HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-10-05 PC Packet
AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, October 5,2010
7:00 PM
City Hall Council Chambers
1830 County Road BEast
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Agenda
4. Approval of Minutes
a. September 21 ,2010
5. Public Hearings
a. 7:00 pm or Later: Rezoning of the Rear Portions of 931 to 1117 County Road C from (farm
residential) to R1 (single dwelling residential).
6. New Business
7. Unfinished Business
8. Visitor Presentations
9. Commission Presentations
a. Commissioner Report: City Council Meeting of September 27,2010. Commissioner Yarwood
was scheduled to attend. The items reviewed were Metro Transit's PUD for a parking ramp at
the mall area park and ride, Walser Automotive's CUP to sell used cars at 2590 Maplewood
Drive and the Gladstone Neighborhood rezoning to R3 (multiple dwelling residential) and MU
(mixed use).
b. Upcoming City Council Meeting of October 11, 2010: Commissioner Nuss is scheduled to
attend. There are no potential items for the planning commission at this meeting.
10. Staff Presentiltions
a. Reschedule or cancel the November 2nd planning commission meeting due to elections?
11. Adjournment
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21,2010
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. 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 (Arrived at 7:07)
Present (Arrived at 7:05)
Present
Present
Absent
Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mr. Ekstrand requested that item 7a be reviewed prior to item 6a to allow Ms. Finwall give her
presentation about the Chicken Ordinance proposal without delay.
Commissioner Bierbaum moved to approve the agenda as amended.
Commissioner Trippler seconded the motion.
Ayes all; the motion carries.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The following corrections to the minutes of September 7, 2010, were noted:
Page 4, in the paragraph before new business, change to read "...will go before the
council..."
Page 4, correct the spelling of apposes to opposes.
Page 5, c, item 1, change from "...inquired is staff..." to "..."inquired if staff..."
Page 5, item 2, correct Tania to Commissioner Nuss.
September 21, 2010
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the minutes of the September 7, 2010, as
amended.
Commissioner Pearson seconded the motion.
Ayes 3; Abstained: Commissioner Trippler and Vice Chair Desai; motion carries.
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
None
6. NEW BUSINESS
a. Cell Phone Tower Ordinance Discussion (heard out of order)
Mr. Ekstrand presented the draft ordinance and led the discussion on this item. The
ordinance was established as one of the Planning Commission's goals for 2010. A list of
existing towers and a map of where the towers are located were provided for discussion
purposes.
The planning commission made several suggestions for amendments to the tower ordinance
and asked for some clarification about the wording of the current ordinance.
Staff will make the suggested revisions and submit those changes to the planning
comrnission for their review.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. Ordinance Review to Consider Allowing the Keeping of Chickens in Residential
Areas (heard out of order)
Ms. Finwall presented the revised ordinance and led the discussion. Ms. Finwall addressed
the Planning Commission's previous concerns from their August 17, 2010 meeting from that
meeting. Additional questions and concerns were discussed.
Mr. Ekstrand requested a recommendation from the Planning Commission. Ms. Finwall
explained that this ordinance requires review by the Planning Commission because it involves
the City's zoning code. The Planning Commission is being asked to review it from the
perspective of if it is an appropriate use of residential land and if it is in the best interest of the
health and safety of the public.
Commissioner Trippler moved that the Planning Commission recommend that the City
Council not move forward with this ordinance.
Commissioner Pearson seconded the motion.
September 21, 2010
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
2
Ayes 4 (Bierbaum, Desai, Pearson and Trippler ); Nays 3 ( Fischer, Martin, Nuss)
Motion carries.
Chair Fischer and Commissioner Nuss explained that, although they voted against the
motion, they do not necessarily support the ordinance as is it currently written.
Ms. Finwall has not yet scheduled this ordinance to go before the City Council.
7. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
None
8. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS
a. Commissioner Report: City Council Meeting of September 13, 2010. Commissioner Desai
was scheduled to attend.
There were no items needing planning commission representation.
b. Upcoming City Council Meeting of September 27,2010:
Commissioner Yarwood is scheduled to attend. Potential items to be discussed are: Metro
Transit's PUC for a parking ramp at the mall area park and ride, Walser Automotive's CUP to
sell used cars at 2590 Maplewood Drive and the Gladstone Neighborhood rezoning to R3
(multiple dwelling residential) and MU (mixed use).
Commission Trippler is also planning to attend this meeting.
9. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
a. Zoning Map/Land Use Plan Inconsistencies found by commissioners:
Mr. Ekstrand distributed maps of where commissioners currently live. May need commissioners
to review neighborhoods where this is no commissioner currently living. Chair Fischer requested
that each Commission review and send comments to Mr. Ekstrand as soon as possible.
b. Summary Minutes Discussion (no report)
Mr. Ekstrand reported that, following discussions among staff and with the City Council, minutes
will continue to be summary minutes only. Details of meetings can be found by reviewing the
archived meetings online.
Chair Fischer requested that the number of individuals making comments pro and con on issues
and the general topics being addressed continue to be included.
September 21, 2010
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
3
c. Planning Commission Attendance Roster with Commissioner Addresses (to be handed
out)
Mr. Ekstrand handed out the planning commission's attendance roster as the commission chair
previously requested.
d. Commission Terms.up for Reappointment-Commissioners Fischer, Boeser and Desai
Three commissioners have terms that will expire at the end of the year: Commissioners Fischer,
Boeser and Desai. Please advise staff if plan to seek reappointment.
10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:18 p.m.
September 21, 2010
Planning Commission MeE1ting Minutes
4
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
VOTE REQUIRED:
DATE:
James Antonen, City Manager
Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
DuWayne Konewko, Community Development and Parks Director
Rezoning ofthe Rear Portions of 931 to 1117 County Road C from F
(farm residential) to R1 (single dwelling residential)
Simple Majority Required for Approval
September 29,2010
INTRODUCTION
On August 17,2010, the planning commission evaluated the city's zoning and land use maps
for inconsistencies between the two documents and to check for zoning classifications that may
not make sense. The zoning issues found are not inconsistencies resulting from the recent
2030 comprehensive plan update, but have existed for many years.
Proposal
One such case is the split zoning of the single dwelling properties on the south side of Kohlman
Lake. The planning commission directed staff to proceed with rezoning the rear portions of
these lots that have F zoned (farm residence) zoning to R1 (single dwelling residential) as they
are zoned nearer to the street. Refer to the maps.
Request
Rezone the F zoned areas of the properties located from 931 to 1117 County Road C to R 1.
BACKGROUND
On January 25,2010, the city council adopted the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
DISCUSSION
Why the Split Zoning?
When the city council zoned the lands in Maplewood in 1965, it was a common practice to
utilize farm district zoning for areas that were not developable, as in this case, with the
undevelopable parts of these deep lots which extend into Kohlman Lake. The developable
portions for home sites were zoned properly as R1 for single dwelling development.
This split zoning has been in place since 1965. Though split zoning was acceptable then, it is
currently not seen as a proper zoning practice.
1
Split Zoning-City Attorney's Comment
Alan Kantrud, the city attorney, previously commented to the planning commission about
properties with split zones, those having more than one zoning classification. One recent case
. reviewed by the planning commission was the undeveloped Mogren family property southwest
of the Regal Car Wash at County Road C and White Bear Avenue. Mr. Kantrud does not
recommend that the city allow properties to have split zonings. Such method of zoning often
conflicts with the land use plan depending on the zoning mix, and may make development
confusing and encumbered.
Why the Proposed Revision to R1?
The reason for this proposed rezoning from F to R1 is simply to eliminate the "split zoning" of
these properties to achieve uniformity. A rezoning to R1 will also be compatible with the city's
comprehensive land use plan which designates these lots as LDR (low density residential).
Impact on Development Potential
There would be no affect on the development potential of these properties. In actuality, the land
use provisions for both the F and R1 zoned properties are the same. There would be no
change in the use provisions by this rezoning. Furthermore, the F zoned portions of these
properties are not developable since they are within the lake or marsh lands.
Property Taxes
The Ramsey County Tax Assessor's office stated that zoning has no affect on property taxes.
Tax classifications are based on the use of the property, not on the zoning. The tax
classification, along with the market value is used to calculate taxes. If the current use is
continued, the tax classification will not change. Zoning changes will not affect taxes.
Criteria for Rezoning
Section 44-1165 of the zoning ordinance states that, to revise the zoning map, the planning
commission and council shall:
. Assure itself that the proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of this
~a~~ .
. Determine that the proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of
neighboring properties or from the character of the neighborhood and that the use of the
property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately
safeguarded.
. Determine that the proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the
community, where applicable, and the public welfare.
. Consider the effect of the proposed change upon the logical, efficient and economical
extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire
protection and schools.
2
. Be guided in its study, review and recommendation by sound standards of subdivision
practice where applicable.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the resolution rezoning of the northerly portions of the properties located from 931 to
1117 County Road C from F (farm residential) to R1 (single dwelling residential) for the following
reasons:
1. This proposed rezoning would remove the split zoning by replacing the F, farm zoning
classification with the R1, single dwelling zoning classification.
2. This change would comply with the comprehensive land use plan low density residential
classification.
3. The proposed rezoning would meet the following five criteria for a zoning map revision as
required by city ordinance:
a. Assure itself that the proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent
of this chapter.
b. Determine that the proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use
of neighboring properties or from the character of the neighborhood and that the use of
the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is
adequately safeguarded.
c. Determine that the proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of
the community, where applicable, and the public welfare.
d. Consider the effect of the proposed change upon the logical, efficient and economical
extension of public services and facilities, such as pubiic water, sewers, police and fire
protection and schools.
e. Be guided in its study, review and recommendation by sound standards of subdivision
practice where applicable.
3
REFERENCE
SITE DESCRIPTION
Existing Use: The subject properties are developed with single dwellings with deep lots
extending into Kohlman Lake or the abutting marsh
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: Kohlman Lake
South: County Road C and single dwellings
East: Open space property owned by the City of Maplewood
West: Single dwellings
PLANNING
Land Use Plan Designation: LOR
Zoning: F and R1
p:Sec4\rezoning of properties south of Kohlman Lake PC 10 10 te
Attachments:
1. Location/Zoning Map
2. Land Use Map
3. Rezoning Resolution
4
"
ttac'li\iient
"
r1
KOHLh1All MARSH OPEN SPACE
Q
.',
v
I
W9 2Wa
~9 2J&]
=
FiShe!'S~
i"",);;rborhood . . "
I"tcsen/E:
PORTION OF PROPERTIES ZONED Rl (SINGLE DWELLING RESIDENTIAL)
':.....-
ro a> tr::Q
Kohlmar
'u .
o
D__I.
) PROPOSAL:
REZONING THE F (FARM RESIDENTIAL) PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTIES BETWEEN 931 TO 1117
COUNTY ROAD C TO Rl (SINGLE DWELLING RESIDENTIAL)
e:Jl 2~
2~
~~ ~
~'W ~
s~~
~~ ~
s'W ~
~ fl\1I ~
tJ." 8
Attachment 2
c..
m
:E
(l)
I en
(l):J
~"C
m c:
-Jm
C:-J
m (l)
E .....
-::::J
..c"""",
~L!
~
ID ~
t5 ~-.
<( () ID
~ <(t;
~Q)<u4:
u c.. <B
$<(00 a.
.- -
E; ID 'c 2
-' 0-::> 'c
~ '" 0 ::>
-. ~
~CO~~
::J "I:"""" L{') u
100 'N<(
o T'""" I l....
~<o ID
rol@.~a.
+:i CD 0 ((J
c . co or- +-'
N .- ___._
ar-..-c_c
'g-IDctl::>
.(/) co :.;:::::;
Q)+J32c~
0:: ~ ~ ~ ~
~ 32 0:: 'c;; ,
.~ ~ ~ & ~
IDO::",>.<o_ c-;;;
c +-0- -- co w
o >- ID .- ID'- ID c:
;;::'1;io~"'~roEo
o C E Q) ::::> Q)E .C E :g
--l ID 0 "0 Cii ~ :;:; -l:
~ 0 2 ~ ID E = 0 '" ctl
~ ;;:: as .2'.~ 0 -g CJ c: ll.
&D~iii-II
o
o
<0_
~
ID
()
ctl
0-
W
c:
ID
0-
o
iii
'0
~ 0
ID 0_
-.<:: ~
SCO l... 0
o~
"'~
.<:: "
Clro
, ~
<l> c
Z-'l
z
o
Attachment 3
REZONING RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood city staff proposed a change to the city's zoning map
from F (farm residential) to R1 (single dwelling residential) for the northerly portions of the single
dwelling residential properties identified below;
WHEREAS, this zoning map change applies to the properties located on the south side
of Kohlman Lake, The property identification numbers identifying the affected properties are:
04-29-22-33-0006; 04-29-22-34-0010; 04-29-22-34-0009; 04-29-22-34-0008;
04-29-22-34-0007; 04-29-22-34-0006; 04-29-22-34-0005; 04-29-22-34-0004;
04-29-22-34-0003; 04-29-22-34-0002; 04-29-22-34-0011; 04-29-22-34-0012;
04-29-22-43.0009; 04-29-22-43-0008; 04-29-22-43-0007; 04-29-22-43-0006;
04-29-22-43-0012; 04-29-22-43-0011; 04-29-22-43-0004; 04-29-22-43-0003;
WHEREAS, this rezoning is proposed to eliminate the split zoning of these properties
and for compatibility with the city's comprehensive land use plan,
WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows:
1, On , 2010, the planning commission held a public hearing to
consider this rezoning, 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 prior to their recommendation,
2, On ,2010, the city council discussed the proposed zoning map change.
They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission
and city staff,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council
described change in the zoning map for the following reasons:
the above-
1, This proposed rezoning would remove the split zoning by replacing the F, farm zoning
classification with the R1, single dwelling zoning classification.
2, This change would comply with the comprehensive land use plan low density residential
classification.
3. The proposed rezoning would meet the following five criteria for a zoning map revision
as required by city ordinance:
a, Assure itself that the proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent
of this chapter.
b. Determine that the proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use
of neighboring properties or from the character of the neighborhood and that the use of
the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is
adequately safeguarded.
c, Determine that the proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of
the community, where applicable, and the public welfare.
d, Consider the effect of the proposed change upon the logical, efficient and economical
extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire
protection and schools,
e. Be guided in its study, review and recommendation by sound standards of subdivision
practice where applicable,
The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on
,2010,