 (Minnesota Risk Adjustment Association); '1160.03, subd. 5 (Minnesota
,chnology, Inc.); 116V.OI, subd. 10 (Agricultural Utilization Research Institute); 116S.02, subds. 6 and 7
1innesota Business Finance, Inc.); 124D.385, subd. 4 (Minnesota Commission on National and Community
:rvice may create a nonprofit b~t it is subject to the open meeting law); 128C.22 (State High School League); and
lWS 1990, ch. 535, S2, subd. 6 (Lake Superior Center Authority).
'Minn. Stat. S465.719, subd. 9 (enacted by Laws 2000, ch. 455, art. 1, S2, subd. 9). A 1986 attorney general
,inion stated that the open meeting law did not apply to nonprofit corporations created by political subdivisions.
p. Att'y Gen. 92a-30, Jan. 29, 1986. The 1999 Legislature established a task force to recommend legislation in
100, governing corporations created by political subdivisions. Laws 1999, ch. 186. Among other things, the 2000
gislation addressed the issue of application ofthe open meeting law, stating that the law applied and a corporation
eated by a political subdivision cannot be exempted from it.
10 Moberg v. Independent School Dist. No. 281,336 N.W.2d 510 (Minn. 1983).
11 Id at 518; see also Mankato Free Press Co. v. City a/North Mankato, 563 N.W.2d 291, 295 (Minn. App.
197). On remand to the district court for a factual finding on whether the city used serial interviews to avoid the
'en meeting law, the trial court found, and the court of appeals affIrmed, that the serial meetings were not held to
'oid the law. Mankato Free Press Co. v. City a/North Mankato, 1998 WL 865714 (Minn. App. 1998)
npublished opinion).
12 Moberg, 336 N.W.2d at 518. The Commissioner of Administration stated in a July 9, 2008, opinion that an
mail sent to all members of a city council was effectively "printed material" that should be available to members
. the public and also suggested that the legislature revise the statute to recognize the use of electronic and other
pes ofcommnnications. Minn. Dept. of Admin. Advisory Op. 08-15.
House Research Department
Minnesota Open Meeting Law
Revised: November 2008
Page 4
business. The court determined that the two council members did not constitute a committee or
subcommittee ofthe council because the group was not capable of exercising decision-making
powers.13
The law applies to informational meetings.
The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that the open meeting law applies to all gatherings of
members of a governing body, regardless of whether or not action is taken or contemplated.
Thus, a gathering of members of a public body for an informational seminar on matters currently
facing the body or that might come before the body must be conducted openly.l4 However, a
1975 attorney general opinion stated that city council attendance at a League of Minnesota Cities
training program for city officials did not violate the open meeting law if the members did not
discuss specific municipal business. 15 Under a 2007 law, it appears that informational meetings
of the Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources may be closed.I'
The law does not cover chance or social gatherings.
The open meeting law does not apply to chance or social gatherings of members of a public
body. I? However, a quorum of a public body may not, as a group, discuss or receive information
on official business in any setting under the guise of a private social gathering.I'
The law does not apply to certain types of advisory groups.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals has held that the open meeting law does not apply to certain
types of advisory groupS.19 In that case, a presidential search advisory committee to the
University of Minnesota Board of Regents was held not to be a committee ofthe governing body
for purposes of the open meeting l!lw. In reaching its holding, the court pointed out that no
regents were on the search committee and that the committee had no power to set policy or make
a final decision. It is not clear if a court would reach the same result if members of the
governing body were also on the advisory committee. Depending on the number of members of
the governing body involved and on the form of the delegation of authority from the governing
13 Sovereign v. Dunn, 498 N.W.2d 62 (Minn. App. 1993).
14 St. Cloud Newspapers. Inc. v. District 742 Cmty. Schools, 332 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 1983).
IS Op. Att'y Gen. 63a-5, Feb. 5, 1975.
16 Minn. Stat. ~ 116P.08, subd. 5 ("(a) Meetings of the commission, committees or subcommittees of the
commission, technical advisory committees, and peer review panels must be open to the public. The commission
shall attempt to meet throughout various regions of the state during each biennium. For purposes of this subdivision,
a meeting occurs when a quorum is present and action is taken regarding a matter within the jurisdiction of the
commission, a committee or subcommittee of the commission, a technical advisory committee, or a peer review
panel. (b) For legislative members of the commission, enforcement of this subdivision is governed by section 3.055,
subdivision 2. For nonlegislative members of the commission, enforcement ofthis subdivision is governed by
section 13D.06, subdivisions 1 and 2." (emphasis added)).
17 St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc., 332 N.W.2d at 7.
18 Moberg, 336 N.W.2d at 518.
19 The Minnesota Daily v. University of Minnesota, 432 N.W.2d 189 (Minn. App. 1988).
House Research Department
Minnesota Open Meeting Law
Revised: November 2008
Page 5
body to the members, a court might consider the advisory committee to be a committee of the
governing body.
A separate law applies to the legislature.
In 1990, the legislature passed a law separate from the open meeting law that requires all
legislative meetings be open to the public." The law applies to House and Senate floor sessions
and to meetings of committees, subcommittees, conference committees, and legislative
commissions. For purposes of this law, a meeting occurs when a quorum is present and action is
taken regarding a matter within the jurisdiction of the group. Each house of the legislature must
adopt rules to implement these requirements. Remedies provided under these rules are the
exclusive means of enforcing this law.
Requirements of the Open Meeting Law
The primary requirement ofthe open meeting law is that meetings be open to the public.
The law also requires that votes in open meetings be recorded in ajournal and that the journal be
open to the public. The vote of each member must be recorded on appropriations of money,
except for payments of judgments and claims and amounts fixed by statute.2! A straw ballot to
narrow the list of candidates for city administrator and not made public was held to be a secret
vote in violation of the open meeting law."
Open meetings must be held in a public place within the borders ofthe public body."
Meetings may be held by interactive television if specified conditions are met to ensure openness
and accessibility for those who wish to attend."
Specific agencies have broader authority to hold meetings by telephone conference call or other
electronic means as long as. specified conditions are met to ensure openness and accessibility for
those who wish to attend. In addition, a meeting of any public body may be conducted by
telephone or other electronic means if a health pandemic or other emergency makes meeting in
person impractical or imprudent and all of the same conditions as for other meetings held by
telephone conference call or other electronic means are met, unless unfeasible due to the
pandemic or emergency. In general, those conditions include the following:
"Minn. Stat. ~ 3.055 (added by Laws 1990, ch. 608, art. 6, ~ I).
2! Minn. Stat. ~ 13D.oJ, subds. 4 and 5.
" Mankato Free Press Co., 563 N.W.2d at 295-96.
" Quast v. Knutson, 150 N.W.2d 199, 200 (Minn. 1967) (school board meeting held 20 miles outside the
jurisdiction ofthe school board at a private office did not comply with open meeting law; consolidation proceedings
were fatally defective because the resolution by which the proceedings were initiated was not adopted at a public
meeting as required by law).
"Minn. Stat. ~ 130.02. See also Minn. Stat. ~ 471.59, subd. 2 Goint powers board for educational purposes).
House Research Departmeut
Miunesota Open Meeting Law
Revised: November 2008
Page 6
. All members of the body can hear one another and can hear all discussion and testimony
. Members of the public at the regular meeting location can hear all discussion, testimony,
and votes
. At least one member of the body, chief legal counsel, or chief administrative officer is
present at the regular meeting location
. All votes are conducted by roll call
. The public body must allow a person to monitor the meeting electronically from another
location. The body may require the person to pay for any documented additional costs
the body incurs as a result of the additional connection
. The public body must give notice of the regular meeting location, of the fact that some
members may participate by telephone or other electronic means, and ofthe right of the
public to monitor the meeting from another location"
The law requires public bodies to give notice of their meetings.
In 1974, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that failure to give notice ofa meeting is a violation
of the open meeting law." The court has also held that it is a violation ofthe open meeting law
to condu~t business before the time publicly announced for a meeting."
In 1987, the legislature spelled out the notice requirements in statute for regular, special,
emergency, and closed meetings. l!m"'_lii'!l!l,i€!!l'lilil:J111lil:dlJ\lmil'f'.mi&Wl~
. 1:w'll'~p,';>gm(fi1flesir~'Ji1i11e'~j'lfll!\\ffi!!l!mi"S1'OTh-M1ew''''lir~''li2J!'
O'H "-"""~,_,~,,,,__,,_~,,,'.'""'tii.~'""="""')"'_'~'c"_"'~'ii-~_Ji:?::AW';)~
n _'''''''"''''__''''''''~''=-''=''*",'''',"''li~"'"J'''~~_M_''''''''''''''.''''~'''''"''''''''''''I''''
.~~~~~'Bmk1iE~mg~$Jdc~i~~~~J-!n~w!img~~m,~~~~!g:~t.~:~!,affimmG!fw11i''''Fa.Gli:ij.Vi.\':l-'1~J;~!~mm<y.~~.ffi'/~
. . . .
" Minn. Stat. ~~ 13D.021 (health pandemic, other emergency); 35.0661 (Board of Animal Health during
restricted travel for animal health reasons); 41A.0235 (Minnesota Agricultural and Economic Development Board);
41B.026 (Rural Finance Agency); 1161.68, subd. 5 (Small Business Development Center Advisory Board); 116L.03,
subd. 8 (Minnesota Jobs Skills Partnership Board); 116L.665, subd. 2a (Governor's Workforce Development
Council); 116M.15, subd. 5 (Urban Initiative Board); 116U.25 (Explore Minnesota Tourism Council); 129C.l05
(Perpich Center for Arts Education); 248.10 (Rehabilitation Council for the Blind); 256.482, subd. 5b (Minnesota
State Council on Disability); 256.975, subd. 2a. (Minnesota Board on Aging); 256C.28, subd. 7 (Commission of
Deaf, Deaf-Blind, and Hard of Hearing Miunesotans); 268A.02, subd. 3 (State Rehabilitation Council and
Statewide Independent Living Council); 326B.32, subd. 7 (Board of Electricity); 326B.435, snbd. 7 (Board of
Plumbing); 341.26 (Combative Sports Commission); 462A.041 (Minnesota Housing Finance Agency).
26 Sullivan V. Credit River Township, 217 N.W.2d 502 (1974).
"Merzv. Leitch, 342 N.W.2d 141, 145 (Minn. 1984).
28 Minn. Stat. ~ 13D.04, subd. 1 (~ 13D.04, previously ~ 471.705, subd. lc, was added by Laws 1987, ch. 313,
~ 1).
29 Minn. Stat. ~ 13D.04, subd. 2; Rupp V. Mayasich, 533 N.W.2d 893 (Miun. App. 1995) (bulletin board must
be reasonably accessible to the public). A February 3, 2004, advisory opinion by the Commissioner of
House Research Department
Minnesota Open Meeting Law
Revised: November 2008
Page 7
· Make good faith efforts to notifY news media that have filed written requests (with
telephone numbers) for notice of emergency meetings (special meetings called because of
circumstances that require immediate consideration)JO
The same notice requirements apply to closed meetings.31
For state agencies, absent any other specific law governing notice, publication requirements can
be satisfied by publishing notice in the State Register.l2
The law requires relevant materials to be publicly available.
The open meeting law requires that for open meetings, at least one copy of any printed material
prepared by the public body and distributed or available to all members of the public body also
be available in the meeting room for inspection by the public. This requirement does not apply
to materials that are classified as other than public under the Government Data Practices Act."
Exceptions to the Open Meeting Law
A closed meeting, except one closed under the attorney-client privilege, must be electronically
recorded. at the expense of the public body. Unless otherwise provided by law, the recordings
must be preserved for at least three years after the date ofthe meeting."
The law does not apply to state agency disciplinary hearings.
The open meeting law does not apply to any state agency, board, or commission when exercising
quasi-judicial functions involving'disciplinary hearings."
Certain meetings involving employee evaluation or discipline must be closed.
A public body must close meetings for preliminary consideration of allegations or charges
against an individual subject to its authority." lfthe members of the public body conclude that
discipline may be warranted as a result of those charges, further meetings or hearings relating to
Administration stated that a public budy's actions at a special meeting are limited to those topics included in the
notice of special meeting. Minnesota Department of Administration Advisory Opinion 04-004.
JO Minn. Stat. ~ 13D.04, subd. 3.
31 Minn. Stat. ~ 13D.04, subd. 5.
l2 Minn. Stat. ~ 13D.04, subd. 6.
" Minn. Stat. ~ 13D.Ol, subd. 6.
34 Minn. Stat. ~ 13D.05, subd. 1, cl. (d).
" Minn. Stat. ~ 13D.Ol, subd. 2 (2); see also Zahavyv. University of Minnesota, 544N.W.2d 32, 41-42 (Minn.
App. 1996).
"Minn. Stat. ~ 13D.05, subd. 2 (b).
House Research Department
Minnesota Open Meeting Law
Revised: November 2008
Page 8
the charges must be open. Meetings must also be open at the request of the individual who is the
subject of the meeting.
Statutes other than the open meeting law may permit or require closed meetings for certain local
governmental bodies to conduct specific kinds of disciplinary hearings. For example, school
board hearings held to discharge or demote a teacher are private unless the affected teacher
wants a public hearing."
A public body may close a meeting to evaluate the performance of an individual who is subject
to its authority." Before closing a meeting, the public body must identify the individual to be
evaluated. The public body must summarize the conclusions ofthe evaluation at its next open
meeting. An evaluation meeting must be open at the request of the subject of the meeting.
A meeting must be closed if an individual's medical records governed by Minnesota Statutes,
section 144.291 to 144.298, are discussed."
A meeting may be closed to discuss labor negotiations.
The open meeting law permits a public body to hold a closed meeting to discuss strategy and
proposals for labor negotiations conducted under the Public Employment Labor Relations Act.40
The statute specifies procedures for tape-recording of these meetings, and for the recordings to
become public when negotiations are completed.'l Another law permits the Commissioner of the
Bureau of Mediation Services to close negotiations and mediation sessions between public
employers and public employees. These negotiations are public meetings, unless the
commissioner closes them."
The law permits closed meetings. based on a limited attorney-client privilege.
In 1976, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that there is a limited exception, based on the
attorney-client privilege, for meetings to discuss strategy for threatened or pending litigation."
In 1990, the legislature added the attorney-client exception to the open meeting law." Although
the statute is not limited, the court has since held that the scope of the exception remains limited
in relation to the open meeting law."
"Minn. Stat. ~ 122A.41, subd. 9.
"Minn. Stat. ~ 13D.05, subd. 3(a).
" Minn. Stat. ~ 13D.05, subd. 2.
40 Minn. Stat. ~ 13D.03, subd. 1.
'I Minn. Stat. ~ 13D.03, subd. 2.
42 Minn. Stat. ~ 179A.14, subd. 3.
4' Minneapolis Star & Tribune CO. V. Housing & RedevelopmentAuth., 251 N.W.2d 620, 626 (1976).
44 Minn. Stat. ~ 13D.05, snbd. 3(b) (added by Laws 1990, ch. 550 ~ 2).
" Star Tribune v. Board olEd, Special School Dist. No.1, 507 N.W.2d 869 (Minn. App. 1993) review denied
(Minn. Dec. 22, 1993). The court of appeals did not accept the argument that the statutory exception encompassed
the full attorney-client privilege because that would result in the exception swallowing the rule in favor of open
meetings. In 2002, the Minnesota Supreme Court restated that the attorney-client privilege exception only applies
House Research Department
Minnesota Open Meeting Law
Revised: November 2008
Page 9
The attorney-client privilege exception does not apply to a mere request for general legal advice.
Nor does it apply when a governing body seeks to discuss with its attorney the strengths and
weaknesses of a proposed legislative enactment (like a city ordinance) that may lead to future
lawsuits because that can be viewed as general legal advice. Furthermore, discussion of
proposed legislation is just the sort of discussion that should be public."
In order to close a meeting under the attorney-client privilege exception, the governing body
must give a particularized statement describing the subject to be discussed. A general statement
that the meeting is being closed to discuss pending or threatened litigation is not sufficient."
A meeting may be closed to address certain security issues.
. receive security briefings and reports,
. discuss issues related to security systems,
. discuss emergency response procedures, and
. discuss security deficiencies in or recommendations regarding public services,
infrastructure, and facilities.
If disclosure of the information discussed would pose a danger to public safety or compromise
security procedures or responses, a meeting may be closed to:
Before closing a meeting, the public body must refer to the facilities, systems, procedures,
services, or infrastructures to be considered during the closed meeting. A closed meeting must
be tape-recorded at the expense of the governing body, and the recording must be preserved for
at least four years.
Financial issues related to security matters must be discussed and all related financial decisions
must be made at an open meeting."
when tbe purposes for the exception outweigh the purposes of the open meeting law. In that case, the city council
was threatened with a lawsuit if it did not grant a request. The court found that the threat of a lawsuit did not
warrant closing the meeting. Prior Lalre American v. Mader, 642 N.W.2d 729 (Minn. 2002) (en banc). Cf Brainerd
Daily Dispatch v. Dehen, 693 N.W.2d 435 (Minn. App. 2005) (applying analysis of StarTribune and Prior Lalre
American, finding threats were sufficiently specific and imminent that confidential consultation with legal counsel
appointed by city's insurer to discuss defense strategy or reconciliation to address a threatened lawsuit justified
closing the meeting).
" Northwest Publications, Inc. v. City of St. Paul, 435 N.W.2d 64, 68 (Minn. App. 1989); Star Tribune, 507
N.W.2d at 872.
" The Free Press v. County of Blue Earth, 677 N.W.2d 471 (Minn. App. 2004).
" Minn. Stat. S 13D.05, subd. 3.
House Research Department
Minnesota Open Meeting Law
Revised: November 2008
Page 10
A meeting may be closed to discuss certain issues relating to government property sales or
purchases.
A public body may close a meeting to:
. determine the asking price for real or personal property to be sold by the government
entity;
. review confidential or nonpublic appraisal data; and
. develop or consider offers or counteroffers for the purchase or sale of real or personal
property.
Before holding a closed meeting, the public body must identifY on the record the particular
property that is the subject ofthe closed meeting. The proceedings must be tape-recorded at the
expense ofthe public body. The recording must be preserved for eight years after the date of the
meeting and made available to the public after all property discussed at the meeting has been
purchased or sold or the governing body has abandoned the purchase or sale. The property that
is the subject ofthe closed meeting must be specifically identified on the tape. A list of members
and all other persons present at the closed meeting must be made available to the public after the
closed meeting. If an action is brought claiming that public business other than discussions
allowed under this exception was transacted at a closed meeting held during the time when the
tape is not available to the public, the court would review the recording of the meeting in camera
and either dismiss the action if the court finds no violation, or permit use of the recording at trial
(subject to protective orders) if the court fmds there is a violation."
An agreement reached that is based on an offer considered at a closed meeting is contingent on
approval ofthe public body at an qpen meeting. The actual purchase or sale must be approved at
an open meeting after the notice period required by statute Or the governing body's internal
procedures, and the purchase price or sale price is public data. 50
There is a narrow exception for certain meetings of public hospital boards.
Boards of public hospitals and certain health organizations may close meetings to discuss
competitive market activities and contracts."
On-site inspections by town board members are not subject to the law.
The law does not apply to a gathering of town board members to perform on-site inspections, if
the town has no employees or other staff able to perform the inspections and the town board is
acting essentially in a staff capacity. The town board must make good faith efforts to provide
notice of the inspections to the media that have filed a written request, including a telephone
" Minn. Stat. g13D.05, subd. 3, referring to g13D.03, subd. 3.
50 Minn. Stat. g13D.05, subd. 3. Property appraisal data covered by this law is described in Minnesota
Statutes, section 13.44, subdivision 3.
51 Minn. Stat. gI44.581, subds. 4 and 5.
House Research Department
Minnesota Open Meeting Law
Revised: November 2008
Page II
number, for notice. Notice must be by telephone or by any other method used to notifY the
members of the public body."
The law does not apply to meetings of the Commissioner of Corrections."
The law specifies how it relates to the Government Data Practices Act.
Except as specifically provided, public meetings may not be closed to discuss data that are not
public data under the Government Data Practices Act.54 Data that are not public may be
discussed at an open meeting without liability, ifthe matter discussed is within the public body's
authority and if it is reasonably necessary to conduct the business before the public body."
A portion of a meeting must be closed if the following data are discussed:
. Data that would identifY alleged victims or reporters of criminal sexual conduct, domestic
abuse, or maltreatment of minors or vulnerable adults"
. Active investigative data collected by a law enforcement agency, or internal affairs data
relating to alleged misconduct by law enforcement personnel"
. Certain types of educational, health, medical, welfare, or mental health data that are not
public data"
Penalties
The open meeting law provides a civil penalty of up to $300 for intentional violation." A person
who is found to have intentionally. violated the law in three or more legal actions involving the
same governmental body forfeits the right to serve on that body for a time equal to the term the
person was serving. The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that this removal provision is
constitutional only if the conduct constitutes malfeasance or nonfeasance and provided that the
violations occurred after the person had a reasonable amount of time to learn the responsibilities
of office."
"Minn. Stat. ~ 366.01, subd. 11.
"Minn. Stat. ~ 13D.Ol, subd. 2 (1). This exception does not make sense. Until 1982, the exception was for
meetings of the corrections board---a multimember body. A 1983 instrnction directed the revisor of statutes to
change "corrections board" to "commissioner of corrections" throughout the statutes. Laws 1983, ch. 274, ~ 18.
54 Minn. Stat. ~ 13D.05, subd. 1.
" Minn. Stat. ~~ 13.03, subd. ll, 13.05, subd. 4, ~ (e), and 13D.05, subd. 1.
"Minn. Stat. ~ 13D.05, subd. 2 (a)(I).
"Minn. Stat. ~ 13D.05, subd. 2 (a)(2).
"Minn. Stat. ~ 13D.05, subd. 2 (a)(3).
" Minn. Stat. ~ 13D.06.
" Claude V. Collins, 518 N.W.2d 836, 843 (Minn. 1994) (discussing the constitutionality of provision relating
to removal from office); see also Brown v. Cannon Falls Township, 723 N.W.2d 31, 41-44 (Minn. App. 2006)
(discussing the statutory history and that since 1994 the statute bas required three or more legal actions).
House Research Department
Minnesota Open Meeting Law
Revised: November 2008
Page 12
A public body may not pay a civil penalty on behalf of a person who violated the law. However,
a public body may pay any costs, disbursements, Dr attorney fees incurred by or awarded against
a member of the body in an action under the open meeting law if the member was found not
guilty of a violation."
A court may award reasonable costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorney fees of up to
$13,000 to any party in an action under the open meeting law. However, the following
conditions apply:
. A court may award costs and attorney fees to a defendant only if it finds that the action
was frivolous and without merit
. A court may award monetary penalties or attorney fees against a member of a public
body only if the court finds there was an intent to violate the open meeting law
The court must award reasonable attorney fees to a prevailing plaintiff if the public body was
also the subject of a prior written opinion issued by the Commissioner of Administration, and the
court finds that the opinion is directly related to the cause of action being litigated and that the
public body did not follow the opinion."
The appropriate mechanism to enforce the open meeting law is to bring an action in district court
seeking injunctive relief or damages. The statute does not provide for a declaratory judgment
action.63
The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that actions taken at a meeting held in violation of the
open meeting law are not invalid or rescindable."
Advice
Public bodies subject to the open meeting law may seek advice on the application of the law and
how to comply with it from three sources:
. The governmental entity's attorney
. The attorney general"
. The Commissioner of Administration66
" Op. Alt'y Gen. 471-a, Dec. 31, 1992; Minn. Stat. ~ 13D.06, subd. 4 (c).
" Minn. Stat. ~ 13D.06, subd. 4.
63 Rupp V. Mayasich, 561 N.W.2d 555 (Minn. App. 1997).
"Sullivan V. Credit River Township, 299 Minn. 170, 176-177, 217N.W.2d 502, 507 (Minn. 1974).
65 Under Minnesota Statutes, section 8.06, the attorney general is the attorney for all state officers and boards
or commissions created by law. Under Minnesota Statutes, section 8.07, the attorney general, on request from an
attorney for a county, city, town, public pension fund, school board, or unorganized area, gives written opinions on
matters of public importance.
House Research Department
Minnesota Open Meeting Law
Revised: November 2008
Page 13
An individual may seek advice from two sOurces:
. The individual's attorney
. The Commissioner of Administration"
Since 2003, an individual who disagrees with the manner in which members of a governing body
perform their duties under the open meeting law may request the Commissioner of
Administration to give a written opinion on the governing body's compliance with the law.
A governing body or person requesting an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration must
pay a $200 fee if the commissioner issues an opinion.
The commissioner may decide not to issue an opinion. If the commissioner decides not to issue
an opinion, the commissioner must notify the requester within five days of receipt of the request.
If the commissioner decides to issue an opinion, it must be done within 20 days of the request
(with a 30-day extension possible for good cause and notice to the requester). The governing
body must be allowed to explain how it performs its duties under the law.
Opinions of the Commissioner of Administration are not binding, but a court must give the
opinions deference. However, a governing body that follows an opinion is not liable for fines,
attorney's fees or any other penalty, or forfeiture of office.
For more information about open meetings and other issues related to the government, visit the
government operations area of our web site, www.house.mn/hrd/issinfo/gv_state.htm.
66 .
Minn. Stat. ~ 13.072, subds. 1 and 2.
67 Id.; see www.ipad.state.mn.us/opinionsfindex.htmlfor access to prior opinions of the Commissioner of
Administration or to find out how to request an opinion.
A ~\Gh'<Y\e/\T Z
I
MINNESOTA STATUTES 2008
13D.01 MEETINGS MUST BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC; EXCEPTIONS.
Subdivision 1. In executive branch, local government. All meetings, including executive
sessions, must be open to the public
(a) of a state
(I) agency,
(2) board,
(3) commission, or
(4) department,
when required or permitted by law to transact public business in a meeting;
(b) of the governing body of a
(1) school district however organized,
(2) unorganized territory,
(3) county,
(4) statutory or home rule charter city,
(5) town, or
(6) other public body;
(c) of any
(1) committee,
(2) subcommittee,
(3) board,
(4) department, or
(5) commission,
of a public body; and
(d) ofthe governing body or a committee of:
(1) a statewide public pension plan defined in section 356A.Ol, subdivision 24; or
(2) a local public pension plan governed by section 69.77, sections 69.771 to 69.775,
or chapter 354A, 422A, or 423B.
Subd. 2. Exceptions. This chapter does not apply
Copyright @ 2008 by the Revisor of Stahttes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved.
2
MINNESOTA STATUTES 2008
13D.O 1
(l) to meetings of the commissioner of corrections;
(2) to a state agency, board, or commission when it is exercising quasi-judicial functions
involving disciplinary proceedings; or
(3) as otherwise expressly provided by statute.
Subd. 3. Subject ofaud grouuds for closed meeting. Before closing a meeting, a public
body shall state on the record the specific grounds permitting the meeting to be closed and
describe the subject to be discussed.
Subd. 4. Votes to be kept in journal. (a) The votes ofthe members ofthe state agency,
board, commission, or department; or ofthe governing body, committee, subcommittee, board,
department, or commission on an action taken in a meeting required by this section to be open to
the public must be recorded in a journal kept for that purpose.
(b) The vote of each member must be recorded on each appropriation of money, except for
payments of judgments, claims, and amounts fixed by statute.
Subd. 5. Public access to journal. The journal must be open to the public during all normal
business hours where records of the public body are kept.
Subd. 6. Public copy of members' materials. (a) In any meeting which under subdivisions
1, 2, 4, and 5, and section 13D.02 must be open to the public, at least one copy of any printed
materials relating to the agenda items of the meeting prepared or distributed by or at the direction
of the governing body or its employees and:
(1) distributed at the meeting to all members of the governing body;
(2) distributed before the meeting to all members; or
(3) available in the meeting room to all members;
shall be available in the meeting room for inspection by the public while the governing body
considers their subject matter.
(b) This subdivision does not apply to materials classified by law as other than public as
defined in chapter 13, or to materials relating to the agenda items of a closed meeting held in
accordance with the procedures in section 13D.03 or other law permitting the closing of meetings.
History: 1957 c 773 s 1; 1967 c 462 s 1; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7; 1973 c 654 s 15; 1973 c 680 s
1,3; 1975 c 271 s 6; 1981 c 174 s 1; 1983 c 137 s 1; 1983 c 274 s 18; 1984 c 462 s 27; 1987 c
313 s 1; 1990 c 550 s 2,3; 1991 c 292 art 8 s 12; 1991 c 319 s 22; 1994 c 618 art 1 s 39; 1997
c 154 s 2; ISp200I c 10 art 4 s 1
Copyright@2008 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved.
I
MINNESOTA STATU1ES 2008
13D.02
13D.02 MEETINGS CONDUCTED BY INTERACTIVE TV; CONDITIONS.
Subdivision 1. Conditions. A meeting governed by section 13D.OI, subdivisions 1,2,4, and
5, and this section may be conducted by interactive television so long as:
(I) an members ofthe body participating in the meeting, wherever their physical location,
can hear and see one another and can hear and see an discussion and testimony presented at any
location at which at least one member is present;
(2) members ofthe public present at the regular meeting location ofthe body can hear and
see an discussion and testimony and an votes of members ofthe body;
(3) at least one member ofthe body is physicany present at the regular meeting location; and
(4) each location at which a member of the body is present is open and accessible to the
public.
Subd. 2. Members are present for quorum, participation. Each member of a body
participating in a meeting by electronic means is considered present at the meeting for purposes
of determining a quorum and participating in all proceedings.
Subd. 3. Monitoring from remote site; costs. If interactive television is used to conduct
a meeting, to the extent practical, a public body shan allow a person to monitor the meeting
electronically from a remote location. The body may require the person making .such a connection
to pay for documented marginal costs that the public body incurs as a result ofthe additional
connection.
Subd. 4. Notice ofregular and all member sites. If interactive television is used to conduct
a regular, special, or emergency meeting, the public body shan provide notice ofthe regular
meeting location and notice of any site where a member of the public body will be participating
in the meeting by interactive television. The timing and method of providing notice must be as
described in section 13D.04.
History: 1957 c 773 s 1; 1967 c 462 s 1; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7; 1973 c 654 s 15; 1973 c 680 s
1,3; 1975 c 271 s 6; 1981 c 174 s 1; 1983 c 137 s 1; 1983 c 274 s 18; 1984 c 462 s 27; 1987 c 313
s 1; I990c550s2,3; 1991 c 292 art8s 12; 1991 c3I9s22; I994c6I8art 1 s39; I997c I54s2
Copyright (Q 2008 by the Revisor of Stahltes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved.
MINNESOTA STATUTES 2008
13D.021
iIEETINGS BY TELEPHONE OR OTHER ELECTRONIC MEANS;
rONS.
.vision 1. Conditions. A meeting governed by this section and section 13D.OI,
lS I, 2, 4, and 5, may be conducted by telephone or other electronic means so long as
ng conditions are met:
~ presiding officer, chief legal counsel, or chief administrative officer for the affected
body determines that an in-person meeting or a meeting conducted under section
lot practical or prudent because of a health pandemic or an emergency declared under
members ofthe body participating in the meeting, wherever their physical location,
le another and can hear all discussion and testimony;
:mbers of the public present at the regular meeting location of the body can hear all
and testimony and all votes of the members of the body, unless attendance at the
:ting location is not feasible due to the health pandemic or emergency declaration;
least one member of the body, chief legal counsel, or chief administrative officer is
lresent at the regular meeting location, unless unfeasible due to the health pandemic or
declaration; and
votes are conducted by toll call, so each member's vote on each issue can be identified
:d.
2. Members are present for quorum, participation. Each member ofthe body
g in a meeting by telephone or other electronic means is considered present at the
purposes of determining a quorum and participating in. all proceedings.
3. Monitoring from remote site; costs. If telephone or another electronic means is
iuct a meeting, to the extent practical, the body shall allow a person to monitor
electronically from a remote location. The body may require the person making a
10 pay for the documented additional cost that the body incurs as a result ofthe
onnection.
k Notice of regular and all member sites. Iftelephone or another electronic means is
[uct a regular, special, or emergency meeting, the public body shall provide notice of
aeeting location, of the fact that some members may participate by telephone or other
.eans, and of the provisions of subdivision 3. The timing and method of providing
rerned by section 13D.04 of the Open Meeting Law.
Copyright \02008 by the RevisorofStatutes, State of Minnesota . All Rights Reserved.
1
MINNESOTA STATUTES 2008
13D.03
13D.03 CLOSED MEETINGS FOR LABOR NEGOTIATIONS STRATEGY.
Subdivision 1. Procedure. (a) Section 13D.Ol, subdivisions 1,2,4,5, and section 13D.02 do
not apply to a meeting held pursuant to the procedure in this section.
(b) The governing body of a public employer may by a majority vote in a public meeting
decide to hold a closed meeting to consider strategy for labor negotiations, including negotiation
strategies or developments or discussion and review of labor negotiation proposals, conducted
pursuant to sections 179A.Ol to 179A.25.
( c) The time of commencement and place of the closed meeting shall be announced at
the public meeting.
(d) A written roll of members and all other persons present at the closed meeting shall be
made available to the public after the closed meeting.
Subd. 2. Meeting must be recorded. (a) The proceedings of a closed meeting to discuss
negotiation strategies shall be tape-recorded at the expense of the governing body.
(b) The recording shall be preserved for two years after the contract is signed and shall be
made available to the public after all labor contracts are signed by the governing body for the
current budget period.
Subd. 3. Ifviolation claimed. (a) If an action is brought claiming that public business
other than discussions of labor negotiation strategies or developments or discussion and review
of labor negotiation proposals was transacted at a cl?sed meeting held pursuant to this section
during the time when the tape is not available to the public, the court shall review the recording
of the meeting in camera.
(b) If the court finds that this section was not violated, the action shall be dismissed and the
recording shall be sealed and preserved in the records of the court until otherwise made available
to the public pursuant to this section.
(c) Ifthe court finds that this section was violated, the recording may be introduced at
trial in its entirety subject to any protective orders as requested by either party and deemed
appropriate by the court.
History: 1957 c 773 s 1; 1967 c 462 s 1; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7; 1973 c 654 s 15; 1973 c 680 s
1,3; 1975 c 271 s 6; 1981 c 174 s 1; 1983 c 137 s 1; 1983 c 274 s 18; 1984 c 462 s 27; 1987 d13
s 1; 1990 c 550 s 2,3; 1991 c 292 art 8 s 12; 1991 d19 s 22; 1994 c 618 art 1 s 39; 1997 c 154 s 2
Copyright (Q 2008 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. .
MINNESOTA STATUTES 2008
13D.04
D.04 NOTICE OF MEETINGS.
Subdivision 1. Regular meetings. A schedule of the regular meetings ofa public body shall
kept on file at its primary offices. If a public body decides to hold a regular meeting at a time or
Ice different from the time or place stated in its schedule of regular meetings, it shall give the
ne 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
:cial meeting for which a notice requirement is otherwise expressly established by statute, the
blic body shall post written notice of the date, time, place, and purpose ofthe meeting on the
ncipal bulletin board of the public body, or if the public body has no principal bulletin board,
the door of its usual meeting room.
(b) The notice shall also be mailed or otherwise delivered to each person who has filed a
itten request for notice of special meetings with the public body. This notice shall be posted and
iled or delivered at least three days before the date ofthe meeting.
( c) As an alternative to mailing or otherwise delivering notice to persons who have filed a
itten request for notice of special meetings, the public body may publish the notice once, at
st three days before the meeting, in the official newspaper of the public body or, if there is
Ie, in a qualified newspaper of general circulation within the area of the public body's authority.
(d) A person filing a request for notice of special meetings may limit the request to
ification of meetings concerning particular subjects, in which case the public body is required
;end notice to that person only concerning special mee.tings involving those subjects.
(e) A public body may establish an expiration date for requests for notices of special
etings 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
II 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
,d faith efforts to provide notice of the meeting to each news medium that has filed a written
uest for notice if the request includes the news medium's telephone number.
(b) Notice of the emergency meeting shall be given by telephone or by any other method
d 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
oon as reasonably practicable after notice has been given to the members.
Copyright iO 2008 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved.
2
MINNESOTA STATUTES 2008
13D.04
(d) Notice shall include the subject of the meeting. Posted or published notice of an
emergency meeting is not required.
( e) An "emergency" meeting is a special meeting called because of circumstances that, in the
judgment of the public body, require immediate consideration by the public body.
(f) If matters not directly related to the emergency are discussed or acted upon at an
emergency meeting, the minutes ofthe meeting shall include a specific description ofthe matters.
(g) The notice requirement of this subdivision supersedes any other statutory notice
requirement for a special meeting that is an emergency meeting.
Subd. 4. Recessed or continued meetings. (a) If a meeting is a recessed or continued
session of a previous meeting, and the time and place of the meeting was established during
the previous meeting and recorded in the minutes of that meeting, then no further published or
mailed notice is necessary.
(b) For purposes of this subdivision, the term "meeting" includes a public hearing conducted
pursuant to chapter 429 or any other law or charter provision requiring a public hearing by
a public body.
Subd. 5. Closed meetings. The notice requirements ofthis section apply to closed meetings.
Subd. 6. State agencies. For a meeting of an agency, board, commission, or department of
the state:
(I) the notice requirements of..this section apply only if a statute governing meetings of the
agency, board, or commission does not contain specific reference to the method of providing
notice; and
(2) all provisions ofthis section relating to publication are satisfied by publication in the
State Register.
Subd. 7. Actual notice. If a person receives actual notice of a meeting of a public body at
least 24 hours before the meeting, all notice requirements of this section are satisfied with respect
to that person, regardless of the method of receipt of notice.
History: 1957 c 773 s I; 1967 c 462 s I; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7; 1973 c 654 s 15; 1973 c 680 s
1,3; 1975 c 271 s 6; 1981 c 174 s 1; 1983 c 137 s 1; 1983 c 274 s 18; 1984 c 462 s 27; 1987 c313
sl; 1990c550s2,3; 1991 c292art8s 12; 1991 c319s22; 1994c618artl s39; 1997c154s2
Copyright@2008 by the Revisor of Statutes; State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved.
~c-h(w\fftt- 3
,...
!'-"
I
THE OPEN MEETING LAW AND YOU
This short white-sheet is intended to provide basic information regarding the Open
Meeting Law in Minnesota as codified in Minnesota Statutes 9 13D.OI et seq. While
nothing can take the place of the actual law, this document will hopefully address very
basic questions and situations that you may have.
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE LAW?
The open meeting law is intended to provide the public with the most transparent
governmental activities possible and ensure that the decision-making process is subject to
full public scrutiny and access while still being managed in a way that allows the process
of government to function effectively.
!"
!"
!,-
THE FIRST QUESTION THAT SHOULD BE ASKED:
IS YOUR GROUP SUBJECT TO THE OPEN MEETING LAW?
'",
ANSWER: In most cases a 'public body' is subject to the Open Meeting Law.
Standing Cornmittees of a City Council are specifically called out as being
subject to the law, so there really is no debating whether the ENR is
subject to the law: It is.
THE SECOND QUESTION THAT SHOULD BE ASKED:
IS A MEETING OF YOUR GROUP CONDUCTING A 'MEETING' THAT
MUST COMPLY?
ANSWER: To be subject to the requirement of the Open Meeting Law, a body subject
to it has to have a quorum of its members present together to trigger the
requirements of the Statute. Less-than quorum size groups cannot meet in
order to avoid having an open meeting. Email exchanges between
members, if passed between a quorum of members, can be considered a
violation of the open meeting law. Telephone calls can also trigger a
violation if enough calls are placed between members and public business
discussed. My recommendation is to avoid email and phone discussions
entirely and restrict all discussions and debate to the gaveling of the
meetings.
WHAT ABOUT THE TWINS GAME?!
Truly social, chance, meetings of a quorum of members are not per se violations
of the Open Meeting Law. However, members need to be mindful of the fact that the
appearance of impropriety may trigger allegations of a violation so steps should be taken
to reduce that appearance. Not sitting together or huddling, even to exchange
pleasantries, would be the best practice.
2. ."~-O'
THE TIllRD QUESTION THAT SHOULD BE ASKED:
WHAT DO WE HAVE TO DO TO COMPLY?
ANSWER: 1. The open meeting law is simple to comply with. Provide a
standing date and time for meetings of the ENR and deliberate in good
faith at the meeting. Notice special and emergency meetings 3 days in
advance (or with as much time and notice as possible for emergency
. meetings.
2. have materials available for the public to take and follow-along with if
needed.
3. Take discussion and votes in public only and at the meetings.
4. Record your votes!
CONSEQUENCES FOR VIOLATIONS
Violations are handled in civil court and a complaint must be brought in the district court
against .the person who is alleged to have violated the law. No City may pay this cost
once found to be validly imposed. The Fine my be up to $300.00 and removal from
office is possible for multiple-offense violators. As public-body members, your conduct
must be found to be intentionally designed to violate the law however and none of the
decisions made at such a meeting are deemed invalid or rescindable.