The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2012-02-21 PC Packet AGENDA MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 21, 2012 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. January 17, 2012 5. Public Hearings a. 7:00 p.m. or later: Vacations of Edgemont Street, Arkwright Street and Alley rights-of-way, North side of Roselawn Avenue, East of McMenemy Street 6. New Business 7. Unfinished Business 8. Visitor Presentations . 9. Commission Presentations a. Commissioner report for the city council meeting of February 13, 2012. Commissioner Pearson attended. The items reviewed were the planning commission's 2011 Annual Report, the annual review of the Rules of Procedure and the resolutions of appreciation for Jeremy Yarwood and Robert Martin. b. Upcoming city council meeting of February 27, 2012. Commissioner Trippler is scheduled to attend. There are no items scheduled for the planning commission at this meeting. 10. Staff Presentations 11. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 2012 1. CALL TO ORDER A meeting of the Commission was held in the City Hall Council Chambers and was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Chairperson Fischer. 2. ROLL CALL AI Bierbaum, Commissioner Joseph Boeser, Commissioner Tushar Desai,Commissioner Lorraine Fischer, Chairperson Tanya Nuss, ,Commissioner Gary PearsOn, Commissioner Dale Trippler,' Commissioner Tom Ekstrand, Senior Present Present Present Present Present Present Px~~~nt ,;llii..iilillllill!;llili' Staff Present: 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA ; '~:<";';'>;::', Commissioner Pearson moved to apPwvetheiii~~~r\iJa as submitted. "j:D\'" Seconded by Commissioner TriP8.1'~~!iilili'ilii'i'il;. Ayes - All The motion passed. ,.',., <q';;;., 4. ., APPROVAL OF MINUT6i~ 'Ii'" :",\ y; ",,' CommissionerTrippler had a cOrrection to New Business 6.a. changing Bartelmy Stroot to Lane in two locations. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the December 6. 2011 PC minutes as amended. Seconded by Commissioner Pearson. Ayes - Chairperson Fischer, Commissioner's Boeser, Nuss, Pearson & Trippler Abstentions - Commissioner's Boeser & Desai The motion pCissed. 5. PUBLIC HEARING None. January 17, 2012 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 6. NEW BUSINESS a. 2011 Pla!1ning Commission Annual Report i. Senior Pianner, Tom Ekstrand presented the 2011 Planning Commission Annual Report. CommissiOner Trippler moved to approve the 2011 Planninq Commission Annual Report. Seconded by Commissioner Boeser. Ayes - Ail The motion passed, b. 2011 Planning Commission Schedule for City Council Meetings i. Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand presented the 2011 Planning Commission Schedule for City Council Meetings. No action wa$ needed. Staff will make changes to the planning commissioner's contact information. c. Annual Review of the Planning Commissi.~,p..~.ules of Procedure i. Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand presented t.WAnrVID'sILReview of the Planning Commission , ~;;.'> Rules of Procedure. illl... 'i\li!\' 'iiJ!~l> The commission recommended a change,to the fining Commission Rules of Procedure. It was suggesteQ that Item G.3. be amende1illif(Q.i$.t~te"ib~t "only items that are on the agenda or added to the agenda prior to its adoption ~b,?llt~,eq1,89Sidered by the commission." The commission also requested that ~lg.ff,l;P10~par:~I'El" comparison to show the differences between Roberts Rules of Order and RO$!pnburgr,s Rul~,$ or Order. " , " ,+:'i:1:{)ii\.,;::irtUWi;::',i'Y';'L,'y;:\/ CommissionerTrippler movedo:tQa'8~rove'the annual review of the planninq commission rules of procedure as amended. I," " Seconded by Commissioner'Nuss. ' Ayes - All The motion passed. d. Resolutions of Appreciation for Jeremy Yarwood and Robert Martin Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the resolutions of appreciation for Jeremv Yarwood and Robert Martini Seconded by Commissioner Pearson. Ayes - All The motion passed. 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Rezoning Clarification Regarding 2694 Stillwater Road i. Senior, Planner, Tom Ekstrand explained the clarification and correction to the rezoning of 2694 Stillwater Road. No action was necessary. January 17, 2012 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 2 8. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. 9. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Commissioner report for the city council meeting of December 12,2011. Commissioner Bierbaum attended. The item reviewed was the conditional use permit for the St. Paul Hmong Alliance Church, 1770 McMenemy Street. b. Upcoming City council meeting of January 23,2012. Commissioner Boeser is scheduled to attend. There are no items scheduled for the planning commission at this meeting. c. Upcoming City Council Meeting of February 13, 2012. Commissioner Pearson is scheduled to attend. The items to review are the 2011 Planning Commission Annual Report, the Annual Review of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure and the Resolutions of Appreciation for Jeremy, Yarwood and Robert Martin. )H;) 10. STAFF PRESENTATIONS 'i:<: -';,-:' a. TuesdaY,february 7,2012, planning comn;.i$~rOn meetiM~"cancelled due to caucuses. The next Planning Commission meeting in FebnW'ElrY will be February 21, 2012. .",', -,,,_. 11. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Fischer adjourned '-"ii, :;,,'" January 17, 2012 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 3 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: James Antonen, City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Chuck Ahl, Assistant City Manager Vacations of Edgemont Street, Arkwright Street and Alley (A 4/5 vote of the city council is required for approval) North side of Roselawn Avenue, East of McMenemy Street February 14, 2012 SUBJECT: Vote Required: LOCATION: DATE: INTRODUCTION Request Richard Schreier, of DeSoto Associates Limited Partnership LLP, is requesting that the city council approve the following right-of-way vacations on the north side of Roselawn Avenue: . The easterly 10 feet of Edgemont Street . The full width of Arkwright Street . The south half of the alley lying between Edgemont Street and Arkwright Street Refer to the maps. Reason for the Request Mr. Schreier is proposing to build a 71-unit seniors apartment building similar to the nearby independent-living apartments called Rosoto Villa on Roselawn. In order to assemble enough land for this development, Mr. Schreier is requesting that the city council vacate these undeveloped streets and aliey so that land area would accrue to him. He is also negotiating with the City of Maplewood to purchase .9 acres of land to enlarge his development site east of the land he presently owns. If all is approved, he would have 2.58 acres for his apartment site. Other Applications Required Once the right-of-way vacations have been decided on by the city council, Mr. Schreier would apply for the following: . A comprehensive land use plan amendment from LDR (low density residential) and P (park) to HDR (high density residential) . A rezoning from R1 (single-dwelling residential) to R3 (multiple-dwelling residential). . Design approval from the community design review board (CDRB). BACKGROUND May 24, 2004: The city council approved the Toenjes Hills Estates single-dwelling subdivision to the north of Edgemont Street. Council also approved the vacation of the westerly half of Edgemont Street which abutted Toenjes Hills Estates. The easterly half remained as a half-width right-of-way adjacent to city property. Findings for Approval of a Right-Of-Way Vacation To vacate street and alley right-of-way, the city council must find that it is in the public interest. DISCUSSION Arkwright Street Staff sees no reason to retain this section of Arkwright Street for roadway needs. It is bounded by city-owned land and lies partially within a ponding area. There is no potential for its use as a roadway and, therefore, no benefit to the city to retain it as such. Alley As with the Arkwright Street right-of-way, there is no reason for the city to retain this alley for any traffic or access purpose. Mr. Schreier applied to vacate the south half of this alley. City staff is recommending to vacate the north half to avoid a remaining land-locked alley right-of-way. Edgemont Street In June 2010, Mr. Schreier requested the vacation of the full width of Edgemont Street. The abutting owner to the west, Ms. Kathleen Delaney, opposed this vacation since she had plans to use this right-of-way as access to her land for development. Mr. Schreier then withdrew his application for that vacation. He currently has made application to vacate only the easterly 10 feet. This would leave 50 feet of right-of-way which would suffice for future access to Ms. Delaney's property in the event she proposes to build homes on her property, Ms. Delaney is opposed to the current proposal to vacate the easterly 10 feet. Refer to the email response from her attorney, Mark Jacobson. Mr. Jacobson states that, 'To vacate even a portion of the width of Edgemont Street would have a deleterious effect on the value and the possible future use of Ms. Delaney's property. Moreover, the construction of multi-family housing as proposed by DeSoto Associates would have negative affect on the value not only of Ms. Delaney's property but also surrounding residential properties." Should the vacation of the easterly 1 0 feet of Edgemont Street occur, Ms. Delaney would still have sufficient street width for access to her property. Future homes on Ms. Delaney's property would face a three-story apartment building if the land use plan amendment, rezoning and design approvals were granted and the development took place. This would be a visible impact for these potential homes, but, the same impact could occur without the vacation of the proposed easterly 10 feet of Edgemont Street. 2 Lisa and David Li, of 364 Toenjes Place, are opposed to the proposed vacation and to the construction of an apartment building. They stated that, "we are opposed to the vacation of the land pCircels. In current zoning and the future comprehensive land use guide, this area is single family housing. We want the land to be used in accordance with the current zoning and comprehensive plan adopted January 25, 2010." . Additional Comments from Neighbors Staff received verbal and written replies from four other nearby residents. Their replies are noted in the attachments, but in summary, their comments were: . An apartment complex would decrease property values of neighbor's homes. . It would decrease wildlife habitat and harm the environment. . It would increase traffic. . Leave the land as it has been planned and zoned for single family housing. . Apartments would not be compatible with this single family neighborhood. . We built our home because it was a single-family neighborhood, not multi-family. . This land was proposed for a park and park trail. A sign at the end of the Toenjes Place cul-de- sac designates a "future trail." Staff's Comments Staff has contacted the Ramsey County Assessor's office because of the comments made about a negative impact on property values if the apartment building was built. Stephen Baker, of the Ramsey County Assessor's office, stated the following: "In our experience we have not seen that buildings of this type have had a negative impact on values of existing nearby properly. This location appears to be a transitional location with an arterial street and existing commercial activity. This will serve to furlher minimize any potential impact for the new senior building. To date, I am not aware of an instance where we are adjusting our assessed value of an existing properly due to the presence of a nearby 3-story senior apartment building. A more specific statement would require that we perform an analysis which would require preliminary site plans and exterior elevations of the proposed structure." Staff does not feel that there would be "harm" to the environment. Development certainly alters the property and does displace animals, but we don't see a potential development as being harmful. Traffic would increase. Staff suggests that the applicant be required to provide a traffic analysis when he makes application for his building design and site plans in order for the city's engineering staff to analyze traffic impact. The next three comments are all interrelated. It is true that the land abutting these rights-of-way are planned and zoned for single-family homes on the westerly portion and park land on the easterly. Any change to the land use plan designation and zoning will require that the Mr. Schreier apply for changes to the land use plan and zoning from low density or single-dwelling and parks to multiple-family or high density. Those requests will be considered by the planning commission and city council once the applicant makes those requests. Staff will notify the neighbors when that happens. 3 When the city reviewed the Toenjes Hills Estates preliminary plat, the former parks director, Bruce Anderson, felt it made sense to require a connection to the city property to the east by a pedestrian trail. Mr. Anderson thought it was wise to secure a trail easement in case such a trail was ever desired. He felt that this trail should be located to the north side of the city's property near Mt. Vernon Street, not southerly into the area of the proposed street vacations. The proposed right-of- way vacations and any future development would not affect a future trail if it were to be built, though presently, there are no plans for a future trail or any park development on this land. City Staff Comments Enqineerinq Department Comments Refer to the report by Steven Love, assistant city engineer. In summary, Mr. Love has the following comments: . The alley vacation should be continued to the north line of Biock 6 Magoffin's North Side Addition so not to create a land-locked portion of alley right-of-way. . If it is later found that there are private utilities located within the proposed right-of-way, those easements should be dedicated to those utility companies (i.e. gas, electric, cable, etc). . A drainage and utility easement shall be retained in the Arkwright Street right-of-way that is within the existing ponding basin. A similar easement over the contiguous property shall be dedicated as a condition of this vacation. Such dedications shall be subject to the approval of the city's engineering department. CONCLUSION It would be in the public interest to vacate these rights-of-way. They are not needed for any access or transportation need. The vacation would return public right-of-way to the properties it was taken from in the first place and allow the abutting property owners to make use of the land. The remaining 50 feet of right-of-way width of Edgemont Street is wide enough to provide access to the lots to the west should Ms. Delaney propose to develop her property. The question as whether the land use plan and zoning should be changed to allow an apartment building is a separate matter and will be considered whenlif the applicant makes those requests. The city will hoid a public hearing and involve all the property owners within a 500 foot mailing radius should those applications be submitted. RECOMMENDATION Approve the resolution vacating the following rights-of-way on the north side of Roselawn Avenue: . The easterly 10 feet of Edgemont Street . The full width of Arkwright Street . The alley between Edgemont Street and Arkwright Street in Block 6 4 It is in the public interest to approve these vacations since: 1. These street and alley rights-of-way are not needed for any access or transportation purpose. 2. The Arkwright Street right-of-way is obstructed by a holding pond. 3. The vacations would return public right-of-way to the properties they were taken from. These vacations are subject to the conditions stipulated in the engineering report by Steve Love dated January 31, 2012. 5 NEIGHBORS' COMMENTS Staff surveyed the two abutting neighbors to Edgemont Street for their comments. Other nearby property owners submitted comments as well regarding the proposed vacations and the applicant's plans to build a 71-unit senior's apartment building. All were opposed to the vacations and the potential apartment development. Opposed We are opposed to the vacation of the land parcels. In current zoning and the future comprehensive land use guide, this area is single family housing. We want the land to be used in accordance with the current zoning and comprehensive plan adopted January 25, 2010. (Lisa and David Li, 364 Toenjes Place) A senior's apartment complex would decrease property values, remove wildlife habitat, harm the environment and increase traffic. Keep this land single family as it is currently zoned. (Gu Yongzhon, 355 Toenjes Place) Refer to the email responses from: Mark Jacobson, representing Kathleen Delaney, owner of property west of Edgemont. Amy Dorn-Fernandez, 365 Toenjes Place. William and JoLynn Giles, 1967 McMenemy Street Jackie and Dan Nerud, 1994 Edgemont Street 6 REFERENCE INFORMATION PLANNING Land Use Plan: Edgemont Street is bordered by property designated at LDR (low density residential); Arkwright Street is bordered by property designated at P (park); the alley is bordered by a LDR designation on the west and a P designation on the east. Zoning: R1 (single dwelling residential). APPLICATION DATE The application for this request was complete on January 25, 2012. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a land use proposal. City council action is required on this proposal by March 25, 2012. p,\sec17/Edgemont & Arkwright Street Vacation 2 12 te Attachments: 1. Land Use Plan Map 2. Zoning Map/Location Map 3. Proposed Right-of-Way Vacation Map 4. Conceptual Apartment Site Plan date-stamped January 25, 2012 5. Email from Mark Jacobson 6. Email from Amy Dorn-Fernandez 7. Email from William and JoLynn Giles 8. Email from Jackie and Dan Nerud 9, Engineering Report from Steven Love dated January 31, 2012 10, Resolution 7 LAND USE PLAN MAP Attachment 1 LAND USE PLAN MAP ~ i~ w ~ I? [mID I li~lk -----"--"~ '",' ..iI -.-------..--JIA ..:'. ~"T,ii JR "" _..._-~ ~.f!fi.1 "''\'7''''- ~lliM;\'1 ~h ;.--............,..;;....._~ ~r Ill- ,~, 1J'i~lYj '1)lill bilij 1Zl" . f'0] li&J'r~ "-- -- _.._..~.. I:ittJ ..."f.fi ...,'1). ~:;'f',~ [N,"" ~S'WI"~ r."", f(,lJ" l*&.~ I:~..,... tk:;m l~..lJJ Copyright MaplewoodBaseMap Chad Bergo Parcels; This data set Is available to everyone. Fees and policy are published in the Ramsey County Fee Schedule. Charges are variable and are subject to change. See the Ramsey County Fee Schedule for specific InformatIon on fees and policy. http://maps.ci.maplewood.mn.us/aspnet_c1ient/ESRI/W ebADF IPrintTaskLayoutTemplates... 2/13/2012 ZONING/LOCATION MAP Attachment 2 ZONING/LOCATION MAP ril!ii!":,J,,,,' m!ill ilil!f 1~ 'F:i1lr' __'_'H._._..._"H. ..._._.__.._._ - __,\Jil\1L1,'_ ;<\. ~ a rf",i(il ""r..1 n2; Ii 1!lf""1 11 !i;: ls~i~ ~.?, o ", I~,~)n, Vl~ ~ jif~l, " ~,+-- ~~- ~ \ "'!~}' ifMI--- Iifm'l wfrJr "'0. \I - -- 'A \~ f--'t--T~: ~ / ----\ ,,"~' ~r,\11!J I , I~ - '~-- ~'\~\_-- ->:~~~~ ~- ~l'!jJ / ~ *"k."J .I ! __ ___ _ .J'" .~--,... '\)_.____ ~ ] ~~...._~( ."', ~ -- ~j~~ "g'ji1 I 4- mt~u ';l.. <) ~ r1 ~- fI~ ~!lill ----- -.......----11 -------1" ',' -.. ~ - , ----, f' 'IWfi,' *i ,!ill: -~ 00 I?T~ ''"\'''\' [:;s;;t ~ \II L . ~'\L 1[",,,, ",~,a t@1:H!U L Imn lRlim -,\:,;)im m';;r lttJ f1Ilt.?Ettl h~ ~~ [",",lid ""~ j;jJ I2f ,', " . rill --,- .---,-.. ...-... 'IJ!J' [__,]m ~,;o ~,"r'] 1'k4" ,'~ - {fu'il"-!ft ,;;j,& ill.'!]:r [!ijWi 8EU.WOOOAVEe [.'iJ 1~ Copyright MaplewoodBaseMap Chad Bergo Parcels: This data set Is available to everyone. Fees and policy are published In the Ramsey County Fee Schedule. Charges are variable and a're subject to change. See the Ramsey County Fee Schedule for specific information on fees and policy. http://maps.ci.maplewood.mn.us/aspnet_client/ESRI/W ebADF IPrintTaskLayoutTemplates... 2/13/2012 PROPOSED STREET AND ALLEY V ACA nONS Page 1 of 1 Attachment 3 PROPOSED STREET AND ALLEY VACATIONS St.nAN.ft Il$f1l;;1 tK'l1 ""'''<'~ c\1c"IW~r .. ti ~ .mm..'~. ; I'~l~l"\ u& lt~ "'G"i~I""'" r-t *10 ",_.,;..",..,......., t'F~'1 ~trr~:,a ,.,.'."'~JO'........ ,<?S,},',-;;,", V"~'>"k" "'1 """-';wtJ \f}r:lliW 1'''j flit "'",,!i'ij" t\'I'f_lli\;{ '~,\ .". _..'J"~",,,,,, ~"""l ;:..'!'~ ;:t1',\ '~,;;) fkiil "fii;r':ii;~j' ...' r'f,fhtc'K i.'>)~'\: "".0'" '''''' v'?" iLiAJ I"""" IT] "~l ~I .. '" ~ ,.,":ie,...:..:. f! ~1tj ~ . "~ ..,~...~....~. .'~' _"._"",..~.,"_.w -:.:1 't\j'I[~;1 " ~fu t1 '... ,...~JjJ~~I.., ft" . .,_IL I ~'~[~~I '\1:11' Il{{!l L &wi!1.~1 I' i?i1':ttl f:t" ~..,. I /...,\"."" ", / ~",. . '~~. ';'l~i~~~ ~ ?-lljj .., ..,.... . ~"'~l;?..n..' ...........'\.,.'''.'.../.. {~ Ut] - [5 ~ E ill ~' '" ' u ' w t I 1''''I'i\'....1 €i:t !W*M 1I"""1 1,1;:..,.1 "'...." j:.i\ .l<gj".;<m .';;}J;':;j!J \';~ II \' "':"'''.... l' ,_ '",.... .-......~"W"_'."d_.'_. PROPOSED STREET AND ALLEY VACATIONS o,o.ll0~ 0..01. i1~!i }\':.c;,t;i':;' III!I'~ Copyright MaplewoodBaseMap Chad Bergo Parcels: This data set Is available to everyone. Fees and policy are published In the Ramsey County Fee Schedule. Charges are variable and are subject to change. See the Ramsey County Fee Schedule for specific Information on fees and policy. http://maps.cLmaplewood.mn.us/aspnet_client/ESRI/WebADF/PrintTaskLayoutTemplates...l 126/20 12 01/12/2012 10:03 (;Idle- M..:7N 1634415469 MOE ARCHITECTS 1NC "('. :..!...... ,f , ., . ';',,:, ';r :":: .~l i' . .;" I ~. ~::)( ,;(i S",.;'.ft Mf" ,~). 'j,' ," :~~::;'i:t :;,;':':l.(:i';fift .i;, ,'i" .1' ,'>);:' ., ./;..., ~.' . ~" 'l" .1',. . ./ ",:.'1, ~,'~',;~,~: :-~t:;):..\::.,.~}~.;t:.t. /" ',,' '. ,,' ..,. ..', "'"'''''' ,'....-- +, ":l,,;,,:,.\.'.:.:liir~..~.I. "", , ;~ .' A t ~ PAGE :~~~~T .,.::1,' \f't ,;,;"~'.~.p , " <:(~jl:; 04 ':1;, '4/'9"", " , , ,', 'i ','!: ."' ,l . ):i' ":r\ :i: : i" ,,;;' , , ". " ,,'i , " ::'" '>~:l\. 'i;'!;,};;:i'~ii,::i;l:~:~.:: ;::t<j ;:J ); ,.. ..,"I 0, ,'.. "IJ' ,..,;\I's"..."t.. . ' ". ~. . :'.'14:: <!'~~.l"';' ,:"J" :c , .r. " ;i:!' \ ; j" :-".v.: . I :'~:".l''( ., '\ ....;~J\~1....', .'. . . ~f~.:~': \~.. . ~... " ',' ., .~ I, \ "./ h \ i \ <'fa' j . " "'00 .- . r '..:~: ~..... ,'" .."-:. ,..t'e.... By .,:( " ,,' ,;l<l~~'~V',:,: . ,'..' l. \, , I":! I.' ',,' Ji" " '~, I ' ., i"tn".....L..o ~+ Attachment 5 Tom Ekstrand From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Jacobson, Mark [mark.jacobson@leonard.com] Friday, February 03,20123:53 PM Tom Ekstrand DeSoto Associates proposal to vacate part of Edgement Street Scanned Doc.pdf Dear Mr. Ekstrand, Our firm represents Kathleen Delaney. I am writing to you on her behalf to comment on the proposal by DeSoto Associates to vacate the easteriy 10 feet of undeveloped Edgemont Street, all of Arkwright street and the alley between the two. According to the notice you sent out to surrounding property owners, this Is a part of a plan by DeSoto to develop senior apartments at the southwest corner of Roselawn.Avenue and DeSoto Street. I have discussed with you in the past the efforts by DeSoto Associates to vacate Edgemont Street and other dedicated alleys and/or streets and to deveiop senior housing at that location. Ms, Delaney continues to oppose any such effort by DeSoto Associates to vacate even a portion of Edgemont Street and to proceed with the proposed development. To vacate even a portion of the width of Edgemont Street would have a deleterious effect on the value and the possible future use,of Ms. Delaney's property. Moreover, the construction ofmuitl-farnlly housing as proposed by DeSoto Associates would have a negative affect on the value not only of Ms. Delaney's property but also surrounding residential properties, I expressed Ms. Delaney's position on this in my June 14, 2010 letter to you on this subject, a copy of which is attached. Ms. Delaney would want the opportunity to appear through her counsel to speak in opposition to this proposed vacation of streets and alleys and the proposed development of any multi-family housing on the p'roperty adjoining Ms. Delaney's Property. She has been approached by others who own residential property in this neighborhood, and those neighbors have expressed similar opposition to this proposed development. As you know, any such development would require rezoning as well as a change in the Mapiewood Comprehensive Plan, Ms. Delaney, and I am sure many surrounding neighbors, would strongly oppose any suqh re-zoning or change in the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan. When you and I last discussed this subject, you suggested that it would be best for the property owners to get together to see if some accomodation could be worked out that wouid be acceptable to all. Rather than DeSoto Associates even attempting any such meeting to discuss these Issues, it appears to be intent on attempting to ramrod this proposal through the City Council without consideration of the needs or Interests of the surrounding neighbors. Ms. Deianey will stand firm in opposition to any such effort by DeSoto Associates, Please iet me know if any hearing will be scheduled for consideration of this proposal. Thank you for your consideration. Regards, Mark E. Jacobson Leonard, Street and Deinard 150 South 5th Street, Ste. 2300 Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 335-1450 (612) 335-1657 (Fax) mark. iacobson@leonard.com Disclaimer under IRS Circular 230: Unless we expressly state otherwise in this message, nothing contained in this message is intended or written to be used, nor may it be relied upon or used (i) by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) by any person to promote, market or to recommend any Federal tax transaction or matter addressed in this message. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail is confidential, may be legally privileged, and is intended only for the use of the party named above. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipientr you are advised that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at 1 -....... /"-.., ,..,.,~ . ('~"Y '. ,,___1 \J~' LEONARD STREET AND DEINARD I:5Q.SOU't'H mfTHST~.I):st.SUITj;; 2.309 MINNEMQtlS, MlN-NasoTA $ S40:;t 6t2.'.3H~(so.O,MAI~ "r~'33s.,xGS7 .pA;X MA.RKE. JAco~~ON 612.335-1450 DIRECT MAR1<:.JACO~SON@LEONARD.COM JU1)O 14,2010 Mr. Tom Ek~trand, Senior Planner City of Maple wood Offlce ofConunllhity Development 1&30 Cou1)ty Road BEast Maplewood, MN 55109 Re: Proposal to Vaclite Edgemoht Street Right-of- W'i!.Y and Alley to the East of Edgem.ont Street Dear Mr. Ekstrand: YOI.) Wrote a letter to Kl'\thleen Delaney on JUne II regarding the above referenced proposal to vaqate the Edgemont Street right~of~way and alley to the eaSt. You requested Ms, Delaney's opinion on the proposal by DeSoto Associates to vacate undeveloped Edgemont Street north of Roselawn Avenue and the alley to the east of Bdgernont Stteet. Our Firm represents Kathleen Delaney. Please direct all future communications regarding this matter (or copies of any such cOll1U1unications) to th", undersigned. Ms. Delaney will strongly oppose tlle proposal by DeSoto Associates to vacate tlleundeveloped EdgeU10ntStreet north of Roselawn A venue and the aIley to the east of Edgemont Street. Both the proposal to vacate this right.of-way property ago. alley as well as the plans by DeSoto Associates to develop the property which is situated immediately east of Ms. Del'i!.m:y's property for purposes of sel1ior housing would ll&vea1le,Ktremely deleterious effect on the value of Ms. Delaney's property. At tl~e present time, Ms. Delany's property has tlle potential for being developed for the construction of up to tm-eesingle family residences using the portion of Edgcmont Street, which is proposed to be vacated, as aCCeSS to those residentiaL properties. If this street were to be vacated, that wouLd reshict acees~ to Ms. Delaney's prQperty e,Kclusively frotn RoselaWn A venue, leaving tbeproperty developa])\e only for one single re$id",ntial construction. Moreover, Ms. Delaney's propetty and the property immediately to the east of her property, which DeSoto Associates proposes to develop, is eurtently zoned low density fol' 2.6 to 6 units pel' acre (Le. single family, detached townhouse and/or duplex consttuQtiol1). fn faet, nlOst of the properties sUITounding Ms. Delaney's property in virtually every direction (()ther tban the church property immediately to the south) are similarly zoned for single tiJ,mily, detached townhouse and/ot duplex construetiol1. Development of high density senior bousing property on the property to the east of Ms. Delaney's property as proposed by DeSoto Assoeiates ~9725,6VI LAW OFl1lCES IN MINl'tt:EA,POLIS . MANU':rO .. ST.. C:CQUU 0- WASHING'rQN, D.C. A PrQl~$i.on.al A~ocjaU:on WWW.I.Jl.QNARD.COM ____~_.<~_._.~__~_~_~__."W_.~~__._.~___._.___~__.,._.,__~~"_,_____--..-........_....'"'"_""_.____.__.____________'___'_~ .-, ~.. June 14,2010 Page 2 would require rezoning as wen a change ill the Maplewood 'Comprehensiw Plan, Ms, Delaney will strenuously oppose any such .zohing ohan,geor chang('j in the comprehensive plan, an<\ sh~ will enlist the support ofthe residepfial properly ownerssurroundihg these properties for similar support in opposition to the proposed <\evelopmentby DeSoto Associates, I would be happy to discuss with you any proposed recoi1l,l;tlendation that you wO\fld pe prepaflngtp submit to the Planning Cornmission al)d the City Counsel. r will also appreciate receivifig notice of any public heariljg byfue f>Ianning Commission and/or the City Council on this proposed vacation of the Edgemon! Streetright"of"way and the alley to the east as well as any ptoposeddeve\optnent of the property to the east of'Ms. Delaney's property fOr high denSity residential purposes. ' Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD Professional Association C2.~ Ibeh cc: Duane Konewko, COnlmunity Development Director Kathleen R. Delaney 6972536v I ...-..._,-....~'-"......_'<-~<,....-.._.."----._.......-,.._.---~._._-~~.~_._-~,._--"._......~_._...- Tom Ekstrand Attachment 6 From: Sent: To: Subject: amy dornfernandez [dornfernandez@yahoo.com] Sunday, February 05, 2012 3:21 PM Tom Ekstrand Proposal to vacate Edgemont & Arkwright Mr. Ekstrand, I'm am writing to you concerning a proposal by DeSoto Associates to the city of Maplewood to have land near my home vacated to them so a large apartment complex could be built there. I am strongly opposed to this step, and future considerations for changing the city's land use plan for such a multiplex. We bought our lot on Toenjes Place East, and built our home here, in order to become part of a community of families in Maplewood. In the two years we have lived in our new home, we have come to know many of the neighbors --- celebrating National Night Out, watching out for each other throughout the year, and building a neighborhood community. We would welcome more families of single-family homes on the proposed site as it has been zoned. We do not support the proposal to vacate part of the Edgemont Street right-of-way, the full width of Arkwright Street and the alley between both streets. I am hopeful that you can take our opinion into consideration as you weigh the proposal. Please let me know what other information or input I can provide to be helpful to the process of denying this requested proposal. Thank you, Amy Dorn-Fernandez ,365 Toenjes Place E Maplewood, MN 55117 651-415-1003 1 Attachment 7 Tom Ekstrand From: Sent: To: Subject: JoLynn Giles [JoLynnGiles@cp-aviation.com] Monday, February 06, 2012 10:45 AM Tom Ekstrand proposal to vacate Edgemont street Tom- Thank you for taking to the time to discuss the proposal by Desoto Associates. I would like to express my opposition to the changing of the comprehensive land use plan. I understand that the first step is to vacate the right of way. First off it was my understanding that years ago this area around the pond was to be developed into a park with walking trail. I believe a sign is in place that states,future trail; It would be beneficial to the' neighborhood to continue with that plan. I would not like the city to just give their land away as requested for development. In addition, I strongly OPPOSE the idea ofthe future development site to be zoned multi family. It should remain consistent with the current zoning as SINGLE family homes. This neighborhood has numerous multi-family apartments which include way too many section 8 units. This does nothing but bring our property value down. IF the land was to be developed, It would be beneficial to build homes for the future that people will take care of. I again would like to thank you for your time. I hope my letter will be included in the hearing. As a Maplewood resident of 19 years, I have seen significant change in the neighborhood. I would encourage the city council to take into account the future of our City - this could include family homes I Not apartments. Regards, William and JoLynn Giles 1967 McMenemy Street 1 Attachment 8 Tom Ekstrand From: Sent: To: Subject: jnerud@comcast.net Friday, February 03,20126:56 PM Tom Ekstrand DeSoto Associates Proposal Tom - My husband and I are opposed to the proposal for another apartment complex in our neighborhood. There are a number of apartments in our neighborhood already. Wildlife resides in the proposed location and this would be a loss of a home for this wildlife. The location of this apartment would be the view we would see from our back yard and would be another source of bringing down the value of our home. If this proposal is approved, we will give serious consideration to moving out of Maplewood. Thanks for asking the opinion of those impacted by this proposal. Please keep us informed of the future of this proposal. Jackie and Dan Nerud - 1994 Edgemont Street 651-774-7202 (home) 651-325-7914 (cell) inerud@comcast.net 1 Attachme~aie I of2 Enl!:ineerinl!: Public Ril!:ht-of-Wav Review PROJECT: Senior Housing Complex PROJECT NO: NA REVIEWED BY: Steven Love (Maplewood Engineering Department) SUBMITTAL NO: 1 DATE: 1-31-12 Richard Schreier, owner of375 Roselawn Avenue is proposing a senior housing complex development project. As part of this proposal there is a request to vacate the east 10 feet of Woodland Street adjoining Lots 16-23, Block 6, the alley adjoining Lots 16-23 and Lots 8-15, Block 6, and Arkwright Street adjoining Lots 8-15, Block 6 and Lots 16-23, Block 7, ' MAGOFFIN'S NORTH SIDE ADDITION TO ST. PAUL. The applicant shall ensure that the following requirements are met. Additional Vacation Area 1. It is recommend to vacate the alley adjoining Lots 24-30 and Lots 1-7, Block 6, MAGOFFIN'S NORTH SIDE ADDITION TO ST. PAUL as part of the vacation process. This will avoid creating a land locked piece of public right-of-way. The City of Maplewood currently owns the property on both sides ofthe alley described above and the vacated right-of-way would go to the adjoining owners (i.e. the City of Maplewood). Utilities I. The only existing public utility located in the proposed right-of-way to be vacated is a storm sewer line in the alley referenced in under '~Additional Vacation Area". As this storm sewer line currently lies partially on the alley right-of-way and partially on the City owned land no additional easement will be required as part of the vacation process. 2. If it is discovered through the vacation process that private utilities (i.e. gas, electric, cable, etc.) are found to exist within the proposed right-of-way to be. vacated easements shall be provided for the private utilities as part of the condition of approval of the vacation. Drainage Easement I. A drainage and utility easement for the existing basin will be required over the area below the elevation of the eastern dike overflow. It is estimated that the overflow elevation for the eastern dike is approximately 900 based on 2 foot contour maps. As part ofthe development review a more detailed review of the proposed site and modeling of the basin would be required by the developer. This could have impacts on the location of the required easement. Staff recommends that the easement be written and reviewed as part of the development review process. If the development does not take place the developer would be required to provide a drainage and utility easement based on the elevation of the eastern dike overflow. ~n ,rliIr "'~. fJ~1{~ll \I ~ .~.,.' "'\ '\' ,1',,: .'( , I,' ' <,,-'-t.f ill ~,- ,.-:",,>;~ "'"I ." i"'I"''''' .. '. I I ;j . ,".' ,,,,I,' .J. '\" ,.. ',.C' .'," ;1 r l'i I ~"'I:~ I , II - , I \ b "e ',,\'5 .,3 'f' 'I ['I f r ! """'-4 .. ioj '\<' if I,~.\,\!. \d _ ,L I, I,..i a.! ,', I i~;:1 \ i"\". ,:. , 1f :1~!' '.~ j:U~1 ow I:>>r' \ . ! 1 ~ '" , ,....$ ...""',.i-(ll. w w w "1' m.al' ~ !'li.ii;;l' << l!j~J~l' ~~~f3 . I ! i . a t ~ ~ q ift , II 1j~ Iii ~"n ~"1 ~ ilt ~ "ti~ a,t ill . , ill : IJl N i{& ~ ,,~I~ ~d ,.I~: I-I ~ <w__"_~..__.,"",_."'i l ~ ! ! I ' ~ . ! ~ 1 Attachment 10 VACATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, DeSoto Associates, Inc. applied for the vacation of the following: The easterly 10 feet of the Edgemont Street right-of-way lying west of Lots 16-23, Block 6, MAGOFFIN'S NORTH SIDE ADDITION TO ST PAUL; The south half of the alley located within Block 6, MAGOFFIN'S NORTH SIDE ADDITION TO ST. PAUL; The full width of the Arkwright Street right-of-way located east of Lots 8-15, Block 6, MAGOFFIN'S NORTH SIDE ADDITION TO ST. PAUL; WHEREAS, the Maplewood City Staff is also recommending the vacation of the north half of the alley located within Block 6, MAGOFFIN'S NORTH SIDE ADDITION TO ST. PAUL; WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: 1. On February 21,2012, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council these requests; 2. On , 2012, the city council considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. WHEREAS, after the city approves these vacations, public interest will go to the abutting owners of the following properties: 1. The vacation of the easterlv 10 feet of Edqemont Street: The owner of Lots 16-23, Block 6, MAGOFFIN'S NORTH SIDE ADDITION TO ST. PAUL. 2. The vacation of the allev: The owners of Lots 1-30, Block 6, MAGOFFIN'S NORTH SIDE ADDITION TO ST. PAUL. 3. The vacation of Arkwriqht Street: The owner of Lots 18-16, Block 6 and Lots 16-23, Block 7, MAGOFFIN'S NORTH SIDE ADDITION TO ST. PAUL. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council vacation for the following reasons: the above-described It is in the public interest to approve these vacations since: 1) These street and alley rights-of way are not needed for any access or transportation purpose. 2) The Arkwright Street right-of-way is obstructed by a holding pond. 3) The vacations would return public right-of-way to the properties they were taken from. These vacations are subject to the conditions stipulated in the engineering report by Steve Love dated January 31, 2012. The Maplewood City Council this resolution on 8