HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985 02-25 City Council PacketAGENDA
Maplewood City Council
7: 00 P.M.. Monday, February 25, 1985
Municipal Administration Building
Meet*inq 85 -03
(A CALL TO ORDER
(B) ROLL CALL
(C) APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Meeting 85 -01, January 14, 1985
(D) APPROVAL OF AGENDA
(E) CONSENT AGENDA
All matters listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the
City Council and will be enacted by one motion in the form listed below. There
will be no separate discussion on hese items. If discussion is desired, that
item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and will be considered separately.
1. Accounts Payable
20 Carry -Over of 1984 Appropriations
30 Transfer from Contingency (Sewer Bills)
( F) PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. 7:00 - Plan Amendment to Rezoning: Larpenteur & McKnight (4 Votes)
2. 7:10 - Plan Amendment to Rezoning: 1915 -25 Arcade (.4 Votes)
3. 7:20 - Plan Amendment to Rezoning: Co. Rd. C. Hazelwood & Gervais, (4 Votes)
4. 7:30 - Code Amendment: NC District (1st Reading)
5. 7:4.0 - Variance: 1850 Radatz
(G) AWARD OF BIDS
(H) UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1.
Muni ci nal State Variances (McKnight Rd, ).
(I) NEW BUSINESS
1.
2.
Travel & Training Policy
HRA Reappointment
(M) ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES OF MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
7:00 P.M., Monday, January 14, 1985
Council Chambers, Municipal Building
Meeting No. 85 -01
A. CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, was held in the Council
Chambers, Municipal Building, and was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Mayor Greavu.
B. ROLL CALL
John C. Greavu, Mayor Present
Norman G. Anderson, Councilperson Present
Gary W. Bastian, Councilperson Present
MaryLee Maida, Councilperson Present
Michael T. Wasiluk, Councilperson Present
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Meeting No. 84 -24 (November 8, 1984)
Councilperson Anderson moved to approve the Minutes of Meeting No. 84 -24
(November, 1984) as submitted.
Seconded by Councilperson Wasiluk. Ayes - all.
2. Meeting No. 84 -27 (December 20, 1984)
Councilperson Anderson moved to approve the Minutes of Meeting No. 84 -27
(December 20, 1984) as submitted.
Seconded by Councilp'erson�, Maida. Ayes - all.
D. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mayor Greavu moved to approve the Agenda as amended
1. Developers Meeting
2. Meeting - Commission
3. Parking
4. Watershed
5. Restaurants
6. Fiscal Disparities
7. Budget
Seconded by Councilperson Anders'bn. Ayes - all.
E. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Greavu moved, seconded by Councilperson Bastian, Ayes - all, to approve the
consent agenda Items 1 through 4 as recommended
1/14
1. Accounts Payable
Approved the accounts (Part I - Fees, Services, Expenses Check Register Dated
January 3, 1985 through January 7, 1985 - $132,980.76: Part II - Payroll dated
12 -28 -84 - $62,065.11) in the amount of $195,045.87.
2. Tousley Addition Utilities Acceptance
Resolution No. 85 -1 -1
WHEREAS, the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota, has heretofore entered into
a Contract for Public Improvements for city Project No. 84 -8 described as;
Tousley Addition Utilities, and
WHEREAS, said project has been certified as completed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA,
that the project is completed and the utilities are hereby accepted as a part of
the distribution systems.
3. Budget Adjustment - Inspectors
Approved the budget adjustment of increasing the permit revenue account (01 -3301)
and the consultant's expenditure account (4480 -73) by $9000.00 to cover the
increased costs for consulting inspector fees.
4. Sergeants' Pay Rates
Approved a process for paying Sergeants which established a salary of either
$300.00 more than a patrolman or $300.00 less than a lieutenant, based on whichever
is the greater.
F. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. 7:00 P.M. Rezoning.- 2086 Edgerton (4 Votes)
a. Mayor Greavu convened the meeting for a public hearing regarding the
downzoning of the property at 2086 Edgerton Street from B -C business
commercial to R -2 double dwelling.
b. Manager Evans presented the staff report.
C. Chairman Les Axdahl presented the following Planning Commission recommendation:
Commissioner Pellish moved the planning commission recommend the city council
adopt the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood initiated a rezoning from BC, business
commercial to R -2, residence district (double dwelling) for the following -
described property:
Lot 12, Thiede's Edgerton Villas, Section 17, Township 29, Range 22
This property is also known as 2086 Edgerton Street, Maplewood;
- 2 - 1/14
WHEREAS, the procedural history of this rezoning is as follows:
1. This rezoning was initiated by the City of Maplewood, pursuant to
Chapter 36, Article VII of the Maplewood Code of Ordinances.
2. This rezoning was reviewed by the Maplewood Planning Commission on
November 19, 1984. The planning commission recommended to the city
council that said rezoning be approved.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
that the above- described rezoning be approved on the basis of the following
findings of fact:
1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and
intent of the zoning code.
2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract
from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the
neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area
included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded.
3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences
of the community, where applicable and the public welfare.
4. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical,
efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities,
such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools.
Commissioner Sletten seconded. Ayes - Commissioners Barrett, Fischer,
Larson, Pellish, Sigmundik,
Sletten
Nays - Commissioner Robens
d. Mr. Ron Rygwalski, the applicant, spoke on behalf of his proposal.
e. Mayor Greavu called for proponents. None were heard.
f. Mayor Greavu called for opponents. None were heard.
g. Mayor Greavu closed the public hearing.
h. Councilperson Bastian moved to table this item until the meeting of February
11, 1985.
Seconded by Councilperson Anderson.
Ayes - all.
i. Councilperson Bastian moved to initiate a hearing for a Plan Amendment
and Zone Change for this property (2086 Edgerton) from BC to NC.
Seconded by Councilperson Anderson.
Ayes - all.
2. 7:00 P.M., Code Amendment - Setbacks and Lot Dimensions (4 Votes)
a. Mayor Greavu convened the meeting for a public hearing regarding an
amendment revising the minimum setbacks lot area and lot frontage in
R -1 Zones.
- 3 - 1/14
b. Manager Evans presented the staff report.
c. Chairman Les Axdahl presented the following Planning Commission recommendation:
"Commissioner Sletten moved the Planning Commission recommend the City Council
adopt the ordinance to amend the setbacks and lot dimension requirements of the
code.
Commissioner Pellish seconded. Ayes - Commissioners Barrett, Fischer,
Larson, Pellish, Robens, Sigmundik, Sletten."
d. Mayor Greavu called for proponents. None were heard.
e. Mayor Greavu called for opponents. None were heard.
f. Mayor Greavu closed the public hearing.
g. Councilmember Bastian moved to table Section 2 of the proposed ordinance until
further information is obtained.
Seconded by Councilmember Anderson. Ayes - all.
h. Councilmember Bastian introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption:
ORDINANCE NO. 576
AN ORDINANCE REVISING THE MINIMUM SETBACKS IN R -1 ZONES
THE MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 36 -70 through 36 -71 are hereby amended as follows:
Section 36 -70. Front yards.
Each lot in an R -1 District shall have a front yard of at least thirty (30)
feet in depth. Except that, if the majority of the dwellings on the same street
and within 300 feet of the lot to be built on have a setback from that street
that is different than thirty feet, then all buildings thereafter erected, altered
or moved on that street shall conform to that predominate setback as a minimum.
A conditional use permit may be given to construct an addition to a single dwelling
when such addition, or part thereof, extends into a minimum setback.
Section 36 -71. Side yards.
Each lot in an R -1 District shall have two (2) side yards, each having a width
of at least five (5) feet, subject to the following modifications:
(1) The side yard on the street side of a corner lot shall have a width of at
least thirty (30) feet. Except that, if the majority of the dwellings on the
same street and within 300 feet of the lot to be built on have a setback from
that street that is different than thirty feet, then all buildings thereafter
erected, altered or moved on that street shall conform to that predominant setback
as a minimum. A conditional use permit may be given to construct an addition
to a single dwelling when such addition, or part thereof, extends into a minimum
setback.
- 4 - 1/14
(2) A church or school shall have a side yard of not less than fifty
(50) feet on each side adjoining other property or thirty feet from a
public right -of -way.
(3) When two (2) or more adjoining lots are used as a single building
site, the side yard requirements shall apply only to the outside lot
lines. (Code 1965, 9904.050; Ord. No. 487, §904.050, 6- 5 -80).
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect upon its passage and . publication.
Seconded by Councilmember Anderson. Ayes - Councilmembers Anderson, Bastian,
Maida and Wasiluk.
Nay - Mayor Greavu.
3. 7:20 P.M., Variance - 2158 Rice Street - Sinclair Station.
a. Mayor Greavu convened the meeting for a public hearing regarding the
request of Signcrafters Outdoor Display, Inc., for approval of a 29 foot -
sign height variance.
b. Manager Evans presented the staff report.
C. Board Member Rossbach presented the Community Design Review Board recommendation:
"Board Member Juker moved the board recommend denial of the 29 -foot sign
height variance and the variance to exceed the maximum allowable height
of 50 feet for the Sinclair pylon sign. Denial is on the basis that:
1. The variance would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the
code.
2. The excessive sign height situation was created by the landowner and
was not due to circumstances unique to the property.
3. Council recently denied sign height variances for Cub Foods for two
30 -foot tall pylon signs.
Board Member Rossbach seconded. Ayes - all."
d. Mr. Jack Lawrence, Signcrafters Sign Company, spoke on behalf of the
proposal.
e. Mayor Greavu called for proponents. The following were heard:
Mr. Ray Johnson, Sinclair Co.
" Mrs. Donna Funk, The Gladstone House (stated she had been on the committee
that developed the sign ordinance and explained the intent of the com-
mittee.)
f. Mayor Greavu called for opponents. None were heard.
g. Councilmember Maida moved to approve the variance as requested by Sign-
crafters.
Seconded by Mayor Greavu.
- 5 - 1/14
Councilmember Bastian introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
85 - 1 - 2
WHEREAS, Signcrafters applied for a variance for the following described
property:
The North 160 feet of Registered Land Survey No. 10
This property is also known as the Sinclair Station at 2158 Rice Street,
Maplewood;
WHEREAS, Section 36 -352 (3) of the Maplewood Code of Ordinances requires
a maximum sign height of 28.9 feet;
WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing a sign height of 57.9 feet, re-
quiring a variance of 29 feet;
WHEREAS, the procedural history of this variance is as follows:
1. This variance was applied for on October 29, 1984.
2. This variance was reviewed by the Maplewood Community Design Review
Board on November 27, 1984. The Community Design Review Board recom-
mended to the city council that said variance be denied.
3. The Maplewood City Council held a public hearing on January 14, 1985,
to consider this variance. Notice thereof was published and mailed
pursuant to law. All persons present at said hearing were given an
opportunity to be heard and present written statements. The council
also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and Com-
munity Design Review Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL that a variance
be approved to allow a50 -foot high sign, measured from street grade, on the
basis of the following findings of fact:
1. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circum-
stances unique to the property under consideration, and
2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the
ordinance.
Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk. Ayes - Mayor Greavu, Councilmembers
Bastian, Maida and Wasiluk.
11 Nay - Councilmember Anderson.
4. 7:30 P.M., Frost Avenue Improvements
a. Mayor Greavu convened the meeting for a public hearing regarding the
proposal for construction of street and storm sewer improvement in the fol-
lowing described areas: along Frost Avenue between Adele Street on the west
and Birmingham Street on the east and south of the former Soo Line Railroad
to a southern boundary of Fenton Avenue, Frisbie Avenue and Summer Avenue.
- 6 - 1/14
b. Director of Public Works Ken Haider presented the staff report and the
specifics of the proposal.
C. Mr. Wayne Leonard, Coordinating Engineer, Ramsey County, presented the
Ramsey County report.
d. Mayor Greavu called for persons who wished to be heard for or against the
proposal.
Several residents in the area presented their opinions.
Ramsey County Commissioner Hal Norgard spoke on behalf of the proposal.
e. Mayor Greavu closed the public hearing.
f. Councilmember Bastian moved that the Proposed Project No. 83 -1 (Frost
Avenue Reconstruction) is f to be in compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan Update
Seconded by Mayor Greavu. Ayes - all.
g. Councilmember Anderson introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
85- 1- 3
WHEREAS, the City Engineer for the City of Maplewood has been authorized
and directed to prepare a report with reference to the improvement of Walter
Street between Frost and Fenton Avenues by construction of street, water main
and sanitary sewer services; and
WHEREAS, the said City Engineer has prepared the aforesaid report for the
improvement herein described:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA,
as follows:
1. The report of the City Engineer advising this Council that the
proposed improvement on Walter Street between Frost and Fenton
Avenues by construction of street, water main and sanitary sewer
services is feasible and should best be made as proposed, is hereby
received.
2. The Council will consider the aforesaid improvement in accordance
with the reports and the assessment of benefited property for all
or a portion of the cost of the improvement according to M.S.A.
Chapter 429, at an estimated total cost of the improvement of
$65,160.00.
3. A public hearing will be held in the Council Chambers of the
City Hall at 1380 Frost Avenue on Monday, the 25th day of March,
1985, at 7 p.m. to consider said improvement. The City Clerk
shall give mailed and published notice of said hearing and
improvement as,required by law.
Seconded by Mayor Greavu. Ayes - all.
- 7 - 1/14
h. Councilmember Anderson introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
85 - 1 - 4
WHEREAS, the County has planned the improvement of Frost Avenue
(CSAH 28) from Adele Street to Birmingham Street; and
WHEREAS, the County will be expending County State Aid Highway funds
(S.A.P. 62- 628 -04) on the improvement of said street; and
WHEREAS, said improvement does not conform to the approved minimum standards
- 7A 1/14
as previously adopted for such County State Aid streets and that approval of the
proposed construction as a County State Aid street project must, therefore, be
conditioned upon certain parking restrictions; and
WHEREAS, the extent of these restrictions that would be a necessary pre-
requisite to the approval of this construction as a County State Aid project in
the City, has been determined.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, that the City requests the County to
restrict the parking of motor vehicles on both sides of Frost Avenue from Adele
Street to Birmingham Street.
Seconded by Mayor Greavu. Ayes - all.
5. 7:45 P.M. Tax Exempt Mortgage Revenue Financing (Health Resources)
a. Mayor Greavu convened the meeting for a public hearing regarding the request
of Health Resources for preliminary approval of a $5.8 million tax exempt mortgage
revenue bond program to construct senior citizens residence with approximately
100 units.
b. Manager Evans presented the staff report.
c. Mr. John Hurley, Director Outreach Senior Services, Health Resources, spoke
on behalf of the proposal.
d. Mayor Greavu called for proponents. None were heard.
e. Mayor Greavu called for opponents. None were heard.
f. Mayor Greavu closed the public hearing.
g. Councilmember Maida introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
85 - 1 - 5
RESOLUTION RECITING A PROPOSAL FOR A
FINANCING PROGRAM FOR A MULTI- FAMILY RENTAL
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, GIVING PRELIMINARY
APPROVAL TO THE PROJECT AND THE PROGRAM,
AND THE AMENDMENT OF THE HOUSING REVENUE BOND
PROGRAMS PORTION OF THE CITY'S 462C HOUSING PLAN
TO INCLUDE THE PROGRAM
PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 462C,
AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
TO ISSUE HOUSING REVENUE BONDS
AND AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF THE
FINANCING PROGRAM FOR THE PROJECT FOR APPROVAL TO THE
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AND
MINNESOTA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY AND
AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION OF NECESSARY
DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS IN CONNECTION
WITH THE SAID PROJECT AND PROGRAM
(HAZEL RIDGE ELDERLY PROJECT)
- 8 - 1/14
WHEREAS,
(a) Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C (the "Act ") confers upon
cities the power to issue revenue bonds to finance a program for
the purposes of planning, administering, making or purchasing loans
with respect to one or more multi - family housing developments within
the boundaries of the city;
(b) The City has received from a Minnesota limited or general
partnership to be formed with Health Resources Assistance Corporation .
as a general partner (the "Developer "), a proposal that the City under-
take a program to finance a Project hereinafter described, through the
issuance of revenue bonds or obligations (in one or more series or
which may be in the form of a single debt instrument) (the "Bonds ")
pursuant to the Act;
(c) The City desires to: Facilitate the development of rental
housing within the community; encourage the development of affordable
housing opportunities for residents of the City; encourage the de-
velopment of housing facilities designed for occupancy by persons of
low or moderate income; and encourage the development of blighted or
underutilized land and structures within the boundaries of the City;
and the Project will assist the City in achieving these objectives;
(d) The City desires to expand the "Housing Revenue Bond Programs"
portion of its 462C Housing Plan to incorporate the program for the
Project;
(e) The Developer is currently engaged in the business of pro-
viding health care and housing. The Project to be financed by the
Bonds is the construction and equipping of a building containing
approximately 100 rental units, anticipated to consist of 60 one -
bedroom units and 40 two - bedroom units, located immediately north-
east of the corporate headquarters of Health Resources, Incorporated
at 2696 Hazelwood Avenue in the City, which will result in the pro-
vision of additional rental housing opportunities to persons within
the community;
(f) The City has been advised by the Developer that conventional,
commercial financing to pay the capital costs of the Project is avail-
able only on a limited basis and at such high costs of borrowing that
the economic feasibility of operating the Project would be signifi-
cantly reduced, but the Developer has also advised the City that with
the aid of municipal financing, and resulting low borrowing costs, the
Project is economically more feasible;
(g) A public hearing on the Project, the financing program and the
amendment of the "Housing Revenue Bond Programs" portion of the City's
462C Housing Plan therefor was held at 7:45 p.m. on January 14, 1955,
after notice was published, all as required by Minnesota Statutes,
Section 462C.05, subd. 5, at which public hearing all those appearing
at said hearing who desired to speak were heard;
- 9 - 1/14
(h) No public official of the City has either a direct or
indirect financial interest in the Project nor will any public
official either directly or indirectly benefit financially from the
Project.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Maplewood,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. The City hereby gives preliminary approval to the proposal of the
Developer that the City undertake the Project, described above, and the
program of financing therefor, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C,
consisting of the construction and equipping of multi - family rental housing
facilities within the City pursuant to the Developer's specifications and to
a revenue agreement between the City and the Developer on such terms and
conditions with provisions for revision from time to time as necessary, so
as to produce income and revenues sufficient to pay, when due, the principal
and interest on the Bonds in a total principal amount of approximately
$5,800,000 to be issued pursuant to the Act to finance the construction
and equipping of the Project; and said agreement may also provide for the
entire interest of the Developer therein to be mortgaged to the purchaser or
purchasers of the Bonds, or a trustee for the holder(s) of the Bonds; and
the City hereby undertakes preliminarily!_ to issue its bonds in accordance
with such terms and conditions;
2. The "Housing Revenue Bond Programs" portion of the City's 462C
Housing Plan as herein . proposed to be amended is hereby approved and
adopted and the City Clerk is authorized and directed to submit the
amended 462C Housing Plan to the Metropolitan Council for its review and
comment. The comments of the Metropolitan Council, if any, shall be sub-
mitted to the City Council for its consideration;
3. At the option of the Developer, the financing may be structured
so as to take advantage of whatever means are available and are permitted
by law to enhance the security for, or marketability of, the Bonds; pro-
vided that any such financing structure must be approved by the City;
4. On the basis of information available to the City, it appears,
and the City hereby finds, that the Project constitutes a multifamily
housing development within the meaning of subdivision 5 of Section 462C.02
of the Act; that the Project will be primarily occupied, in part, by per-
sons of low or moderate income; that the availability of the financing
under the Act and the willingness of the City to provide such financing
will be a substantial inducement to the Developer to undertake the Project,
and that the effect of the Project, if undertaken, will be to encourage
the provision of additional multi - family rental housing opportunities to
residents of the City, to assist in the prevention of the emergence of
blighted and marginal land and to promote more intensive development and
use of land within the City;
5. The Project, and the program to finance the Project by the issuance
of revenue bonds, is hereby given preliminary approval by the City subject
to the approval of the financing program by the Minnesota Housing Finance
Agency (the "MHFA ") and subject to final approval by the City, the Developer
and the purchasers of the Bonds as to ultimate details of the financing of
the Project;
- 10 - 1/14
6. In accordance with subdivision 5 of Section 462C.05, Minnesota
Statutes, the Mayor of the City is hereby authorized and directed to submit
the program for financing the Project to the MHFA, requesting its approval,
and other officers, employees and agents of the City are hereby authorized
to provide the MHFA with preliminary information as it may require;
7. The Developer has agreed and it is hereby determined that any and
all costs incurred by the City in connection with the financing of the
Project whether or not the Project is carried to completion and whether
or not approved by MHFA will be paid by the Developer;
S. Briggs and Morgan, Professional Association, acting as bond counsel,
is authorized to assist in the preparation and review of necessary documents
relating to the Project and the financing program therefor, to consult with
the City Attorney, the City's fiscal consultant, Developer and purchasers of
the Bonds (or trustee for the purchasers of the Bonds) as to the maturities,
interest rates and other terms and provisions of the Bonds and as to the
covenants and other provisions of the necessary documents and submit such
documents to the City for final approval;
9. Nothing in this Resolution or the documents prepared pursuant hereto
shall authorize the expenditure of any municipal funds on the Project other
than the revenues derived from the Project or otherwise granted to the City
for this purpose. The Bonds shall not constitute a charge, lien or encum-
brance, legal or equitable, upon any property or funds of the City except
the revenue and proceeds pledged to the payment thereof, nor shall the City
be subject to any liability thereon. The holder or holders of the Bonds
shall never have the right to compel any exercise of the taxing power of
- the City to pay the outstanding principal on the Bonds or the interest
thereon, or to enforce payment thereon against any property of the City.
The Bonds shall recite in substance that the Bonds, including the interest
thereon, are payable solely from the revenue and proceeds pledged to the
payment thereof. The Bonds shall not constitute a debt of the City within
the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation;
10. In anticipation of the approval by the MHFA and the issuance of
the Bonds to finance all or a portion of the Project, and in order that
completion of the project will not be unduly delayed when approved, the
Developer is hereby authorized to make such expenditures and advances
toward payment of that portion of the costs of the Project to be financed
from the proceeds of the Bonds, as the Developer considers necessary, in-
cluding the use of interim, short -term financing, subject to reimbursement
from the proceeds of the Bonds if any when delivered but otherwise without
liability on the part of the City;
11. If construction of the Project is not started within one year
from the date hereof, this resolution shall thereafter have no force and
effect and the preliminary approval herein granted is withdrawn;
12. The actions of the City Clerk in causing public notice of the public
hearing and in describing the general nature of the Project and estimating
the principal amount of the Bonds to be issued to finance the Project is in
all respects ratified and confirmed;
- 11 - 1/14
13. Final approval for the Project and the issuance of the Bonds will
not be granted until the City has received the following:
a. evidence that the Project is consistent with the comprehensive
plan.
b. Documentation from a qualified real estate marketing analyst
evidencing (i) that the Project will not have a negative impact
on vacancy rates of existing multiple dwellings in the City and
(ii) that the development will be able to comply with the federal
low and moderate income requirements (as set forth in the housing
program) over the life of the bond issue.
Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk
G. AWARD OF BIDS
None.
H. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Ayes - Mayor Greavu, Councilmembers
Anderson, Maida and Wasiluk
Councilmember Bastian abstained.
1. Reconsideration - Brooks Superette Rezoning
a. Councilmember Maida moved to reconsider the Council's action of
December 10, 1984, rezoning Brooks Superette from BC to R -1.
Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk. Ayes - all.
2. Older Adult Home Sharing
a. Manager Evans presented the staff report.
b. Councilmember Bastian moved to approve the budget transfer of $1297.00
from the contingency fund to the community development administrative fund
program.
a need
Seconded by Councilmember Maida. Ayes - all.
3. Architectural Alliance Contract
a. Manager Evans presented the staff report.
b. Councilmember Anderson moved approval of the agreement with Architectural
Alliance for the new City Hall.
Seconded by Councilmember Maida. Ayes - all.
I. NEW BUSINESS
l.' Water Main Petition
a. Manager Evans presented the staff report.
- 12 - 1/14
b. Councilmember Anderson introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
85- 1- 6
WHEREAS, the City Council has proposed that the area described as:
Ripley Avenue west of Edgerton Street
be improved by construction of water main,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED. BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA, that the proposed improvement be referred to the City Engi-
neer, who is hereby instructed to report to the Council with all con-
venient speed advising the Council in a preliminary way as to whether
the proposed improvement is feasible and should best be made as pro-
posed, and the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended.
Seconded by Councilmember Maida. Ayes - all.
2. Feasibility Study - Connor Avenue
a. Manager Evans presented the staff report.
b. Councilmember Bastian introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption
85- 1- 7
WHEREAS, the City Council has previously entered into an agree-
ment with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation, and
private property owners, Hess Kline and Jean E. Paranto, calling for
the improvement of the area north of the Datsun dealership by con-
struction of Connor Avenue between T.H. 61 and Maplewood Drive.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA:
That the proposed improvement be referred to the City Engineer
for study and that he is instructed to report to the council with
all convenient speed advising the council in a preliminary way as
to whether the proposed improvement is feasible and as to whether
it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other
improvement, and the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended.
Seconded by Councilmember Maida. Ayes - all.
3. C D R B Appeal - 325 E. Roselawn Avenue
a. Manager Evans presented the staff report.
b. Board Member Rossbach presented the following Community Design Review
Board recommendation:
- 13 - 1/14
Board Member Rossbach moved the Board accept the bituminous curbing
as installed, which is to be checked by staff each year. After five
years the curbing shall be replaced with concrete curbing regardless
of condition of the bituminous curbing.
Board Member Juker seconded. Ayes - Members Rossbach, Juker, Moe
Nays - Member Peterson
C. Councilmember Anderson moved to uphold the Community Design Review Board's
recommendation.
Seconded by Councilmember Maida. Ayes - all.
4. PAC for Neighborhood Parks
a. Manager Evans presented the staff report.
b. Councilmember Bastian moved to establish the neighborhood PAC charge
of $340.00 per residential home.
Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk. Ayes - Councilmembers Bastian & Wasiluk
Nays - Mayor Greavu, Councilmembers
Anderson and Maida.
The PAC charge will remain as charged in 1984.
5. Apartment Storage Space (1st Reading)
a. Manager Evans presented the staff report.
b. Mayor Greavu moved first reading of an ordinance amending the code to
permit the required 120 cubic feet of miscellaneous storage space in the
main building or the garage.
Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk. Ayes - all.
6. Planning Commission Resignation.
a. Councilmember Bastian introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
85 - 1 - 8
WHEREAS, Warren Robens has been a member of the Planning Commission
of Maplewood, Minnesota, since June 30, 1983, and has served faithfully
in that capacity to the present time; and
WHEREAS, the planning commission recognizes his experience, leader-
ship 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
- 14 - 1/14
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, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED for and on behalf of the City
of Maplewood, Minnesota, and its citizens, that Warren Robens is hereby
extended our heartfelt gratitude and appreciation for his dedicated
service and we wish him continued success in the future.
Seconded by Councilmember Maida. Ayes - all.
7. Council Appointments:
a. Acting Mayor
1. Mayor Greavu moved the appointment of Councilmember Wasiluk as
Acting Mayor
Seconded by Councilmember Bastian. Ayes - Mayor Greavu, Councilmembers
Anderson, Bastian and Maida.
Nay - Councilmember Wasiluk.
b. Planning Commission
1. Councilmember Bastian moved to appoint Lester Axdahl, Chairman of the
Planning Commission.
Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk. Ayes - all.
C. Official Newspaper
1. Councilmember Bastian introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
N1 V
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA, that the MAPLEWOOD REVIEW be designated the official newspaper
for 1985.
Seconded by Councilmember Wasiluk. Ayes - all.
d. Rules of Procedures
1. Councilmember Bastian moved to continue the Rules of Procedure to the
second meeting in January.
Seconded by Councilmember Anderson. Ayes - all.
e. Suburban Rate Authority
1. Councilmember Wasiluk introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
- 15 - 1/14
85 - 1 - 9
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING DIRECTOR AND ALTERNATE
DIRECTOR TO SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD,
MINNESOTA, as follows:
Mayor John Greavu is hereby designated to serve as a director of
the Suburban Rate Authority, and City Manager Barry Evans is hereby
designated to serve as alternate director of the Suburban Rate
Authority for the Year 1985 and until their successors are appointed.
Seconded by Councilmember Anderson. Ayes - Councilmembers Anderson, Bastian,
Maida and Wasiluk
Nay - Mayor Greavu
J. VISITOR PRESENTATION
None
K. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS
1. Developers Meeting
a. Councilmember Anderson questioned when a meeting can be established to
review the developers concerns.
b. Council will meet with staff February 21, 1985, at 4:00 P.M.
2. Commissioners Meeting.
a. Councilmember Anderson questioned when a meeting can be established to meet
with the commissions.
b. Council will meet with the Commissions and Boards Saturday, February 16,
1985, at 9:00 A.M. at City Hall.
3. Parking
a. Councilmember Bastian stated the Best Buy Co. on Beam Avenue is experiencing
parking problems.
b. Staff will investigate.
4. Watershed Districts
a. Councilmember Bastian requested Council be given a map outlining the various
watershed districts.
5. Restaurants
a. Councilmember Bastian commented on the appearance of the Skippers Restaurant
on White Bear Avenue.
6. Fiscal Disparities
- 16 - 1/14
a. Councilmember Bastian questioned if we had received an update on how
we updated the Fiscal Disparities. He also suggested Council meet with the
area legislators.
L. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATION
1. Budget Transfer - IBM PC Unit
a. Mayor Greavu moved to approve the budget transfer (from the contingency
fund) of $2,535.00 to Account 01- 4630 -31 and $373.00 to 01- 4430 -31 to purchase
the IBM PC Unit for the City Clerk's office.
Seconded by Councilmember Anderson. Ayes - all.
2. Attorney
a. City Attorney Patrick Kelly updated the Council regarding laws on rezoning.
M. ADJOURNMENT
10.22 P.M.
City Clerk
MEMORANDUM
d
TO: City Manager
FROM: Finance Director R_
RE: Carry -Over of 1984 Appropriations to 1985 DATE: February February 14, 1985 =
It has been past practice to permit the carry -over from one year to the next of
unspent monies for specific purposes. This involves reductions in the 1984 Budget
and corresponding increases in the 1985 Budget.
Most of the carry-over requests this year are in the General Fund. The following
is a preliminary 1984 Budget report for this fund:
Amended
Budget
Actual
T1
_
$
Begi nni nq fund balance
+ 6,101
+ 6
Revenues
+ 200
+ 200
Transfers in from other funds
- 5
- 5
Expenditures and encumbrances
- 784
- 755
Transfers out to other funds
730
2,286
Ending fund balance
The above amounts are subject to change as the accounting records are still in the
process of being in closed out for 1984. However, the above data does provide a "ball -
park" indication of the ending balance in the General Fund. The significant difference
between the actual and the 1984 budgeted ending fund balance was partly anticipated
when was P
n the 1985 Budget reoared. The 1985 Budget anticipated a 12 -31 -84 fund balance
$1,946 o f y q The actual fund balance is $340,358.greate. r than this. The budget
i
carry-over re uests, if approved, would reduce this by $49,020. Recommendations
regard i r�q the o
use of the surplus fund balance will be included in the Proposed 1986
4 surp�
Budget.
d eted riniar i 1 due to higher than anti ci Dated Permit
Revenues were greater than.bu g p y
fees, state a i d s and investment interest. The expenditures were less than the budget
due to fiscal
restraints used b y department heads on their budgets along with the
budget control procedures of my office.
that there i s sufficient money ava in the General
The precede ng data indicates ads have
Fund
to finance the $49,020 of budget carry -over requests. Department he
submitted the following carry -over requests:
Amount
Emergency Services Dept.
1) $ 400
Finance Dept.
2) 1,470
Account Code
01- 4430 -12
01- 4020 -22
3) 865 01- 4110 -21
4 1 01- 4630 -22
Installation of new air warning
siren motor
Temporary data entry help to set
up new computer system
Check forms for new computer system
Accounting software for new computer
system
Descr iption
I
F
J ,
Community Services De to
16 760 01- 4630 -64 Exhibit case for the Nature Center
$49 Grand Total
In addition to the above, carry -over requests for the Sewer and V.E.M. Funds have been
received as follows:
Sewer Fund:
Cit Clerk De t.
1 90- 4110 -35 Utility bill forms for new computer
system
700 90- 4630 -35 Utility bi l i n g g software for new
computer system
.V.E.M. Fund:
Public Works Dept.
36 96- 4610 -59 Street flusher
There is sufficient money in the Sewer and V.E.M. Funds to finance the above carry -over
requests. It is rec ommended that the Council approve the above budget carry -over requests.
DEF:1nb
.Amount
Account Code
- Description__
Public
Safety Dept.
5)
1
01- 4520 -41
Unanticipated Public Safety Dept,
computer expenses
6)
8,300
01- 4420 -42
Equipment and radio installation costs
for new Dolice cars
7)
1
01- 4480 -42
Anticipated increased costs of employee
physical fitness programs
8)
5
01- 4610 -42
New patrol car costs for 1985 antici-
pated to be $1,000 per vehicle greater
than budgeted.
9)
9
01- 4390 -43
Costs for training additional paramedics
10)
2
01- 4610 -43
New medic vehicle costs for 1985 antic -
ipated to be more than budgeted
11
3,235
01- 4640 -43
Costs of equipping new ambulance in
1985 anticipated to be more than
budgeted
12 )
170
01- 4480 -45
Anticipated increased costs of employee
fitness program
13 )
8 000
01- 4310 -46
Anticipated additional phone bills for
dispatching center
14 )
1 315
01- 4440 -46
Radio installation costs at the new
City Hall building
1�)
1 670
01- 4480 -47
Additional animal control patrol services
J ,
Community Services De to
16 760 01- 4630 -64 Exhibit case for the Nature Center
$49 Grand Total
In addition to the above, carry -over requests for the Sewer and V.E.M. Funds have been
received as follows:
Sewer Fund:
Cit Clerk De t.
1 90- 4110 -35 Utility bill forms for new computer
system
700 90- 4630 -35 Utility bi l i n g g software for new
computer system
.V.E.M. Fund:
Public Works Dept.
36 96- 4610 -59 Street flusher
There is sufficient money in the Sewer and V.E.M. Funds to finance the above carry -over
requests. It is rec ommended that the Council approve the above budget carry -over requests.
DEF:1nb
E -3
MEMORANDUM
Ac-tion b
TO: City Manager° --
FROM. City Clerk
�
RE: Budget Transfer
DATE: February 19, 1985
The Council has expressed a need for sewer bills to be sent in an
envelope plus a return envelope. It is necessary to transfer
$1400.00 from the Contingency Fund to cover the cost of envelopes
for one year.
Also, a transfer will be needed to cover the postage that will be
required for envelopes, and it is estimated we will be sending out
10,000 per year in one group and 260 per month in the other group
for a total of $12,000.00..
F
i.
To:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
OWNERS:
DATE:
Request
MEMORANDUM
.Action by C o l l r �
City Manager
Thomas Ekstrand -- Associate Planner E r -C - �---- -----
Plan Amendment (SC -LSC) and Zone Change (BC -NC) V 0_ _ 'fy ._---- -- - ---
McKn i ght Road and Larpenteur Avenue Fe j ected_._...
City of Maplewood Da ..� _..�._
Robert Berglund, Perry Shortr idge, Royal Longhenry,
James and Suzanne Weyer Maplewood Corner - Inc.
January 30, 1985
SUMMARY
1. Amend the Land Use Plan from SC, service commercial to LSC,
limited service commercial for those areas shown on the map on page 6.
2. Rezone the 7 -11 superette site from BC, business commercial to NC,
neighborhood commercial.
Reasons for the Request
r
The 7 -11 site is being studied as part of the city -wide downzoning
program. Though the existing BC zoning and SC land use designation
are compatible with each other, they both are too intense for this
area. They allow the potential for land uses which would not be
compatible with the neighborhood.
rnMM=n +-C
The redesignation of the SC areas to LSC would limit the future
commercial development in this area to uses compatible with
neighborhood surroundings.
The downzoning of the 7 -11 site to NC creates a problem for the
center, in that the video rental and print shop would become
nonconforming uses. Staff is., therefore, proposing a change in the
zoning code which would allow uses such as these if the "city council
finds that they would be compatible with the neighborhood and the
intent of the NC ordinance. The owner of the center is agreeable to
this.
Recommendation
1. Adoption of the resolution on page 8 amending the Land Use Plan
designation from SC to LSC based on the finding that the LSC
designation would be more compatible with the adjacent neighborhood
development and residential land use classifications.
2. Adoption of the resolution on page 9 rezoning the property at the
northwest corner of McKnight Road and Larpenteur Avenue from BC to NC
based on the findings listed in -the resolution. - - -
BACKGROUND
Site Description
1. Site size: .73 acres
2. Existing land uses: West of McKnight Road- -7 -11, Video King,
Darrell's Hair Design, Freddie's Sweet Shop, Suburban Printing,
Giuseppe's Pizza, single dwelling and offices. East of McKnight Road-
- undeveloped
Surround — Land Uses (West of McKnight Road)
Northerly
Easterly:
Southerly:
Surroundin
Northerly:
Southerly:
Easterly:
Westerly:
and westerly: single dwellings
McKnight Road
Larpenteur Avenue
g Land Uses (East of McKnight Road)
Maple Woods Town Homes
Larpenteur Avenue
Maple Woods Apartments
McKnight Road
Past Actions
5- 15 -69:
The "Maple Woods" planned unit development was approved. The
northeast corner of McKnight Road and Larpenteur Avenue was
tentatively planned for a small neighborhood commercial center.
10-3 -74:
Council approved building design and site plans for the 7 -11 store.
7 -6 -78:
Council rezoned the office site north of the 7 -11 from R -1, single
dwelling residential to LBC, limited business commercial.
8- 21 -80:
Council denied a request for a special exception for a game room
facility at the 7 -11 building.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
1. Land Use Plan designation: present - -SC proposed -- LSC
2. THe LSC classification refers to commercial facilities on a
neighborhood scale. Heavy industrial uses, department stores, motels,
auto accessory stores, etc. would be prohibited, while other land uses
of a medium intensity nature would be permitted subject to meeting
certain performance standards.
2
3 4 Zoning : BC - -7 -11 site; R -1, single dwelling residential- -
-- building on McKnight Road* and F
office bui g g ,
1695 McKnight Road, LBC
15 farm residential- -Maple Woods PUD.
4e Refer to page 7 for a listing of the uses permitted in the NC
district.
50 Section 36 -485 requires four findings to be made for the
approval of a zone change. Refer to the findings one through
four in the resolution on page 9.
Citizen Comments
Staff surveyed the surrounding land owners. Of the five replies ,
one wanted no change, one wanted the 7 -11 site changed to
residential and three want to rezone all the surrounding land
around the 7 -11 site to commercial.
----- -3 - ----
1. Plan amendment
a. Planning commission recommendation following a public
hearing
b. City council decision
2. Rezoning
a. Planning commission recommendation
b. City council decision following a public hearing
jw
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Property Line /Zoning Map
3. Hillside Neighborhood Land Use Plan
4. NC Uses
5. Resolution (plan amendment)
60 Resolution (Zone change)
7. Letter
3
70C
i
M
i
• R3
'3
�a R
• R �E R
t�
LOCATION MAP
a
Attachment 1
4
N
v E 7
[ y
= 1 ZO 7 9 .43 { g2 141 43 r--- _ _ ; t c ►•=
a 2 • ; i ; r `� -
�-
i1
T-
5. It
'r C
319.4 45
105 Ul) I
do
tr
CU
ILI
! (ZS 4 4 • �p � t -- �o s •
43• G TA t 16
• r r r _�
Lt S 1
i %3o J is
t. X3 2 D 3L
35 t. is 1 3t
C
R1
.0 7 ,OO ■ �, v Z �.
C 'I S C L1` L jR
■
v
0
Offices -
Co
'} 2 .4 3 - r!
[r Ito � ;
o t n C �e P o
0 q 695
- M , for 5 1
CO
Gr r
!
gol course
1.11
- — — — — — —
IT S
R1
PROPERTY LINE /ZONING MAP
0
13 Area to be rezoned to NC
5 Attachment 2
4
N
i
.._ .... 1 iN N : Iill 1111111111 UI Illliiitlll ■ ■
11111111111 MINI ills •—
h 1
1 �IiiYMNMI 1111111 : /1
ri
., i MM - 11 � ItIM •A
■■r � M � � � 11111 ""' � �
1 ♦ it !111!1! � � _� _ , �.
■
.. '•ter
-
` • ■ '� Iti�1111 X111111.. �
.. .•-
fin
falls �;'�"
1111!1 '
������•� ��1 fall„ - — _ — i G7 t It11111i1 11!11111
—
t � i
i
=t
` - 1
�i
i
I .
•
r
Hillside
NEIGII aQ;4F10flD LAI"ID USE PLAtl
Area to be amended to LSC
Attachment 3
•t •
636-1 ' MAPLE W OOD CODE
DIVISION 5.5. NC NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
DISTRICT
_ Sec. 36 -126. Intent.
tent of this district is to or the use of
The :n reserve land f
. P
businesses that are compatible v6itb adjacent residential land
uses. Uses are limited to offices and smaller retail uses that cater
to convenience shopping. Pedestrian and bicycle access are to be -
- emphasized.
Sec. 36 -127. Permitted uses.
An y of the following uses provided that the floor area of all
buildings in any one NC zone shall not exceed three thousand
(3,000) square feet:
(1) Bakery or candy shop for the production of goods sold on
the premises.
(2) Beauty parlor or barber shop.
•
C3� Dry cleaner or laundroma All odors mu be con trolled so`
. _
as not to be noticeable to adjacent residents.
t (4) Office or medical and dental clinics.
• (5) Repair shop, except for motorized vehicles. No work shall
be performed outside of the building.
(6) Drug, hardware or grocery store.
(7) Studio.
(8) Tailor or dressmaker shop.
Veterinary' or grooming clinic where there are not outside
kennels or storage.
Z
• - • Sec. 3129. Conditional uses (requires council approval).
Any of the following uses provided that the floor area of all
• buildings in any one NC zone shall not exceed eight thousand
(8,000) square feet:
(1) Any permitted use listed in section 36 -127. -
(2) Club, lodge or hall. -
(3) Private school, daycare center or community service use.
(4) Taxi stand or bus stop.
(5) Restaurant where there are no drive -up order windows or
serving of food to patrons in their automobiles. All cooking
. - odors must be controlled so as not to be -noticeable to adja-
cent residents.
(6) Similar uses to those listed in this section.
RESOLUTION N0.
WHEREAS, the City o f Maplewood initiated an amendment to the
Maplewood comprehensive plan from SC, service commercial to LSC,
limited. service commercial for the following- described property:
The property in the northwesterly and the northeasterly corners
of the Larpenteur Avenue and McKnight Road intersection.
This property is more commonly described as 2251 Larpenteur Avenue,
1695 and 1709 McKnight Road and the northeasterly corner of McKnight
Road and Larpenteur Avenue.
WHEREAS, the procedural history of this plan amendment is as
follows:
1. This plan amendment was initiated by the City of Maplewood.
2. The Maplewood Planning Commission held a public hearing on
February 4, 1985 to consider this plan amendment. Notice thereof was
published and mailed pursuant to law. All persons present at said
hearing were given an opportunity to be heard and present written
statements. The planning commission recommended to the city council
that said plan amendment be approved.
3. The Maplewood City Counc i 1 considered said plan amendment on
1985. The council considered reports and recommendations from the
planning commission and city staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL that
the above-described plan amendment be approved on the basis of the
following finding of fact:
1. The LSC designation would be more compatible with the
adjacent neighborhood development and residential land use classifi-
cation.
Adopted this day of , 1985.
.Seconded by
Ayes --
g Attachment 5
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the
city council of. the City of Maplewood, Minnesota was duly called and
held in the council chambers in said city on the day of
1985 at 7 p.m.
The following members were present:
The following members were absent:
WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood initiated a rezoning from BC,
business commercial to NC, neighborhood commercial for the following-
described property:
Unplatted lands subject to County Road A and McKnight Road, the
South 176 feet of the East - 247 5/10 ft. of, the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 14, Township 29, Range 22
This property is also known as 2251 Larpenteur Avenue East,
Maplewood;
WHEREAS, the procedural history of this rezoning is as follows:
1. This rezoning was initiated by the City of Maplewood, pursuant
to Chapter 36, Article VII of the Maplewood Code of Ordinances.
2. This rezoning was reviewed by the Maplewood Planning
Commission on February 4, 1985. The planning commission recommended
to the city council that said rezoning be
3. The Maplewood City Counc i 1 held a public hearing on
1985 to .consider this rezoning. Notice thereof was published and
mailed pursuant to law. All persons present at said hearing were
given an opportunity to be heard and present written statements. The
council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff
and planning commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL that
the above- described rezoning be approved on the basis of the following
findings of fact:
1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose
and intent of the zoning code.
2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract
from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the
neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the. area
included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded.
3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and
-iconveniences of the community, where applicable and the public
- welfare.
g Attachment 6
4. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the
logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and
facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection
and schools.
Adopted this day of , 19 8 5 .
Seconded by Ayes- -
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)
COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) SS.
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD )
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed clerk
of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have
carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a
regular meeting of the City of Maplewood held on the day of
1985 with the original on file in my office, and the same is a full,
true and complete transcript therefrom insofar as the same relates to
this rezoning.
Witness my hand as such clerk and the corporate seal of the city
this day of , 1985.
Q
City Clerk
City of Maplewood.
10
M
WEY FEE` FZ P'FZOF=>EFt TIES
8991 Jane Road North
Lake E1 mo, MN 55o42
Phone: 612 -77o -8991
To Maplewood City Council & Planning Commission
From: jim Weye r
Date: February 4, 1985
Subject: Rezoning of McKnight and Larpenteur Avenue
On Monday, January 28, 1985 I spoke to Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Planning
Director and Jeff Olson, Planning Di rector, regarding my concern about
the newly proposed changes in the zoning ordinances. The reason for my
i
interest n this zoning change is that I purchased the small shopping
center on the northwest intersection of McKnight and Larpenteur Avenue
in February, 1984. This memo is to express these concerns to y ou so
you may take appropriate actions to correct the same.
I am in total agreement of the intent of the proposed zoning ordinances,
that is "The intent of this district is to preserve land for the use of
businesses that are compatible with adjacent residential land uses it
is important to me that. my neighbors are pleased with the businesses
there since they are the customers of the people that lease space from
me. Consequently, my 1 i ve-1 i hood ultimately depends on good relations
with the surrounding community.
However, the parts of the ordi nance . that I differ with are the "per-
mitted use" and the, "conditional uses. ". According to the proposed
P P
ordinance, the current Print Shop and Video Store would no longer be
allowed either as a permitted or conditional use. I real i ze that they
could be grandfathered in, however, that would pose a severe financial
hardship on me in the event one of those tenants should decide to move,
s nce i t would mean I coul d not reel ace those* busi nesses wi th a s imi 1 ar
tenant.- Since currently one thi rd of the ex'i sting business woul d not be
allowed, this would drastically hamper my ability to lease those spaces
because this ordinance would effectively allow me to lease to only two
thirds of my potential market. Jeff Olson explained to me that i f those
businesses were grandfathered in., I would have one year to lease the
space to a similar business. This is totally unacceptable since many
times commercial property rema.i ns vacant for more than a year due to
business cycles and other variables outside of my control .
I'm sure you will agree with me that both the Print Shop and Video Store
currently are an asset to the neighboring community. I also bel i eve
that it meets the intent of the proposed ordinance, that is "compatible
with the adjacent residential land uses." Neither of these businesses
11 attachment seven
"Maplewood City Council & Planning. Commission
. Page .2
_February 4, 1985
produces any obnoxious noises, odors or visual objections, Under the
zoning ordinance these businesses would not be allowed to serve
proposed i
the community. This could eventually result in extended vacancies.
Vacancies make the neighborhood look unattractive, do not serve the
community with vital services, and make it difficult or impossible for
the owner of the shopping center to pay his taxes. Incidentally, those
taxes year ear amounted to over $13 on that one piece of property!
In order to P revent the foregoing di 1 ema, I am proposing to you 1) change
the P ermitted uses to include Video and Electronic.Sales and Rental
Mores, P lus Printing and Publishing Establishments and 2) change the
conditional uses to include any other establishments that meet the intent
of the zoning ordinance nance b y being P com a.ti bl a with the adjacent residential
land uses. The reason for the first change is to make the ordinance
more closely reflect what has been demonstrated by the existing bus i -
nesses to be a good. fit with the neighborhood. The reason for the
:second chap 9 e is not to exclude any other businesses In the future.
which could be of benefit to the neighborhood, tax payers,, and. tax
benefi tors . Obviously, the Council would still reserve the right to
review those condi ti-onal uses on an individual basis .
On 'Fri da February , 1985, I again spoke to Jeff Olson and he informed
y ' y n with the City
me that he had a chance to review my proposed suggestions y
Attorney. He indicated to me that both he and the City Attorney felt
that m request was reasonable and they would support it. Therefore,
y - support the above su s tions
I m requests ng that the Ci ty Counci 1 al so supp 99 e
and change the required ordinances accordingly. If that is done, I
could then support the zoning changes
Thank you for your consideration on this matter. If I can be of
further. help to you, please call me any 'time at 770 - 8991..
Yours truly,
r
J m Weyer, Owner
Weyer Properties
=r
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager fiction by CO
FROM: Thomas Ekstrand -- Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Plan Amendment - -RL to LSC
Zone Change - -BC to NC and R -
LOCATION: 1915 - 1925 Arcade Street
APPLICANT: City of Maplewood
Date
OWNERS: D and G Auto Repair and Alexander Minich ^�.._..�.
DATE: January 29,-1985
SUMMARY
Request
1. Amend the land use plan designation for D and G Auto Repair at the
northwest corner of Roselawn Avenue and Highway 61 from RL, low
density residential to LSC, limited service commercial.
2. Rezone the D and G Auto Repair site from BC, business commercial
to NC, neighborhood commercial.
3. Rezone the portion of the Bellwood apartments site, south of
Roselawn Avenue, that is zoned BC to R -3, multiple dwelling
residential.
Reason for the Request
These properties are being reviewed as part of the city -wide
downzoning program,
r nmm o n f- c
The north half of the Bellwood apartments site is incorrectly zoned.
R -3 zoning of this site would comply with the land use plan
designation of RH, high density residential.
The present BC zoning of the D and G Auto Repair site permits uses
that are incompatible* with the residential location of this site.
These permitted uses include gas stations, car washes and retail uses
that rely on higher volumes of automobile traffic and businesses with
the potential for the outdoor storage of cars
Rezoning this property to NC would allow a wide variety of uses ( see
page 8) which would be compatible with the residential setting. The
existing use, however, would become a nonconforming use and could not
be expanded without a conditional use permit. The business could be
sold for the same use, but any change in use would have to conform to
the NC zoning.
Recommendation
1. Adoption of the resolution on page 9 approving a plan amendment
from RL to LSC for the D and G Auto Repair site at the northwest
corner of Roselawn Avenue and Highway 61. Approval is on the basis
that the LSC; designation would be compatible with the neighborhood
commercial zone sought for this corner and would be compatible with
the adjacent residential development.
0
2. .Adoption of the resolution on page 10 approving a zone change from
=BC to NC for the D and G Auto Repair at the northwest corner of
:Ros:e.l.awn Avenue and Highway 61.
3. Adoption of the resolution on page 12 approving a zone change
- from BC to R -3 for the Bellwood apartments site at the southwest
. corner of Rose l awn Avenue and Highway 61.
r
2
BACKGROUND
4
Site Description
1. Site size: D and G Auto Repair - -4,950 square feet
Apartment site (BC zone only)--18,070 square feet
2.. Existing land use: D and G Auto Service and the Bellwood
apartments (27units)
Surrounding Land Uses (D and G site)
Northerly and westerly: single dwellings
Easterly: Arcade Street and Highway 61
Southerly: R Avenue
Surrounding Land Uses (Apartment site)
Southerly and westerly: single dwellings
Easterly:. Arcade Street and Highway 61
Northerly: Roselawn Avenue
Past Actions
9- 12 -83: •
Council rezoned the Maplewood Plumbing site (1690 English Street) ,
from BC to NC.
2- 13 -84:
Council rezoned the Forest Products Supply site (1915 Castle Avenue)
from BC to NC.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
1. Land use plan designation: Existing - -RH (apartment site) and RL
(D and G site). Proposed - -LSC (D and G site),
2. LSC classification refers to commercial facilities on a neighbor-
hood scale. Heavy industrial uses, department stores, motels, auto
accessory stores, etc, would be prohibited, while other land uses of a
medium intensity nature would be prohibited subject to meeting certain
performance standards. _
3. Zoning: Existing - -BC, proposed. -NC (D and G site) and R -3
(apartment site) .
4. Section 36 -485 requires four findings for the approval of a zone
change. Refer to findings one through four in the resol i on on pages 10 & 1
for these findings
Procedure
Plan amendment:
1. Public hearing by the planning commission
2. Decision by the city council.'
3
Zone change:
1. Review by.ahe planning commission.
2. Public hearing and decision by the city council.
mb
Attachments:
1. Location Map
20 Property Line /Zoning Map
3. Parkside Neighborhood Land Use Plan
40 NC district
5.. Resolution- -plan amendment
6. Resolution - -zone change
7. Resolution - -zone change
4
10.%W M
•
MI
R
F
i F i I
(Y :.4, M Q'1
R jo
R
F Ml Al '
F F
R
M ,/ R
R M I MI MI M
F �
Tpjvr r .
F M i
k« I R ,
OUN
I •� �� i� 1 r � � I ti
( R
CANA
Q ► f� I R r. J �, I F� �
•'.� r r-' R .� I I F i I (� ' �° (R 2) R
L� uL Q: c s RE ,F / b '`
P R F R
u '
r, �
r- R r-
^
_ R r I• F a
JL
' W C • ' ..
•{ {• F F ;
_ I LSC
R R ASE J ' y ' R� B � \E► - 6C
j r p
I i
\�' Q 4 _ R a I z1 R L R -5 �R I�
-CR
• i iris- � r ' • �:i� / � • r— _ • , i
I F I R3 _ 1 R—)
• .."..'1 1 r R 2)
R 3 .I R F
I R-2 F/ R iI 1 �� NC >'
C/ rY OF ST PAUL . Cl TY OF
Attachment One
LOCATION MAP
i .
5
4
I
LA-
duo
!
• r
tt
I
� • � ) -, :� Igo t v
.A.
f 4P
C4 10
no NJ_ .U.0rabo
T \
I �
0
r �
Ig 5 0
j Z 1 yy
Ui
ILI
104? .• , t �,
I r-7 M _ 13 C °�. el '51
q4tj 04-- -A
f
c 19 S 7, �5 4
r _4
3 w
012 1 13 14 15 I 1(00f 1 a I
50 o Sa
J
� D
i
1
1
1 a... . W.. -- - -
Z
�i
J
0
4 j
CJ
d
U
t
.941
1�3
r
.1
~•. r
D &G
{ Auto Repair
1
Apartments
Z s
�
0 �.
W4
lv 5 '
i
I
� I
� I
r c � 1 •
r�
7�
PROPERTY LINE /ZONING MAP
Area to be rezoned
6 Attachment Two
4
N
■S.
MOMS
milli
I11111f1 1611111 _. .. 1 �._
lilt NINE
Mom
li mom
on - - , ■,
ma ..■�.e
INS ■ /fYi! � EM
1 M ,40,* M a
I NORMS Eno
-
#Ail I ... , , .. P, _ �--- .....Quit■■.
a
Mw s p
ti
Idjvr ari
I'V4
N
D
0
j
MA -�—
fin
f RIM
1, u
t
rarkside a. 0
30RHnnn i ANn ii-qF PI f
DIVISION 5.5. NC NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
DISTRICT
Sec. 36 -126. Intent.
The intent of this district is to preserve land for the use of
businesses that are compatible with adjacent residential land
uses. Uses are limited to offices and .smaller retail uses that cater
to convenience shopping. Pedestrian and bicycle access are to be
emphasized. (Ord. No. 539, § 1, 4- 11-83)
Sec. 36 -127. Permitted uses.
Any - of the following uses provided that the floor area of all
buildings in any one NC zone shall not exceed three thousand
(3,000) square feet:
(1) Bakery or candy shop for the production of goods sold on
the premises.
(2) Beauty parlor or barber shop.
(3) Dry cleaner or laundromat. All odors must be controlled so
as not to be noticeable to adjacent residents.
(4) Office or medical and dental clinics.
(5) Repair shop, except for motorised vehicles. No work shall
be performed outside of the building.
(6) Drug, hardware or grocery store.
(7) Studio.
(8) Tailor or dressmaker shop.
(9) Veterinary or grooming clinic where there are not outside
kennels or storage. (Ord. No. 539, § 1, 4- 11-83)
Sec. 36 -128. Accessory uses.
[Accessory uses within an NC Neighborhood Commercial Dis-
trict are as follows:]
11) Off - street parking.
(2) Signs, in accordance with the sign ordinance. (Ord. No.
539, § 1, 4- 11-83)
Sec. 36 -129. Conditional uses (requires council approval).
Any of the following uses provided that the floor area of all
buildings in any one NC zone shall not exceed eight thousand
(8,000) square feet:
(1) Any permitted use listed in section 36 -127.
(2) Club, lodge or ball.
(3) Private school, daycare center or community service use.
(4) Taxi stand or bus stop.
(5) Restaurant where there are no drive -up order windows or
serving of food to patrons in their automobiles. All cooking
odors must be controlled so as not to be noticeable to adja=
cent residents.
(6) Similar ases to those listed in this section. (Ord. No. 539,
1
I
0
Attachment Four
0
WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood initiated an amendment to the
Maplewood comprehensive plan from RL, low density res idnet i al to LSC,
limited service . commercial for the following- described property:
Subject to avenues and streets the E 99 feet of the S 120 feet of.
the NE 1/4 of Section 17, Township 29, Range 22.
This property is more commonly described as 1925 Arcade Street;
WHEREAS, the procedural history of this plan amendment is as
follows:
1. Th-i s plan amendment was initiated by the City of Maplewood.
2. The Maplewood Planning Commission. held a public hearing on
February 4, 1985 to consider this plan amendment. Notice thereof
was published and mailed pursuant to law. A1'l persons present at
said hearing were given an opportunity to be heard and present
written statements. The planning commission recommended to the
city council that said -plan amendment be approved.
3. The Maplewood City Council considered said plan, amendment on
198 . The council considered reports and recommendations
from the planning commission and city staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL that
the above - described plan amendment be, approved on the basis that the
LSC designation would be compatible with the neighborhood commercial
zone sought for this. corner and would be compatible with the adjacent .
residential development.
Adopted this day of , 198
Seconded by
Ayes --
9 Attachment Five
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof , a regular meeting of the
city council of the City of Maplewood.. Minnesota was duly called and
.held in the council chambers in. said city on the day of
1985 at 7 p.m.
The following members were present:
'Thp following members .were absent:
WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood initiated a rezoning from BC,
business commercial to NC, neighborhood commercial for the following -
.de.scribed }property:
Subject to avenues and streets the E 99 feet of the S 120 feet of
the NE 1/4 of Section 17, Township 29, Range 22.
This property is also known as 1925 Arcade Street, Maplewood;
WHEREAS, the procedural history of this rezoning is as follows:
1. This rezoning was initiated by the city of Maplewood, pursuant
_to Chapter 36, Article VII of the Maplewood Code of Ordinances.
2.. This rezoning was reviewed by the Maplewood Planning
Commission on February 4, 1985. The planning commission recommended
to the city council that said rezoning be approved.
3. The Maplewood City Council held a public hearing on
1985 to consider this rezoning. . Notice thereof was published and
mailed pursuant to law. All persons present at said hearing were
given an opportunity to be heard and present written statements. The
council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff
and planning commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RE8OLVED BY THE MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL that
the above - described rezoning be approved on the basis of the following
fi.ndi of fact:
.1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose
and intent of the zoning code.
2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract
from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the
neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area
included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded.
3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and
conveniences of the community, where applicable and the public
welfare.
10 Attachment Six
4 . 9 The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the
logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and
facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection
and schools
.Adopted this day of , 1985.
:Seconded by Ayes- -
STAT'E OF MINNESOTA )
}
COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) SS.
}
CITY OF MAPL EWOOD )
I, the undersigned, being . the duly qualified and appointed clerk
of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have
carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a
regular meeting of the City of Maplewood held on the day of
, 1985 with the original on file in my office, and the same is a full,
true and complete transcript therefrom insofar as the same relates to
this rezoning
Witness my hand as such clerk and the corporate seal of the city
this day of , 1985.
City Clerk
City of Maplewood.
11
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the
'
city counc i l of the C i t y of Maplewood, Minnesota was duly c a l l e d and
held in the council chambers in said city on the day of
1985 at 7 p.m.
The following members were present:
The following members were absent:
WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood initiated a rezoning from BC,
business commercial to R -3, multiple dwelling residential for the
following- described property:
Subject to Roads, the N 103 feet of the E 188.5 feet of the SE
1/4 of Section 17, Township 29, Range 22 and Lot 1, Block 1, Park.side,
Ramsey County, Minnesota.
This property is also known as 1915 Arcade Street, Maplewood;
WHEREAS, the procedural history of this rezoning is as follows:
1. This rezoning was initiated by the City of Maplewood, pursuant
to Chapter 36, Article VII of the Maplewood Code of Ordinances.
2. This rezoning was reviewed by the Maplewood Planning
Commission on February 4, 1985. The planning commission recommended
to the city council that said rezoning be approved.
3. The Maplewood City Council held a public hearing on
1985 to consider this rezoning. Notice thereof was published and
mailed pursuant to law: All persons present at said hearing were
given an opportunity to be heard and present written statements. The
council. also considered reports and recommendations of the city s taf f
and planning commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL that
the above- described rezoning be approved on the basis of the following
findings of fact:
1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose
and intent of the zoning code.
20 The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract
from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the
neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area
included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded.
3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and
conveniences of the community, where applicable and the public
welfare.
12 Attachment Seven
4 . The .pxoposed change would have no negative effect upon the
logical, efficient, and economical extension, of public services and
facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection
and schools.
Adopted this day of , 1985
Seconded by Ayes- -
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) SS.
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD )
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed clerk
of the City P of Maplewood, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have
carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a
regular meeting of the City of Maplewood held on the day of
, 1985 with the original on file in my office, and the same is a full,
true and complete transcript therefrom insofar as the same relates to
this rezoning.
Witness my hand as such clerk and the corporate seal of the city
this day of , 1985
.
City Clerk
City of Maplewood.
13
i
r
d
Action by Council:
MEMORANDUM
Endorsed
M o d i f i e d..+...._... -
TO: City Manager P e j e c %. e d.�...- , -.-- --
FROM Director of Community Development Da-1;E
SUBJECT: Plan Amendments and Rezonings
LOCATION: County Road C Hazelwood, Gervais Avenue and the Tracks
APPLICANT: City of Maplewood
DATE: February 13 1985
SUMMARY
Request
1. Amend the land use plan to expand the existing RM, residential
medium density area and add a new RM area at County Road C and the
tracks.
2. Approve the following rezonings as shown on pages 10 and 11:
a. The M -1, light manufacturing zones to R -1, single dwelling,
R -2, double dwelling and R -3C, town houses
b. The F, farm zones to R -1
C. The R -3 zone fronting on Hazelwood Avenue and the R -1 zone on
2457 Hazelwood Avenue to R -2
d. The balance of the R -3 zone to R -3C
e. The R -2 zone on Brooks Avenue to R -1.
Reasons for the Request
The area is part of a city -wide, downzoning program. There are
significant inconsistencies between the land use plan and zoning
designations in this area. These inconsistencies should be resolved to
give a clear signal as to how this area should develop.
n ^MMon * 0
M -1 and F rezoning s:
This area is no longer suited for M -1 or F zoning. These zones should
be changed to eliminate the potential of building requests or nuisance
situations that could be incompatible with the existing and planned
uses in the area. The farm use in the north portion of the study area
and the truck storage at 2471 Barclay would become legal nonconforming
• g f the
uses. Council approval would be required for any expansion o
use.
Q R -3 rezoning:
Most of the southerly portion of the . study area is z
dwelling R -3 multi
or p lanned far R � pie
• g P M use. Changes are
g proposed to make sure
that similar uses would front one another and that the zoning nd
g plan
designation are consistente Continuing to lan for RM uses '
P in this
area would be consistent with the intent of the land use lan policy
p rovision P p Y
that calls for the
p n of a variety of housing types within
neighborhoods.
Because the existing R -3 zone is in the middle of a single-dwelling
neighborhood, an R -3C zoning s g g
g recommended. An R -3C zone is limited
t
o.town houses. Town houses are generally more compatible with single
n t P g e
dwellings in scale and design than apartments.
Recommendation (at least 4 votes required)
1. Approve the. enclosed resolution (page
g
plan west of Hazelwood Avenue and north of
residential low density and OS, open space
density on the basi that RM uses would be
neighborhood and consistent with the city'
existing RM designation.
13) amending the land use
Gervais Avenue from RL,
to RM, residential medium
compatible with the
s housing policies and the
2. Approve the enclosed resolution (page 14 amending t
) g he land use
plan at the southeast corner of County Road C and the tracks
from RL
to RM, on the basis that:
a. The RM designation would be compatible with the neighborhood
y housing policies
and consistent with the city's g
.
b. The railroad tracks make this land less desirable for si ' ngle
dwellings.
3. Approve the enclosed resolution (page 15 rezonin •
) g.
a.. The M -1 zone to R -1, R -2 and R -3C on the basi- •
s that.
1) The M -1 zoning is obsolete and not compatible with the
area.
2) It would provide the highest tax base to the city,
compatible Y,
while still remaining p le with the neighborhood,
3). There has been an R- 3 zoning south of 2467 Hazelwood
Avenue since 1965,
4) The land use plan shows RM land in this neighborhood,
g od.
5) Traffic to and from the R -3C area would be over major
or
traffic collectors Hazelwood and l
( Gervais) and not local
streets.
b. The F zone to R -1 on the basis that some farm uses such as
commercial greenhouses and livestock raisin 9, would not be
compatible with the area,
2
c. The R -3 zone fronting on Hazelwood Avenue and
on 2467 Hazelwood AVen the R -1 zone
Avenue to R -2, on the basis that:
l)' The R -2 zoning would be more compatible •
le dwelli P le with adjacent
single dwellings than R -3.
2 ) Major changes in land use should occur
' along rear lot
lines so that similar lar uses front each other on the same
street.
d . The balance of the R -3 zone to R - 3 C, on the basis that town
houses would be more compatible with sin '
single dwellings In scale
and design than apartments.
e.
R
The
R -2 zone on
Brooks
Avenue to
R -1 on the basis
' asis that the
-2
zone
is developed
ed
with
two single
dwellings.
3
BACKGROUND
Study Area Designation
Area: approximately 83 acres
Existing land uses: twenty single dwellings, Holy edeemer church
s y ,
e t Park, tax - forfeit land that is being acquired for storm water
ponding, a double dwelling and undeveloped land. The owner of 2471
Barclay stores trucks on his land.
Surrounding Land Uses
North: County Road C. Across the street are single dwellings. The
g g
grade from both sides, up to County Road C is steep.
East: Hazelwood Avenue. Across the street are several sin g le
dwellings and undeveloped single-dwelling lots,
South: Gervais Avenue property owned by the Minnesota
Department of Transportation. Across Gervais Avenue are single
dwellings.
,West: Burlington Northern Railroad tracks.
Past Actions
8- 19 -65:
Council approved a rezoning from R -1, single dwelling to R -2 double
dwelling for a proposed 75 -foot wide lot, northeast of Brooks Avenue
and Barclay Street. This land is now developed with two single
dwellings fronting on Barclay Street,
10- 21 -65:
Council approved a rezoning from F, farm residence to R -3; multiple
dwelling for Freeman Enterprises, to the north of Gervais Avenue and
west of Hazelwood Avenue ( see page 10 ) .
8- 27 -84:
Council suggested that staff study eliminating F zones in the city.
Planning
1. Land Use Plan designations:
RL, residential low density
RM, residential medium density
P, park
C, church
OS, open space
4
2. Existing zoning:
M -1, light manufacturing
n F, farm residence
R -1, single dwelling
R -2, double dwelling
R -3 , multiple dwelling
3. Policies from the plan:
a. Page 18 -5: "Wherever possible, changes in types of land use
shall occur along rear lot lines, so that similar uses front on
the same street, or at the borders of areas separated by major
man -made or natural barriers."
b. Page 18 -2: "zoning maps should be updated as necessary to
make both the land use plan and zoning maps compatible."
c. Page 81 -8: "Residential areas should be encouraged, planned
and guided to provide a variety of housing types within
ne i ghborhood s . 11
4. Compliance with land use law:
a. Section 36 -485 requires four findings for approval of a
rezoning. Refer to the resolution on page 18.
b. Section 36 -6.6 (3) permits churches in R -1, single - dwelling
districts by conditional use permit.
C. Section 36 -17 permits legal uses to continue on a conditional
basis, if caused to be nonconforming by a rezoning. Any proposed
changes in use or expansion, require council approval.
d. The R -3C zoning district is limited to townhouses.
e. The F. farm zone permits R -1 uses, plus commercial
greenhouses, raising of livestock and stands for the sale of
agricultural products.
5.. The city assessors of Coon Rapids and Brooklyn Center have done
periodic studies that show that multiple dwellings do not devalue
adjacent single dwellings. A study by the Bosclair Corporation in
Bloomington from 1.960 -70 found that homes adjacent to apartments
appreciated at a slightly higher rate than homes that were not
adjacent to apartments. A study done by North Star Appraisal in 1980
for Orin Thompson Homes found that quads had no effect on adjacent
single- dwelling home values or the time it took to sell these homes.
This sales study was based on two quad projects in Savage and Apple
Valley, A 1984 study by Lafayette and Pierce, Inc. for Castle Design
found that the proposed Sterling Glen apartments in Maplewood would
not affect the marketability or value of adjacent homes.
6. The city has reduced the land available for multiple dwellings by
plan amendments and rezonings since the downzoning program started.
This makes it more difficult to meet our. housing goals.
. 5
q. Public Works
1. Gervais Avenue is planned as a major collector street, that would
eventually be extended to the west, across the railroad tracks.
2, on August 10 , 1984, the city requested a use deed from the Ramsey
County Land Commissioner's office for the tax - forfeit, triangular
parcel in the southwest portion of the study area. An eight- acre /foot
drainage pond is planned for this parcel. The south 200+ feet should
be planned and zoned for future development so that this land could be
sold and assessed for the cost of extending. Gervais Avenue.
30 Hazelwood Avenue. is planned as a minor arterial street
Beam Avenue and Highway 36,
Parks
1. Community playfield search areas are shown to the north and south
of Harvest Park ( see page 12) .
2. Harvest Park is leased from Holy Redeemer Church.
3* On May 2.1, 1984, the Parks Commission recommended to "rezone the
state highway property lying north of Highway 36 and the property
north of the highway department land, from M -1, light manufacturing to
R -1, single dwelling for a future park site."
Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT)
MnDOT will not sell their property to the south of the Gervais Avenue,
but they will consider leasing the property for park purposes. They
do not wish to sell the land because it may be needed for a future
interchange.
Citizen Comments
An existing zoning map and questionnaire were sent to the 112.persons
who own property in or within 350 feet of the original study area.
(The original study area did not include the F, farm zoned property
southeast of County Road C and Hazelwood Avenue.) The questionnaire
asked these persons their opinion of the existing zoning. Of the 63
persons who responded, 24 are satisfied with the existing zoning, 17
had no opinion and 25 wanted a change.
Those in favor of leaving the zoning as it is had the following
comments:
1. The owner of the R -3 property stated that when market conditions
improve, they would like to build apartments.
2. *'The 'good faith' element should not be treated lightly. Since
this implies a measure of monetary value, we see no benefits from
unknown changes."
A
3.
Holy Redeemer
felt that M -1
or residential
would be
acceptable.
4,
The M -1 zoning
is beneficial
to the area's
wildlife
habitat,
Of the. 25 persons who favored changes in the existing zoning, most
generally favored the elimination g
. Y atlon of the M -1, light- manufacturing
zoninge Eleven of the 25 desired the el imi na t i on of the R-3,
multiple- dwelling zoning. Seven of 45 households within 350 feet of
the R -3 zoning expressed opposition to it.' Comments received were as
follows:
10 Residential zoning would be preferable to the M -1,.li g ht
manufacturing zoning.
2.. "This is a peaceful area, let's keep it that way."
3. Whatever zoning is chosen, the park site to the west of Holy
Redeemer should be retained.
49 M -1, - 1 ight manufacturing zoning is detrimental to the established
residential quality of life.
5. "M -1 zoning does not require trackage. These areas should be
rezoned to residential use."
69 The M -1 zoning would cause undesirable truck traffic,
c.
7. The owner of the property fronting the County Road C has
indicated a desire for R -3, multiple - dwelling zoning,
80 "We don't need multiple - dwelling zoning in this area."
jC
Attachments: - -
1. Hazelwood Land Plan Ma ( existin
P g)
2. Hazelwood Land Use Plan Map (proposed)
3. - Zoning Map .Existing
4 . Zoning Map Proposed
5. Parks System Plan
6-o Reso1ut ion (plan amendment- -Gerva is)
7. Resolution (plan amendment -- County . Road C)
:8. Resolution (rezoning) '
RH
. SC
• interchange rincipaf arterial g interchan e
----
_ a "dib VIgHtS o• Rd• o., r `
major col lector
L
B
BW
D C
IMP
:048" W�" b -
lo� -� _ _Beam Ave . SC
,. .... . _►__!_t
V
� l
i
.� LS, -
' o
Leo
0S
EBEENE—_. J
BW
interchange
interch
LEE.
.. ..
4A �, A
•T f fop
C C
CA
�• I
. Hazelwood
NEIGHBORHOOD LAND USE PLM
-�—
Proposed Plan Amendment
R and OS to RM 8 Attachment One
fD
3 •
•
WON
Y
- RH
J SC
pop s
• u 4 riaci t arterial
�a interchange
o. Rd. D r
• naffs eights - - � '
a s _ -- ------ m ajor collector
R B
B W C
t Beam 've.
S C
eel _
minor arterial
8C V
■1
440 1
1
A
t BW
terc
1
1 • t
t
i
i
r
1 W . —
major cokedor
CA � •+ '
i
fni jor t0If etlor
Now hwa
OL
.r r=
-lot- A
7000
t w
m i
Hazelwood
NEIGHBORHOOD LAND USE PLAN
(Proposed) Attachment Two
9
w ,
� r
r '�
.� . �1�,.�y .:Y: L .� t. ;. :•: or • ti� •::•: . :: ... ON
4.
'ti . 1 S :•:: :�
so
xZ
so
mox
so
• S �'•�:Y •.Y: i : {.�5�,.., .t:;,•. i : :.: •: , :• 1 r: S . 1 . 5 96 qr
lee
5#
LOW
� •- �ti:.: :ti -�• ti� f :•i ti~.�.�' Y:1• •....:::' •: ' :S � ti.;.1 \•i • ►1►•� K;L :• :':1 :`.
:= f L { , �►N 574
o. •...:::: ti ; •: �., 2
ti .J.• : f •L :: . • :•: }::: �:•:so.
.L .•1•..w. • Y v.; :•.
oos.
• 1 • : f: '�r':•:ti = :•i::; • .ti .; : ' •::: •. ''�•r• •: ::; f
ffi •: r . •.:.;.• •'• -: _ ':ti �:'ti�'• ..t.•:: :!�•:ti 558 T
ti: :: ::::•.. - .:•:::•.
�� .{ - •: : : • :� •. .S: •.' :•: :• �. {; • .ti•:. � : :. 1.�
• er • :•: ' ' • -•::. ' : ti :'? ti :• :' •' •L - 1•. :' ::: Wit::
:• : =�' -. f :: :: •�• .. .. ....... 530
.1•ti•.ti;::' ;:•:;.. ::::.�• : .. p . . \•. 1
• •L.. ..?tit{•:. :. I
:• ....... •:.: .., ; 524 „ ✓ M
low
jW
3 2 Il r «.
:: ��.__.__:•::iw��ir�- �i►tiriia�iw • . ► •' Q .... 6%
.. .... .............
. .... ................ w _..
13
Xo:
�� _ 1��1♦ Z. •�,: •1' '•: t f ;�� •:,•' :' :•:•:• :• • :tit: '.: ; ' :: :.'.' a
... .......... EV a
dho
Mn Do t
0
. �.
... .... 1 :' : � •.�•!: .: i: ... ... :... � J- •,. f ' •: '•. 1 1
1 1 r •• 1
ar�c�oE) ola o 0
or • ` f'''! �� r—.Q It f I�Q7' l i r. l + Y • � f'�! W • t 1 fl M I r� .J
GAANGvIEwr E, A rt, GAANDV4 W AVE
.' so 1
R E h I
.11 so
• if
110T 1 .6 0 v
• t S RVICL a Iv
f Y 1 K 1 N fir—t :mmAn + -H
HIGH 36 so U■
s • ,
.s•. ,f
SMENR9N AV ,' , r r O M1
of
L n
i.� • O . ,� I f� 1 I f , L , ' • j
1 ..�t 1!1 Q� `
• �
s saga r sls :a s��s= rwrE --� 0 P6.•_..i -,r►�r �� n o
1 • 1 1 I 1 L • • • •' 1 f 1 f • • ,�• 1 . t'1 L PON a 4
11...;•' I 1�1 1 ~ f • 1 • �� �• •� I,1 '�rl, 1 4 iT' <. ' .•�' '
i t
r t — — —
EXISTING ZONING
F= Farm Residence R3= Multiple Dwelling
R1= Single Dwelling M1= Light Manufacturing Area Proposed'
R2= Double Dwelling or change �
10 Attachment Three
1 01
r
?PIP
a
r9 .16
e
v
J
1
r
+M
w
X 11
r
1
b '
•
wrr 1
• w �1 ;
Ya •r• _
a
.a..a • '
T e l
.awe. a w.
fTj f�J
�+ e- Le
• r.w rt r
W .. f
w
1 .r."
n �
1 ow
SEXTANT
aw �+
ON
M
•e ar
awn
• • r • r
!1 GRANOVI W AVE. •
y
IF _
�I
i�nw�rt•�tsw�rwwwt•�r�
-PROP_ERT LINE / MAP
Study Area � � (Proposed)
.. it Attachment Four
Q
N
�opd��oc�o
Rr!
�o
spared by=
> 5Q. ev
0 0 tw
mod" 6""
I►w. aob ON C MW &0
...410 1 11 1
WNW" 1414"ll 16 7
r '
nflo 1 ......SU f �,��. .'•..
C-PF1 ,�... ,
. E
wo
IL --- �
1 CPF.1 , .M1 �+
' ` ' r ,...
— L=3 a
1MrM � ' � i��11 �1 •N� , j � .
., "r' '' CPF/ '
i l k
r ' / .� ' 1 .11 t
I tomm r «• l 001
a.
P *3 R p
1..
r ..� KI 0 1 •
• 4 « or . r•
3U. ft as
• a
o,as 69 some
;SU A �•'' 1 � I, ,�,,,. r'_. ;t . fry � � .... ; . , •�I .';. ii
♦ NP
• J' .•. j , ' • ' ....M...•':... 1 ".s. of ..a
oal of
cp.
dl; Ism so
• ' . �• • r
• • � (t ' 1'• w•• •�.�.� � 1 �� _� � � ' . • ..��.� • �.... � ice./ � � �.. �
Is, in 0 to PO400 Now 11=-� •� ��•� .\ IM• �' • 1• 3 , ; ..ri� ;(C •N• NP
j ' sit
S Ll
paw pow assume"
M P.-
lMIM Park
,
NP
Neighborhood Park
'
Cp
Conw wally Park
CPF
collww !y Mayfield
SU
Special Use Sits
RCP
(Ramsey County Park
Future Mini Park S e amh /S re o!
Search Avis for NP
Sibs
Sewch Areas for CPF
SK "
10 ACM Mk*rxan i
• ; ,
.1
1 • r�#. (,- 141.9 %1
y s . ,
Revised:
6 -13 -84
Plan
% I
'
.r . t
1 M. 1
�
L" • i / � � �� oit�
•*
le
s. I to" : of • #4
7 i
M
► 1( IAT.�R iS . :s...� . ..«� •
!Qctober 1964
•
t•
•
Qj
4--
Mf• 1r�
�J.
_.••. t • 11 ', • • ' M • , .
to
NR I
Olt, of"
a -r
. , •;
"i-"R (; P .
�EGIONAL I
N
• ` r1
We" •• •
M . •....
N
t PF 6
t�",,e.��.• rte.• —��
M
]irr• M
P it t —6ft
•
t ree., , a•
on" go A
k. 1.1.#% . 4.0% 1 •
1 ;
1 all 1
�, '
PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION: GERVAIS AVENUE
WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood i n i t i a ted . an amendment to the
Maplewood comprehensive plan from RL, residential low density and
O open space to RM, residential medium density for the following-
described property:
The South 165 feet of Lot 5, Block Two, Auditor's Subdivision No.
76;
Lot Four, Block Two, Auditor's Subdivision No. 76;
The South 200 feet of the W 1/2 of the NW 1/4 Easterly of the NP
railroad right -of -way . in Section 10, Township 29, Range 22;
Subject to easements, the West 460 feet of the North 132 feet of
the South 1/2 of SE 1/4 of SE 1/4 of NW 1/4 of Section 10 ,
Township 29, Range 22; and
Subject to easement, the East 660 feet of the SE 1/4 of the SE
1/4 of the NW 1/4, except the South 182 feet and except the North
132 feet of the East 200 feet of the South half of the SE 1/4 of
the SE 1/4 of NW 1/4, Section 10, Township 29, Range 22.
WHEREAS, the procedural history of this plan amendment is as
follows:
1. This plan amendment was initiated by the City of Maplewood.
2. The Maplewood Planning Commission held a public hearing on
February 4, 1985 to consider this plan amendment. Notice thereof was
published and mailed pursuant to law. All persons present at said
hearing were given an opportunity to be heard and present written
statements. The planning commission recommended to the city council
that said plan amendment be approved.
3. The Maplewood City Council considered said plan amendment on
1985, the council considered reports and recommendations from the
planning commission and city staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL that
the above - described plan amendment be approved on the basis that RM
uses would be compatible with the neighborhood and consistent with the
city's housing policies and the existing RM designation.
Adopted this day of , 1985.
Seconded by Ayes --
JIV
13
PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION: COUNTY ROAD C
WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood initiated an amendment to the
Maplewood comprehensive plan from RL, residential low density to RM,
residential medium density for the fol lowing - described property:
The west half of 1534 E. County Road C
WHEREAS, the procedural history of this plan amendment is as
follows:
10 The plan amendment was initiated by the City of Maplewood.
2. The Maplewood Planning Commission held a public hearing on
February 4, 1985 to consider this plan amendment. Notice thereof was
published and mailed pursuant to law. All persons present at said
nearing were given an opportunity to be heard and, present written
statements. The lannin commission recommended to the city council
P 9
that said plan amendment be approved.
3. the Maplewood City Council considered said plan amendment on
February 25, 1985. The council considered reports and recommendations
from the planning commission city staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL that
the above- described plan amendment be aproved on the basis of the
following findings of fact:
1. The RM designation would be compatible with the neighborhood
and consistent with the city's housing policies.
2. The railroad tracks make this land less desirable for single
dwellings.
Adopted this 25th day of February, 1985.
Seconded by Ayes --
s
14
REZONING RESOLUTION
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the
city council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota was duly called and
held in the council chambers in said city on the 25th day of February,
1985 at 7 p.m.
The following members were present:
The following members were absent:
WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood initiated the following rezonings
(all in Section 10, Township 29, Range 22):
10 From M -1, light manufacturing to R -2, residence district
(double dwelling) :
The West 650 feet of the following described property:
subject to road and easements and except railroad right -of -way
and except the South 103 feet of the North 393 feet of the West
207.5 feet of the East 659.8 feet and except the South 105 feet of
the North 395 feet of the West 207.5 feet of the east 867.3 feet
of the North half of the NE 1/4 of the . NW 1/4;
This property is commonly known as 1534 County Road C, Maplewood;
2. From M -1 to R -1, residence district (single dwelling) :
a. The South 105 feet of the North 395 feet of the West
207.5 feet of the East 867.3 feet of the North 1/2 of the NE 1/4
of the NW 1/4;
This property is the west 1/2 of the property commonly referred
to as 1448 E. County Road C, Maplewood;
b. The West 650 feet of the following described property:
except the BN railroad right -of -way and except the South 150 feet
of the East 183 feet; the South 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4
subject to road; _
This property is commonly referred to as 2555 Hazelwood Avenue,
Maplewood;
o. Except the South 165 feet, the .South 327.92 feet of lot
five, block two, Auditor's Subdivision No. 76;
This property is commonly referred to as 2471 Barclay Street,
Maplewood;
d. The North 88.67 feet of lot five and all of lot six,
block two, Auditor's Subdivision No. 76; and
This property. is commonly referred to as 2477 Barclay Street,
Maplewood,
15
e. Lot seven, block two, Auditor's Subdivision No. 76
This property is.commonly referred to as 2511 Barclay Street,
Maplewood;
30 From M -1, light manufacturing to R -3C, residence district
( town houses) :
a. The South 200 feet of the W. 1/2 of the NW 1/4 Eeasterly
of the NP railroad right -of -way
b. The South 165 feet of lot five, block two Auditor's
Subdivision No. 76;
This property is commonly referred to as 2471 Barclay Street,
Maplewood;
c. Subject to street, the West 389 feet of the SW 1/4 of
the SE 1/4 of the NW 1/4;
4. From F, farm residence to R -1, residence district (single
dwelling):
a. Except the West 650 feet of the following described
property: subject to road and easements and except railroad
right -of -way and except the South 103. feet of the North 393 feet
of the west 207.5 feet of the East 659.8 feet. and except South
105 feet of the North 395 feet of the West 207.5 feet of the East
867.3 feet of the North half of the NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4;
This property is commonly known as 1534 E. County Road C,
Maplewood
b. The South 103 feet of the North 393 feet of the West
207.5 feet of the East 659.8 feet of the N 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of
the NW
This property is the east one -half of the property commonly
referred to as 1448 E. County Road C. Maplewood;
c. Except the West 650 feet of the following described
property; except the BN railroad right -of -way and except the
South 150 feet of the East 183 feet; the South 1/2 of the NE °1/4
of the NW 1/4 subject to road;
This property is commonly referred to as 2555 Hazelwood Avenue,
Maplewood;
d. Subject to avenue and easements, the North 182 feet of
the South 198 feet of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of the NW 1/4;
This property is commonly referred to as 2411 Hazelwood Avenue,
Maplewood;
e. Except the West 460 feet,, the North 132 feet of the
South 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 subject to
avenue and easements; ;
This property is commonly referred to as 2425 Hazelwood Avenue,
Maplewood;
16
r
5. From R -3, residence district (.multiple dwelling) to R -1,
residence district (single dwelling):
The South 200 feet of the West 270.85 feet of the following
described parcel: except West 389 feet the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4
of NW 1/4 and subject to Hazelwood Avenue and except North 132
feet of S 1/2 and except North 182 feet of South 198 feet the SE
1/4 of SE 1/4 of NW 1/4 subject to easements;
619 From R -1, residence district (single dwelling) g) to R -2
residence district (double dwelling):
Lot four, block two, Auditor's Subdivision No . 76;
This property is commonly referred to as 2467 Hazelwood Avenue
Maplewood;
7. From R -3, residence district (multiple dwelling) to R -2
residence district (double dwelling)
The East 200 feet of the following described arcel: except
pt
West 389 feet the SW 1/4 of SE 1/4 of NW 1/4 and subject to
Hazelwood Avenue and except North 132 feet of S 1/2 and except
North 182 feet of South 198 feet the SE 1/4 of SE 1/4 of NW. 1/4
subject to easements;
8. From R -2, residence district do _
(double dwelling) to R 1,
residence district (single dwelling) :
a. The East 75 feet of the following described property:
the North 75 feet of the South 185 feet of lot one, block 2,
Auditor's Subdivision No. 76 except the east 454 feet, subject to
road easement;
b. The East 75 feet of the following described property
the South. - 110 feet--of - � • •
of one, block two, Auditor s Subdivision
No. 76; except the East 454 feet, subject to easements.
9. From . R -3 , multiple dwelling to R--3C, town houses:
a. Except the East 200 feet and the South 200 feet of the
West 270.85 feet of the following property: except West 389 feet
the SW 1/4 of SE 1/4 of NW 1/4 and subject to Hazelwood Avenue
and except North 132 feet of S 1/2 and except North 182 feet of
South 198 feet the SE 1/4 of SE 1/4 of NW 1/4, subject to
easements;
Subject to easements the West 460 feet of North 132 feet of
S 1/2 of SE 1/4 of SE 1/4 of NW 1/4;
WHEREAS, the procedural history of this rezoning is as follows:
1. These rez on i ngs were initiated b the City t of y y Maplewood,
pursuant to Chapter 36, Article VII of the Maplewood " Code of
ordinances.
17
2. These rezonings were reviewed by the Maplewood Planning
Commission on February 4, 19.850 The planning 'commission recommended
to the city - council that said rezoning be approved.
3. Vbe - Maplewood City Council held a public hearing on February
25, 1985 to consider this rezoning . Notice thereof was published and
mailed* pursuant to law. All persons present at said hearing were.
given an opportunity to be heard and present written statements. The
council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff
and planning commission.
NOW., THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL that
the above- described rezonings be approved on the basis of the
following findings of fact:
1. 'The change is consistent with the spirit, purpose
and intent of the zoning. code.
2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract
from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the
'neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area
included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded.
3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and
conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public
-welfare.
14.. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the
logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and
facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection
and schools,.
50 1t would provide the highest - tax base to the city, while
still remaining compatible with the neighborhood.
f. There has been an R -3 zoning south of 2467. Hazelwood Avenue
since 1965.
7. 'The :land use plan shows RM land in this neighborhood.
8. The R -2 zone would be more compatible with adjacent single
dwellings than R -.3.
9y. The M - zoning is obsolete and not compatible with the area.
10. The R -2 zone on Brooks Avenue is developed with single
dwellings.
11. Traffic to and from the R -3 area would be over major traffic
collectors (Hazelwood and Gervais) and not local streets.
Il. Some farm uses, such as commercial greenhouses and livestock
raising, would not be compatible with the area.
13. Town houses would be more compatible in scale and design to
single dwellings than apartments.
1Q
Ll
14. Major changes in land use should occur along. rear lot lines
so that similar uses front each other on the same street.
Adopted this 25th day of February, 1985.
:Seconded by Ayes- -
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF RAMSEY SS .
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
I the undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed clerk
of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have
carefull y compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a
regular meeting of the City of Maplewood held on the 25th day of
February, 1985 with the original on file in my office, and the same is
a full, true and complete transcript therefrom insofar as the same
relates to these rezonings.
Witness my hand as such clerk and the corporate seal of the city
this day of , 1985.
City Clerk
City of Maplewood.
19
s
MEMORANDUM
TOE City Manager
FROM: Thomas Ekstrand-- Associate Planner
• SUBJECT: Code Amendment - -NC District
APPLICANT: City of Maplewood
DATE: January 31, 1985
SUMMARY
F,4(
Action by tf cY, 1
Endo I
boo d -Jhf A
+ej e c wed..__._._.. w__
Date �._._..�... -.
Re uest
Amendment of the NC, neighborhood commercial district to give the city
council the option to approve certain uses by a conditional use permit
that are similar to permitted uses. The amendment would also allow
printing shops and video rentals. which are not objectionable uses, but
are often found in neighborhood commercial faci 1 i ti es.
Reason for Change
To allow user, which would not be objectionable or nuisance— causing in a
neighborhood setting.
Comments
Presently, as a conditional use, code only allows uses "similar to
those listed in this section." (Refer to the code amendment on page 2.}
This limits the potential uses which could be located in a NC district.
Printing shops and video tape rentals are not permitted, for example.
These are commonly found. in such centers and are not objectionable uses.
The ro osed amendment would permit video tape rentals and printing shops
P P
and would give council the opportunity to approve a nonobjectionable use
by - ondi ti onal use permit.
Re commendation
r� rova 1 of the ordinance amendment on page 28
proce
1. R, -comme -dation by the planning ;onimmi ssi on
2. Public hearing and decision by the city council
jW
Attachment:
Code amendment
ORDINANCE NO,
AN ORDINANCE PERMITTING CERTAIN
USES IN A NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
DISTRICT BY SPECIAL COUNCIL APPROVAL
THE MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 36 -127 is hereby amended as follows (additions are
underlined and deletions crossed out):'
Sec. 36 -127. Permitted uses.
Any of the following uses provided that the floor area of all build-
ings in any one NC zone shall not exceed three thousand (3.000) square
feet:
(1) Bakery or candy shop for the production of goods sold on the
premises.
(2) Beauty parlor or barber shop.
(3) Dry cleaner or Laundromat. All odors must be controlled so as
not to be noticeable to adjacent residents.
(4) Office or medical and dental clinics.
(5) Repair shop, except for motorized vehicles. No work shall be
performed outside of the building.
(6) Drug, hardware or grocery store.
(7) Studio.
(8) Tailor or dressmaker shop.
(9) Veterinary or grooming clinic where there are not outside
kennels or storage. �Qfdr-Ner-639
(10) Video tape rentals.
X11) Printing shop .
Section 2. Section 36 -129 is hereby amended as follows (additions are
underlined and deletions crossed out):
Sec. 36 -129. Conditional uses (requires council approval).
Any of the following uses, provided that the floor area of all build-
ings in any one NC zone shall not exceed eight thousand (8.000). square
feet:
(1) Any permitted use listed in section 36 -127.
f.
(2) Club, 1 odge .or hall.
(3) Private school, daycare center or community service use.
(4) Taxi stand or bus stop.
(5) Restaurant where there are no drive —up order windows or serving
of food to patrons in their automobiles. All cooking odors must
be controlled so as not to be noticeable to adjacent residents.
( 84m4; af- gees- te- t- heee- ;4eted- 4e- th4a- eeet4en �8fd -- §I Other uses, where the city council finds that
the use would be compatible with the neighborhood and the intent
of this division.
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect upon its passage and publica-
tion.
Passed by the
Maplewood City Council
on 1985.
Attest:
Clerk
Aye s- -
Nays --
Mayor
i
r
ti
MEMORANDUM
TO:
City Manager
FROM:
Associate Planner -- Johnson
SUBJECT:
Lot Width Variance
LOCATION
1850 Radatz Avenue
APPLICANT:
Ronald Whyte
OWNER:
Eugene Whyte
DATE:
January 31, 1985
SUMMARY
Request
Action by C ou ., J .i
Endorsed.
Modified_....�_
Rejecte3_.....
Date
Approval of a five foot lot width variance to create a seventy foot
wide single dwelling lot.
Proposal
1. Subdivide a 150 x 200 foot lot into lots of 80 x 200 feet and 70
x 200 feet.
2. The existing detached garage is located too far to the east to
split the property into two conforming, 75 foot wide lots.
3. Refer to the applicant's letter of request on page 89
r^MMon *c
This request meets the requirements for approval. The applicant's
"plight is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by
the landowner." The applicant constructed the garage in the late
1940s before the present zoning and subdivision codes were in
existence. • He unfortunately built the garage five feet too far to the
east to permit a lot split that would be consistent with today's
codes. Therefore, the adoption of the codes caused his plight.
Approval would also "not alter the essential character of the area."
The property is large enough to be split into two conforming lots*
Therefore, the fact that the property line would have to be five feet
off center would probably not be noticeable from the street. A
seventy foot wide lot would also permit the construction of a home
similar in type and size to the homes in the area,
Recommendation
Approval of the enclosed resolution (page 9 ) , approving a lot width
variance of five feet to split 1850 Radatz Avenue into two lots of
eighty and seventy feet of width, on the basis that:
1. Denial would cause an undue hardship to the property not created
by the landowner.
2e The resulting lots would be in keeping with the spirit and intent
• of the zoning code..
Approval is subject to the split line being identifiable by land
survey monuments and located f ive feet east of the existing garage.
2
BACKGROUND
Site Description
Size: 150 x 200 feet, with 150 feet of frontage
. l
Existing land use: a single dwelling and detached garage connected by
a breezeway. The present owner built the home in 1948. The breezeway
and garage are located &n frost f oot i ngs
Surrounding Land Uses
North: Radatz Avenue. Across the street are single dwellings on lots
averaging in excess of 100 feet in width.
East: A single dwelling on a 100 foot wide lot
West: A single dwelling on a 75 foot wide lot
South: Maple Knolls townhouse development
Planning
1. Land use plan designation: RL, residential lower density
2. Zoning: F, farm residence
3. Permitted density: 14 people /net acre
4. Existing density: 9.8 people /net acre (existing single dwelling
lots south of Radatz Avenue)
5. Proposed density: 10.6 people /net acre (south of Radatz Avenue)
6. Compliance with land use laws:
a. State law:
The following findings must be made before a variance can
be granted:
1) Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because _
of circumstances unique to the individual property under
consideration. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with
the. granting of a variance means the property in question
cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions
allowed by the official controls, the plight of the
landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not
created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will
not alter the essential character of the locality.. Economic
considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship
if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of
the ordinance.
2) The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and
intent of the ordinance.
3
4
b. City ordinance:
Sections 30 -8 (f.) (1) and 36 -69 require interior single-
dwelling lots to be at least 75 feet wide.
Citizen Comments
Thirteen persons within 350 feet of this property were asked their
opinion of this variance request. Three responses were received. One
person is in favor of permitting the lot to be divided and built on
because e." in the past there has been drainage problems from the height
of our driveway" (1871 Radatz -- across the street to the east),. Two
persons-had not comment.
1.0 Planning commission recommendation
2.. City council decision following a public hearing
jW
Attachments
1. Location Map
2. Property Line /Zoning Map
3. Site Plan
4,o Letter of Request
5.. Resolution
4
1 .
t ' , K
R 3
BC B� F
� r ltC lot Is K
or
J / � LAC
1
r w 1C F �
9C
LOC
Gov
VIC
Co
Ra
g F 'L.c dr R 3
• F
11
PAW
A f �
PUO R F �✓ qp
• F cooa�u A
MI
I � 1JC Be or
LBC
IL
YI w � R
• gevicr ^' LF1� M 1
as Z i
T�IMt
P WSW
Mi C MI R � 1 R
A
_4 � lac r � 7
R R R
AW
FG
e it
MI �
�
r r
LDC F R �
•vt f
�. R R F F
D�a R
3 it
R
LOCATION MAP
5 Attac 1
4
N
I
i
_ 3 •.7 ��� L 71 at. 6 O - LC
C O
' f ISO
4b up dp 0
r. t � tom} Cam} t X71 0 ��
3.1i tic. s - ° 190 ISO
�o �� !�o
st � c
2
(37)
_ i
PART OF THE MAPLE
PROPOSED LOT SPLIT
'. 30 1
�� "- KNOLL SITE LINE
low �.Ww low
po op . .
AL
% D
_ � /
•
I f
- - - •oa ��' o'
• RA"
t.00a t. t�ac i.o6 so �'' �.4• �, COUNTY U y 57 ;t
s � • . 190
• N
PROPERTY LINE ZONING MAP
6 Attachment 2
4
N
I�
1'
N
1�11
W. .......... 4-�-
RA dr�rz Prv6
i
k
i
"70 +
3 Pro
o lw - °
a '
g y ou sc. '
i
1 95D
• i
1
t
i
SITE PLAN
7 Attachment 3
4
N
to
57��ic t e�;�r� em�� �� w-�u�d cztu5e ��i� aue hay d5blp
qo 17ap� Q S�t area /?. s hete.5c �u ld Wepz)c�-�
&lOGdGt haie t6e *rn G Jet `f��f' tVin7E /)
cl /
le he
wa 5 me 7s-I
71�E Cat �, c' ai � �� ��,; t «; Y� h��� l� �► i�
Z60 - {t, ciPCF
aid 7U- Mere 4 & Pl&7y df ao,�i kt�al'g
ZL
Yl?li-t
7S
Ite -et ghat bE «usC off' Y1�rs�_ .
OGCi' biulcl�t7� �Z h�/Y��' /�.'t��{' /10t Gu5157tG� �c'm y�ie C�i•��
v.
l�� `f�i.E het�h �xr�ruL,l�
Attachment 4 �
TO
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the
ci ty council -of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota was duly called and
held in the council chambers in said city on the day of
1985 at 7 p,,m.
The
following
.were present:
The
following
members
were absent:
WHEREAS, Ronald Whyte applied for a variance for the following-
described property:
The East 150 feet of the West 965 feet of the North 200 feet of
the Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4) , South of Radatz Avenue in Section
2, Township 29, Range 22.
This property is also known as 1850 Radatz'Avenue, Maplewood;
WHEREAS, section 30 -8 (f) (1) and 36 -69 of the Maplewood Code of
Ordinances require interior single dwelling lots to be at least 75
wide;
WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing 70 feet. of width, requiring a
variance of five feet;
WHEREAS, the procedural history of this variance is as follows:
1. This variance was applied for on December 31, 1984.
2. This variance was reviewed by the Maplewood Planning
Commission on February 4, 1985. The planning commission recommended
to the city council that said variance be approved..
3. The Maplewood City Council held a public hearing on
1985 to consider this variance. Notice thereof was published and
mailed pursuant to law. All persons present at said hearing were
given an opportunity to be heard and present written statements. The
council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff
and planning commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
that the above- described variance be approved on. the basis of the
following findings of fact:
1. Denial would cause an undue hardship to the property not
created by the landowner*
2. The resulting lots would be in keeping with the spirit and
intent of the zoning code.
Adopted this day of 1 195 5 .
Seconded by
Ayes --
9
It..
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) SS.
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD )
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed clerk
of the -City of Maplewood, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have
carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a
regular meeting of the City of Maplewood, held on the day of
1985, with the original on file in my office, and ' the same is a
full, , true and complete transcript therefrom insofar as the same
relates to this variance request.
Witness my hand as such clerk and the corporate seal of the city
this day of , 1985.
City Clerk
City of Maplewood
Wk
�. wow
i
r
Acti by C
1984 MUNICIPAL SCREENING BOARD DATA
JUNE, 1984 E: �d cry, - .. --�- -- ----
municipal Variances Rci ec i- c..�,__,_
Included in the recent adoption - Date�_.�,.- ��.___..
Rules for State Aid Operations is the fol
lowing
section dealing with variances:
L. Variance:
I. A formal request by a political subdivision
n f or a variance from
these rules must:
a. be submitted to the commissioner in writing n the form orm of a
resolution;
be identify the project by location and termini;
C, Cite the specific rule or standard for which the
variance
is requested
2. Additional information needed:
a, index map;
b. typical section:
(1) ' inplace section;
(2) proposed section;
co reasons f or the request;
d. the economic, social, safety, and environmental
impacts which may result from the requested variance;
. �
e. effectiveness of the project in - eliminating an existin g and
projected deficiency in the transportation system;
f. effect on adjacent lands;
g. number of persons affected; and
h. safety considerations as they apply to:
(1) pedestrians; -
(2) bicyclists;
(3) motoring public; and
(4) fire, police, and emergenc y units.
3, The commissioner shall publish notice of variance request in the Q h State
Register and shall request comments from interested parties be directed
to the commissioner within 20 calendar days from date of
publication.
4. The commissioner may appoint a committee to serve as required to
Q inves-
tigate and determi -ne a recommendation for each variance. No elected or
appointed. official that represents a political subdivision requesting
the variance may serve on the committee. Q g
1
-b4-
0
01
a. The committee shall consist of any five of the following persons:
(1) not more than two county highway engineers, only one of whom
may be from a county containing a city of the first class;
(2) not more than two city engineers.., only one of whom may be
from a city of the first class;
(.3) not more than two county of f icials , . only one of whom may be
from a county containing a city of the first class; and
(4) not more than two city officials, only one of whom may be
from a city of the first class*
b. Operating procedure:
(1) The committee shall meet on call from the commissioner at which
time they shall elect a chairperson and establish their own
procedure to investigate the requested variance.
(2) The committee shall consider the:
(a) economic, social, safety, and environmental impacts
which may result from the requested variance;
(b) effectiveness of the project in eliminating an existing
and projected deficiency in the transportation system;
(c) effect on adjacent lands
(d) number of persons affected;
(e) effect on future maintenance;
(f) - saf ety considerations as they apply to:
(i) pedestrians; -
(ii) bicyclists;
motoring public; and
(iv) fire, police, and emergency units; and
( ) effect that the rule and standards may have in imposing
an undue burden on a political subdivision.
C3) The committee after considering all data pertinent to the
requested variance shall recommend to the commissioner ap-
proval or disapproval of the request.
5. The commissioner shall base his decision on the criteria specified in
4.b.(2), (a) -($) and shall notify the political subdivision in writing
of his decision.
6. Any variance objected to in writing or denied by the commissioner is
subject to a contested case hearing as required by law
The next several pages document the variances that have been requested since the
variance procedure was established.
-65-
1984 MUNICIPAL SCREENING BOARD DATA
M.S.A.S. VARIANCE REQUESTS
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 162.13, Subdivision 2, states that any variance
granted pursuant to section 162.09,.subdivision 3a shall be reflected in
the estimated construction and maintenance costs in determining money needs.
The law does not, however, state what type of reflection or adjustment should
be made. We are presenting this report to the committee for your recommen-
dation.
We find that of the 70 requests which have been made, 57 were approved, and
13 denied.
A summary of the 57 Variaace approvals show:
19 - Street Widths from 46 to 44 feet.
12 Variance Requests were higher design than needs.
2 - Bridge Vertical Clearances.
5 - Variance for Off- system Expenditures.
6 - Variances f or Design Speed.
.1 - St. Cloud Bridge
12 - Variances for Street Widths
The following summary will itemize each request by the type of variance
required.
-66-
Variances Denied
1. Duluth - MSAS 134 (Hawthorne Road - Superior St. to Vermillion
Rd.), MSAS 156 (Vermillion Rd - Hawthorne Rd. to
St. Marie) and MSAS 156 (St. Marie St. - Vermillion Rd.
to Wallace Ave.)
Permit 24' instead of 28' street width.
2. Duluth -- MSAS 116 ( 24th Ave. West - Michigan to Skyline Blvd.)
Permit 30' instead of 32' with no parking on either
side.
3. Faribault - MSAS 118 CFirst Ave. NE - 1st Ave. NE to Central Ave.)
Permit design speed of 27.4 instead of 30 MPH.
4. Hermantown -
MSAS 103 (.Stebner Road - Maple Grove Road to Morris
Thomas Road)
Permit design speed of 35 instead of 45 MPH.
5. Lake. Elmo -
MSAS 104 (Along 45th St., Julep Ave, and 47th St. -
Jane Rd. North_ to Keats Avenue) .
Permit design speed of 30 instead of 40 MPH.
6 . Minneapolis
- MSAS 308 (We Franklin Ave* - Dupont Ave. to Logan
Avenue South).
Permit a 32' with parallel parking one side instead of
32' no parking. .
7. Minnetonka
- MSAS 133 CFord Road - Cedar Lake Road to TH 12) .
Permit a street width of 26' with parking on both
sides instead of 32' with no parking on either side.
Be Mounds View
- MSAS 233 (Ardan Ave. - Spring Lake Road to Eastwood
Road).
Permit a width of 39' instead of the required 46' .
9. St. Louis Park
- MSAS 275 (Virginia Ave. so - CSAH 16 to Burd Place) .
Permit 32' street width with parking on one side f rom
-
7 P.M. to .7 A.M. Monday thru Friday and all weekend.
instead of 32' with no parking.
-67-
10. St. Paul MSAS 159 (Lexington Ave. - University Ave. to Jessa-
mine Street)
Permit Sunday parking from 8*A.M. to 1 P.M. on the
West side of Lexington Ave., from Minnehaha Ave. to
Blair Ave. instead of no parking any time.
11. St. Paul MSAS 109 (Arlington Ave. - Victoria St. to Dale St.)
Permit a street width of 36' with parking on both
sides instead of 46' with parking.
12. South St. Paul - MSAS 105 (3rd Ave. South - 3rd St. to 6th Street)
Permit street width of 36' with parking on both
sides instead of just one side.
13. Hastings - MSAS 134 (Second St. - TH 61 to Tyler Street)
Permit street width of 70' with 60 diagonal parking
instead of the required 102'0
Variances f rom 46 to 44 Feet
1. Anoka - MSAS 128 (3rd Ave. - Jackson to Harrison Street)
and Msas 132 Van Buren Street - 2nd to 4th Avenue)
Permit 44' instead of 46' street width.
Constructed to 44' in 1983 --needs add. mat.
2. Anoka. - MSAS 115 (Military Road - South to Washington Street)
and MSAS 116 (South Avenue - 5th to 7th Avenue)
Permit 44' instead of 46' street width.
Constructed to 44' in 1983 -- needs add. mat.
3. Anoka - MSAS 112 (2nd Avenue North - Jackson to Harrison
Street
Permit 44' instead of 46' street width e'
Constructed to 44' in 1981 needs add. mat.
4. Burnsville - MSAS 109 (Parkwood Drive - 134th St. to Heather Hills
addition)
Permit 44' instead of 46' street width.
Constructed to 44' in 1981 -- needs add. mat..'
-68-
5. 'Burnsville
- MSAS 101 (Portland
Avenue
- Stevens to Grand Avenue)
Permit 44' instead
of
46' street width.
Constructed to 44''in
1983
-- needs add. mat.
6. Cloquet
- MSAS 102 (Doddridge Avenue
- TH 33 to 14th Street)
Permit 44' instead
of
46' street width.
Constructed to 44'
in
1982
-- needs add. mat.
7. -Coon Rapids
- MSAS 107 (Robinson
Drive -
105th Lane to South 109th
Avenue)
Permit.44' instead
of
46'
street width.
Constructed to 44'
in
1983
-- needs add. mat.
Be Fairmont
- MSAS 107 (Woodland
Avenue
- Fairlakes Avenue to
Lake Park Boulevard)
Permit 44' instead
of
46'
street width.
Constructed to 44'
in
1981
needs add. mat.
`9. Fairmont
- MSAS 106 (Prairie Avenue -
Blue Earth Avenue to 9th
Street)
Permit 44:' instead
of
46'
street width.
Constructed to 44'
in
1983 -- needs add. mat.
10. Fergus Falls - MSAS 101 & 501 (Along Summit Street)
Permit a 44' instead of a 46' street width.
Constructed to 44' in 1983 -- needs add. mat.
11. Litchf feld
MSAS 105 (West Ripley St . - Swif t to Sibley Avenue)
Permit 44' instead of 46' street width.
Constructed to 44' in 1982 -- needs add. mat.
12. .Mendota Heights - MSAS 101 (Marie Avenue - Victoria Road to Lexington
Avenue)
Permit 44' instead of 46' street width.
Constructed to 44' in 1982 -- needs add. mat.
--6 9
13.. Mendota Heights - MSAS 103 ,(Mendota Heights Road - TH 149 (Dodd Road)
to CSAH 63. Permit 44' instead of 46' street width.
Variance approved 12 -5 -83.
14., Minneapolis - MSAS 224 (East 14th Street - Chicago Avenue to 11th
Avenue South)
Permit 44' instead of 46 ' street width from Chicago
to Elliot Avenue was approved.
Permit 40' instead of 46' street width from Elliot
Avenue to 11th Avenue South was denied.
Constructed to 44' in 1982 -- needs add. mat.
15. North Mankato - MSAS 108 (Lee Boulevard - Lookout Drive to Lor Ray
Drive.
Permit 44' instead of 46' street width.
Variance approved 4- 18 -83 - -r- needs 44' add. mat.
1{. Rochester - MSAS 16 (Test Center' Street - Fourth Street to Seventh
Street West)
Permit a street width of 44' instead of 46'.
Variance approved 2- 18 -84. 1984 Construction.
170 South St. Paul - MSAS 109 (.5th Avenue - Marie Avenue to 3rd Street
North)
Permit a street width of 44' instead of 46' .
Constructed to 44' in 1983 -- needs add. mat.
18� Winona - MSAS 127 (Aundy Boulevard - Romer Road to TH 61)
Permit a street width .of 44' instead of 46'.
Constructed to 44' in 1983 --- needs add. mat.
19 . Brainerd - MSAS 103 (NW and SW 4th Street - Florence Street to
Washington Street.)
Permit street width of 44' instead of the required 46'.
Variance approved 3 -16 -84 -- needs 44' add. mat.
-70-
Variances Were Higher Design Than Needs Study
1. Duluth - MSAS 140 (Aerial Lift Bridge on Minnesota Avenue)
Permit 24 no parking instead of 36' no parking road-
way width on the bridge:
Reported as adequate.
2. Duluth - MSAS 129 (first Street - Third Avenue East Fifth
Avenue West)
Permit a 42' instead of a 46' street width.
Needs were 42' add. mat.
Constructed to 42' brick surface in 1982 -- needs
add. mat.
3. East Grand Forks- MSAS 113 (Intercity Bridge - North Dakota)
Permit reconstruction at 28' instead of 36' bridge
width. Bridge needs were reported as .28' width.
Bridge deck repaired at 28' in 1983 -- needs add. mat.,
bridge adequate .
4. Minneapolis - MSAS 345 (Motley Bypass - Fulton Street to University
Avenue) .
Permit a street width of 44' with no parking from
Fulton to Delaware Avenue instead of 52' and 54'
with parking on one side from Delaware Avenue to
University Avenue instead of the required 62'.
Variance approved 7 -1942 -- complete construction
in needs - 44'
5. Moorhead - MSAS 130 (Bridge #5270 - Center Avenue over the Red
River of the North)
Permit a width of 48' instead of 52'0
Variance approved 4- 18 -83. Revised needs from 56' to
48 $ 1,000,000 Recondition.
69 St. Cloud - MSAS 101 (10th Street South - 7th Avenue South to
10;i Avenue South)
Permit street width of 48' instead of 68' with no
parking.
MSAS 502 (9th Avenue South - 8th Street South to
12th Street South)
Permit 'street width of 60' instead of 68' with no
parking.
-71-
Variance approved 4 -18 -83 -- needs 44' add. mat.
MSAS 101
Variance approved 4 -18 -83 -- needs 60' add. mat.
MSAS 502
7. St. Cloud - MSAS 505 (9 -10th Avenue - St. Germain Street to
9th Street North)
Permit street width of 60' instead of 68' with no
parking.
Variance approved 2 -10 -82 -- meeds 60' add. mat.
8. St. Cloud - MSAS 114 (3rd Street North - 31st Avenue North to
West City Limits)
Permit street width of 60' instead of 68' no parking.
Needs were reported as 44' width.
Constructed to 34 46' & 52' in 1981 -- needs add.
mat.- turning lanes..
99 St. Paul - MSAS 129 (Johnson Parkway - Minnehaha Avenue to East
7th Street)
Permit a street width of 36' instead of 52' with no
parking. Needs were reported as 36' width.
Constructed to 36' in 1981 -- needs add. mat.
10. St. Cloud - MSAS 502 (Ninth -Tenth Avenue South - First Street
South to 600' South)
Permit a street width of 60' with a 14' median instead
of the required 68'.
Variance approved 3 -16 -84 -- needs for 44' add. mat.
11. St. Paul - MSAS 159 (Lexington Parkway - West 7th Street to
St. Clair Avenue)
Permit street width of 40' and 44' instead of the
required 48' and 72' with parking on both sides*
Variance 'approved 3 -16 -84 -- needs add. mat. at 40'
and 44',
12. Brainerd - MSAS 114 (North. and South 4th Street - Laurel Street
-to Washington Street)
Permit street width of 64' instead of 68'.
Variance approved 3 -16 -84 -- needs 44' add. mat.
-72-
i
I
r
1
i
Variances for Bridge Vertical Clearances
1. Minneapolis - MSAS 172 (Emerson Avenue South Bridge over the
Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad)
Permit a vertical clearance of 21' over the main
line and 20' over the spur track instead of the
required 22'41
Variance approved 12 -4 -820
2. Minneapolis - MSAS 170 (Dupont Avenue Bridge over the C .M. St . P .
& P. Railroad)
Permit a vertical . clearance of 21' over the main line
and 20' over the spur track instead of the required
22'
Variance approved 12- 14 -820
Variances f or Of f - System
1. Chisholm CSAH 67 (First Avenue West - 9;1 Street to CSAH 66)
Off System.
Permit 44' instead of 46' street widths
Adjustment for $'s spent off system.
2 . St, Paul - CSAH 65 off System (White Bear - C . N .W . R. R. to Lar-
penteur Avenue)
Permit a street width of 44' with no' parking instead
of 50' .
Adjustment for $'s spent off systems
3 . S.t . Paul - TH 5 CS ibley- Jackson Switchback f rom Eighth and
Jackson to Seventh and Sibley)
Permit a design speed of 23 instead of 30 MPH.
Adjustment for $'s spent off system*
4. Virginia - Reverted to a local street in 1981.
(DENIED) (Chestnut Street - 2nd Avenue West and 6th Avenue.
(CONTESTED). West)
'(SETTLED) Permit a 60' street width with 45 diagonal parking
.(REMOVED) instead of 90'0
Removed from MSAS system.
-71-
5. Minneapolis - Off system (Rurhham Road Bridge over the C.N.W. R.R.)
Permit a vertical clearance of 20' instead of 22' .
Adjustment for $'s spent off system.
Var ianc es f or Des ign S peed
.r
1. Alexandria MSAS 104 (Fairgrounds Road) - 1200' South of
Third Avenue) '
Permit design speed less than 30 MPH.
Constructed to 44' in 1983 -- needs add. mat.
2 Anoka - MSAS 134 (Main Street Bridge over Rum River) and
300' approaches both ends . u
Permit 25 instead of 30 MPH design speed.
TH Turnback. Will be let in 1985 -- No needs.
3. Champlin - M.SAS 109 (114th Avenue - Maryland Avenue to Jersey
Avenue) and MSAS 105 (Maryland - 112th to 114th
Avenue Borth)
Permit 25 instead of 30 MPH design speed.
Constructed to 36' in 1983 -- needs add. mat.
4. Eveleth - MSAS 227 (Fayal Avenue - North Court to Park Avenue)
Permit design speed of 20 instead of 30 MPH.
Variance. approved 11- 23 -830
5. Red Wing - MSAS 122 (Title Crest Drive over the C .M. St .P . & P.
Railroad)
Permit a design speed of 24 instead of 30 MPH.
Variance approved 8 -5 -83 needs for 32'.
b. Winona MSAS 128 (Riverview Drive - Commercial Harbor to
Huff Street)
Permit a design speed of 30 instead of 40 MPH.
Constructed to 48' in 1983 -- needs add: mat.
-74_
G
Variance on St. Cloud 10th Street Bridge
1. St. Cloud - MSAS 501 & 503 (Tenth Street Bridge)
Permit a 2 -lane bridge instead of the required
4 -1ane design.
City received needs on 44' of the 68' reported.
Bridge built to 51' (39' + 2 -6' sidewalks)
Constructed to 51' in 1983 -- no needs.
-75-
U
Variances for Street Width
1. Minneapolis - MSAS 190 (First Ave. S - East Lake St. to 33rd St. S.)
Permit.street width of 36' with parking on *one side
Instead of 38' with parking on one side.
Constructed to 36' and 40' in 1983 -- needs add. mat.
Permit street width of 36' instead of 44' as required
and shown in needs The needs for this 0.36
mile segment were $349,000. An adjustment could be,
made by taking 8/44 x $349,000 x 27 (the years this
segment has been in the needs study) _ $1,713,272 .
reduction in needs for ? (No. of years) . At $37-97
per $1,000, this equals $65,053 in apportionment.
2. Minneapolis - MSAS 178 (West Grant St. - La Salle Ave. to Nicollet Ave.)
Permit 48' instead of 50' street width with no parking.
Constructed to 48' in 1982 -- needs add. mat.
Permit street width of 48' instead of 60' shown in the
needs. Needs are $68,600 for 0.07 mile. 12/60 x $68,600
x 27 years = $370,440 x 37.97'= $14,065 in apportionment.
I. Minneapolis MSAS 221 & 175 (221 - Emerson & 175 - Fremont Aves. N. -
Plymouth Ave. N. to W. Broadway Ave.)
Permit a street width of 32' with no parking on one side
of Fremont N. and to permit 36' with no parking on
• one side of Emerson Ave. N.
Constructed in 1983 -- Emerson - 36' Fremont - 32' --
needs add. mat. •
MSAS 221 - Emerson
Permit street width of 36' instead of 44' in the needs.
Needs are $416,023 for 0.5 mile.. 8/44 x $416,023 x 27
years = $2,042,293 x 37.97 $77,546 in apportionment.
, MSAS 175,- Fremont
Permit street width of 32' instead of 48' in the needs.
Needs are $433,377 for 0.50 mile. 16/48 x $433,377
x 27 years = $3,900,392 x 37.97 $148,098 in apportion-
ment.
-76-
A
4.. Richfield - MSAS 363 (Lyndale Ave. - South Lakeshore Drive to 74th
Street)
Permit a street width of 47' instead of 52' with no park-
ing as required.
Constructed to 47': in 1981 -- needs add. mat..
Permit street width of 47' instead of 52' in the needs.
Needs are $607,922 for 0.80 mile. 5/52 x $607,922 s
22 _years = $ 1,285,988 x 3797 = $48,829 in apportion-
ment.
5. St. Louis Park - MSAS 280 (Dakota Ave. - CSAH 5 to West 27th St.)
Permit a street width of 36' instead of 46
Constructed to 36' in 1981 --- needs add. mat,
Permit a street width of 36' . instead of 44' in the needs*
Needs are $200,059 for 0.36 mile. 8/44 x $200,059 x 27
years = $982,107 x 37.97 = $37,291 in apportionment.
-6. St.. Paul - MSAS 135 (Forest Street Bush St. to Wells St. Bridge
#5962 over the C.N. &B.N. Railroad)
Permit a street width of 32' instead of 46' and still
maintain 2 parking and 2 traffic lanes.
Variance approved 2 -17 -81 -- needs complete - 36' roadway,
32'. bridge.
Permit a street width of 32' instead of 36' as in the
needs. Needs . are $138.,1 -08 for 0.21 mile. 4/36 x
$138,108 x 27 years = $414,324 x 37.97 = $15,731 in
apportionment.
7 St. Paul - MSAS 129 (Johnson Parkway - E. 7th St. to Prosperity Ave.)
Permit street width of 44' with no parking from E. 7th
St. to Case and 36' with no parking from Case to Prosper-
ity Avenue instead of 55'.
Constructed to 36' in 1981 -- needs add. mat.
Permit a street width of 36' instead of 44' as in the
needs Needs . are $277,176 for 0.34 mile. 8/44 x
$277,176 x 27 years = $1,36.0,681 x 37.97 = $51,665 in
apportionment.
This segment also has a RR/Hwy Structure in the needs
at $649,750. Should this structure be considered
adequate or continue to draw needs?
-77-
8. St. Paul - MSAS 138 (Front St'. - Dale St. to Western Ave.) and
MSAS 109 (Arlington Ave. - E. Shore Drive to Hazel-
wood Street.) .
Permit a street width of 40' with parking permitted
on Front and Arlington Ave. instead of 46' with parking.
(APPROVED) -- Front Street
(DENIED) - Arlington Avenue
Front Sto constructed to 40' in 1983 — needs add. mat.
Arlington Avenue was denied.
MSAS 138 - Front Street
Permit a street width of 40' instead of 44' as in
the needs. Needs are $462,542 for 0.50 mile. 4/44
x $462,542 x 27 years = $1,135,329 x 37.97 $43,108
in apportionment.
9. St. Paul - MSAS 179 ()?ayne Avenue over the C.N.W.R.R. and its
approaches between Whitall and Reaney Ave.).
Permit a street width of 46' instead of the required
72'.
r
Variance approved 8 -5 -83 - complete needs - 52' road
64' bridge.
Permit a street width of 46' instead of 52' street
and 64' bridge width as in the needs. 20% of segment
x $843,415 = $168,683 (18/90 = 20%). Bridge needs
are $387,000; segment is 0.18 mile.
6/52 x $168,683 x 27 = $ 525,512 - Roadway
18/64 x $387,000 x 27 = $ 2,938,781 - Bridge
g
$3,464,293 - Total
x 37.97
$ 131,539 in apportionment
10, Et. Paul - MSAS 193 Gast Seventh St - Mendota St. to Johnson
Parkway)
Permit street widths of 40' and 46' instead of the
required 72' with parking on both sides.
Variance approved 3 -16 -84 needs complete at 44'.
Permit a street width of 40' instead of the 44' in
the needs. Needs are $496,326 for 0.50 mile.. 4/44
x $496,326 x 27 years = $ 1,218,253 x 37.97 = $46,257
in apportionment.
-78-
11. St. Paul - r1-SAS 132 (Fairview Ave. - Montreal Ave. to St. Clair
Avenue . ) .
Permit street widths of 40' and 56' instead of the
required 72' with parking on both sides.
Variance approved 3 -16 -84 - needs complete at 44'
and 68'.
Permit street widths of 40' and 56' instead of 44'
and 68' requested in the needs.
4/44 x _$766,943 x 27 = $1
12/68 x $688,869 x 27 -$ 3,282,256
$5,164,751
x 37.97
$ 196,105 in apportionment.
12. St, Paul MSAS 158 (Kellogg Boulevard - West Seventh St. to
Robert Street)
Permit a street width of 56' instead of 72' with
parking on both sides.
Also, permit street widths of 98' and 104' with. a 22'
median instead of the required 104' with a 4' median.
Variance approved 3 -16 -84 - needs complete at 68', 64',
72' & 76'.
Permit street widths of 56' (104' & 98' with 22'
medians) instead of 68', 64' (98') in the needs.
Needs are $295,901 for 0..71 mile. Because of unusual _
configurations on this segment as compared to the
reported needs, any adjustment would be difficult to
recommend.
-79-
CONWAY
AVENUE
TO
UIK I1► 17WA
ADT (CURRENT) 1983 =
ADT (FUTURE) 2002
E ,N16 20 YEAR
DESIGN LOAD 2
STAB ILOMETER ° R "VALUE _
DESIGN SPEED
9: TRUCKS
SOIL FACTOR =
•t•
�16
A �0
wuu .l..11VA
r !
TA STS
STA 41.00 ATA 4 433
MINNEHAHA
STILLWATER
MARYLAND
LARPENTEUR
SEVENTH
AVENUE
AVENUE
AVENUE
AVENUE
AVENUE
TO
TO
TO
TO
TO
STILIWATER
MARYLAND
LARPENTEUR
SEVENTH
T.H936
AVENUE
AVENUE
AVENUE
AVENUE
AVENUE
7,200
5
6
6;700
9
11,000
8,000
9,900
,. 10000
12,000
. 5
-9T
40 MPH
5
5 5 5
a,
ILL.-
IF'
STA 90 +36 STA 47 20 _ sTA M+TS
STA 2431.46
w
• IA k 12' C -C 52' C -C c-c s2't -C 1 C -C
n
.� BL.,ratt SCAMS
kv
_ _ Iltt
L 30M 4ow y0D0
_ S
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager
FROM: Director of Commun Development
SUBJECT Travel and Train Policy
DATE: February 13, 1985
.--� A
Action b
�1 crE., u -
f-
R e j e c V E ._.�. ..�........ .
The city council included funds in the 1985 budget to send a
planning commi ssioner to a national conference. The city's
policy for out -of —state travel pays for the full regi stration
fee, 2/3 of the plane fare an.d $50 toward lodging and food.
This policy makes it difficult to justify the personal expense
of attend ng a conference that is primaril for the benefit
of the city. It is particularly difficult for a planning
commissioner,. because they must take time off work as well.
Recommendation
Revise the travel and training policy to pay the full costs of
out —of —state travel for commissioners.
jw
*100000
MEMORANDUM
Ac i on b C c.,an
TO: City Manager En,dol"se _.._
FROM: Associate Planner--Johnson
IV! o ad- � li cl . ._
SUBJECT: HRA Reappointment
�
. R E „ r
GATE: January �e���.
y 1 7 � . 1985 D a+ ['
Request
Reappoint Commissioner Connelly to the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority (HRA),
Background
Commissioner Connelly has requested reappointment to the HRA. (See
the attached letter.) He was originally appointed to the HRA in
January 1984 to serve out the remainder of former Commissioner Br Y ant's
term which expires March 1985, .
HRA commissioners are appointed for five —year terms.
Recommendation
Reappoint Thomas Connelly as a commissioner of the HRA for a fi ve—
year term, expiring March 1990.
jw
attachment
s
t
c l I Li
i
1
W i t
4 + 0
doo