Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-01-06 ENR Packet AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCE COMMISSION Tuesday, January 6, 2009 5:15 p.m. Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes: a. November 6, 2008 b. November 18, 2008 (Goal Setting Meeting) c. December 2,2008 5. Unfinished Business a. Environmental Protection Ordinance (To be continued in February) 6. New Business a. Proposed Stop Gap Ordinance for South Maplewood - Zoning Code Amendment to the Rural Single Dwelling District (R-11) b. ENR Commission 2008 Annual Report 7. Visitor Presentations 8. Commission Presentations 9. Staff Presentations a. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair b. ENR Commission Meeting Dates c. Community Development and Parks Department Reorganization d. ENR and Park Commissions Joint Meeting - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 1) University of Minnesota Sustainable Maplewood Project 2) Joint Commission Goal Setting e. Nature Center Programs 10. Adjourn Agenda Item 4.a. ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES Thursdav, November 6, 2008 COUNCIL CHAMBERS - MAPLEWOOD CITY HALL 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST 1 CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioner Judith Johannessen Commissioner Carole Lynne Commissioner Frederica Musgrave Commissioner Bill Schreiner Commissioner Carol Mason Sherrill Commissioner Dale Trippler Chair Ginny Yingling Staff Present: Planner Finwall - Environmental Planner Engineer Kummer - Engineer 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Musgrave moved to approve the agenda, seconded by Commissioner Mason Sherrill, all ayes. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 7, 2008 Commissioner Trippler - September 1 is referenced on page 2/b and in the third paragraph; it should read September 2. Page 2/a third line down the word ordinance is misspelled. Commissioner Schreiner moved to approve minutes as amended seconded by Commissioner Trippler, all ayes. 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: a) Chair Yingling asked staff if they knew when the wetland ordinance will be coming before the city council. b) Planner finwall responded that the ordinance should go back to the city council early 2009, after they have had an opportunity to get through the Comprehensive Plan first. 1 c) Commissioner Musgrave heard that the Comprehensive Plan will be delayed for another six months. d) Planner finwall responded the next step is to bring it to the City Council for approval to forward it to adjacent governmental bodies, which are then given six months for review. e) Chair Yingling asked if the staff is currently reviewing comprehensive plans from other adjoining communities. f) Staff confirmed that they are. g) Commissioner Musgrave feels she has not seen a completed Comprehensive Plan. h) Planner finwall said the draft version is on the front page of city website where there is a link for the Comprehensive Plan. 6. NEW BUSINESS Environmental Ordinance (Slopes and Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area) Planner Finwall mentioned that the Environmental Protection and Critical area ordinance encompass three areas: a) Trees b) Wetlands c) Slopes: which includes the Mississippi River Critical Area, erosion control, and the National Urban Run-off Program. Planner Finwall introduced Engineer Kummer who is here tonight to go over the engineering questions that came up during the last meeting. Commissioners asked for clarification on definitions of the dimensions of slopes. Chair Yingling asked what critical area corridor districts were located in Maplewood? Planner Finwall responded the portions of the corridor located in Maplewood are rural open space which includes Ramsey County open space land and urban developed district, which is guided in the city's comprehensive plan as low density residential. Commissioner Musgrave suggested that commissioners take a guided walk through this area. Chair Yingling said it would be beneficial for the county to come up with a plan on how the Fish Creek open space site will be managed and maintained. It was agreed that this would be put on a future agenda. Chair Yingling asked if anything we do with the ordinance today effects the Co- Par development if it moves forward as approved? Planner Finwall responded that a new ordinance would apply if the Co-Par development did not happen and a new developer applied. 2 Commissioner Mason Sherrill stated that it is her understanding that the new tree ordinance will not apply to Co-par's development. Planner Finwall responded yes, they submitted the original plan prior to the adoption of the new tree ordinance. Commissioner Musgrave asked if there are areas that have slopes that would be of concern to the citizens. Planner Finwall stated that the slope standards for the Mississippi River Critical Area apply to slopes that are 18% or greater. Commissioner Musgrave requested that the commission review a topo map with slope and wetland overlays as we move forward with this review. Commissioner Musgrave also asked if the commission's review of the ordinance could be announced in the Maplewood news. Chair Yingling stated she will be writing an article for the December Maplewood news which will focus on wetlands. She could add a comment about the slope review as well. Commissioner Trippler asked why significant slope is defined as anything greater than 25%, when most of the ordinance talks about slopes that are 18%. Engineer Kummer responded that he understands the DNR regulations start at 18% because that is point that soils can erode with development. He thinks much of that language comes out of the state code. Commissioner Trippler suggested that they eliminate the definition or change it to 18%. Commissioner Trippler asked if we need to add anything about cell phone towers under the utilitv section. Chair Yingling suggested saying towers instead of identifying specific types of towers. Chair Yingling asked where the term significant natural feature comes from. Planner Finwall responded that some of these definitions pertain to either the wetland or the tree ordinance when the environmental ordinance was combined. This definition may not need to be included in the slope portion. She will see where this was used in the ordinance and bring that back to the commission. Commissioner Trippler asked if phosphorus removal was still a 60% requirement in the NURP standards, or has that been increased to 80%? Engineer Kummer responded it has been increased to 80%. Planner Finwall responded that the NURP standards will be modified with the surface water management ordinance the city will be drafting once the Comprehensive Plan has been adopted. 3 Chair Yingling stated that prohibiting development on slopes should be reduced from 40% or greater down to 25%. Engineer Kummer responded, in terms of regulations for trenching or digging on a construction site you want to be conservative in your estimate for trenching. Chair Yingling asked if there are any engineering guidelines regarding this. Engineer Kummer will look further into this issue. Commissioner Trippler feels it is saying you cannot build at 40%. Engineer Kummer responded that it restricts people from building a house on the side of a hill. Chair Yingling mentioned under this section there are exceptions to the 40-foot setbacks including public recreation facilities/scenic overlooks/shelters. Commissioner Mason Sherrill feels public recreation facilities is too vague and the wording needs to be changed. Chair Yingling commented that construction of above-ground pumping stations has been exempted; does it have to be within 40 feet of the bluff line? Is there a good reason to exempt them? If there is not a good reason for it to be here can it be exempted? Engineer Kummer is not aware of a pump station near a bluff in Maplewood. He does not understand why it would be built on the edge of a slope. Chair Yingling asked what is meant by substantially altered. Planner Finwall feels it may refer to a human made slope. There should be a definition showing what substantially altered means. Chair Yingling asked if earth sheltered homes are completely exempt from this ordinance? It seems like there should be requirements for them. Does it belong here or does the building code address earth-sheltered homes? Commissioner Trippler stated that earth sheltered homes should not be exempt. A homebuilder should seek a variance from the ordinance to build one. Commissioner Mason Sherrill asked how we address the various types of slopes. Engineer Kummer responded he does not know the different type of stabilities. The different types of materials would affect the way something is built upon it. Commissioner Trippler stated the purpose of having protection of slopes to ensure erosion control with an element to public safety as well. Chair Yingling stated there is also the aesthetics and protecting habitat in some cases. 4 Commissioner Mason Sherrill commented that there is a need to look at what kind of environmental impact to soil, water, wildlife and vegetation there when building on slopes. Chair Yingling asked if we should delete the exemption on earth sheltered homes. The commissioners agreed. Rather than giving them an exemption they can come in for a variance. Chair Yingling stated there are all kinds of restrictions for erosion control. But the ordinance states that these requirements may be waived by the city council where there is no other alternative. It seems we should put in an upper limit on the slope on which the council can waive that requirement. Commissioner Trippler suggested changing the language to say the city council may waive the requirements if there are no other alternatives on slopes that are up to 18%. Chair Yingling said to put that change in as a place mark for now. 7. NEW BUSINESS 8. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS 9. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Commissioner Musgrave is the recipient of a Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District LEAP award this year. b. Goal Setting Meeting - November 18 c. Nature Center Programs - mentioned several upcoming programs for December. 10. MEETING ADJOURNED - 6:58 p.m. 5 Agenda Item 4.b. ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES GOALS MEETING Tuesday, November 18, 2008 COUNCIL CHAMBERS - MAPLEWOOD CITY HALL 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present Commissioner Ginny Yingling Commissioner Carol Mason Sherrill Commissioner Judith Johannessen Commissioner Carole Lynne Commissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Bill Schreiner Absent Commissioner Federica Musgrave Staff Ginny Gaynor, Open Space Naturalist Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner Ann Hutchinson, Lead Naturalist DuWayne Konewko, Community Development and Parks Director Visitor Ron Cockriel 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Lynne asked for a few minutes before the start of New Business. Commissioner Johannessen made a motion to approve the agenda, seconded by Commissioner Schreiner, all ayes. Commissioner Lynne discussed her difficulty with some of the language used in the New Member Orientation document. She would like "Duties and Responsibilities" replaced with "Charges". Commissioner Yingling stated that the language is found in the Environmental Commission ordinance. So we can recommend this language change to the City Council. 1 4. GOAL SETTING Environmental priorities a. Environmental ordinance review b. New environmental ordinances c. Promote environmental awareness d. Promote environmental assets e. Utilize assistance from other groups f. Sponsor environmental projects g. Environmental education h. Develop/promote sustainable practice Work to complete a. Silver Lake (March) b. Annual report (February) c. Eureka (January report/contract is up 2010) d. Arbor Day (April) e. Buckthorn Removal (fall) f. Clean up days (spring & fall) g. Environmental ordinance h. Tree City USA i. Revisit rules & procedures j. South Maplewood Goal Brainstorming a. Greenways/overlayordinance b. Waste reduction issue c. Educate on danger of plastic bags and bottles d. Increase awareness of litter e. Composting f. Waste Hauling g. Review Mayors Climate Protection Agreement h. Wind/Solar Energy Collectors i. Storm water management j. Winter salt use k. Parking lot/street design I. Mass transit m. Community garden n. Noise & light pollution Top Three 2009 Goals, Committee Members, and Timelines a. Greenways - Carol Mason Sherrill, Judith Johannessen May - Field Trip June 2009 - Ordinance Review July 2009 - Outreach 2 b. Waste Hauling - Dale Trippler, Carole Lynne c. Storm Water - Ginny Yingling, Bill Schreiner 5. MEETING ADJOURN - 6:45 3 Agenda Item 4.c. ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCE COMMISSION MINUTES Tuesday, December 2,2008,5:15 p.m. Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road BEast 1. CALL TO ORDER (5:15 p.m.) 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioner Judith Johannessen Commissioner Carole Lynne Commissioner Frederica Musgrave Commissioner Carol Mason Sherrill Commissioner Dale Trippler Chair Ginny Yingling Absent: Commissioner Bill Schreiner Staff Present: Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner Steve Kummer, Engineer 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the agenda, seconded by Commissioner Musgrave, all ayes 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Environmental Ordinance (Slopes and Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area) Planner Finwall prepared a draft ordinance in response to discussion at the November 6 meeting which was included in the packets. Engineer Kummer answered questions regarding issues raised at the Nov 6 meeting. Engineer Kummer said he had spoken with a representative of the DNR who was unable to give him specifics regarding the origins of the 40 foot setback requirement. He researched other cities websites and in general found that the use of a 40 foot setback is common. He believes the reason is to ensure that 1 development is as far back as possible from a slope or from the top of a bluff so that the weight of any structure built there does not bear upon the slope. Upon further questioning by commissioners regarding whether a 40 foot setback was a sufficient distance, Engineer Kummer said that he thought it was prudent from a structural standpoint. Another area of concern that he mentioned is the removal of vegetation within the 40 foot buffer. Planner Finwall called the commission's attention to a handout they were given about the St. Croix Scenic Wildlife Overlay District in which the 40 foot minimum is cited for urban areas and she speculated that this may be where the number came from. Commissioner Trippler asked if the city requires soil borings close to slopes in proposed developments to verify soil stability. Engineer Kummer confirmed this saying that a professional geotechnical study would be required to confirm that the development would not compromise the slope. Commissioner Musgrave asked if Engineer Kummer was aware of any studies that had been done regarding the impact of housing density upon slopes. Engineer Kummer said he was not aware of any and suggested researching other urban areas similar to Minnesota. Chair Yingling asked if commissioners wanted to consider a graduated approach to setbacks in order to acknowledge that some areas need more protection than others. I Commissioner Mason Sherrill stated that the 40 foot setback might not be acceptable in areas where water and streams cause erosion or in areas with a greater grade. Engineer Kummer said that the steepness of the slope was more important than what is at the bottom of it. Planner Finwall informed the commission that their printed materials incorrectly stated there are 27 acres of slopes in Maplewood. The actual number is 270 acres of slope within the 11.695 total acres that make UP the entire City of Map/ewood. Engineer Kummer noted that approx 2.1 % of the entire area of the city have grades exceeding 18% which is the benchmark for a "steep slope" as determined by the State Soil and Conservation Service. He said that the majority of those slopes are in the southern-most one-square mile of the city. Planner Finwall clarified that the current ordinance restricts new development if it is within 40 feet of a bluff line, which is defined as a slope with a grade of 18% or more that drains into protected waters, such as the Mississippi River. 2 Commissioner Musgrave moved that a separate section of the Slope ordinance be created to deal specifically with the Mississippi Critical Area and the Fish Creek Area, seconded by Chair Yingling. Ayes all. Planner Finwall stated that the Mississippi River Critical Area could have its own section in the slope ordinance. Commissioner Trippler expressed concern that the definition of bluff line was based on the existing shoreland district ordinance. He was uncomfortable with all of the references to water since this seemed to exclude slopes that are not adjacent to water. Planner Finwall noted that the DNR is in the process of redrafting their definitions regarding shorelands and this would require the city to do likewise. She said she would try to get more information on what the DNR is planning. Chair Yingling expressed concern about the use of 18% in relation to slope grade. Engineer Kummer said that it is the number used when soil surveys are done. He also stated that a "significant slope" standard in city construction projects is 25% or more and that greater slopes (Le., 3:1) increase concerns about erosion. He said that the 25% number is appropriate. Commissioner Musgrave expressed concern that the 25% may be appropriate for construction but may not be appropriate when taking other things into consideration such as protection of habitat, etc. Chair Yingling suggested that they just mull-over the 40 foot setback issue until the next meeting and move on to the next question. Engineer Kummer said he could find nothing to justify exempting earth-sheltered structures in the ordinance since their impact upon a slope should be similar to a traditional above-ground structure. Engineer Kummer discussed the proposed ordinance regarding soil erosion. He read from state statute which states that each city is responsible for adopting a soil loss ordinance based on the US Soil Conservation Service Field Office Technical Guide. Based on this, Maplewood's soil losses should not exceed 4 to 5 tons per acre per year for non-vegetative soils. Commissioner Trippler expressed concern that the numbers primarily related to farm erosion and may be on the high side. A discussion ensued regarding the difficulties of measurement and thus enforcement. Engineer Kummer said he believes the city aggressively enforces erosion control at construction sites by using qualitative measurements such as whether silt fences are in place. Planner Finwall said that the language was placed in city ordinances because the state required it. She also pointed out that the city must enforce the Minnesota 3 Pollution Control Agency's construction storm water permit requirements and that should be referred to in the future ordinance. At the conclusion of the discussion, Chair Yingling asked the commission to review the items discussed and be ready to talk about ways to resolve these issues at the next meeting. Plus they also need to think about creating the separate section in the ordinance regarding the Mississippi Critical area and the Fish Creek Corridor. 6. NEW BUSINESS a. Meeting Times - Commissioner Musgrave asked if meetings could be moved to 7:00 p.m. or some other day because 5:15 p.m. was difficult with her work schedule. Chair Yingling asked staff to see if there were any other times available for meeting and report back next month. 7. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS 8. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS Chair Yingling reviewed a workshop that was held in November regarding setting priorities and goals for 2009. Three goals were set from the meeting including storm water as it relates to parking lots and other impervious surfaces, waste hauling, and greenway corridors. Chair Yingling said that she had met with Bill Schreiner regarding storm water runoff. They want to set up a meeting with staff to discuss storm water issues that have already been identified and determine how the commission should tackle those issues. They also talked about the use of pervious paving blocks in parking lots and the need to discuss this with city engineers and planning commission. Commissioner Lynne talked about waste hauling and said they want to do research so that they can determine the best solution for the citizens and get the most cost effective waste hauling and recycling. Commissioner Mason Sherrill talked about greenways and said that they plan to do fact-finding regarding the corridors in January. Commissioner Musgrave raised a question regarding open meeting laws and her concern that the subcommittees do not encourage or allow participation by the public. Chair Yingling explained that the purpose of the subcommittees was to research ideas and not to formulate policy. She also felt that this allowed more work to be done thus making it possible for the commission to have the time to talk about the bigger issues. Commissioner Musgrave asked that the City Attorney rule on the legality of the subcommittees. She also asked for more documentation of meetings with staff so that citizens could be kept informed. 4 Chair Yingling said that she would discuss these issues with the City Attorney. Commissioner Mason Sherrill said that as a volunteer commission member she found the information being asked for by Commissioner Musgrave was intrusive and accusatory and that she was not comfortable with the suggestion that what was being done was subversive. 9. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a) December 11, 2008, (6:30 to 8:30 p.m. at the Maplewood Community Center) University of Minnesota Environmental Policy Capstone Project - Final Presentation on Sustainable Maplewood b) December 9, 2008, Friends of Maplewood Nature Board Meeting (6:30 p.m. at the Nature Center) c) Nature Center Programs are listed on the City's website. d) The next Environmental Commission meeting is scheduled for Jan 6th at 5:15 p.m. The south Maplewood stop gap ordinance will be reviewed during this meeting. 10. MEETING ADJOURNED (6:55 p.m.) 5 Agenda Item 6.a. MEMO TO: DuWayneKonewko, Community and Park Director Environmental and Natural Resources Commission FROM: DATE: RE: Jennifer Haskamp, Pulse Land Group December 30, 2008 Rural Residential Conservation-Approach OrdinanCe Amendment-Summary Memo INTRODUCTION At the city council meeting on December 8, 2008 staff was directed to prepare a 'stop gap'ordinance to protect the south Maplewood area. The purpose of the ordinance is to ensure conservation principles are usedinthe interim unliltheupdated comprehensive plan is officially adopted. Legally, the city has to allolV for liP to 4.3 units peracre in the south Maplewood area because the current 2002 Comprehensive Plan guides the property forthat lise, This ordinance, allows for lhe maximum density BUT not without extensive conservation efforts on a site or project. So, this ordinance will protect the cityunlil the new land use designation and density range is officially adopted, whichwill be a minimum of nine months. Staff has prepared this memo and supporting COncept diagrams to demonstrate how the ordinance willwork and what affect II will have on development of the area. Attached tp this summary memo is the draft ordinance for your reviewandCommenl. DISCUSSION After the council meeting, staff andconsullants mel to discuss an approach for creating a stop'gap ordinance to support the existing land use designation from the 2002 Comprehensive Plan,while responding to the conservation principles that have been identified through this Comprehensive Plan update process. There will be approximately nine months, possibly a bit more, until the Comprehensive Plan Update is completed, and this ordinance would ensure that conservation principles are upheld in south Maplewood untilthefull comprehensive plan is updated. In an effort 10 help describe the direction for the ordinance, we have prepared a set of graphics that depict conceptually how Ihe application of the conservation principles would worli towards the density allOwed in the south Maplewood area today, Staff and consultants concluded that the bestapproach would be to modify Ihe existing Rurai Single Dwelling District (R-1 R) to be the Rural Conservation Dwelling District (R-1H), The modifications to the ordinance include an extensive conservation approach to try and encollrage and ensure conservation principles are used in south Maplewood, and IF a developer decides not to employ conservation principles they are entitled t02 (two) acre lots and. not greater density. The follOWing information describes the objectives and preliminary direction forlhe ordinance, OrdinanCe Objectives: . To create an ordinance that protects the natural resources and habitat in the south Maplewood area. . To allow for developmenlthalallows forlhemaximum entitlement of 4.3 UnitS/acre, This is critical to ensure that the city is legally protected in theintenm. (This will only apply until the Comprehensive Plan Update is formally adopted, at which time the ordinance will be revised to reflect theranges identified on the updated Land Use Plan,) . To create a list of definitions that clearly describe the conservation principles we are trying to achieve. . To create density incentives for developers and land ownersthalcanonly be achieved through preservation and conservation principles as defined by the city. Ordinance Structure: Staff proposes that tbeordinance allowS a base entitlement of2 (two) acre lots in the R'1 R zoning district. In order for the developer to achieve higher density they will be fequiredto employ conservation principles. Staff hascrealed a3-Tieredapproach that demonstrates to a developer how the conservation principles help them to achieve higher density, The conservation principles must be agreed to by staff, city commissions and the city council in order for the developer to be granted more units on a property. The following listldentifies the conservation principles identified to date, and their definitions can be found in the draft ordillance attached. The list WaS developed and compiled based on comments from the planning commission, the PTOSadvisory panel, the enVironmental and natural resources commission and other interested stakeholders during the development of the compplan, Table 1: Conservation Tools for Density Incentives Preserve The proposed ordinance Tiers are identified in Table 2. ALL properties Would have entitlement to theBasedensity identified in Tier 1 ,and would not be allowed the increased density in Tier 2aM Tier 3 without meeting the specified requirements. The table also includes a line that describes what could happen today on the site if no ordinance Was created with conselVation incentives. This provides a good comparison for the ordinance today from what is being proposed, and demonstrates how the protection measuresC0uld work. In order to help expiain hOw the density tiers would IVork we have identified a sample site that currently has an application to the city for rezoning and development. A series of graphics are also included to demonstrate how the table relates 10 whatlS developed on a site, The subject site is 5.22 acres, and we are assuming lhatALlacres on the site are buildable, thisisjllst to generalize and simplify (and not necessarily the case for the subject site), and that there are no 'deductions' so net and gross density are the Same. 2 As demonstrated by the table, if we consider the Sample Site, in order for the developer to gain the number of lots in Figure 1, the developer would be required to achieve 4 -6 conservation principles under the neW ordinance which would end up looking more like Figure 4. If you look atthe graphic In Figure 1, you will see that no conservation principles are metunder the current ordinance; whereas in Figures 2 through 4 the amount of conservation and open spaces preserved increase as the density increases which is how the "stop.gap" ordinance would be structured. With the adoption ora conservation ordinance, the city can protect the natural resources, while still allowing the legal entitlement on the property. (Table 2 and Figures 1 ~ 4 are found on the attached pages) Summary In conclusion the purpose of the "stop.gap" ordinance is to protecUhe high quality natural areas and resources in south Maplewood, while allowing for the currentiand use entitlement of 4,3 units peracre. Upon council's direction, slaff intends to expeditiously create an ordinance that protects the natural areas and the residents of south Maplewood. Staff etso recognizes thatthefuturedirection oUhe Rural Residentiai land use has been changed to guide the prOPerty for a density range of 0.5 - 1.5 units per acre. .Itis our intent to create an ordinance that can be reVised to accommodate the density range se.lected by the council, while still implementing conservation principles in the City's rural residential areas. Timetine It is essential togeUhe "stopgap" ordinanCe inpiace as soon as possible. The ordinance is being presented to both the environmental and natural resources commiSsion and planning commission on January 6 for preliminary review and comment. The planning commission will hold a Public Hearing on January 20, 2009 to provide opportunity for residents to comment. Staffs goal is to have the city council review the ordinance at the January 26,2009 meeting, and have adoption early in February. Recommendation Staff recommends that Environmental CommiSSion and Planning Commission reviewthe draft ordinance and provide input. Table 2: Density Entittetilents and Concept Site Plans Density Conservation Principles (Incentives) Sample Site ( Net Acres) Units Comments TIER l' 0.5 -1.5 U/A O. 1 -50% Density Bonus 2 - 100% Density Bonus TIER 2; 3 - N/A (1.6 U/A) 1'6 ~3.5U I A I 4 -50010 De n sity . Bonus . . 5 ~ 100% Density Bonus TIER 3; i 6 - NIA(3.6 U/A) 3.6 - 4.3 U/A 7 - Full Entitlement 5.22 2 5 7 8 12 16 18 22 See Figure 2 See Figllre 3 5.22 See Figure 4 3 Figure 1: Concept under Current Comprehenslve Plan Site: 5.22 Acres Lots: 16 Density: 2.7 - 3.0 UIA Unit Type: SF Conservation Principles: None 4 Figure 2: Tier 1 Concept Pian Site: 5.22 Acres lots: 4 Density: 0.5 -1.5 U/A UnilType:SingleFamily Conservation Principles: GreenwayProtection Area 5 Figure 3: Tier 2 Concept Plan Site: 5.22 Acres Lots: 10 Density: 1.6 - 2.5U/A UnitType: SF Conservation Principles: Greenway Protection, Low Impact Development, Woodlands Protection, Clustering 6 Figure 4: Tier 3 Concept Plan Site: 5.22 Acres Lots: 15 Density: 2.7 - 4.3 U/A Unit Type: Mixo! SF and MF Conservation Principtes: Greenway Protection, Low impact Development, Woodlands Protection, Clustering, 50% Open Space, VieW Shed Protection 7 Attachment 1 PROPOSED ORDINANCE MODIFYING THE R-1 R (RURAL SINGLE-DWELLING RESIDENCE) ZONING DISTRICT THE MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL the following changes to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances (Deletions are crossed out and additions are underlined.) Section 1. This section changes Section 44-9 as follows: Section 44-9. Zoning Districts. The city is herby divided into the following zoning districts F, Farm Residence District. R-1, Residence District (Single Dwelling). R-1 R, R~ral SiRgle D'::elliRg District Rural Conservation Dwellinq District R-1S, 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. Be, Business and Commercial District. LBC, Limited Business Commercial District. BC(M) Business Commercial Modified District. SC, Shopping Center District. M-1, Light Manufacturing District. M-2, Heavy manufacturing District. Section 2. This section deletes, modifies and adds to Sections 44-117 through Section 44-150 as follows: DIVISION 3.5 R-1(R) RURAL SINGU, DWIOLLlNG DISTRICT RURAL CONSERVATION DWELLING DISTRICT Sec. 44-117. Purpose and Intent. The City of Maplewood finds that there is a direct link between the natural systems and character that exists throuqhout certain areas of the communitv. The requirements of this Rural Conservation Dwellinq District are meant to preserve and enhance the ecoloqical/aesthetic character bv incentivizinq: 1) reinforcement and establishment of ecoloqical connections throuqhout the citv. 2) protection and enhancement of drainaqewavs and water qualitv. 3) protection and enhancement of ecoloqical communities. 4) preservation and improvement of views. and 5) preservation or reinterpretation of local historical landmarks. Maplewood iRteRds to protect aRd eRRaRce tRe cRaracter of aroGS of tRe city tRGt, beca~se of topograpRY or otRer factors, do Rot R3\le, Ror does tRe city expect to Rave, R1~RicipGI saRitmy sewer or water service. To allow for and to protect a very low deRsity, 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 Attachment 1 for suburban or tract development because of topography, vegetation or other factors that make the area unique. -.tile installation of m~nicipal sanitary SO'f.oer ~nlil\ely. The city finds the most suitable use of these areas is single dwellings on large lots, but is interested in protectinq the natural resources and will encouraqe developments to follow the conservation principles and initiatives identified in subsequent sections of this ordinance. &lJBA-Low- density residential development and conservation development will lessen grading and soil erosion and will help protect ground water, vegetation and wooded areas. Hie lots and parcels in tl1e R 1 R zoning district am generally m~Gl1larger tl1an tl1oso in tl1e R 1 (single d'ffelling) district and tl1oso witl1 m~niGipal sower and water. Sec. 44-118. Uses. The City shall only allow the following uses (a) Permitted Uses 1) Any permitted use in the R-1 District, subject to its regulations. (b) Conditional uses. The City may permit the following by conditional use permit 1) Any use allowed by conditional use permit in the R-1 (single dwelling) District 2) Commercial faming or gardening, including the use or storage or associated equipment, when on a property with a single dwelling. 3) Stands for the sale of agricultural products grown or produced on the property. 4) Metal storage buildings, commonly known as pole barns or agri-buildings, subject to the applicable size and height requirements. (c) Prohibited uses. The city prohibits the following uses in the R-1(R) zoning district 1) Accessory buildings without an associated single dwelling on the same property. 2) Reserved. Sec. 44-119. Height of buildings. The maximum height of a single-family dwelling shall be thirty-five (35) feet Sec. 44-120. Lot dimensions, lot area, width requirements, and side yards. (a) No person shall build a single dwelling on a site less than eighty seven thousand one hundred twenty (87,120) square feet (2 acres) in area: unless the conservation desiqn principles are applied as described in Section 3. (b) Each lot or parcel shall have enough area or usable space for a house, driveway, well and individual sewage treatment system (ISTS) with a primary and secondary site or an acceptable desiqn and plan for a communitv septic svstem or reqional sewer. (c) Each dwellinq and anv accessorv structure(s) shall have side vard setbacks as defined in table 44-120.1 and shall be measured from the propertv line to the structure. ef at loaet tl1irtv (30) loot lrom a sido proportv Iifl&-- The followinq exceptions to this standard shall applv 1) The side vard on the street side of a corner lot shall have a width of at least fiftv (50) feet 2) When a property owner uses two (2) or more adjoininq lots as a sinqle-buildinq site, the side yard requirements shall applv onlv to the outside lot lines. (d) ~Io person sl1all b~ild a single dwelling on a lot 'fAtl1less tl1an one l1~ndrod t'ffenty (120) foot of vAdtl1 at tl10 front b~ilding setbacl~ line. The followinq table identifies the minimum lot area and lot width based on the conservation tiers: 2 Attachment 1 Table 44-120.1 Conservation Tier Densitv Minimum Area Minimum Side Yard Front Yard Ranqe Frontaqe Setback Setback Tier I (0-2 0.5-1.5 U/A 15000 SF 100' 30' 50' Principles) Tier II (3-5 1.6-3.5 U/A 10000 SF 80' 12: 30' Principles) Tier III (6-7 3.6 - 4.3 U/A 7500 SF 50' 1.[ 20' Princinles) (e) Each interior lot shall have at least fifty (50) feet of frontage on an improved public street. (f) Each corner lot or parcel shall have at least eighty (80) feet of frontage on each of the public streets. Sec. 44-121. Front Yards. (a) Each dwelling and any accessory structure(s) shall have a front yard setback as defined in table 44-120.1. Except that. 1) If each 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 development, those setbacks shall apply. City approval of a preliminary plat with building pads does not constitute approval of special setbacks. 4) Regardless of the above, homeowners may add on to their homes using the existing setback. 5) In all cases the accessory structures shall be no closer than the principle structure unless approved 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 I necessary for energy saving, health or safety reasons. Ses. 44 122. Side yams. (Moved to section and EacR d'::olliR~ aRd aRY accessory str~ct~re(s) sRallRave side yard sotbacks of at least tRirty (dO) feot from a side property liRe. TAe follo':AR~ oxcoptioRs to tRis staRdard sRall apply (a) TAe side yard OR tRe streot side of a corner lot sRallRave a ':AdtR of at loaet fifty (GO) feet. (b) '.'!ReR a property O'::Rer ~ses 1':.'0 (2) or more adjoiRiR~ lots as a siR~le b~ildiR~ site, tRe side yard req~iremoRts sRall apply oRly to tRe o~tside lot IiRos. (c) Ro~ardlees of tRe above, Romeo'.'.'nors may add OR to tReir Romos ~siR~ tRe existiR~ setbaclc Sec. 44-123. Rear Yards. 3 Attachment 1 (a) Single dwellings shall have a rear yard setback of at least twenty (20) percent of the lot depth. or G miRim~m reGr setbGcl~ of fifty (80) feot, '::l1icl1ever is IGf~er (b) Accessory buildings shall have a rear yard setback of at least thirty (30) feet. Sec. 44-124. Tower, antenna and flagpole setbacks. Antennas and flagpoles for residential (non-commercial) use in the R-1(R) zoning district shall meet the same setbacks as accessory buildings in the R-1 (single dwelling) district. Sec. 44-125. Minimum foundation areas; room requirements. (a) The minimum foundation area shall be at least. 1) A one-story dwelling, nine hundred fifty (950) square feet. 2) A one and one-half story dwelling, seven hundred twenty (720) square feet. 3) A bi-Ievel dwelling, eight hundred sixteen (816) square feet. 4) A tri-Ievel dwelling, seven hundred sixty five (765) square feet. 5) A two storey dwelling, five hundred twenty-eight (528) square feet. (b) Room size and number shall be consistent with the standards of the International Residential Code. Sec. 44-126. Building-width requirements. The minimum building width on the primarv frontaqe GRY side shall be at least twenty-one (21) feet. The building width shall not include entryways or other appurtenances that do not run the fully depth of the building. Sec. 44-127. Accessory buildings. (a) Section 44-114 (Accessory buildings) in the R-1 District shall apply to the use and height of accessory buildings and garages in the R-1 R zoning district. (b) For lots of at least 2 acres in size the R-1R zoning district, the following size standards shall apply to accessory buildings and garages graduated by tier or size of lot? Table 44-127.1 Accessorv Sizes Detached Buildings (Max Attached Garages (Max Combination of detach Area, Square Feet) Area, Square Feet) buildings and attached Garaqe (Max Area) Tier I 1,400 (garages), 1,100 1,400 2,800 (other) Tier II 1,000 SF Total 1,000 1,480 Tier III 850 SF Total 850 1,000 Section 3. This section adds the conservation principles and conservation desiqn standards to the R-1 R zoninq district. Sec. 44-128. Definitions and Conservation Principles. The conservation principles in the followinq table shall represent the conservation incentives for this ordinance. The definitions of each principle follow the table. All incentives shall onlv be qranted IF thev exceed the minimum standards set forth in the existinq Citv ordinances that relate to environmental protection as identified in Ordinance Chapters 12 and 44. 4 Attachment 1 It shall be noted that the City has several ordinances that control and define natural resources and environmental Qualitv, in all cases, the more restrictive ordinance shall applv and it is the developer's responsibilitv to discuss anv issues or Questions reQardinQ the applicable ordinances with the Citv Planner. Table 44-128.1 Conservation Principles for Densitv Incentives Enhance/Preserve larGe wooded areas or forest Prairie Restoration Preserve and Establish Natural Area Greenwavs Enhance Wetlands Create ManaGement Plan Tree Preservation Create/Develop Trail Connections Clusteri nG Slope Buffer Preservation Historic Preservation Create Passive Parks Additional Shoreline Buffers EnerGV Efficiencv LEED Certified BuildinGs/Development Creek Restoration ManaGement Low Impact Development (LID) View Shed/Corridor Preservation Dedicate 50% Open Space Additional Stormwater ManaGement Enhance/oreselVe larGe wooded areas or forest: An act of deliberatelv avoidinG the removal of clusters of structurallv healthy mature trees and understory trees which are native to the area and non-invasive, individual heritaGe trees which are structurallv healthv and Greater 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 screeninG development or for other environmental or intrinsic benefits. To meet this standard, the developer must prepare a health assessment of the trees on site and must show a polVGon area on the site with permanent protection plan that the developer shall implement for the areas to be preserved and a manaGement plan includinG removal of invasive species on the site. Preserve and Establish Natural Area Greenwavs: The dedication maintenance or manaGement of an area identified on the Citv's Natural Areas Greenwav map. The Natural Area Greenwav is defined as larGe contiGUOUS areas of natural habitat that cross ownership boundaries. Tree PreselVatlOn ThroUGh means of a tree Inventorv identifvinG the most siGnificant trees on a site and permanentlv protectinG them Examples include protectinG a larGe healthv Oak tree on a site from beinG removed for a roadwav. 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 includinG habitat areas and open views. Historic PreselVation: IdentifyinG and protectinG throUGh permanent means, any historically siGnificant areas on a specific site. Examples include protectinG an archaeoloGicallv siGnificant area restorinG a historical barn or preservinG an important trail. Additional Shoreline Buffers. Bevond those alreadv identified in the Shoreland Overlav District the creation of protective buffers around those areas which are more sensitive to the neGative impacts of development especiallv areas that are defined as bluffs or steep slopes, where critical habitat may dwell, near historic tree clusters or heritaGe trees etcetera for which the additional buffers mav varv or be averaGed near the location of protection importance. 5 Attachment 1 LEED certified buildinoS/deve/opment (3 Practices) A national set of standards for buildinqs and neiqhborhoods that focuses on the principles of qreen buildinq smart qrowth sustainabilitv and healthv livinq The LEED for Neiqhborhood Development Ratinq System provides independent, third-party verification that a development's location and desiqn meet accepted hiqh levels of environmentallv responsible sustainable development. Credit will be qiven for a minimum of 3 practices in the LEED standards certification criteria. Developers are encouraqed to seek for LEED certification. Low Impact Development (LID): An ecoloqicallv friendlv 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 order to achieve this principle the developer must demonstrate how thev will achieve these principles. For example number and quantitv of rain qardens the use of porous pavement reduction of impervious surface and road widths. Dedicate 50% Open Space Open space is defined as public and private land that is qenerallv natural in character and contains relativelv few human-made structures. Credit will be qiven for dedication of 50% of a site to open space. This conservation principle will be mandatorv to achieve the full densitv allocation. If wetlands or open water are present on a site the maximum contribution for wetland or open water to this standard shall be 25 percent and the remaininq area comprised of other upland areas Prairie Restoration: After performinq a historical analvsis to determine pre-settlement conditions prepare a plan and implement prairie restoration with a specific manaqement strateqv that the developer shall implement over the course of five years in order to assure that the prairie establishes. This plan shall be submitted and approved by the CiN's Natural Resource Coordinator to determine if it meets this requirements and subsequentlv qualifies for the densitv bonus. Enhance wetlands create a Comprehensive Wetland ManaGement Plan (CWMP): A plan to resolve development and protection conflicts where wetlands affect a siqnificant portion of a communitv. The plan encompasses the identification, study, and evaluation of wetland functions and community values, and development needs and investments with reqard to wetlands protection enhancement and requlation. The applicant shall be required to create a plan that the developer shall implement that exceeds the standards of the adopted Wetland Ordinance. Create/Develop trail connections. A plan that illustrates the development of trails that are indicated on the Parks Trails and Open Space Plan map as part of the subdivision process, whether active or passive in nature, with an emphasis on creatinq trail connections to existinq trails. Credit will be qiven for the development and construction of the trail not for the land dedication which will be considered part of the ciN's parkland dedication fees. Slope buffer preselVation: A development plan that deliberatelv avoids placinq anv structures or lots in the buffer area of a siqnificant slope Credit will be qiven for those plans that exceed the standards identified in the current steep slopes ordinance. Create passive parks: An area set aside throuqh the development process that is environmentallv sensitive and mav or may not be developable. These parks may support passive uses such as walkinq trails, boardwalks and nature observation areas. but some areas may be too environmentally sensitive to accommodate any public access. 6 Attachment 1 Enerqvefficiencv: UsinG the Minnesota Greenstar ProGram, develop enerGY efficient and Greenstar rated projects and buildinGs Credit will be Given when the developer utilizes the proGram to create a 'theme' in a development and uses the Greenstar and conservation principles in marketinG the project. Creek restoration manaGement: Restoration projects that the Citv believes would assist in the Restoration of the stream or creek natural that compensate for the loss of past uses of the watershed due to contamination, erosion and other influences or issues. Specific types of projects proposed for implementation as part of a development plan would be those that enhance habitat water Gualitv and flow reGime such as stormwater manaGement stream channel stabilization or Greenwavs bv implementinG conservation easements or additional buffers in riparian corridors. View shed/corridor oreselVation: A site plan or development pattern that is desiGned specificallv to protect an area on or near the development site that is viewed as prime constituent for the feelinG of the sense of place whether the features in the view are cultural, historical or natural or whether they are viewed from the street or within the development site. Additional Storm water ManaGement: The Citv has existinG stormwater manaGement policies but there is opportunitv to further improve the stormwater manaGement on a site. The developer shall be Given credit for a stormwater manaGement plan and implementation that exceeds the Citv's existinG policv. 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 reGuired to review the contents of this ordinance and conservation principles and prepare a plan consistinG of written and visual documents to support the proposed development. (a) The developer shall review this ordinance and available natural resource data. The intent is to establish the property's ecolOGical connections both within Maplewood and as part of the reGional ecolOGical system 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 submit a natural resources evaluation of the site, includinG all of the followinG elements this step is in preparation for meetinG with the Citv Planner and should be completed prior to developinG a concept plan: 1) Tree survey, includinG all siGnificant individual trees Greater than 6 inches in diameter, and stands of trees identifvinG tree species and size. 2) Wetland inventorv includinG delineation reports and MnRAM verification 3) TopOGraphic survey indicatinG existinG drainaGe patterns This shall include one foot (1') contours for steep slope areas to better understand where the top and bottom of the slopes are for preservation and placement (c) The developer shall set up a meetinG with the City Planner to discuss and establish the intent and Goal for the subdivision. The process shall include a discussion reGardinG 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 hiGher densities on a site must be approved bv the Citv Staff and PlanninG commission. The conservation principles and correspondinG densitv bonuses are shown in table 44-130.1 (d) The developer shall create a Concept Plan that includes the followinG information 7 Attachment 1 1) A base yield plan, which demonstrates the number of allowed lots as determined by the base entitlement of one unit per two acres. 2) A description of the conservation principles that are used and the correspondinq densitv bonus and unit count as the developer understands it. This shall also include information and data that supports how the concept plan addresses the conservation principle and how the plan meets and exceeds the standards of the Citv's existinq natural resource ordinances. 3) A qraphic that demonstrates qenerally how the lots would be laid out and the unit types proposed as part of the development. 4) A narrative that describes the conservation principles used in the concept plan and supportinq data demonstratinq how the concept meets the standards of existinq ordinances and data demonstratinq how the concept plan exceeds them. 5) The developer shall submit with their concept plans data and reports related to the conservation principles performed bv a reputable ecoloqist or ecoloqical firm. The Citv shall reserve the riqht if needed, to hire their own ecoloqical expert at the cost of the developer to verify and further understand the plans submitted bv the Applicant. 6) Submit twentv (20) copies of items 1 throuqh 4 for informal or non-bindinq comments bv Citv Staff Planninq Commission and Citv Council. (e) After the concept plan review the developer shall take and inteqrate the suqqestions and recommendations and prepare a preliminarv plat and final plat submittal in accordance with section 34-5 of the subdivision ordi nance. (f) A full developer's aqreement as well as anv necessarv aqreements or documents that document the conservation principles and howthev will be upheld will be required as a part of anv final plat approval This shall also include, if applicable, any dedication or transfer of property for the purpose of permanent conservation shall be completed prior to final plat approval or buildinq permits. 8 Attachment 1 Sec. 44-130 Density Bonus Standards The followinq densitv bonuses shall be rewarded based on the number of conservation principles (as identified in Table 44-1281) inteqrated within a development The conservation principles and their application must be aqreed to by both the developer and the city (a) The units obtained throuqh the densitv bonus calculation shall alwavs be rounded down to the nearest whole number. (b) The density and number of units shall be calculated on a net area basis. Net density shall be defined as the number of dwellinq units per acre exclusive of arterial streets and riqht of wavs wetlands and water features and other publiclv dedicated improvements such as parks. Table 44-130.1 Density Bonus Allotment for Conservation Principles The followinq table identifies the baseline entitlement for all propertv zoned R-1 R of 0.5 Units per acre. All densitv bonuses are cumulative and the percentaqe bonus calculated as such. Density Number of Ranqe Conservation Principles Tier 1 Q 0.5 - 1.5 .1 ~ Tier2 ;2 1.6-3.5 1 5 Tier3 2 3.6 - 4.3 7' Density Bonus (Housinq Units) None - base entitlement of 2 Acre Lots 50% 100% 50% 100% 20% The asterisk in Table 44-130.1 denotes a mandatorv conservation principle of protectinq fiftv percent(50%) of a proposed proiect in open space. A manaqement plan for all protected open space shall be required to achieve final plat approval. Potential options include manaqement by a Homeowners Association, dedicated to a public use or interested aqency. 9 Agenda Item G.b. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Environmental and Natural Resources Commission Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner 2008 Environmental and Natural Resources Commission Annual Report December 31 , 2008 for the January 6, 2009 Meeting INTRODUCTION Most city commission ordinances require the submittal of an annual report to the city council which outlines the actions and activities taken by the commission during the preceding year, recommendations needed to existing ordinances or policies based on past reviews, and goals envisioned for the upcoming year. These reports are reviewed and approved by the city council. The environmental and natural resources (ENR) commission ordinances does not have an annual report requirement. Regardless, staff finds that submittal of an annual report by the ENR commission would serve as a means of relaying important information to the city council on the commission's accomplishments and obtaining feedback on proposed goals. For this reason, staff is recommending that the ENR commission submit a 2008 annual report for city council review. RECOMMENDATION Attached are the Planning Commission and Community Design Review Board 2007 annual reports for review. The ENR commission should discuss the format for the proposed ENR commission annual report based on these examples. Staff will then draft the ENR commission 2008 annual report and bring it back to the commission for approval during the February meeting. Attachments: 2007 Planning Commission and CDRB Annual Reports Attachment MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner Planning Commission's 2007 Annual Report January 3, 2008 INTRODUCTION The city code requires that the planning commission prepare an annual report to the city council by their second meeting in February. This report should include the planning commission's activities from the past year and the major projects for the upcoming year. 2007 ACTIVITIES The commission considered the following requests as noted: 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 changes to the comprehensive plan 3 4 5 10 8 changes to the zoning map 2 4 4 7 preliminary plats 3 7 7 12 5 ordinance changes 3 3 0 1 3 conditional use permits and revisions 11 14 19 21 vacations 2 11 8 5 5 variances 6 2 12 2 4 miscellaneous requests and presentations 20 13 8 11 14 Total 50 58 63 69 61 4 18 In 2007, the commission, in addition to the items listed above, took a tour of development sites. The commission also reviewed their Rules of Procedure, the South Maplewood Study Executive Summary, and the Gladstone Neighborhood Streetscaping Plans. NOTE: For all the items listed below, the planning commission recommended approval ayes all, unless noted otherwise. 2007 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGES The commission considered three changes to the comprehensive plan in 2007. Chanqes PC Action Council Action Gladstone Neighborhood Approved (English Street and Frost Avenue) (4-2) From M-1, BC, BC-M, LBC, R-3(M), R-2 and R-1 to GM, GH and GMU Approved This change was to amend the city comprehensive land use plan maps to make them consistent with the Gladstone Neighborhood Master Plan. Peterson Dental Clinic Approved Approved (1670 Beam Avenue) This change was from L (library) and OS (open space) to BC-(M) for the former Ramsey County Library on the southeast corner of Beam Avenue and Kennard Street. The applicant proposed this change to allow the reuse and remodeling of the building into a dental clinic and office space. The Shores Senior Housing Approved Approved (940 Frost Avenue) This land use change was from R-3(M) (medium density multiple dwellings) to GH (Gladstone High) for the proposed Shores Senior housing building. (Note: The city made this change during the adoption of the Gladstone Master Plan). 2007 ZONING MAP CHANGES The commission considered two changes to the zoning map in 2007. Chanqes PC Action Council Action Peterson Dental Clinic Approved Approved (1670 Beam Avenue) This zoning map change was from F (farm residence) to BC-M (Business Commercial - Modified) for the conversion of the former Ramsey County Library building into a dental clinic and office facility. Pond Overlook Approved Approved (2161 County Road D) This change was from F (farm residence) to R-2 (single and double dwellings) for the 1 O-unit twin home (town house) development approved for this site. 2007 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND REVISIONS The commission considered the following conditional use permits and permit revisions in 2007: PC Action Council Action Ramsey County Correctional Facility Approved Approved (297 Century Avenue South) This request was for a revision to the existing permit for the correctional facility so Ramsey County could expand and remodel the facility. St. Paul's Monastery PUD Approved Approved (2675 Larpenteur Avenue East) This request was for the PUD for the redevelopment plans for the Saint Paul's Monastery property. This plan allows a variety of multiple-family housing on the site. Costco (Country View Drive and Beam Avenue) Approved Approved 2 This request is for the new fuel sales facility and a retail store with a tire service center on the former Country View Golf Course on the north side of Beam Avenue, east of the new Country View Drive. Keller Lake Convenience Store Approved Denied (2228 Maplewood Drive) This request was for a revision to the existing permit to allow for the addition of a large propane tank on the site for the refilling of smaller propane tanks. Corner Kick Soccer Center Approved Approved (1357 Cope Avenue) This request was for a revision to the existing permit to allow for the expansion of the indoor soccer center, including the addition of a retail center. The Shores Approved Approved (940 Frost Avenue) This request was for a PUD to allow 180-units of senior housing on the site of the former Saint Paul Tourist Cabin site. The Regent at Legacy Village Approved Approved (Legacy Parkway and Kennard Street) This request was for a revision of the Legacy Village PUD to allow for the construction of a new senior housing building with 150 units instead of the 120 units as previously approved by the city. Salvation Army Approved Approved (2080 Woodlynn Avenue) This request was to approve a revision to the conditional use permit for the Salvation Army to add a children's day care center to their facility. Commercial Truck Approved Approved (1003 Century Avenue North) This request was for a conditional use permit to allow the property owner to keep a commercial truck on his property. Schmelz Countryside Motors Approved Pending (1180 and 1200 Highway 36) This request was for a revision to the existing permit to allow Schmelz to expand their motor vehicle sales business onto the site of the former Embers Restaurant. Clear Channel Billboard Tabled Approved (1790 Gervais Avenue) This request was to allow Clear Channel Outdoor to raise the height of a non-conforming billboard 15 feet. MEMBER WHO RESIGNED IN 2007 Michael Grover MEMBERS APPOINTED TO THE PC IN 2007 Joe Walton, Joseph Boeser, Robert Martin 3 2007 ATTENDANCE Name Lorraine Fischer Joesph Boeser Tushar Desai Robert Martin Michael Grover Gary Pearson Dale Trippler Jeremy Yarwood Harland Hess Joe Walton Appointed 1970 07-09-07 07-22-02 07-09-07 05-24-04 12-10-90 06-08-98 04-11-05 02-23-06 02-12-07 Term Expires (12-31) 2007 2007 2007 2008 2008 (Resigned) 2008 2009 2008 2009 2009 2007 Attendance 18/19 9/9 15/19 9/9 1/4 19/19 17/19 16/19 18/19 14/18 As a point of comparison, the planning commission had 18 meetings in 2001, 17 meetings in 2002, 20 meetings in 2003,18 meetings in 2004, 20 meetings in 2005 and 21 meetings in 2006. 2008 ACTIVITIES The following are the possible activities of the planning commission for 2008: 1. Have an annual tour of development and other sites of interest. 2. Have in-service training sessions or provide educational materials for the planning commission. This might include training or information to help prepare the commission for the update of the comprehensive plan or about redevelopment topics. Other training topics might include sessions about in-fill development, conditional use permits, wetlands (their classifications and buffer areas) the new city tree ordinance, sustainable/green development, septic systems and/or wells. A session with the city attorney reviewing planning and zoning basics (60-day rule, approval standards for CUP's and rezonings, etc.) also would be helpful. Request that city staff update the planning commission about possible upcoming training opportunities on a quarterly basis. 3. Work with the consultants and city staff on any city code or land use plan changes that result from the Gladstone Area redevelopment plan and studies. 4. Work with city staff and other advisory commissions on any city code or land use plan changes that result from the South Maplewood moratorium and study. 5. Work with the consultants and city staff on the 2008 Comprehensive Plan update. 6. Review the PUD ordinance for possible changes. 7. Provide input to the HRA on housing redevelopment and program issues. 8. Study the area west of Hazelwood (along the new County Road D) for land use and transportation issues. 9. Have a tour of the Legacy Village development as construction progresses and of the Gladstone neighborhood as part of the redevelopment study. (The commission and city council may do this as part of the annual city tour.) 4 10. Study the unit sizes and parking needs for senior housing and possibly propose code amendments or city policies for city council consideration. COMMISSION ACTION On January 2, 2008, the planning commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of their 2007 annual report. RECOMMENDATION Accept the Planning Commission's 2007 Annual Report. P:\planning commission pc\pc Annual Reports\2007 ann report 5 Attachment MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Acting City Manager Linda Olson, Community Design Review Board Chair 2007 Community Design Review Board Annual Report February 19, 2008 for the February 25 City Council Meeting INTRODUCTION Annually the community design review board (CDRB) reports the board's actions and activities for the city council for the previous year. In 2007, the CDRB reviewed the following 27 items during their 13 meetings: Type of Proposal # Reviewed New Development Proposals 6 1. Caribou Coffee (1720 Rice Street) 2. Costco (1431 Beam Avenue) 3. The Woodlands (Sophia Street, north of Larpenteur Avenue and east of McMenemy Street) 4. Pond Overlook (South of 1-694 and north of County Road D) 5. The Shores (940 Frost Avenue) 6. Regent at Legacy Village (Southeast Corner of Legacy Parkway and Kennard Street) Expansions/Remodels 8 1. Ramsey County Correctional Facility (297 Century Avenue) 2. Corner Kick Indoor Soccer Facility and Retail Space (1357 Cope Avenue) 3. Rolling Hills Manufactured Home Park Office Building (1316 Pearson Drive) 4. Premier Bank Second Story Addition and Parking Lot Expansion (2866 White Bear Avenue) 5. Police Department Shooting Range Containment Structure (2621 Linwood Avenue) 6. Costco Exterior Design Revision (1431 Beam Avenue) Type of Proposal # Reviewed Expansions/Remodels (con!.) 7. Comforts of Homes Exterior Design Revision (2300 Hazelwood Street) 8. Lexus Parking Lot Expansion (1245 County Road D) Miscellaneous Reviews and Actions 9 1. CarMax Auto Superstore Exterior Modifications (NE Corner of Highway 61 and Beam Avenue) 2. Maplewood Business Center 1 and 2 Comprehensive Sign Plan (1616 and 1730 Gervais) 3. Review of Wetland Ordinance 4. Nonconforming Four-Plex and Three-Plex Landscape/Screening Parking Plan (1349 and 1359 County Road C) 5. Sign Code Interpretation - Electronic Readerboard Signs 6. Gladstone Streetscaping 7. Concept Review for the English Street Manufactured Home Site (Gladstone Neighborhood) 8. Off-Site Dynamic Display Sign Ordinance 9. The Shores Tree Preservation and Landscape Plan (940 Frost Avenue) Special Proiects 4 1. Community Pride Awards 2. New Member Orientation 3. 2006 Annual Report 4. City Council Questions for New CDRB Members Total 27 2 COMPARATIVE INFORMATION Year Number of Items Reviewed 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 25 25 27 33 27 MEMBERSHIP The CDRB consists of five members appointed by the city council. Membership terms are for two years, with extensions for additional terms approved by the city council. The current membership is as follows: Board Member Membership BeQan Term Expires Ananth Shankar Matt Ledvina Linda Olson Matt Wise John Demko 8/8/94 3/10/97 3/26/01 2/12/07 2/26/07 1/ 1/08 1/ 1/09 1/1/09 1/ 1/08 1/ 1/09 On February 12 and 26, 2007, the city council appointed Matt Wise and John Demko to replace John Hinzman and Joel Schurke who resigned from the CDRB in 2006. The city council also reappointed Matthew Ledvina and Linda Olson to the CDRB with terms expiring January 1, 2009. City council interviews for re-appointment or appointment of terms expiring January 1, 2008, are tentatively scheduled for February 11, 2008. DISCUSSION 2007 Actions/Activities In 2007, the CDRB reviewed 6 new commercial developments that could potentially add up to 17,661 square feet of new commercial space; 10 commercial expansion/remodels that could potentially add up to 77,760 square feet of new commercial expansion space and a 1,100,000 square foot indoor soccer center; and 4 new multi-family developments that could add up to 348 new residential units. The CDRB has consistently demonstrated keen interest and skill in their reviews of these development projects to ensure they are of the quality of design and materials that complement the surrounding areas and improves a site's aesthetics. The city has become more developed over the years, with very little vacant land available for new developments. Because of this, city staff has processed many of the city's remodels and additions as 15-day reviews, as allowed by code, rather than the more formal review by the CDRB. Also, because of the developed nature of the city, many of the new commercial and residential developments reviewed by the CDRB are either redevelopment of existing buildings or in-fill development. The CDRB will continue to be a vital advisory board to the city council in the future, particularly with more redevelopment and in-fill development projects on the horizon. 3 The city adopted the current sign code in 1977 and made minor revisions to it in 1996. The sign code is outdated and allows for excessive signage within the commercial and industrial zoning districts. Over a period of three years the CDRB researched, gained public input, and drafted a new sign code to address some of the existing code's shortfalls. In March 2007, the CDRB recommended to the city council approval of a new sign code. The CDRB looks forward to the city council's review and eventual adoption of that new code in 2008. The CDRB held a joint meeting with the environmental and natural resources commission to hear and discuss a presentation on the proposed Gladstone streetscaping. In addition, the CDRB and planning commission chairs attended one of the other board/commission meetings to discuss overlap of responsibilities. 2008 Recommendations/Areas of Interest 1. The CDRB will be drafting the on-site dynamic display sign code for approval by the city council. 2. The CDRB is looking forward to the city council's review of the draft sign code for implementation in 2008. 3. The CDRB will work with staff on recommended site and design criteria for the city's proposed Gladstone neighborhood redevelopment area, including streetscaping. 4. The CDRB is interested in gaining a better understanding of sustainable building design concepts. The board hopes to support the implementation of these concepts for projects that are reviewed and approved by the city, particularly projects within the Gladstone neighborhood redevelopment area. 5. The CDRB is interested in gaining a better understanding and working knowledge of the use of pervious surfaces in development - how they function, how they age, and how they relate to the city's codes. 6. Comprehensive plan review and update. CONCLUSION In 2008, the CDRB will continue its dedication to the quality design of buildings and developments, ensuring a high quality of life for the citizens of Maplewood. P\com-dev\community design review board\annual report (2007) 4