HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-03-02 PC Packet
AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
7:00 PM
City Hall Council Chambers
1830 County Road BEast
1. Call to Order
2. RollCall
3. Approval of Agenda
4. Approval of Minutes
a. February 16, 2010
5. Public Hearings
a. 7:00 pm: Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment for a Countryside VW/Saab Parcel,
from LDR (low density residential) to C (commercial)
6. New Business
a. Rural Conservation Dwelling District (R 1 R)-Code Amendment
b. Resolutions of Appreciation for Harland Hess and Joseph Walton
7. Unfinished Business
a. Gervais Wood's Preliminary and Final Plat Revision
b. Conditional Use Permit/Planned Unit Development Ordinance Amendment
8. Visitor Presentations
9. Commission Presentations
a. Commissioner Report: Commissioner Martin was scheduled to attend the February 22,2010
city council meeting. The CUP/PUD Ordinance Amendment was reviewed.
b. Upcoming City Council Meeting of March 8, 2010: Commissioner Boeser is scheduled to
attend. Anticipated items for review are 1) the rezoning to mixed use for the area at
Larpenteur Avenue and Arcade Street, 2) the rezoning of 2255 Duluth Street to single dwelling
residential and 3) the Gervais Woods subdivision proposal.
10. Staff Presentations
a. Sign Ordinance Amendment
b. Revised Council Meeting Coverage Schedule
c. Handouts for New Planning Commissioners (to be handed out to new members)
11. Adjournment
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2010
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Commissioner AI Bierbaum
Commissioner Joseph Boeser
Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai
Chairperson Lorraine Fischer
Commissioner Robert Martin
Commissioner Tanya Nuss
Commissioner Gary Pearson
Commissioner Dale Trippler
Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Present
City Staff Present:
Tom Ekstrand. City Planner
Steve Kummer. Staff Enqineer
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the agenda as submitted.
Commissioner Desai seconded Ayes - all
The motion passed.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. January 19, 2010
Commissioner Pearson moved approval bf the minutes of January 19, 2010 as submitted.
Commissioner Desai seconded Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Pearson, Yarwood
Abstentions - Bierbaum, Martin, Nuss
The motion passed.
V. PUBLIC HEARING
a. 7:03 p.m.: Rezoning of Land Bounded by Highway 61, Larpenteur Avenue and Parkway Drive
from R1 (single dwelling residential) and BC (business commercial) to MU (mixed use)
Planner Tom Ekstrand presented the staff report, explaining that this rezoning needs to be completed
to be in conformance with the land use classifications of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan recently
adopted by the city council. Planner Ekstrand said the city has not been approached with any
commercial interest in this property at this time.
The public hearing was opened for comments from the public.
Gary Blair, a commercial property owner in this area, spoke about previous attempts to develop his
property. Staff explained that a large part of the difficulty in developing his property has been that it is
situated on land controlled by the Shoreland Ordinance and that would not change with this rezoning.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 02-16-10
-2-
Mr. Blair had specific questions about the setback requirements in the mixed use ordinance. Staff
gave Mr. Blair a copy of the Mixed Use ordinance provisions and asked him to call if he had additional
questions.
There were no further comments from the public; the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the rezoning of the property bounded by Larpenteur
Avenue, Parkway Drive and Highway 61 (Arcade Street) from R1 (single dwelling residential) and BC
(business commercial) to MU (mixed use). This rezoning is based on Minnesota Statute 473.865
subdivision 3, requiring the city to bring the zoning of this property into conformance with the adopted
comprehensive land use plan classification.
Commissioner Desai seconded Ayes - Bierbaum, Desai, Fischer, Martin, Nuss, Pearson, Yarwood
The motion passed.
b. 7:20 p.m.: Rezoning of 2255 Duluth Street from M1 (light manufacturing) to R1 (single dwelling
residential)
Planner Ekstrand presented the staff report, explaining that this rezoning also needs to be completed
to be in conformance with the land use classifications of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan recently
adopted by the city council.
Gordon Anderson, the affected property owner spoke, saying he bought this property and built his
home on it 50 years ago and has lived there ever since. During the update of the comprehensive plan,
he requested that his property be rezoned from light manufacturing to residential.
There were no further comments from the"public; the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the rezoning of 2255 Duluth Street from M1 (light
manufacturing) to R1 (single dwelling residential). This rezoning is based on Minnesota Statute
473.865 subdivision 3, requiring the city to bring the zoning of this property into conformance with the
newly adopted comprehensive land use plan classification.
Commissioner Yarwood seconded Ayes-Bierbaum, Desai, Fischer, Martin, Nuss, Pearson,
Yarwood
The motion passed.
c. 7:30 p.m.: Gervais Woods Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Lot Area Variance, South of Labore
Road and East of Arcade Street
Planner Ekstrand presented the staff report for this request by Landmark Development of Minnesota
to develop eleven single-dwelling lots in a subdivision called Gervais Woods. Staff explained a
change in the staff recommendation relating to Outlot C. Staff explained the staff report recommends
the creation of Outlot C. Subsequently, after further consideration, staff is revising that
recommendation to require that Outlot C be part of Lot 5, Block 2 and not a stand-alone lot. The
county has recommended that the city take care not to create land-locked, stand-alone lots as the
have the potential to go tax forfeit.
The public hearing was opened for comments from the public.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 02-16-10
-3-
The applicant, Nathan Fair who is with Hanson Builders and Landmark Development, discussed the
preliminary agreement with Mr. and Mrs. Gores for acquiring Outlot C. Mr. Fair suggested that a
stipulation be put in the developer's contract that if the sale of Outlot C to the Gores has not happened
within 120 days of filing the final plat, he would give Outlot C to the city for use as open space
property.
John and Jolene Gores, 2870 Arcade Street, said they have a letter of agreement dated January 14
with Landmark Development and are ready to purchase Outlot C, but it cannot be done until Outlot C
is created, The Gores discussed potential flooding on their property, possibly coming from future
development on the back of Lot 5. Staff responded that any grading or development in the back of Lot
5 would require approval from the city.
David Himmelbach, 2970 Labore Road, Little Canada, commented on his objections to this
development which he said are archaeology of stub road site, presence of northern cricket frogs and
buckthorn removal.
There were no further comments from the public; the public hearing was closed.
Staff discussed possible language to be added concerning the sale of Outlot C and suggested the
following language be added: within 120 days of the final plat recording, the applicant shall sell Outlot
C to Mr. and Mrs. Gores of 2870 Arcade Street, to be combined with their property. If that does not
take place, the land shall be given to the City of Maplewood for open space purposes.
Staff engineer Steve Kummer suggested that the approved language regarding Outlot C should be
added into the developer's agreement.
1. Commissioner Yarwood moved to approve the preliminary and final plat for Landmark
Development of Minnesota for the proposed eleven lot Gervais Woods single-family subdivision
located south of Labore Road and East of Arcade Street. This subdivision is subject to the following
conditions:
a. Comply with the conditions of approval in the report by Shann Finwall, the Maplewood
environmental planner and Ginny Gaynor, natural resources coordinator dated January 27,
2010.
b. Comply with the conditions of approval in the engineering report by Steve Kummer,
Maplewood staff engineer, dated February 8, 2010.
c. Approval of a final plat for Gervais Woods from the City of Little Canada.
d. The Cities of Little Canada and Maplewood shall enter into an agreement as to the
provisions of police, fire, code enforcement services and utilities. It is the recommendation of the
Maplewood city council that Little Canada provide these services since the proposed four
southerly homes would be addressed in Little Canada.
e. The accessory building, swimming pool and any other "back yard" construction requirements
of Little Canada shall apply to the Maplewood portions of the southerly four parcels. However,
any construction in the City of Maplewood shall require that the builder obtain a building permit
from the City of Maplewood if required by code.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 02-16-10
-4-
f. The proposed homes on the southerly four lots of this subdivision shall be constructed in the
footprints shown on the applicant's plans. This would require that they be located in the City of
Little Canada.
g. Within 120 days of recording the final plat, the applicant shall sell Outlot C to Mr. and Mrs.
Gores of 2870 Arcade Street to be legally combined with their property. If that does not take place,
the applicant shall give Outlot C to the city for open space as he proposed to the planning
commission. This shall be a condition of the developer's agreement.
h. Approval is conditioned upon the applicant providing five, six-foot-tall evergreen trees
between the home on proposed Lot 5, Block 2 and the neighboring house at 2870 Arcade Street.
2. Adoption of the attached resolution approving lot area variances for Lot 2, Block 2, with 2,378
square feet in Maplewood and of Lot 5, Block 2, with 7,758 square feet in Maplewood. Approval
is based on the following findings:
a. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the
property under consideration. This situation is unique because credit for lot area can't be given
for land outside of Maplewood. If the entire site was in Maplewood, the question of lot area
would not be an issue.
b. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance, since the
proposed southerly lots would have more lot area than is required by both the Cities of Little
Canada and Maplewood.
Commissioner Pearson seconded
The motion passed.
Ayes - all
VI. NEW BUSINESS
None
VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
None
Planning Commission
Minutes of 02-16-10
-5-
IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS
a. City Council Meeting of January 25,2010: Planner Ekstrand reported on this meeting.
b. City Council Meeting of February 8, 2010: Commissioner Fischer reported on this meeting.
c. City Council Meeting of February 22, 010: Commissioner Martin will attend.
X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
Planner Ekstrand welcomed the new planning commissioners and explained that commissioners are
scheduled to represent the commission at city council meetings. Planner Ekstrand said he will revise
the schedule to include the new commissioners.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
James Antonen, City Manager
Michael Martin, AICP, Planner
DuWayne Konewko, Community Development and Parks Director
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Duluth Street, south of Schmelz Countrywide VW/Saab Dealership
February 18, 2010
TO:
FROM:
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
John Schmelz of Schmelz Countryside VW/Saab is requesting the city reconsider the future
land use guide of a lot owned by the dealership. The parcel was guided low density residential
during the city's recent update of its comprehensive plan. Prior to the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan, this parcel had been guided M1 (light manufacturing). There is no development attached
to this request. The request is to bring the future land use guide back to what it had been prior
to the update.
Requests
The following is being requested for approval:
. A land use plan amendment from LDR (low density residential) to C (commercial)
Number of Votes Reauired
The land use plan amendment requires a 4/5s vote of the city council to approve.
DISCUSSION
Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment
The planning commission held a public hearing at its August 19, 2008 meeting for the public to
comment on the proposed comprehensive plan update. At this hearing, Mr. Gordon Anderson
requested his single family home be guided residential instead of light manufacturing as it had
been for several years. Mr. Anderson's home is located at 2255 Duluth Street and there is a
single family home built on the lot. In reviewing the minutes from this meeting, the planning
commission motioned to guide Mr. Anderson's home and the parcel to the north, which is
owned by Schmelz, to low density residential. On a parcel map, without an aerial photo, the
Schmelz property looks live an undeveloped lot. It can be assumed this is why the motion was
made to include the Schmelz property in the guiding to low density residential. In reviewing
aerial photos of the Schmelz property it is clear that it has been used as a parking lot for a
considerable amount of time.
The request being made is to guide the Schmelz parcel C (commercial). This parcel had been
guided M1 (light manufacturing). As a result of the 2030 Comprehensive plan update, all parcels
guided M1 along highways 36 and 61 were re-guided to commercial, thus the request to guide
the Schmelz parcel commercial.
Metropolitan Council Review
If this comprehensive plan amendment is approved the Metropolitan Council will have to review
the proposed amendment as well. This is the case with all proposed comprehensive plan
amendments. Staff has contacted the Metropolitan Council on this matter. The Metropolitan
Council has indicated to staff that their review would likely be waived or expedited due to the
size of the parcel and the history and present use of the land.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Adopt the resolution approving a comprehensive land use plan amendment from LDR (low
density residential) to C (commercial) for the 0.73 acre site south of the main parcel utilized for
the Schmelz Countryside VW/Saab auto dealership, located at 1180 Highway 36. Approval is
based on the following reasons:
1. The Countryside VW/Saab parcel is already developed as a commercial lot and should be
appropriately guided as such.
2. The parcels to the north and west of the Countryside VW/Saab are guided commercial,
meaning that it would be consistent to guide this parcel commercial.
This action is subject to the approval of this land use plan amendment by the Metropolitan
Council.
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 0.73 acres
Existing Use: Parking lot - Schmelz Countryside VW/Saab
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: Schmelz Countryside VW/Saab
South: Single dwelling
East: Apartment buildings
West: Menards
PLANNING
Land Use Plan: LDR (low density residential)-existing, C (Commercial)-proposed
Zoning: M1 (light manufacturing)-existing
p:sec9\SchmelzCompPlanAmend_021710
Attachments:
1. Aerial Photo
2. Land Use Map
3. Zoning Map
4. Planning commission minutes, August 19, 2008
5. Resolution-Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment
Attachment 1
Schmelz Countryside - Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Request to amend comprehensive plan for this parcel from low
density residential to commercial. Currently used as a parking
lot. No development proposed.
t
Figure One - Location Map
City of Maplewood
February 12, 2010
NORTH
~Q j Attachment 2
l.S HS/lfJN3
~ ~ Q)
())
LLO
~~~ on
<D
~Q ~
~~ ~ 0:: on
u 8 0 ~ C\I
-' ~ '"
"0
())
"0
'S
OJ
>-
1"
~u
::1"0
U()) 0
1]2
...... .i':'::I
~OJ
W ()) ())
0..0
(I) eo
o.~
:::J N"O
_ill
()) (f)
C" E 0
.<:0.
(I) " e
(f)o.
a::
......
c
(I) ~
E Q)
~
~ ()
"C Q) <(
~ ~
()
C <( Q) CD
0- M
~
(I) Q) en >-
0- "" III
E c ~/
en ::J
~ "" ..r::
c 0 .21
c..<( ::J l!"J
0 N J:
CO C CO
~
:E CO CO 0
N ~
....... ~ ~
c... ~
(I) E2' a:::
0
W 0 J:
c.. ...J
~ ~ \
:;) E ro ro (/
:;::; :;::;
c c
"C 0 Q) Q)
""0 :"Q
C () 'iij en
Q) Q) ~
CO a::: a::: u
N >- ~
....J >-
"" ."!: ro
....... en en '0
(I) c c
~ Q) ~
Q) Q)
E 0 0 E
:::J ~ ..r:: E "
..c 0 .9' 0 0
N
...... ...J J: U '"
:::J 0 II e:-
m z<
u.. en ~
B
m
~
Attachment 3
Schmelz Countryside - Comprehensive Plan Amendment
"<""
"i:'"'"
Schmelz property currently zoned M1 (light manufacturing)
t
NORTH
Figure Three - Zoning Map
City of Maplewood
February 17, 2010
Attachment 4
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 2008
V. PUBLIC HEARING
a. 7:00 p.m. - 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update Public Hearing
Rose Lorsung of MFRA gave a presentation on the draft plan of the 2008
Comprehensive Plan and explained ground rules for the public hearing.
It was decided by the commissioners that they would hold their discussions until after
the public completes their comments as part of the hearing.
Chairperson Fischer reiterated the ground rules and opened the public hearing for
comments. The following people spoke:
Duane Goodnek, 2002 English Street, said his property abuts the Bruce Vento Trail.
He referred to the Light Rail Transit/Busway section of the Transportation chapter that
refers to the feasibility of future use of buses on the Vento Trail alignment. Mr.
Goodnek said he reviewed the Ramsey County Regional Rail Authority's plan which
states that the trail is not planned for bus use and has specifically been purchased for
future rail service. Mr. Goodnek asked the commission to eliminate the reference to
bus rapid transit use on the trails from the plan and also insert a statement to the rail
authority that recreational trails will not be used for a bus rapid transit way.
Tom Horton, 1970 Clarence Street, questioned whether a variance would be required
to add a screen porch to the property on a grandfathered-in property in a Mixed-Use
area.
Gordon Anderson, 2255 Duluth Street, said he has lived at that address for 53 years
and the adjacent property is zoned residential, but his property is zoned commercial.
Mr. Anderson said he would like his property rezoned to residential.
Lettie Sageser, 1241 Frisbie Avenue, said her property abuts the Gladstone Savanna
which has been changed from an open space designation to a park designation and
asked why this was done and whether all the open space designations have been
changed to park.
David Bartol, 1249 Frisbie Avenue, commented on the changes of the Gladstone
Savanna use from open space to a park designation, whether this gives the land less
protection, and also referenced the limited budget for the parks system.
Jim Valenciano, 1489 Sherren Avenue, commented that since the colors have been
changed on the new use map, it is difficult to compare the new map with the old. Mr.
Valenciano said his property abuts Highway 36 and the plan shows a new path
between the highway and his property, but was not clear how it would tie into White
Bear Avenue. Mr. Valenciano asked how this path would affect his property.
Leo Capeder spoke representing Truck Utilities at Highway 36 and English Street
which is an industrial use. Mr. Dieter asked how this would affect their taxes and said
they are concerned with the watershed problems and sewer problems. Mr. Capeder
said they are concerned with how much water will run across Highway 36 and through
their back property to the other side of Gervais Area and into the wetland area. Mr.
Capeder said they want to make sure that their concerns are addressed.
Jim Svoboda, 2036 English Street, said his property is on the proposed Skillman Street
has a driveway easement. Mr. Svoboda said he wants to develop his property and
displayed a letter from Ramsey County Property Records and Revenue showing his
property value has diminished but shows his taxes have increased. Mr. Svoboda said
his property has been determined to be land locked and cannot be developed, but he
intends to pursue developing his property.
Jonathon Buseng, 1247 Kohlman Avenue, said his property is proposed to be
reclassified from residential to commercial. Mr. Buseng asked that specific guidelines
be added to the city ordinances on what can and cannot be permitted on a
nonconforming residence. He asked for specific clarification on whether he could add
such things as new siding or replace windows without this being considered a special
use permit process.
Michael Eller, 1581 Sexton Avenue, said his property is zoned residential and asked
what is planned for this area. He noted that there is vacant land behind his property
and asked what is planned for that area.
Ralph Sletten, 2747 North Clarence Street, said the city, Ramsey County and the
Watershed District have made changes by putting in dams, waterfalls and backing up
water on 43 acres of KSTP's property. Mr. Sletten said the tower on that property has
been compromised due to the backed up water. Mr. Sletten said the Watershed District
has previously paid to have one of the tower anchors re-stabilized and another anchor
needs to be fixed and causes grave concerns by the residents. He said they want the
anchor taken care of and the water moved back. Mr. Sletten also said that the 1950s
Watershed District enacted the Waterways Act which prohibits the changing of water
directions and he wants that looked into.
John Wykoff, 2345 Maryland Avenue East, asked for the costs to tax payers for the
comprehensive plan, the parks, trails, and open space study, and the Gladstone
project and mentioned that the city would not let him build a garage.
There were no further comments from the public; the public hearing was then closed
for comments from the public.
Rose Lorsung suggested that the commission and staff consider the public's
comments in the order that they were made.
Brandon Bourdon of Kimley-Horn Associates considered the first question regarding
the Bruce Vento Trail and the transit alternatives being considered. Mr. Bourdon said it
is early in the process and many trails including the Vento Trail will be considered for
transit alternatives ranging from light rail to commuter rail to bus rapid transit.
Acting city manager Chuck Ahl mentioned that the Vento Trail corridor is owned by the
Ramsey County Regional Rail Authority. Mr. Ahl said the Rail Authority is purchasing
additional trail land for expansion and will have a meeting for public comments on the
future plans for the trail in mid September. Mr. Ahl advised those interested residents
to check the next issue of City News or call city hall for the meeting date and attend
that meeting.
Commissioner Boeser asked for clarification on whether the city has the ability to
eliminate the possibility of bus transit on the trail corridor.
Acting city manager Ahl responded the city does not have veto authority over this since
the Rail Authority is the owner of the property and has jurisdiction. Mr. Ahl said if the
city is not in support of bus transit on the trail, this should be made clear.
Duane Goodnek spoke again regarding his wish for this to be made clear in the
comprehensive plan. Mr. Goodnek said that since the Ramsey County Regional Rail
Authority's plan states bus transit use is not planned on recreational trails, this
statement should be added to Maplewood's plan or at a minimum, delete the statement
that bus rapid transit will be considered from the city's plan.
Ms. Lorsung presented the second speaker's question regarding grandfathering
clauses and possible additions or alterations to a nonconforming use property in a
mixed use area. Ms. Lorsung said there are local policies and state statutes that
govern specific types of grandfathering, but usually precedent establishes city
requirements.
Senior planner Tom Ekstrand explained often times a judgment call needs to be made
and as an example he said past precedent would allow a home on property that is
zoned to be commercial or nonconforming to make minor changes such as new siding
or windows. Mr. Ekstrand further explained that in the past requests for additions or
garages on these nonconforming properties have required a Conditional Use Permit
application for consideration by the city council. Mr. Ekstrand commented that
establishing guidelines for what would be allowable on these types of properties would
be helpful and a good idea.
Commissioner Boeser said guidelines are needed for these situations, but these
nonconforming uses are zoning related questions and after the comprehensive plan is
updated, the zoning code will be reviewed and these zoning questions will be
considered at that time.
Rose Lorsung commented the city has to follow the state statute for nonconformities
and grandfathering clauses, but the city does have the opportunity to update the
ordinance making it clear and in line with what the statute says. Ms. Lorsung
encouraged residents interested in grandfathering clauses and nonconformities to go
to the city's website and view those sections of the city code.
Commissioner Boeser asked at what time a person's land use officially changes when
the land use is to be changed. Ms. Lorsung responded the land use officially changes
when the city council adopts the plan and when that plan is published in a city
newspaper.
Ms. Lorsung presented the next resident's comments regarding his property on Duluth
Street designated as commercial in a residential area. Ms. Lorsung said the two
properties being used as residential were previously guided as future industrial and
under the new plan will be reguided as commercial as part of the cleanup to
commercial use in that area.
Commissioner Desai suggested that since the property is being used as residential, the
industrial designation was possibly a mistake and that the designation could now be
corrected to residential in the updated plan.
Ms. Lorsung responded this is not the case even though the property is being used as
residential, since the property's use designation fell within the highway corridor area
designated at the time as industrial use.
Commissioner Boeser said he would favor reguiding the property to residential use
rather than commercial use as the property owner requested, since the property to the
east and south is designated as residential use.
Commissioner Trippler moved to recommend changing the two parcels'
designation to Low Density Residential designation. Commissioner Martin
seconded the motion.
Commissioner Martin asked how this resident could have his property designation
changed and not have been notified of the change. Acting city manager Ahl
commented the city has gone through the process of updating this plan five times over
the 50-year history and the various commissions and councils have used different
procedures. Mr. Ahl mentioned residents were notified this year about proposed land
use changes affecting their designation, but this was not required or done in the past.
Ms. Lorsung commented the city is not required by law to notify individual property
owners of land use changes, but are required to notify residents of proposed zoning
changes.
The commission then voted as follows regarding the above motion to change the
two parcels' designation to Low Density Residential: Ayes - all
Attachment 5
LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, John Schmelz of Schmeltz Countryside VW/Saab has requested a
change to the City of Maplewood's land use plan from LDR (low density residential) to C
(commercial) for consistency between the plan and actual use of the land.
WHEREAS, this change applies to the property located south of Highway 36 and
East of Highway 61. The legal description is:
CLIFTON ADDITION, RAMSEY CO., MINN. EX N 30 FT; & EX S 174 FT;
THE W 225 FT OF E 255 FT OF BLK 10 & ALSO THE W 105 FT OF E
135 FT OF N 30 FT OF BLK 10
WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows:
1. On March 2, 2010, the planning commission held a public hearing. The
city staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review 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 recommended that the city council
the land use plan change.
2. On , the city council discussed the land use plan change.
They considered reports and recommendations from the planning
commission and city staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council
above described change for the following reasons:
the
1. The Countryside VW/Saab parcel is already developed as a commercial lot
and should be appropriately guided as such.
2. The parcels to the north and west of the Countryside VW/Saab are guided
commercial, meaning that it would be consistent to guide this parcel
commercial.
This action is subject to the approval of this land use plan amendment by the
Metropolitan Council.
The Maplewood City Council
this resolution on
,2010.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
James Antonen, City Manager
Michael Martin, AICP, Planner
DuWayne Konewko, Community Development and Parks Director
Amendments to the R-1 R Zoning District
February 18, 2010
INTRODUCTION
On February 23,2009, the city council adopted amendments to the R1-R (rural conservation
dwelling district) zoning district. These amendments were intended to serve as a stop-gap until
the adoption of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The amendments adopted in February 2009
were intended to bring the R1-R zoning district into consistency with the comprehensive plan
that was adopted by the city in 2002. On January 25, 2010, the city council formally adopted
the 2030 Comprehensive Plan meaning that some adjustments need to be made to the R1-R
zoning district to ensure consistency between land use and zoning.
DISCUSSION
February 23, 2009 Amendments
The following are the objectives that staff used to develop the rural conservation dwelling district
last year.
Ordinance Obiectives
. To allow for development that allows for the maximum entitlement of 4.3 units per acre.
This was critical to ensure that the city was legally protected under the 2002
Comprehensive Plan. (Now that the 2030 Comprehensive Plan is adopted, the
ordinance needs to be revised to reflect the density range identified on the updated Land
Use Plan.)
. To create an ordinance that protects the natural resources and habitat in the south
Maplewood area.
. To create a list of definitions that clearly describe the conservation principles the city of
Maplewood is trying to achieve.
. To create density incentives for developers and land owners that can only be achieved
through preservation and conservation principles as defined by the city.
Ordinance Structure
The current ordinance allows a base entitlement of two (2.0) acre lots in the R-1R zoning
district. In order for the developer to achieve higher density they are required to employ
conservation principles. Staff created a 3- Tiered approach 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 approval of the city council in
order for the developer to be granted more density on a property. The following list identifies
the conservation principles and their definitions can be found in the ordinance. The list was
developed and compiled based on comments from the planning commission, the Parks, Trails
and Open Space advisory panel, the environmental and natural resources commission and
other interested stakeholders during the development of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Table 1: Conservation Tools for Density Incentives
Group A: Natural Characteristics Group B: Desi~m Characteristics
Additional Shoreline Buffers Clustering
Additional Stormwater Manaqement Create/Develop Trail Connections
Creek Restoration Manaoement Create Passive Parks
Dedicate 50% Open Space Enerqy Efficiency
Enhance/Preserve larqe wooded areas or forest Historic Preservation
Enhance Wetlands, Create Management Plan LEED Certified BuildingslDevelopment
Prairie Restoration Low Impact Development (LID)
Slope Buffer Preservation Preserve and Establish Natural Area Greenwavs
Tree Preservation Vista Shed/Corridor Preservation
The ordinance Tiers are identified in Table 44-130.1 of the ordinance. All properties have
entitlement to the base density identified in Tier I, and are not allowed the increased density in
Tier II and Tier III without meeting the specified conservation principles. A calculation for a 10
acre site is included in the ordinance to illustrate to a developer how the tiers and conservation
principles work together. In order for a developer to reach the maximum entitlement, they would
need to achieve 7 conservation principles, all of which would have to be agreed to by the city
council. The intent is for the developer to work closely with the staff, commissions and city
council to ensure that the appropriate conservation principles are applied to a specific site,
because one size does not fit all and different sites will have different natural resource values.
In conclusion, the purpose of this "interim" ordinance was to protect the high quality natural
areas and resources in south Maplewood, while allowing for the land use entitlement of 4.3 units
per acre that was mandated by the 2002 Comprehensive Plan.
Proposed Amendments to the R1-R Zoning District
While developing the rural conservation dwelling district, staff had anticipated that the direction
of the Rural/Low Residential future land use had been changed to guide the property for a
density range of 0.5 - 1.5 units per acre. It was staff's intent to create an ordinance that could
be revised to accommodate the density range identified by the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, while
still implementing conservation principles in the city's rural residential areas.
Ordinance ChanQes
Staff has gone through the R1-R ordinance and made recommended changes in order to bring
the ordinance in to compliance with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amended
ordinance is attached to this report. One proposed change of note is the reduction of
conservation tiers. When this ordinance was originally developed as a stop-gap the density
range was 0 - 4.3 units per acre, now the density range is 0.5 - 1.5 units per acre. Staff felt with
the decrease of the range, it was warranted to reduce the conservation tiers from three to two.
The following are the changes staff is recommending in order to bring the R1-R ordinance into
compliance with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan:
Sec. 44-120, Table 44-120.1, Tier III was removed. The density ranges and minimum areas
were changed to reflect the 0.5 - 1.5 units per acre set by the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Tier
I's range would be 0.5 - 1.0 with a minimum lot area of 43,560 square feet (one acre). Tier II's
range would be 1.1 - 1.5 units per acre with a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet.
Sec. 44-127, Table 44-127.1, the accessory building requirements for Tier III are removed. The
requirements for Tier II are adjusted to reflect accessory building requirements currently found
in the R-1 (single dwelling) zoning district for lots of similar size.
Sec. 44-130, Table 44-130.1, again Tier III is removed from the table. The density ranges in
Tier I and Tier II are adjusted to reflect the new density range. The number of conservation
principles needed to increase density has been adjusted as well. In Tier I, the base entitlement
of 2 acre lots is represented by zero conservation principles. Staff is recommending a
developer achieve two conservation principles in order to increase density up to 1.0 units per
acre. In the current ordinance, a developer has the option of achieving one, two or three
principles in Tier I. Staff is recommending having just zero and two to reflect the decrease in
the density range. In Tier II, the current ordinance gives the option of achieving three, four or
five conservation principles. Staff is recommending a developer achieve four principles in order
to move into Tier II which would allow up to 1.5 units per acre.
Giving the developer the option of achieving zero, two or four conservation principles is intended
to make the ordinance workable from a development perspective but also to achieve the
conservation principles established by this ordinance.
The clause at the end of Sec. 44-130 requiring the protection of 50 percent of a proposed
project in open space when achieving seven conservation principles is recommended to be
deleted. Staff does not feel this requirement should be required under the new density range
but a developer could choose this as a conservation principle in order to increase density.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the amended text to the R-1 R zoning district with any recommendations or conditions.
p: planning\ord\PC _03021 OIR 1 R_Amend_ 021710
Attachments:
1. Draft Amended R1 R (Rural Conservation Dwelling District) Ordinance
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 44.9. Zoning Districts.
The city is herby divided into the following zoning districts:
F, Farm Residence District.
R-1, Residence District (Single Dwelling).
R-1 R, Rural 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 Commerciai 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.
DIVISION 3.5 R.1(R) 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 requirements of this Rural Conservation Dwelling District are meant
to preserve and enhance the ecologicai/aesthetic character by providing incentives that: 1) reinforce and establish
ecological connections throughout the city; 2) protect and enhance drainageways and water quality; 3) protect and
enhance ecological communities; 4) preserve and improve vistas; and 5) preserve or reinterpret local historical
landmarks.
To allow for and to protect a 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 for suburban or tract deveiopment because of topography, vegetation or other factors that make the area
unique. The city finds the most suitable use of these areas is single dwellings on large iots, but is interested in
protecting the natural resources and will encourage developments to follow the conservation principles and initiatives
identified in subsequent sections of this ordinance. To further support the rural quality of the area, the density
calculations in the R-1R district shall be calculated on a net acre basis which is further described Section 44-130 (c)
of this ordinance. Low-density residential development and conservation development will lessen grading and soil
erosion and will help protect ground water, vegetation and wooded areas.
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 farming 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 design principles are applied as described in
Section 44-128.
(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 design and plan for a
community septic system or regional sewer.
(c) Each dwelling 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. The following 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 adjoining lots as a single-building site, the side yard
requirements shall apply only to the outside lot lines.
(d) The following table identifies the minimum lot area and lot width based on the conservation tiers:
Table 44-120.1
Conservation Tier Density Minimum Area Minimum Side Yard Front Yard
Ranae Frontaae Setback Setback
Tier I (0-2 0.5 -1.~Q $;GOO 43,560 100' 30' 50'
Princioles) UtA SF
Tier II (d-a 1 1.91-~~ 41},OOQ 15.000 80' 15' 30'
Principles) , UtA SF
Tier III (6 7 16 4J U!/\ 7,809 SF w: ~ ~
n' .
(e) Each interior lot shall have at least fifty (50) feet of frontage on an improved public street.
(D 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 by the City Council.
(b) The director of community development may allow a different front yard setback if the proposed setback
would not adversely affect the drainage of surrounding properties and if any of the following conditions
apply:
1) The proposed setback would not affect the privacy of adjacent homes.
2) The proposed setback would save significant natural features, as defined in Section 9-188.
3) The proposed setback is necessary to meet city, state or federal regulations, such as pipeline
setback or noise regulations.
4) The proposed setback is necessary for energy saving, health or safety reasons.
Sec. 44-123. Rear Yards.
(a) Single dwellings shall have a rear yard setback of at least twenty (20) percent of the lot depth.
(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 story dwelling, five hundred twenty-eight (528) square feet.
(b) Room size and number shali be consistent with the standards of the International Residential Code.
Sec. 44-126. Building-width requirements.
The minimum building width on the primary frontage 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 buiidings) 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 in the R-1 R zoning district, the following size standards shall apply to accessory buildings and
garages:
Table 44-127.1 Accessory Sizes
Detached Buildings (Max Attached Garages (Max Combination of detach
Area, Square Feet) Area, Square Feet) buildings and attached
Garaae (Max Area)
Tier I 1,400 (garages), 1,100 1,400 2,800
(other)"
Tier II WOO 1,250 SF Total -1,llOO-1,250 ~1.850
+ieF-UI g~g Sf Total gag WOO
Sec. 44-128. Definitions and Conservation Principles.
The conservation principles in the following table shall represent the conservation incentives for this ordinance. The
definitions of each principle follow the table. All incentives, and subsequent conservation bonuses as described in
Table 44-130.1, shall only be granted IF they exceed the minimum standards set forth in the existing City 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
quality, in all cases, the more restrictive ordinance shall apply and it is the developer's responsibility to discuss any
issues or questions regarding the applicable ordinances with the City Planner.
The developer shall be aware that the conservation principles shall be subject to the recommendations of
the city staff, applicable commissions, planning commission and ultimate approval by the city council. As
stated in Sec. 44.129 the developer shall be required to work closely with these bodies to develop a plan that
supports the goals 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 conservation bonus as described in Table 44-130.1 ONLY if the
development integrates the conservation principle as a dominant theme throughout the proposed development. This
shall be required of all proposed conservation principles. The City's objective is to maintain the rural quality of the R-
1 R district and encourage conservation principles and development in the city's areas with natural resource quality.
Table 44-128.1 identifies the conservation principles that may qualify for density incentives. The table is categorized
into two groups: Group A - Natural Characteristics and Group B - Design Characteristics. The developer shall be
required to present a diverse set of conservation principles for a site. Additionally, the developer is encouraged to
use a mix of conservation principles and may not duplicate principles and receive a density incentive in exchange.
For example if the developer proposes to preserve a large wooded area and consequently preserves an important
stand of oak trees, the developer will receive the density incentive for one conservation principle not two.
Table 44-128.1 Conservation Principles for Density Incentives
,
Group A: Natural Characteristics Group B: Design Characteristics
Additional Shoreline Buffers Clustering
Additional Stormwater Management Create/Develop Trail Connections
Creek Restoration Management Create Passive Parks
Dedicate 50% Open Space Energy Efficiency
Enhance/Preserve Large Wooded Areas or Forest Historic Preservation
Enhance Wetlands, Create Management Plan LEED Certified Buildings/Development
Prairie Restoration Low Impact Development (LID)
Slope Buffer Preservation Preserve and Establish Natural Area Greenways
Tree Preservation Vista Shed/Corridor Preservation
GROUP A: Natural Characteristics
The following conservation principles are defined for this ordinance as natural characteristics because they directly
apply specifically to naturally occurring characteristics on a site. The principles are presented in alphabetical order.
Additiona/ Shoreline Buffers: Beyond those already identified in the Shoreland Overlay District, the creation and plan
for permanent protection of protective buffers around those areas which are more sensitive to the negative impacts of
development, especially 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 may vary or be averaged near the
location of protection importance.
Additional Stormwater Management: The city has existing stormwater management policies, but there is opportunity
to further improve the stormwater management on a site. The developer shall be given a conservation bonus for a
stormwater management plan and implementation that exceeds the city's existing policy.
Creek Restoration Management: Restoration projects that the city believes would assist in the restoration of the
stream or natural creek that compensate for the loss of past uses of the watershed due to contamination, erosion and
other influences or issues. Specific types of projects proposed for implementation as part of a development plan
would be those that enhance habitat, water quality, and flow regime such as stormwater management, stream
channel stabilization or greenways by implementing conservation easements, or additional buffers in riparian
corridors.
Dedicate 50% Open Space: Open space is defined as public or publicly held land that is generally natural in
character and contains relatively few human-made structures. The developer can achieve a conservation bonus for
dedication of 50% of a site to open space. The open space dedication must be developable or have buildable
quaiities in order to achieve this principle. This conservation principle will be mandatory to achieve the full density
allocation.
Enhance/Preserve Large Wooded Areas or Forest: An act of deliberately avoiding the removal of clusters of
structurally healthy mature trees and understory trees which are native to the area and non-invasive, individual
heritage trees which are structurally healthy 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 environmentai or intrinsic benefits. To meet this standard, the developer must prepare a
health assessment of the trees on site, and must show a polygon 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.
Enhance Wetlands, Create a Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan (CWMP): A plan to resolve development
and protection conflicts where wetlands affect a significant portion of a community. The plan encompasses the
identification, study, and evaluation of wetland functions and community values, and development needs and
investments with regard to wetlands protection, enhancement and regulation. The applicant shall be required to
create a pian, that the developer shall implement, that exceeds the standards of the adopted Wetland Ordinance.
Prairie Restoration: After performing a historical analysis to determine pre-settlement conditions, prepare a plan for
prairie restoration with a specific management strategy that the deveioper shall implement, over the course of five
years in order to assure that the prairie establishes. This plan shali be submitted and approved by the city's natural
resource coordinator to determine if it meets this requirement and subsequently qualifies for the conservation bonus.
Slope Buffer Preservation: A development plan that deliberately avoids placing any lots, in the buffer area of a slope
exceeding 12 percent, or as described in the city's slope ordinance section 44-1238 and building code section 12-
308. The deveioper 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 requirements.
A conservation bonus will be given for those plans that exceed the standards identified in the current steep slopes
ordinance.
Tree Preservation: Through means of a tree inventory, identifying the most significant trees on a site and
permanently protecting them. The developer shall be required to present a plan for protection of these trees, and will
be required to demonstrate how these trees will be integrated as a key component of the development.
GROUP B: Design Characteristics
The following conservation principles relate to the design of a project or of a site. The principles are presented in
alphabetical order.
Clustering: A design technique 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 vistas.
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 creating trail connections to existing trails. A conservation bonus will be given for the development and
construction of the trail not for the land dedication which will be considered part of the city's park accessibility
charges.
Create Passive Parks: An area set aside through the development 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, but some areas may be too environmentally sensitive to accommodate any public access. A
conservation bonus will only be given for passive dedication areas that are permanently protected and that are
dedicated to a public entity.
Energy Efficiency: Using the Minnesota Greenstar Program, deveiop energy efficient and Greenstar rated projects
and buildings. A conservation bonus 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.
Historic Preservation: Identifying and protecting through permanent means, any historically significant areas on a
specific site. If historical preservation is proposed as a conservation principle, the city's Historical Preservation
Commission shall review and provide recommendations to the City Council regarding this principle. To reinforce the
historical quality, a signage plan shall be included to clearly communicate the historical significance of the area or
artifact.
LEED Certified Buildings/Development (3 Practices per structure): A national set of standards for buildings and
neighborhoods that focuses on the principles of green building, smart growth, sustainability and healthy living. The
LEED for Neighborhood Development Rating System provides independent, third-party verification that a
development's location and design meet accepted high levels of environmentally responsible, sustainable
development. A conservation bonus will be given for a minimum of 3 practices in the LEED standards certification
criteria. The conservation bonus shall only be given if the LEED standards are applied to all structures throughout a
development. Developers are encouraged to seek LEED certification.
Low Impact Development (UD): An ecologically friendly approach to site development and storm water management
that aims to mitigate development impacts to land, water and air. The approach emphasizes the integration of site
design and planning techniques that conserve the natural systems and hydrologic functions of a site. In all cases,
the developer must minimize the impervious surface coverage to achieve low impact development, and must be a
minimum of 5% below the 30% coverage standard allowed. This must be accomplished in conjunction with other LID
techniques to achieve this principle. In order to achieve this principle the developer must demonstrate how they will
achieve these principles.
Preserve and Establish Natural Area Greenways: The dedication, maintenance or management of an area identified
on the City's Natural Areas Greenway map. The Natural Area Greenway is defined as large contiguous areas of
natural habitat that cross ownership boundaries.
Vista Shed/Corridor Preservation: A site plan or development pattern that is designed specifically to protect an area
on or near the development site that is viewed as integral to protecting the sense of place, whether the features in the
vista are cultural, historical or natural or whether they 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 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 may develop at the base
entitlement of one (1) unit per two (2) acres of land and skip to step e. If the developer is interested in
additional units and smaller lot sizes, then the developer shall follow steps b-e.
(b) The developer shall prepare and submit a natural resources evaluation of the site, including all of the
following elements, this step is in preparation for meeting with the city 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, identifying tree species and size.
2) Wetland inventory, 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 preliminary natural resource
information collected in step (b). The principles utilized to achieve higher densities on a site must be
reviewed and recommended by the City Staff, Planning Commission and approved by the City
Council. The conservation principles and corresponding conservation bonuses are shown in table 44-130.1
(d) The developer shall create a concept plan that includes the following information:
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 corresponding conservation
bonus and unit count as the developer understands it. This shall also include information and data
that supports how the concept plan addresses the conservation principle and how the plan meets
and exceeds the standards of the city's existing natural resource ordinances.
3) A graphic that demonstrates generally 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 supporting data
demonstrating how the concept meets the standards of existing ordinances, and data
demonstrating how the concept plan exceeds them.
5) The developer shall submit, with their concept plans, data and reports related to the conservation
principies performed by a reputable ecologist or ecological firm. The city shall reserve the right, if
needed, to hire their own ecological expert at the cost of the developer to verify and further
understand the plans submitted by the applicant/developer.
6) Submit twenty (20) copies of items 1 through 4 for informal or non-binding comments by city staff,
pianning commission and city council. Each body will provide feedback and recommendations to
the developer so the developer understands the changes they need to make moving forward to the
preliminary 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 project.
(e) After the concept plan review, the developer shall take and integrate the recommendations and prepare a
preliminary plat and final plat submittai in accordance with section 34-5 of the subdivision ordinance.
(D A full developer's agreement as well as any necessary agreements that document the conservation
principles and how they will be upheid will be required 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 which
shall be completed prior to final plat approval or the issuance of any building permit.
Sec. 44.130 Conservation Bonus Standards
The following conservation bonuses shall be rewarded based on the number of conservation principles (as identified
in Table 44-128.1) integrated within a development. The conservation principles and their application must be
agreed to by both the developer and the city.
(a) Conservation bonus is defined as the additional allotment of a lot or lots as determined by the number of
conservation principles met. Conservation bonus is also commonly referred to as a density bonus.
(b) The units obtained through the conservation bonus calculation shall always be rounded down to the nearest
whole number.
(c) The density and number of units shall be calculated on a net area basis. Net density shall be defined as the
number of dwelling units per acre exclusive of arterial streets and right of ways, steep slopes (in excess of
18%), wetlands and water features, and other publicly dedicated improvements such as parks.
Table 44-130.1 Conservation Bonus Allotment for Conservation Principles
The following table identifies the baseline entitlement for all property zoned R-1 R of 0.5 units per acre. All
conservation bonuses are cumulative and the percentage bonus calculated as such.
Density
Range
Tier 1:
0.5 -1.aQ
Tier 2:
1.8 3.5
1.1-1.5
~
3.8 4.3
Number of
Conservation
Principles
o
.j.
2
~
4
a
e
f"-
Conservation bonus (Housing Units)
None - base entitlement of 2 Acre Lots
W9/o
100%
W100%
400%
Y!.
Tl1e asteriel< in Table 44 130.1 E1enotes a manElater; eonsorvation ~rinei~le of ~roteeting fifty ~eroent (50%) of a
~re~oseEl ~roject in o~on s~aeo. /" management ~Ian for all ~reteeted o~en s~aee sl1all be re~~ir-eEl te ael1ie>/e final
~Iat a~~re'/al. Potential options inel~do managoment by a Homoowners /,,ssoeiation, E1eElieateEl to a p~blie ~se or
interacted agency.
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
James Antonen, City Manager
Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
DuWayne Konewko, Community Development and Parks Director
Resolutions of Appreciation for Harland Hess and Joseph
Walton
February 18, 2010
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
INTRODUCTION
Harland Hess and Joe Walton have submitted their resignations as members of the
planning commission. The planning commission appreciates the years of service they
both have given to the city and wish them the best in their future endeavors.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the attached resolutions of appreciation for Harland Hess and Joseph Walton.
P:Planning Commission\Resolutions of Appreciation for Harland Hess and Joseph Walton 2 10 te
Attachment:
1. Resolution of Appreciation for Harland Hess
2. Resolution of Appreciation for Joseph Walton
Attachment 1
JOINT RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION
WHEREAS, Harland Hess has been a member of the Maplewood Planning
Commission since February 13, 2006 and has servedfaithfuliy in that capacity to the
present time; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has appreciated his experience, insights
and good judgment; and
WHEREAS, he has freely given of his time and energy, without compensation,
for the betterment of the City of Maplewood; and
WHEREAS, he has shown sincere dedication to his duties and has consistently
contributed his leadership, time and effort for the benefit of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED for and on behalf of the
City of Maplewood, Minnesota, and its citizens that Harland Hess is hereby extended our
gratitude and appreciation for his dedicated service.
Passed by the Maplewood
City Council on ,2010
Will Rossbach, Mayor
Passed by the Maplewood
Planning Commission
On ,2010
Lorraine Fischer, Chairperson
Attest:
Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk
Attachment 2
JOINT RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION
WHEREAS, Joseph Walton has been a member of the Maplewood Planning
Commission since February 12, 2007 and has servedfaithfully in that capacity to the
present time; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has appreciated his experience, insights
and good judgment; and
WHEREAS, he has freely given of his time and energy, without compensation,
for the betterment of the City of Maplewood; and
WHEREAS, he has shown sincere dedication to his duties and has consistently
contributed his leadership, time and effort for the benefit of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED for and on behalf of the
City of Maplewood, Minnesota, and its citizens that Joseph Walton is hereby extended
our gratitude and appreciation for his dedicated service.
Passed by the Maplewood
City Council on ,2010
Will Rossbach, Mayor
Passed by the Maplewood
Planning Commission
On ,2010
Lorraine Fischer, Chairperson
Attest:
Karen Guilfoile, City Clerk
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
James Antonen, City Manager
Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
DuWayne Konewko, Community Development and Parks Director
Preliminary Plat and Final Plat Revision
Landmark Development of Minnesota
South of Labore Road and East of Arcade Street
February 24, 2010
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
On February 16, 2010, Nathan Fair, of Landmark Development of Minnesota, appeared before the
planning commission and requested approval of an 11-lot preliminary plat, the final plat and lot
area variances for a proposed subdivision called Gervais Woods. The planning commission
recommended approval of these requests subject to several conditions. Gervais Woods is largely
located in the City of Little Canada, but the southerly 2.2 acres are in the City of Maplewood.
There are four single-dwelling lots that would extend into Maplewood. Refer to the maps.
Proposed Revision
Since the planning commission meeting on February 16, Mr. Fair and Ken Wehrle, of Ramsey
County Parks, have been discussing a land swap between themselves that would 1) transfer a part
of the county's abutting open space land to the developer and 2) would transfer part of the Gervais
Woods site to Ramsey County as open space (shown as Outlot D on the attached map).
The main reason for this land swap is to provide increased stormwater pond capacity.
Phasing ofthe Land Swap
The applicant anticipates they would do the land swap with Ramsey County after the County Board
authorizes this land transfer. This will take up to 120 days. So for now, the proposed revision to
the plat is to accommodate this eventual land swap by creating Outlot D.
Once the plat is recorded, and the county board approves the land transfer, the applicant and
county would propose a metes and bounds split of the area labeled Outlot E for attachment to the
Gervais Woods plat.
Request
Staff is requesting that the planning commission review this revision prior to review by the city
council on March 8, 2010. Staff will report the planning commission's comments to the city council
at that meeting.
DISCUSSION
The applicant and the county staff are both confident that the county board will approve this land
transaction. With this revised proposal, however, staff has the same concern over the creation of
Outlot D, another land-locked parcel. During the previous review, concern over land-locked Outlot
C was addressed by the developer's proposal to give Outlot C to the city if he did not sell it to the
neighbor within 120 days and have it combined with that property.
In this case, the city could make a similar plat condition whereby if the property transfer did not
take place within 120 days, Outlot D shall be given to Ramsey County to be legally combined with
their open space property.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the preliminary and final plat for Landmark Development of Minnesota for the proposed
eleven lot Gervais Woods single-family subdivision located south of Labore Road and East of
Arcade Street. This subdivision is subject to the following conditions:
a. Comply with the conditions of approval in the report by Shann Finwall, the Maplewood
Environmental Planner, and Ginny Gaynor, Natural Resources Coordinator dated January 27,
2010.
b. Comply with the conditions of approval in the engineering report by Steve Kummer, Maplewood
Staff Engineer, dated February 24, 2010 on the revised plan submittal dated February 22, 2010
and revised computations dated February 22 2010.
c. Approval of a final plat for Gervais Woods from the City of Little Canada.
d. The Cities of Little Canada and Maplewood shall enter into an agreement as to the provision of
police, fire, code enforcement services and utilities. It is the recommendation of the
Maplewood city council that Little Canada provide these services since the proposed four
southerly homes would be addressed in Little Canada.
e. The accessory building, swimming pool and any other "back yard" construction requirements of
Little Canada shall apply to the Maplewood portions of the southerly four parcels. However,
any construction in the City of Maplewood shall require that the builder obtain a building permit
from the City of Maplewood if required by code.
f. The proposed homes on the southerly four lots of this subdivision shall be constructed in the
footprints shown on the applicant's plans. This would require that they be located in the City of
Little Canada.
g. Within 120 days of recording the final plat, Outlot C shall be combined with the property at 2870
Arcade Street as one legally-described lot. If it is not combined with 2870 Arcade Street by that
time, the developer shall give Outlot C to the City of Maplewood, as he proposed to the
planning commission. This shall be a stipulation of the development agreement.
2
h. Within 120 days of recording the final plat, Outlot D shall be combined with the adjacent
Ramsey County open space property as one legally-described lot. If it is not combined by that
time, the developer shall give Outlot D to Ramsey County. This shall be a stipulation of the
development agreement.
i. The developer shall provide five, six-foot-tall evergreen trees between the home on proposed
Lot 5, Block 2 and the neighboring house at 2870 Arcade Street prior to the construction of a
house on Lot 5.
P:sec4IGervais WoodslGervais Woods Preliminary Plat back to PC 3 10 te
Attachments:
1. Zoning/Location Map
2. Land Use Plan Map
3. Previous Proposed Subdivision Plan
4. Revised Subdivision Plan
5. Proposed Land Additional Outlots
6. Revised Subdivision Plan dated-stamped February 22, 2010 (separate attachment)
3
Attachment 1
THE PORTION OF THE PROPOSED
GERVAIS WOODS SUBDIVISION
.-----""";-.--
WHICH IS IN MAPLEWOOD
~D
o
"EJ
o
ZONING I LOCATION MAP
Attachment 2
~Q ~
~~~
~Q ~
~P\III ~
u"" 8
Q) ~
~
()
<( ()
~ <(
(!) ~
0- Q) ~
~ Q)
en () 0.
"" <( ~
c ~
Q, ::J ()) C
0. ::J
~ c
CO en ::J
~ "" 0
c 0 ~
:a: ::J 0 ~
~ ~ L!)
()
00 N <(
::::-0 "<""
m cD ~ -t.+'-
rn , "<"" Q)
~ :;::; ~ 0-
W C <q 0
()) N "<"" en QJ ?.-
m ~ ""
::> :"Q ~ c 1~
~ (/) rn ro ::J
Q) :;::; :;::;
CO "C IX: c c 0
>-~ Q) ~ J)c{:
:"Q C)
-J s::: - .- C'") C)
"w en (/) co.
Q)
CO c (!) IX: 0
s::: Q) IX: cD
-J 0 >- >- ~ Q)
CO s: "" "" rn (ii ()
en en Q) '0 rn
0 c en c
E c ::J ~ ro 0 0-
....l Q) ()) Q) .;:: (j) "'
"" 0 0 E ~ :;::; ~'"
-0 en ::I c '"
- ~ ~ .c Q) E ::I ~ -" Q)
.~ :;::; ~ Q) _ '"
me ::I 0 .Ql 0 -0 en ro o.~-E
IX: ....l I U c c 0.. o '" m
~ .og
-"N C)
OJ'"'
.- m
'" c
Z'l Z
X
l"'" ....,""
., ,
, oP'i
~
:t:
ili
'"
m
;c
Gl
o
c:
r;;
-<
Z
!"
'"=
;;
~
....
=
~
~
'('"'l
10
~
on
ffi
...,
;;
...,
on
ffi
on
~"
, ,
I !ll
I Iii
-J "
~i!
I!il\
I! p~i
11
i\i
;u
j;
c;,
.'
~
J.
"
"
3
g
Attachment 3
.
;f',
,
,
,
I
!
,
i,
NO'""
/'
.
./
./
./
;!!
-il
~~~
'.1
I..
"')::1
i
.
~ .
~
.
0
tr1
~
.J>.....~.\.~ ~
, o- W
"....-.::'~ ~
,,:l,,-~%
~
"> 0
0
t;J
W
!l!
~~ii
I"
-'.
i!
,
,
,-
>9.""
SB9:':'~S6~.:Z7
179.
~
,
"
~
o
~
. 0
~!j~ l-3 /
c ..J'Y ..
~ i> E
· -f .
,
l~~'
I
<:
.- .
$
."
.
,.
..
~
,,~O/
,
'$
("l,/ /.
.'"., ~ .
___-/ '''; ,f l
/,
/
" .$.
/ '
,
" I !
~J! I
nil' C"- o . . .
.." I i hJJr
JH I ~ Ii' ili'
! 11.1 " .
.. ~ I pi$l
,.. .. I.-
jH l_ t !Iii
! r -I ~i~!~
~ i<! I- -! i ! .!i 1;1'>
n~ I D f p ~H!I
iH I >\= I!!
." C"- ! I . " IUh
~n I I ~ it
I II t;llf
I I ~
@".""
i I 1-
\ f
-,,<-,p'#
"'
~
I
'"
rr
rn
m
'"
Gl
o
c
(;j
Z
"
(}~"
, ,
I Ill~
1 i:l
!iI
...j Il:
't,i!
I' '
;".' m
.' ',"
I ~ ..ill! 1\
II "q~ ~~q
fi~ ~li~
~! ~g ~
1 I! '\
, , -
~.........~"
, -"
,
,
!l!
~;~ /'
~~il "
!I,\,
I: ~:~ S
'! ~il ~
,-".
)> ~q~
F;; ~ft
>
"
0'
00
);
(ji
<
r'l
:::
en ,.
I "
m "
m =:j
"" ~
N
0
."
N
en
fa
~
on
Attachment 4
.
,AI'\
,
\ \
NORTH
/
/ 6,0-'
/
/' . /
/
/
,/
I
-I
w ~~ EI
- I
;;.J
S95DIlO'Ja"E12J.3,5l
I ~
..I 9
"
,
i
,
!lll
,"
;;N.'C
"ig
i~~
~~q
'I'
'! 2
!I,,~
qq~ ,..$.
" "'''''ii
- ji'
-"
"
'"'
~
:l!
iil
~q~
'n
i"
~"'I
,.'
/"<5$~O
ioo.15(DESC.)
S8So+1'Z6"W 200.27
'1\/
;,(
l'I'~
~~L.\13
;--.::...,.
~~t:.
""iii.~41'lt
J7,Qf. I r
II
-II
~I I
II'-'"'-~I
I ~ (5 21
I Ii :~ ..11
L!i~~.tl~-f:97.a"J It: ~I
'\ I II: ~I
II'
I
I
Ij
'1-9.---
~
GI ~
~ ~ ~
o "
.
0
C = '59.0J
"" 0
t""'
0 ,::1
""
~ t""'
0,
""
H ,
I .
Ht '-" [["U
I , 11 &. ~~l
I . " H1J~
; !~
iH I I.: , "
l , , i! H~!;~
1 ,
r I. i .- i~~n
H~ , H ",j'i
I ,
KH I I ; H 1m!
g,.c
If.... '-" , ;;1
-.' I ::~ ,- '"
, 'H I
, " ,
x
a
trJ
~
>
~
r./l
~
o
o
tj
r./l
v_____
I
I
I
I
I
I
----
--''''~'
["J CJJ
~?
1
F.:
L12
::;~
to Parll (Outlot D)
Total Land
27924sq.ft.
, rvaisWoods(OuUotE)
TolalLand 10 Ge
13,020sq.ft.
OutlolD
27,924sq.fL
C) 0:)
:-?: (l!
<lj ~(~)
t~! .L?
5
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
James Antonen, City Manager
Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
DuWayne Konewko, Community Development and Parks Director
Conditional Use Permit/Planned Unit Development Ordinance
Revision
February 24, 2010
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
INTRODUCTION
On February 22, 2010, the city council reviewed the planning commission's revisions to
the conditional use permit/planned unit development ordinance. The council referred the
ordinance amendment back to the planning commission for the commission to consider
the council's questions and comments. The council directed that this ordinance
amendment be rescheduled again for a first-reading public hearing following the
planning commission's review.
BACKGROUND
The planning commission reviewed the CUP/PUD ordinance on three occasions during
the past year. On January 19, 2010, they moved to forward the CUP/PUD ordinance
with revisions to the city council for their review.
DISCUSSION
City Council Comments
1. Section 44-1092. Concerns the types of uses that require a CUP. Put back in the
wording. . . "and not specifically prohibited."
2. Section 44-1093. Concerns flexibility or deviations from city requirements. The council
felt that there is always a "degree of interpretation" to be applied in analyzing a CUP
proposal. Therefore, the hard requirement that all the findings must be met to get any
"deviation" from the ordinance requirements should be softened. The council stated,
"there is no black and white."
3. Section 44-1097. Concerns the nine standards for CUP approval. As with Section 44-
1093 above, the council felt the same about the nine standards for CUP approval.
Council felt that strictly basing approval on compliance with all nine standards or findings
for approval would be difficult since there is always a "degree of interpretation" to be
considered.
4. Section 44-1097(a). Concerns denyinq a CUP. The council felt that the word "denied"
should be left in so it is clear that denial is an optional decision by the city. Staff had
suggested taking out the word "denied" since the standards or findings are intended to
be found to approve a proposal. If they were not found to be met, the request would by
default be denied. Staff, has no problem with this reversal, however.
5. Section 22-1097(5). Concerns basinq the question of traffic impact on street desiqn.
The council felt that this wording should be further developed so its clearer that the
potential traffic increase resulting from a proposed project would not exceed the design
standard of any affected streets.
6. Section 44-1097(9). Concerns the causinq of adverse environmental effect. Delete the
word "not." This sentence should read, "The use would cause no more than
minimal adverse environmental effects."
7. Section 44-1097(b). Concerns the deletinq this clause that had qiven the council the
ability to waive requirements for public buildinq or public utility structures. The council
felt that there were occasions where the city may need to approve a "public" project. For
example, a sanitary-sewer lift station, that may be needed for the public good, would
likely not meet all of the standards for CUP approval. Nevertheless, it may be necessary
to provide needed service to the community. The council found benefit in this clause.
8. Section 44-11 03(b). Concerns conforminq to CUP terms or conditions of approval. The
council found this revision confusing and did not see it to be a clarification or
simplification of this clause.
Staff's Comments
1. The revised wording to drop "and not specifically prohibited" was staff's
recommendation. Staff felt that the wording "from which they are not permitted"
meant the same as being "specifically prohibited" by virtue that they were "not
permitted." Staff has no problem with leaving the original language in place.
2. Staff agrees with the council in that CUP proposals are not "black and white" and
some leeway in the city's analysis should be allowed.
3. Same view as #2 above.
4. Putting the statement that a proposal can also be denied based on the evaluation of
the nine standards makes sense. The original wording should be utilized.
5. Staff agrees with the council's addition not to "exceed" the design of affected
streets.
6. This is a good clarification.
7. The council raises a good point. Staff agrees with their assessment.
8. Staff had suggested the language change, which in the end, seemed to lead to
confusion. Staff suggests going back to the original wording.
Conclusion
Staff has included the last version of this ordinance amendment the planning
commission has reviewed-this is the same one the council reviewed on February 22nd
For comparison, staff has included the changes suggested by council following the
planning commission's proposal.
Staff's recommendation is to approve the CUP/PUD ordinance amendment with the city
council's suggestions.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the proposed revisions to the conditional use permit/planned unit development
ordinance that incorporate the city council's suggestions from February 22, 2010.
p:\ planning commission\PUD Ordinance Rewrite CC Referral to PC 3 10 te
Attachments:
1. Conditional Use PermiUPlanned Unit Development and Definitions Ordinance Amendment as
recommended by the planning commission on January 19, 2010
2. Suggested ordinance changes by the city council on February 22, 2010
Attachment 1
THIS VERSION WAS PROPOSED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON
JANUARY 19, 2010
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS
The Maplewood City Council approves the following additions to the
Maplewood Code of Ordinances. (Additions are underlined and deletions
are crossed out.)
Section 1. This section revises Article V of the Maplewood Code of
Ordinances dealing with conditional use permits and planned unit
developments.
ARTICLE V. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
Sec. 44-1091. Purpose.
The purpose of a conditional use permit is to provide the city with some
discretion, based on specific standards, in determining the suitability of conditional uses.
The city is not obligated to approve such uses.
(Code 1982, ss 36-436)
Sec. 44-1092. Conditional uses.
The city council may issue conditional use permits for the following uses in any
zoning district in ffem-which they are not permitted and not specifically prohibited:
(1) Public and Drivate utilities lffiIity, public service or public building uses.
(2) Mining. Refer to the requirements under article IV of this chapter.
(3) Library; community center; state-licensed day care or residential program unless
exempted by state law; church; hospital and a helistop as an accessory use to a
hospital; any institution of any educational, philanthropic or charitable nature;
cemetery, crematory or mausoleum.
(4) An off-street parking lot as a principal use in a cornrnorcial or industrial zoning
district. other than a commercial or industrial district.
(5) Part of an apartment building for commercial use, intended for the building's
residents, such as drugstore, beauty parlor, barbershop, medical office or similar
use.
(6) Planned unit developments (PUD).
(7) Construction of an outlot.
(Code 1982, ss 36-437)
Sec. 44-1093. Planned unit developments.
(a) A planned unit development (PUD) may not be divided unless the density
distribution approved in the PUD is ensured.
(b) The planninq commission may consider flexibility from strict code compliance in
the internal and external desiqn requirements of a proposed PUD and may
consider deviations from those requirements based on the followinq factors: .J.l-is
the intention of this section and the other sections ef this article relating to
planned unit developments to pro'lide a means to allo'..., flexibility by substantial
deviations from this chapter, including uses, setbacks, height and other
regulations. Deviations may be granted for planned unit developments pr-o'lidod
tAaF.
4., Whether the proposed development and the surroundinq neiqhborhood can
be better served by relaxinq the code requirements that requlate the physical
development or layout of the proiect because of its unique nature. Certain
rogulations contained in this chapter should not apply to the proposed
development because of its unique nature.
2. Whether t:j:he PUD would be consistent with the spirit. intent and purposes of
this chapter.
3. Whether t:j:he planned unit development would produce a development of
equal or superior quality to that which would result from strict adherence to
this chapter.
4. Whether t:j:he deviations would not constitute a significant threat to the
property values, safety, health or general welfare of the owners or occupants
of nearby land or of the environment.
5. Whether t:j:he deviations are required for the reasonable and practical
practicablo physical development of the proiect and are not requirod solely for
financial reasons.
(c) The development shall conform to the plans and specifications as filed with the
city. Any substantive changes in the plans and specifications shall require a
recommendation by the planning commission and approval by the city council
after a public hearing.
(d) Common open space. The developer shall provide deed restrictions, covenants,
easements, public dedication or other equally effective and permanent means to
preserve and maintain any common open space. The instruments must include
all the following protection:
1. Except for routine maintenance, the city must approve the alteration of any
vegetation or topography that is visible from a public water.
2. Prohibit the exterior storage of vehicles or other materials. Storage shall not
include routine vehicle parking or the temporary storage of materials for an
ongoing construction project.
3. If on a public water, prohibit the uncontrolled beaching of watercraft.
(e) Owners' association. All planned unit developments with common open space
must have an owners' association with the following features:
1. Each lot owner must be a member.
2. Each member must pay a pro rata share of the association's expenses, and
unpaid association assessments can become liens on units or sites.
3. Association assessments must be adjustable to adapt to changing conditions.
4. The association must be responsible for insurance, taxes and maintenance of
all commonly owned property and facilities.
(f) The city shall designate PUDs on the official city zoning map.
(Code 1982, ss 36-438)
Sec. 44-1094. Outlots.
(a) No building permit shall be issued for construction upon an outlot, except by
conditional use permit.
(b) The city council shall not grant a conditional use permit for building upon any
outlot, unless the outlot meets the following conditions:
1. It meets the minimum size and frontage requirements provided for in this
chapter.
2. It has the requisite public improvements.
3. The permitted density under this Code has not been transferred to another
parcel and is, therefore, sufficient to accommodate the proposed
construction.
4. The outlot is not used for permanent common open space.
5. The proposed construction can overcome or accommodate the topographical
problems and peculiar site characteristics.
(Code 1982, ss 36-439)
Sec. 44-1095. Application.
(a) An application for a conditional use permit may be made by any person having a
legal interest in the property described in the application. All applications shall be
submitted to the director of community development upon the form supplied by
the city. The director shall not accept an application that is not complete.
Specific requirements shall be as stated on this form, but shall include at least
the following information, if applicable:
(1) All information required on the community design review board application.
(2) Written justification for any PUD deviations.
(3) An abstractor's certificate showing property owners' names and addresses
within 500 ~ feet of the boundaries of the property for which the permit is
req uested.
(4) Any other information required by the director of community development, the
city council or the council's advisory bodies.
(b) The applicant shall also, at the time of filing such application, pay a fee to the
director of community development to defray administrative expenses incurred by
the city in the handling of the application, which fee shall be established by the
city council, by ordinance, from time to time.
(Code 1982, ss 36-440)
Sec. 44-1096. Procedure.
(a) After an application for a conditional use permit has been submitted, the director
of community development shall prepare a report and recommendation and
submit it to the planning commission, aM community design review board and
any other commission as appropriate, for a recommendation to the city council.
The city council planning oommission and oommunity design re'/iew board shall
take action on the application within 60 days of their respective hearing dates,
unless an extension is approved in accordance with state statute. 'Nriting by the
applioant. The staff report and the planning oommission's and oomRlunity design
review soard's recommendations by all applicable advisory boards or
commissions shall then be forwarded to the city council.
(b) The planninq commission oity counoil shall hold at least one public hearing on
each application for a conditional use permit. This hearing shall not se held until
lI1e The city council shall take final action after considerinq the has reoeived
written recommendations or reports from the city staff, planning commission, aM
community design review board and other applicable commissions. or until 60
days have elapsed from the respecti'/e hearing dates. The director of community
development shall have a notice of the hearing published in the official
newspaper at least ten days before the hearing. The director shall also mail
6ffiISe a notice to be mailed to each of the owners of property within 500 JW feet
of the boundary lines of the property upon which such use has been requested,
which notices are to be mailed to the last known address of such o.....ners at least
ten days before the date of the hearing. Such notice shall include the date, time
and place of the hearing and shall describe the conditional use request. Failure
of property owners to receive notice shall not invalidate any of the proceedings in
this section.
(c) The council may refer the application back to the planning commission when the
council finds that specific questions or information that may affect the final
decision were not considered by the planning commission. This procedure shall
only be used once for each application.
(d) The city council may approve, amend or deny an application for a conditional use
permit by a majority vote.
(e) All decisions by the city council shall be final, except that any person aggrieved
by a decision, may within 30 days of the decision, appeal to the county district
court. (Code 1982, ss 36-441)
Sec. 44-1097. Standards.
(a) A conditional use permit may be approved, or amended er denied based on
conforminq with based on the following standards for approval, in addition to any
standards or findinqs for a specific conditional use found elsewhere in the
Maplewood Code of Ordinances: in this chapter:
(1) The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated
to be in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan and this Code.
(2) The use would not change the existing or planned character of the
surrounding area.
(3) The use would not depreciate property values.
(4) The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or
methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental,
disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of
excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution,
drainage water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference
or other nuisances.
(5) The use would not neqatively impact the traffic on any street based on the
current desiqn of those affected streets. generate only minimal vehicular
traffic on local stroets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe
accoss on existing or proposed streets.
(6) The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including
streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer
systems, schools and parks.
(7) The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or
services.
(8) The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural
and scenic features into the development design.
(9) The use would not cause minimal adverse environmental effects.
(b) The city council may waive any of the requirements in sUBsection (a) of this
section f<lr a public building or utility structure, provided the council shall first
make a determination that the balancing of public interest between governmental
units of the state would be best served by such wai'Jer.
(c) .LI2l. The applicant shall have the burden of proving that the use would meet all of
the standards required for approval of a conditional use permit. The city may
require the applicant provide, at his cost, any information, studies or expert
testimony necessary to establish whether these standards would be met or to
establish conditions for approval.
(Code 1982, S 36-442)
Sec. 44-1098. Conditions.
(a) The city council, in granting a conditional use permit, may impose such
conditions and guarantees that it considers necessary and as supported by the
record of the proceedings to protect adjacent properties and the public interest
and to achieve the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan.
(b) Conditions and guarantees may include but are not limited to the following:
(1) Controlling the number, area, bulk, height, illumination and location of such
uses.
(2) Regulating access to the property, with particular reference to vehicle and
pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic control and emergency vehicle
access.
(3) Regulating off-street parking and loading areas, including the number and
width of parking spaces.
(4) The location and design of utilities including drainage.
(5) Berming, fencing, screening and landscaping, including underground
sprinkling.
(6) Compatibility of appearance with surrounding land uses.
(7) Preservation of the site's natural, historic and scenic features in the
development design.
(8) Limiting the number, size, location or lighting of signage, notwithstanding
article III of this chapter which pertains to sign.
(9) The location, dimensions and upkeep of open space.
(10) Increasing required lot size, yard dimensions or setback requirements.
(11) Compliance with any plans presented.
(12) A time limit for review of the permit.
(13) A written agreement, cash escrow, letter of credit or other guarantee to
ensure that the project will be built as approved.
(14) Restrictive covenants.
(15) Control of the interior and exterior components of a building, provided that
such condition does not conflict with the building code. Such components
may include but not be limited to the finished exterior materials and
installation of elevators.
(16) Control of potential noise generators.
(Code 1982, 9 36-443)
Sec. 44-1099. Start of construction or use.
The proposed construction must be substantially started or the proposed use utilized
within one year of council approval or the conditional use permit shall become null and
void. The council may grant up to one one-year extension of the permit if just cause is
shown. This requirement shall not apply to PUDs with an approved phasing plan. Such
extension shall be requested in writing and filed with the director of community
development at least 30 days before the expiration of the original conditional use permit.
There shall be no charge for filing such petition. The request for extension shall state
facts showing a good faith attempt to complete or utilize the use permitted in the
conditional use permit.
(Code 1982, 936-444)
Sec. 44-1100. Duration.
(a) All conditional use permits shall be reviewed by the council within one year of the
date of initial approval, unless such review is waived by council decision Gf
ordinance. At the one-year review, the council may specify an indefinite term or
specific term, not to exceed five years, for subsequent reviews. The council may
impose new or additional conditions upon the permit at the time of the initial or
subsequent reviews.
(b) A conditional use permit shall remain in effect as long as the conditions agreed
upon are observed, but nothing in this section shall prevent the city from enacting
or amending official controls to change the status of conditional uses. Any
conditional use that meets the agreed upon conditions and is later allowed
because of the city enacting or amending official controls shall be considered a
legal nonconforming use.
(Code 1982, ~ 36-445)
Sec. 44-1101. Termination, suspension or revision.
(a) The council may suspend or terminate the permit if the approved conditions have
been violated or the use is no longer in effect. Where the construction of a
building or structure of a monetary value in excess of $100,000.00 has been
permitted, the council shall provide for a period of amortization of not less than
five years. Where public health, safety and welfare concerns are threatened, the
five-year amortization period is not required, and the council may determine the
amortization period, if any, to be allowed. The owner of the property upon which
the conditional use permit was issued shall be notified in writing at least ten days
before the meeting. If the proposed termination is based on a violation of
conditions, the property owners within 500 ~ feet shall also be notified. The
director of community development may issue a stop order for work in progress
until the council hears the matter.
(b) The city council may review a permit at any time. If the council decides to
consider adding, dropping or changing conditions, the council shall follow the
procedures in section 44-1096 for approving a new permit. The council shall not
change conditions unless the conditional use no longer meets one of the
standards in section 44-1097 for approving a new permit.
(Code 1982, ~ 36-446)
Sec. 44-1102. Reapplication.
Whenever an application for a conditional use permit has been denied by the city
council, a similar application affecting substantially the same property shall not be
considered again by the city for at least one year from the date of its denial, unless the
council directs such reconsideration by at least four votes.
(Code 1982, ~ 36-447)
Sec. 44-1103. Conditional uses to conform to terms and conditions attached to
issuance.
(a) Any use permitted under the terms of any conditional use permit shall be
established and conducted in conformity with the terms and conditions of the
permit.
(b) Any change involving structural alteration, enlargement, intensification of use, or
similar change not specifically permitted by the conditional use permit shall
require an amended permit, and all procedures shall apply as if a new permit
were being issued. All uses in existence at the effective date of the ordinance
that are now required to have a conditional use permit shall be considered leqal-
nonconforminq and shall be required to have a conditional use permit for any
expansion or chanqe in intensity. .'\11 usos O)(isting on thc cffeGti'lc data of thc
ordinanco from which this article derives shall be considcrcd as having a
conditionnl usa parrnit which contains conditions thnt parrnit tha lane use nnd
structuros as they Oldsted on such date. Any enlargarnent, structuml nltemtion, or
intensificntion of use shall re(luiro an nrnendee conditionnl use parmit as
provided for in this subsection.
(Code 1982, S 36-448)
Sec. 44-1104. Records.
The director of community development shall maintain a record of all conditional use
permits issued, including information on the use, location, conditions imposed by the
council, time limits, review dates and other information as may be appropriate.
(Code 1982, S 36-449)
Sec. 44-1105. Filing.
A certified copy of any resolution approving a conditional use permit shall be filed with
the county recorder or registrar of titles. The resolution shall flel include the legal
description of the property. Failure to file does not affect the validity or enforceability of
the permit.
(Code 1982, S 36-450)
Secs. 44-1106-44-1130. Reserved.
Section 2. This section revises the Section 44-6. Definitions.
Basic structural alteration means any enlargement of a building or modification to the
framinq of a buildinq. whether by extending on any side or by increasing in height,
lenqth. width or chanqes caused by Gf the moving of a building from one location to
another.
Conditional use means a land use or development that would not be appropriate
generally, but may be allowed with appropriate conditions or restrictions as provided by
the official controls outlined in Article V. Conditional Use Permits.
Planned unit developments (PUD) means a type of development characterized by a
unified site design, with two or more principal uses or structures. A PUD may include
townhouses, apartments, multiple-use structures such as an apartment with commercial
shops, or similar projects. Residential PUDs must have at least five dwelling units or
dwelling sites. The PUD application, timinq and recordinq process is described under
Article V. Conditional Use Permits.
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect after the approval by the city council and
publishing in the official newspaper.
The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance revision on
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Attachment 2
THESE SUGGESTIONS WERE MADE BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON
FEBRUARY 22,2010
Additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out.
Sec. 44-1092. Conditional uses.
The city council may issue conditional use permits for the following uses in any
zoning district in fFeffi-which they are not permitted and not specifically prohibited:
Sec. 44-1093. Planned unit developments.
( b) The city council may consider flexibility from strict code compliance in the
internal and external desiqn requirements of a proposed PUD and may consider
deviations from those requirements. The city council shall consider the followinq
factors: It is tho intontion of this section and the other soctions of this article relating
to planned llnit developments to provide a means to allow floxisility sy e:llse:tantial
deviations from thie: chapter, including ue:os, setbacks, hoight and other reglllations.
Doviations may be grantod for Illanned llnit dovelopments Ilrevided that:
Sec. 44-1097. Standards.
(a) A conditional use permit may be approved, amended or denied based on the
following standards for approval, in addition to any standards or findinqs for a
conditional use found elsewhere in the Maplewood Code of Ordinances: ffi-lIlis
challter:
Sec. 44-1097(a)(5). Standards.
( 5) The use would not exceed the desiqn standard of any affected streets.
gonorato only minimal 'lehiclllar traffic on local str-eets and would not create
traffic congestion or llne:afe access on existing or proposed streets.
Sec. 44-1097(a)(9). Standards.
( 9) The use would cause no more than minimal adverse environmental effects.
Sec. 44-1097(b). Standards.
(b) The city council may waive any of the requirements in subsection (a) of this
section for a public building or utility structure, provided the council shall first
make a determination that the balancing of public interest between governmental
units of the state would be best served by such waiver.
Sec. 44-1103. Conditional uses to conform to terms and conditions attached to
issuance.
( b) Any change involving structural alteration, enlargement, intensification of
use, or similar change not specifically permitted by the conditional use permit
shall require an amended permit, and all procedures shall apply as if a new
permit were being issued. All uses existing on the effective date of the ordinance
from which this article derives shall be considered as having a conditional use
permit which contains conditions that permit the land use and structures as they
existed on such date. Any enlargement, structural alteration, or intensification of
use shall require an amended conditional use permit as provided for in this
subsection.
2010 PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULE
FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
Lorraine Fischer 02-08-10 06-28-10 11-08-10
651-777-5037 (h)
651-215-2259 (w) tue & thur
Robert Martin Jr 02-22-10 07-12-10 11-22-10
651-578-9467 (h)
Joe Boeser 03-08-10 07 -26-10 12-13-10
651-770-1590 (h)
651-428-0219 (c)
Gary Pearson 03-22-10 08-09-10 12-27-10
651-777-9197 (h)
651-777-3981 (w)
612-220-5895 (cell)
Dale Trippler 04-12-10 08-23-10 01-10-11
651-490-1485 (h)
Tushar Desai 04-26-10 09-13-10 01-24-11
651-484-2132 (h)
Jeremy Yarwood 05-10-10 09-27-10 02-14-11
651-735-1501 (h)
651-737-1033 (w)
Tanya Nuss 05-24-10 10-11-10 02-28-11
651-777-0659 (h)
651-238-4759 (w)
AI Bierbaum 06-14-10 10-25-10 03-14-11
651-330-9088 (h)
City Council meetings are held the 2nd and 4th Mondays of each month unless
otherwise rescheduled. If you cannot attend a City Council meeting on your
scheduled date, please arrange to trade dates with another commissioner and
also contact Tom Ekstrand by phone at 651-249-2302 or by email at
tom.ekstrand@cLmaplewood.mn.us. You may also call the community
development department at 651-249-2300.
P:planning commission\2010 schedule for city council minutes #3