HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/7/1990 s
I
MIN OF THE MAPLOEWOO15 PLANK T CO COMMISSION ROAD C
S HAZELWOOD FIRE MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
APRIL 2, 1990
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Absent
Commissioner Lester Axdahl
Commissioner Michael Ayers Absent
Commissioner Richard Barrett present
Commissioner Robert Cardinal present
Commissioner Sue Fiola present
Commissioner Lorraine Fischer present
Commissioner Gary Gerke present
Commissioner Dennis Larson present
Commissioner William Rossbach present
Commissioner Marvin Sigmundik
Commissioner Ralph Sletten
Present
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
III a . March 5, 1990
Commissioner Sigmundik moved approval of the minutes of
March 5, 1990, as submitted.
A yes -- Barrett,
Commissioner Barrett seconded Cardinal, Fischer,
Gerke, Larson,
Rossbach, Sigmundik
Abstentions F iola,
Sletten
4, APPR OF AGENDA agenda as
Commissioner Cardinal moved approval of the
submitted.
A -- Barrett,
Commissioner Sigmundik seconded Cardinal, Fiola,
Fischer, Gerke,
Larson, Rossbach,
Sigmundik, Sletten
•
Planning Commission
Minutes 4 -2 -90 -2-
5. NEW BUSINESS
a. Easement Vacation: 2983 Howard St. (Sauer)
Ken Roberts, Associate Planner, presented the staff
report for this requested vacation of part of the
utility easement that runs under the applicant's house.
Gene Rosenblum, the applicant's attorney, said this
utility easement running under the Sauer's house
affects the marketability of the property title.
Commissioner Cardinal moved the Planning Commission
recommend approval of the resolution to vacate a
portion of the public utility easement between Lots 1
and 2, Block 2, of Robert Tilsen's Maplewood Heights
No. 4. Approval is in the public interest because this
easement segment is not needed for utilities.
Commissioner Sletten seconded
Ayes -- Barrett,
Cardinal, Fiola,
Fischer, Larson,
• Rossbach, Sigmundik,
Sletten
Nays - -Gerke
Commissioner Gerke indicated he voted nay because he
didn't feel there was enough room for installation of
all utilities.
The motion passed.
b. Resolutions of Appreciation
Secretary Olson informed the Commission of the
resignations of Michael Ayers and Ralph Sletten and
presented the resolutions of appreciation for approval.
Commissioner Cardinal moved the Planning Commission
recommend approval of the resolutions of appreciation.
Commissioner Rossbach seconded Ayes -- Barrett,
Cardinal, Fiola,
Fischer, Gerke,
Larson, Rossbach,
Sigmundik, Sletten
III The motion passed.
Planning Commission
4, Minutes 4 -2 -90 -3-
c. Planning Commission Appointments
Chairman Fischer presented an overview of the
r esponsibilities of the Planning Commission.
The applicants were interviewed individually by the
commission. The commissioners discussed how much
consideration should be given to the geographical area
of the City each applicant represents.
Each commissioner voted, scoring 6 points for first choice,
5 points for second choice, 4 points for third choice, 3
points for fourth choice, 2 points for fifth choice, and 1
point for sixth choice. The ballots were collected and
tallied and the results are as follows:
Voss Anitzberger Sinn Gervais Roedler M ckleb - Lan.
Barrett 4 6
Cardinal 2 5 2 3 1
Fiola 4 5 6 3
5 6 4 3 1
Fischer 3 4 2 1
Gerke 5 6
3 6 2 1
Larson 2 5 2 4 1
III Rossbach 6 3 4 5
1 4 5 6 1
Sigmundik 2 5 3 2
3 6 4 1
Sletten 3
6 5 1 4
2
TOTALS:
1. Anitzberger - 47 points
2 . Sinn - 40 points
3. Gervais - 36 points
4 . Roedler - 30 points
5. Voss - 25 points
6 . Myckleby -Lang - 11 points
6. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
7. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS
a. Council Meeting: March 12 and 26
Commissioner Rossbach reported on the meeting of March 12.
There were no planning items on the March 26 agenda.
b. Representative for the April 9 Council Meeting:
Commissioner Rossbach
III
Planning Commission -4-
41 0 Minutes 4 -2 -90
8. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
Secretary Olson said the City's new tree ordinance was recently
published in the St. Paul newspaper and, since that time, the
City has had many requests for copies of this ordinance.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
410
I f MEMORANDUM
411 TO: City Manager
FROM: Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: Easement Vacations
LOCATION: Gall Avenue
APPLICANT: North Suburban Company
DATE: April 2, 1990
INTRODUCTION
The applicant has requested the vacation of four unneeded utility
and drainage easements. (See the map on page 4.)
BACKGROUND
The developer dedicated these easements on the Maplewood Meadows
Plat. The City approved the final plat on July 11, 1988. On
April 5, 1989, the City approved a lot division for Lots 1 -4,
Block 1 that moved the lot lines. (See the map on page 3.) The
property owner granted new easements to the City. The new lot
lines allow the developer to construct double dwellings on Lots 1
and 2. The old easements restrict the buildable area of Lots 2
and 3.
STANDARD FOR APPROVAL
• Chapter 412.851 of State law allows the City Council to vacate
any public easement if the vacation is in the public interest.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the resolution on page 5 that vacates four public utility
and drainage easements on Lots 2 and 3, of Block 1 of Maplewood
Meadows. Approval is in the public interest because:
1. The City does not need the easements for current or proposed
utilities or drainage facilities.
2. The property owner dedicated new easements.
GO /memo7.mem
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Property Line
3. Site Map
4. Resolution
1
•
C I v
O y k.
WHITE BEAR LAKE
4
Q =
ct
68 (1) BRENW00. I
,A,
se
/-■..............
" GAL _I
W Q
J ! WOOD/ NN AV
a WOODLYNN AV d • 2 ( E BRENNER AV
•2• W r
E M°°° 11 _ ' SS / CT F ST. tiA,...„.0 1i
LYDIA v B AV " a∎ �& z ....14m, 0 y' q " �J " -) 3C < W I I BLS
I �+ W e V R' y y Q O z J Z J ` LAKE
u J � m " 3P RIDGE
x ®
F `� i:1 W i S STAND' a ( 1 Q
O + _ ¢ .. . MAP E 3.s,.>,
.1 Q
: AM 1 <W �- � `~ Y
yi�c o
Z n *ILVER L,GKE 3 0 u " MAPLE VIEW AV
2
RADATZ E AV )M11S I^,1)11,))
I- rl 2 .
.. 1 68 0
1 ( / 1 8 ( PR /VATS STREET I
Y KOHLMAN AV I v (AIFSSAB/ AV)
1 NORTH SAINT PAUL
a Z 1
C _ 23 CO > RD 1 .,c"
1
•
1
/
LOCATION MAP
North of Gall Avenue
•
J[ N )
2 Attachment 1
(
1
• - ---
__________ _ .•
1 . .
•
0
•
....
• ,,,.....,
. l' ....7'...... 1:k.• •••• Ce Al 7 Olier r" g 'I e
/ .• ,.......
4 ' .' 'y '''''' ''s•-q
.... "•■••••.<7d • ""•......... ".' ...." 4.../ pi; - L•
ipeS Zp. • . • • . 4 •s" :
6 . Zs 44. F ....■....,..:243. 9- . ts4 I S i".......■- "Ay/ /
• . 0
4, 0 ! :.--■ 17
1 r tit ! Ar 42 tS • ";‘-■--;..: . - 4-
`••••••• •• f3 :
/5, .---r-----i
..
a , ,,. - a • -....., ,
1 8 • ol la 4.4 1.• I. :ra '
42 .."------____
..... e .... .v. l'Y' •
• ..
1•1 ...ar
i .. ---, f --.3., •,,, .._
9. 14 . it -- ; --- --
•
;--, ......_ .2 • .1
1 .r: —......• . 1.:1 15 1 ; 1 1 a .63
'----....„.... . _ . : ...---...„...„......„
r .
—
I 1
I I. , ..,,._ -- .
, I 7"
...... i
I , 7. I.a•
0.0.,
!.
1 a 21 Le• ....- tt ..., : I: 4 2 1 I
8. 2 :; ---'.; ;F'..z., 17 I 17 s :
t. ; • it ': 12 : I r __...
- a .0 • . : z i I - la ! I; 3 1. I: 2 ir l." -
, . is- -ft.__ • .
. 0 1; 7 1i 6 11 ! . .,, 2 . ,,, , •.
• 1
i I. 2 H •
lb.
• 1.2-, —__, it
--1 L 1 1 I a Ji. .4 IC • s e -- 7
, • ,......
L J . -„y ; - .-.....e.., y .,..,.. 4 .: •, -
4. 2.
:i
......—. '''. "
. .. . ...■... , .
* a GALL i
I ; „..y. v .... - __:-- .....!...., . .
000. ________.__________............___ .• 4.11,1
0 , WO . I / I . "... 4. ; is 117 18 .' •
fo i .• ;---... --....... j/. p
AVENUE
. P •• :, .• t _
..,.
1 -.: 2 1 1 I 1
1 1 1
11
1 I
I I 1 Zg . • .
1 1 ... % \ %, .::■' 1
I I i.. t 1 %. $. • ..7 .
..., ,•'''
-• .. ' i - . I...L ... ...
, • • - ... 1.,.:.,
5 g 5:
•
:71? 1%48 i ' 1 9 ;10 .7 •41 es ., I
11 . 12 13 14
N •-•,
!, - I -•/4.. I-, 2 •-. i . 0 . 15 , " I 4 -
•• ..,, . . g ii . :44 . I a .
. .4,
• # Eaas.t.
V -
II ,„„..-. ••• 041 ieli, L.,,,,,, .....'e' - Ns. - :-.. -------- • I
‘N i . e ' • ' i — !-- . _ 0_ it s I
-•
i7 ,7 -----
_ • 21 •
' ---,,.;,.... .4 • ....1 —. : i a a i ; 1 : f —
..." .
fae.•••. ri t ...., 1.0s 00 ••■•a• . . • ........... • r
CORA. /0/0007 N.. . ...00, ••••••••■• a . ••••• • ..... . - . . ... " ...
'. 4^. '. .... 2 . ! 0a •
. III IN .1. II 0 0 *... I
2
-..5- ------ -- -
--..i .. -,
_______-.... n .. , ..... • n .. - -- . . • --- III ____.. .
---. . i.....„-i ,........ :.--.. v ....,„,,, .., .
:.•.4:..1:-.,..-,...„ ..:1.......... . ,,,,,_. /- /- -- - 1‘ "•••-, 4 — .... ..“• ''
. l •
• /7 itr /.' / 4 (..-- .., :zz * • .- i
.. •
•
1----___
1,7 at • . : • • w 1
• ' , c •■ ,-* i , . el
L I , • • ... .....'''''.......... i •••
I I
\ -. ft ,
• ft 0 • .. 1 S i 0", s " •••..) C i V L./
., ft,
"4 " • •F:).. .,■■•••
n't f 4 t... _ I ...„ 1 1
m ..__
1101
•00 / te.".."
•
PROPERTY LINE 1[491j
3 Attachment 2
l...........-.
o
60.77
I
/o7 3
I
L- -� %.. ( 1 5 // •
1
LOT 3 I 51 ' kz_o _ , =�' EASEMENT TO BE VA� _
I 4 EAST LINE OF LOT 3
I EAST LINE OF LOT 2
/ O
I
I z.5 g
I4 : d /8.5
A 2
1 .5
1 5 5
• , 1 .,,i
•
60.00 /06.
NOTE: EASEMENTS TO DE VACATED
THE WEST 5 FEET OF LOT 3
BLOCK 1 LYING NORTH OF THE SOUTH 10 FEET
AND LYING SOUTH OF THE NORTH 10 FEET.
THE EAST.5 FEET OF LOT 3 LYING NORTH OF
THE SOUTH 10 FEET AND LYING SOUTH OF
THE NORTH 10 FEET OF LOT 3.
THE WEST 5 FEET OF LOT 2 LYING NORTH OF
THE SOUTH 10 FEET AND LYING SOUTH OF
THE NORTH 10 FEET OF LOT 2
THE WEST 2.5 FEET OF THE EAST 5 FEET
LYING NORTH OF THE SOUTH 10 FEET AND
LYING SOUTH OF THE NORTH 10 FEET OF ..
SAID LOT 2. 664 L�': 1 =30
l
1 / 1 •
SITE MAP
r
Proposed Vacation of Easements N
J ` /
4 Attachment 3
VACATION RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, North Suburban Company initiated proceedings to
vacate the public interest in the following- described easements:
1. The East 5 feet of Lot 3 lying North of the South 10
feet and lying South of the North 10 feet of Lot 3,
Block 1, Maplewood Meadows.
2. The West 5 feet of Lot 2 lying North of the South 10
feet and lying South of the North 10 feet of Lot 2,
Block 1, Maplewood Meadows.
3. The West 2.5 feet of the East 5 feet lying North of the
South 10 feet and lying South of the North 10 feet of
Lot 23, Block 1, Maplewood Meadows.
4. The West 5 feet of Lot 3, lying North of the South 10
feet and lying South of the North 10 feet.
WHEREAS, the following adjacent properties are affected:
Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Maplewood Meadows.
• followsWH: EREAS, the procedural history of this vacation is as
1. A majority of the owners of property abutting said
easements have signed a petition for this vacation;
2. This vacation was reviewed by the Planning Commission
on April, 1990. The Planning Commission recommended to
the City Council that this vacation be
3. The City Council held a public hearing on
1990 to consider this vacation. Notice thereof was
published and mailed pursuant to law. All persons
present at this 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.
WHEREAS, upon vacation of the above - described easements,
public interest in the property will accrue to the following -
described abutting properties:
Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Maplewood Meadows
•
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Maplewood City Council
that it is in the public interest to grant the above - described
vacation on the basis that:
5 Attachment 4
4 1. The City does not need the easements for current or
proposed utilities or drainage facilities.
2. The property owner dedicated new easements.
Adopted this day of
1990.
110
411
6
1
1. MEMORANDUM
• TO: City Manager
FROM: Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: Easement Vacations
LOCATION: Gall Avenue
APPLICANT: North Suburban Company
DATE: April 2, 1990
INTRODUCTION
The applicant has requested the vacation of four unneeded utility
and drainage easements. (See the map on page 4.)
BACKGROUND
The developer dedicated these easements on the Maplewood Meadows
Plat. The City approved the final plat on July 11, 1988. On
April 5, 1989, the City approved a lot division for Lots 1 -4,
Block 1 that moved the lot lines. (See the map on page 3.) The
property owner granted new easements to the City. The new lot
lines allow the developer to construct double dwellings on Lots 1
and 2. The old easements restrict the buildable area of Lots 2
and 3.
STANDARD FOR APPROVAL
• Chapter 412.851 of State law allows the City Council to vacate
any public easement if the vacation is in the public interest.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the resolution on page 5 that vacates four public utility
and drainage easements on Lots 2 and 3, of Block 1 of Maplewood
Meadows. Approval is in the public interest because:
1. The City does not need the easements for current or proposed
utilities or drainage facilities.
2. The property owner dedicated new easements.
GO /memo7.mem
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Property Line
3. Site Map
4. Resolution
i
I t
•
v I v
� y o
WHITE BEAR LAKE Q
4
O(I) BRENW00. 1
0 i
Ce ,.............,41111W
INE o-
W Q lII:�
II♦
J � BRENNER WOOD ' NN AV C s.
E
c WOODLYNN AV 2 ( E BRE AV / ` „co) '' W a ritj LYDIA I w ¢� / PPS� ' V >� 2 � 2 i
I ;� , N ; � W N ; y ti
/ o Z ]< ■M11 1 BLVD
c IL.41418 n W N � J RIOG ® LAK QC
W S STAND •
I Q
- -- ��-��_ = AM ii MAP E �� ., Q
_ AV I RADATj ® VIEW AV
*ILVER LAK
t` )((I l 1 ^lI)1l
§ - ?► - - -_= I,� 1 1
_`_ X20
4 0 0 (7 I B (21 Pi /VAr( STREET I
Y KOMLMAN AV 1 - (A&SSAB/ AV)
r. ° 1 NORTH SA /NT PAUL
Z I
0 c0 > RO
I
LOCATION MAP
North of Gall Avenue
t
2 Attachment 1
. ...■-•-..— .. . - —......----. - ---- ..-...
- •
•
•
" ay...
- i>
7' y.- -. (.. e--ce.•41/ .1 ye'
:-..,, .- .......
,..,
- Spl;t 1-: pc;
••,. --....:
a ZsP• --...
4.7 *V I ..--- "■.::: ... /43. 91 f 'd gff i ...
• . •
• .. : on / /
'•••t
1rtk l •; d °t; .• : - "-----------..--------------" 1 C...-1 .3 c
Ar• 4 6 'is • " ; L:-.4..... - - .
.....,..... It I i :
...::.")
• ....
• •
f''',. <....). .f •
,
I.• I I % ,.....1 f-- , 50 _. :
6o tor 44 .
I 1 , a • e. -1 la 'lov ---1 .:r--, - ,
- 8 " . . , 00 IV •• 4 :;) .• ' ■.....................................
••.
,.. .. :"" 4 ., .7„ ""-•-...._ ‘7.44"- -..-_,........
......,..' is ".• 4 * I I! 14 1- :
•
I I: ; - - ..„'"' L --" 0 ■ °I 15 4 a I I I
1 a I 1 a r ,..... --... ------------■ . -.!........
I: ..
. ..
r ...„............ -- , ., .........
- • 4.,-- : 7 --_----- ---..J : ---....„,...„ e
...._
ic 1 li
8% 1 61 •• !, 5 ! 1 „ la I 117 — 1,
... 1! ,. I: !'
1 z I . l' 1 3 l 11 .1 x --------..„
• •••,
1 I 8 0 1 1! 7 ,• :
1:ii 6 s r! :• - I ; zi I 2 ';'.1 1
i .
• - /
L• e (sn-4--
.. • 1 .
r l I 1 ,
• 2 I , i ' , ■-**. -- 7-4? ••
.....,„ 4 ic
•
L -__, I . ,.: --, ,,,,.. 7 - ..- .°
•, .1. I --
1 17 7 ''•-• '''
. --•••••-•./... --.• i.Z.--h-7-47 - - ' • , , / 4 • /
Ls i GALL i
• 8
, _, _ -..-■....■..-..---.....-.. -- ..-...-. —_, . : . _ eta L e t I ; . s oy .4, ,.. 1....„ . ...„....," . •• .
/ .
i, 6F:7.. „,
AVENUE :•••'• ...... 8 • I •••.,-...... s'.. : 7 15
... ,., •
1 .....
-. ...•• r\< -.4 e. . ":. ,:.* .4 !f■
1 F - P 1 r 1- -1 -T 1 r , li-P__, ,.- OLIO • aLs
• •
‘. \\ 16 I //: "/Zi
e II
I 1 e` ' l I I I
1 . • .• :77
1 1 l 1 1 l
•Il a l \ ■ ';:. *. *** -:
., . .n.
: 11 11 1 - 4
1 1 sft 11 I I • . -. .,.-
-,%__,,-• o
; - ..
. ... .
. - .
... , ,
. • 1
l 5 ' ! : ; 11:9 fa' 9 . ! 1 0 1
11 ,12 13 14 15 .-/ ....e, 4 •
.• ••• i
\2 , 2 ; I ; 2 'it' 7: 2 i •
-
• -_____ 8 ii 4 - 1 i . 4
i ..b.o....•
--- • f e •••' 1 Eon"... --..---.': ---.-----. 1 i b k _ i c I
, • s.k -- , • — ...... ... : .
N 4 :
..." • ' --- - 77 -77::. . - -,1 • i —. . : 1 8 1 7 : 4 1 ;
1 i 1 ----- i 1 ----
: 1
. ...... ... 4=r, - • ............-L•
c../../.." • Amoco 0./ e ----- s... ; ..,... 7 .8MS181•111 I. t . ■•■■■• .■•■■■.. ■
at 8
Int'ss ts't " , ... a.'.. .•
a ow p• 2... N 2—,
. — ..? - i.
_______-...... n .. , a...... „ , . ..• --• --.- li -1--- " "
.4' er,..0.1•"
,-;.-r714137._ " . ''' . . - cot 0"
:"..,, ."1 ..... -, II ' •
,- • .- a.• ....L.!, c . II ra ,) r r r -/- I . : , a a............" - i Hoe.
8 rr, L • pv , . ( c.... .. a .',; en...) N'- ': - , 1 . ,•.... 7 . ,... S
.• ••
• ••7• ...,.... \ ... I 4 . '...:*:1' • .......„ 7 • c ., ,-
t -
1 s
I \ • r III • ••
" S 0 S S ' i •• / v
. 6 /. , r '' '■• ' ".. ....."'."..".
, • •••1_ ," .1
• ■ ".• ■ -:. •-■••--.-77.."":":•
.. . 1._-■-••••-
181U 181U L. 1 . 1 1 1 HI E
-
•
■
-4, an..
0 PROPERTY LINE 9)
3 Attachment 2
.........
• f ■
ill° . , .
1 60. 77
i o
5 �1_� o /07. 37
/ LOT 3 %
5 I � , / , — °
I �� ,, -_ •
EASEMENT TO BE V+ I / L D 7-' de / /
•
I I � EAST LINE OF LOT 3
to / % I
■ I 4146. 1.
r 1 EAST LINE OF LOT 2 ---?_ ...... : /fr i . 4.1 1z4 .
e
I Z i
j4 �� 18.5
./ A Z.5 1,
5 4 15 1
5 �5
• .
,�
. o o '). o
. o
• , 60.00 u
60.o U
/06. 00
NOTE: EASEMENTS TO DE VACATED
THE WEST 5 FEET OF LOT 3
>00,0
BLOCK 1 LYING NORTH OF THE SOUTH 10 FEET
AND LYING SOUTH OF THE NORTH 10 FEET.
THE EAST.5 FEET OF LOT 3 LYING NORTH OF
THE SOUTH 10 FEET AND LYING SOUTH OF
THE NORTH 10 FEET OF LOT 3.
THE WEST 5 FEET OF LOT 2 LYING NORTH OF
THE SOUTH 10 FEET AND LYING SOUTH OF
THE NORTH 10 FEET OF LOT 2
THE WEST 2.5 FEET OF THE EAST 5 FEET
LYING NORTH OF THE SOUTH 10 FEET AND
LYING SOUTH OF THE NORTH 10 FEET OF ,, / !
SAID LOT 2. 5e4 : 1 'moo'
'i . • •
SITE MAP
a n b '
r
Proposed Vacation of Easements N
./ \
4 Attachment 3
1 r
4IM VACATION RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, North Suburban Company initiated proceedings to
vacate the public interest in the following- described easements:
1. The East 5 feet of Lot 3 lying North of the South 10
feet and lying South of the North 10 feet of Lot 3,
Block 1, Maplewood Meadows.
2. The West 5 feet of Lot 2 lying North of the South 10
feet and lying South of the North 10 feet of Lot 2,
Block 1, Maplewood Meadows.
3. The West 2.5 feet of the East 5 feet lying North of the
South 10 feet and lying South of the North 10 feet of
Lot 23, Block 1, Maplewood Meadows.
4. The West 5 feet of Lot 3, lying North of the South 10
feet and lying South of the North 10 feet.
WHEREAS, the following adjacent properties are affected:
Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Maplewood Meadows.
• followsWH: EREAS, the procedural history of this vacation is as
1. A majority of the owners of property abutting said
easements have signed a petition for this vacation;
2. This vacation was reviewed by the Planning Commission
on April, 1990. The Planning Commission recommended to
the City Council that this vacation be
3. The City Council held a public hearing on
1990 to consider this vacation. Notice thereof was
published and mailed pursuant to law. All persons
present at this 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.
WHEREAS, upon vacation of the above - described easements,
public interest in the property will accrue to the following -
described abutting properties:
Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Maplewood Meadows
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Maplewood City Council
that it is in the public interest to grant the above - described
vacation on the basis that:
5 Attachment 4
1. The City does not need the easements for current or
4111 proposed utilities or drainage facilities.
2. The property owner dedicated new easements.
Adopted this day of , 1990.
6
mmw
• MEMORANDUM
•
TO: City Manager
FROM: Ken Roberts, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat
LOCATION: Kohlman Lane, south of Beam Ave. (Section 4)
APPLICANT /OWNER: Bernard Flicek
PROJECT TITLE: Flicek Addition
DATE: April 30, 1990
INTRODUCTION
The applicant is requesting the approval of a seven -lot
single - family subdivision along Kohlman Lane.
DISCUSSION
All of the significant trees on the site are south of Kohlman
Circle. The developer plans to remove some of the high ground on
the north side of the plat to fill the low ground on the south
side of the plat. This will result in the loss of the trees
within about 145 feet of Kohlman Lane. The filling is needed to
fill in a hole in the rear yards of the future homes. If the
City wants to preserve more trees, they should direct the
developer to submit a revised grading plan. The new plan would
have to show less filling and may require the use of retaining
• walls and a drainage ditch to outlet the existing hole.
RECOMMENDATION
Approval of the preliminary plat subject to the developer
completing the following conditions before final plat approval:
1. Approval of final grading, drainage and erosion control
plans by the City Engineer. The erosion control plan shall
address the recommendations of the Soil Conservation
District and the Ramsey - Washington Watershed District.
2. The grading plan shall include a proposed building pad
elevation and contour information for each home site.
Housing styles shall be illustrated which minimize grading
on the lots so tree preservation is maximized. The City
Engineer may approve deviations from the grading plan, if
the intent of the overall approved grading plan is followed.
3. Approval of a tree plan by the Director of Community
Development. No grading or construction may begin until the
Director approves this plan. This plan must show the trees
over eight inches in diameter that the developer intends to
remove or retain. The plan must also show where the
developer will plant replacement trees.
•
110 REFERENCE
SITE DESCRIPTION
1. Area: 165,257 square feet (3.8 acres)
2. Existing land use: undeveloped
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: A single - family home and undeveloped land in Little
Canada.
East: Single - family homes across Kohlman Lane.
South: Ramsey County open space.
West: Ramsey County open space and wetland.
PUBLIC WORKS
Sanitary sewer is available in Kohlman Lane. Municipal water and
storm sewer are not available to this site.
• go /memo9.mem
Attachments:
1. Land Use Plan Map
2. Property Line /Zoning Map
3. Proposed preliminary plat
4. Preliminary Plat (separate attachment)
•
2
1
1 .. ' •
.;;;...:-.0 . ''' ................/A . _ Vadnais Height 410
L
- - • • •t . mterch
n,�' •.._ , .�- ---- v.- -•' - p arterial •
• r t . ii
!,_ .,..
_ _ • - -
• j I ► • •
_� RI-
• _ 3'� . .- t �, .... :
a. •
.^ • '`► • . s o L. - o' - . ..
1 • - - minor a;
miii .� N, ); t . / /
T • I
'' • ' last ; .. • 1 I _
GERVAIS' C.) I OS i. � 4111. s •
_ 1 -I;. _
I _
°'� R
4.a I
SMENNI
- - maor' ' - c 1 . / ,i, orar • ) ■ ,
11 f1 � � 1 ,� i teri lg
i.) Ri .- /— , m ---{_
�
Lr Vim : _:: T
o A au - �! . ,o v ..._ I L .
- .
1r
LAND USE PLAN alC)16.
N
3 Attachment 1
•
R r ti
I
! • I. • -1-
•
Athos • LITTt E CiI�N �{ .�.. ,... °. " ,. ------Tat--
II
• , ;., too' a C a 1 L , R ti � � , I1 �. II
• . e
II
it \ 3b4. v_ �: _ , ... z.23-00, k
•••,, 97)32242: . N. 153,,., :-...,..- ,.; . - --..,_.,, _
40 mr 0 C r - ` JC le VII\\:k. (v lb 11.5 3 oc. () `� \ ..
. 1, it 1 4," o )
9 .S
f RAMSE`f COVNTY ' ' ' .cc` V i ~ �/� .," 6) v
• ..►, GoVNTY CITCM •7 o � + V ; ,N \
r
a 4 �- \ ,
• o - , (tl 1 O \�i
1 -uw)
GOVT. LOT 1 ,, �.'
Baer I 2 , •P 3' ,
(1'• /;; . . (IR N. ram
•
1 (37) i sy, •i+) • s N ' \ 1... /
1 ,\ ,
1.7-',7 ....N. ',\ ........„ ,...,'
. • "id t o. y` 1 ,11 4 .•,• e . as 14
- I %, i , , i /
', s r
, 1 i
■
Z.. .. / 9 --� ""V 111 I , , 1 ill
.A r' • _-_!,..f • .• \ 1 2 II %�.oa.. •
•
•
/ 1
PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP
'Ct
0
N
4 Attachment 2
1.
• • • "°
7 e .
• " ./—�. z _ 9 E Am A VE.
\ f + \
, . .. ., \J` e .,i7r��.eT . 1\ rr~ 6/ e : / 1 1 1 , , fribir • 4ci ` , I ` ' / r , :: i , r,.. /
:,.. W Fry' / A ../ .
I.:. . ipi.,.....■. q , ■..........■.." i ' • AP t; / ,....
r 4t 1 � 17'
/, /�Y a • . „......,..... V A T ��. ti y .
.7::. .. ' iSZi ..
.01-4,,,,.,,,, ... .. ..
/ 1r re* E
"o
7 1;--- ' ! 4 lk ‘ ii t tr ."..-
S /I :.
^'`, �'+.; O /: ` ki C' ` ' am \
n �t N�� \
\ . r i / 1 A T
7 I . a
110 ......... II '; / / �� // r e ,■ . ,,.../ " .:. -
(/// 1\ -- .
Y
/ 4 /
'
//
` M PRELIMINARY PLAT O . N
• 5 Attachment 3
• MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager
FROM: Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: Variance and Lot Division
LOCATION: 1860 Sterling Street
APPLICANT /OWNER: Nancy Welch
DATE: April 30, 1990
INTRODUCTION
The applicant is requesting approval of a lot division and lot
width variance to divide one lot into two lots.
BACKGROUND
The applicant owns a 39,900- square -foot home site (110 feet by
363 feet). She would like to subdivide this lot into two lots.
(Please refer to the map on page 6.) Lot A would have 23,460
square feet of area, but only 20 feet of frontage. Section 36 -39
of City Code requires at least 75 feet of frontage. Therefore,
she needs a variance of 55 feet. The existing house would be on
Lot B. It would have an area of 16,470 square feet.
•
• Nancy and John Welch owned the three lots at 1866, 1864 and 1860
Sterling Street before they divided the lots. They lived in the
home at 1866 Sterling Street. In 1972, the City approved the
division of 1866 Sterling Street. The staff recommendation was
to approve the split with the full understanding of all parties
that the remaining land would be difficult to develop. (Please
refer to the attached minutes on page 9.) The City approved the
lot at 1864 Sterling Street in 1975.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
Section 462.357 Subdivision (6)(2) of the State Statutes permits
the City Council to grant a variance upon finding that:
1. Strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause undue
hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under
consideration; and,
2. Granting of the variance would be in keeping with the spirit
and intent of the ordinance.
"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 Zoning
Ordinance. The plight of the landowner must be due to
410 circumstances unique to his property, and which were not created
by the landowner. Granting of the variance must not alter the
-
essential character of the locality. Economic considerations
alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use of
the property exists under the terms of the ordinance.
•
DISCUSSION
This application does not meet all the State - mandated
requirements for the granting of a variance. Granting of the
variance would alter the character of the area and reduce the
privacy of adjacent homes. The new house would overlook the back
yards of the homes to the north, west and south. The owner of
the lot would have to have a long driveway built next to the lot
to the north.
Another finding required by State Statute is that the landowners
did not create their own problem. This is not the case here.
Mr. and Mrs. Welch originally owned the land now occupied by
1860 -1866 Sterling Street. They could have developed their land
with more lots by building a short cul -de -sac from Sterling
Street, similar to the Knoll Circle development to the south.
Instead, they chose to split off individual lots onto Sterling
Street. The minutes of the first lot division in 1972 state that
Staff made them aware of this problem.
RECOMMENDATION
Deny the variance and lot division because:
1. The variance would not be in character with the area and
would reduce the privacy of adjacent homes.
2. The property owner created the problem by splitting off
individual lots rather than platting the original property
with a cul -de -sac off Sterling Street.
If the Council decides to approve this variance, they should
refer it to staff to prepare a resolution. The City should then
require that the applicant widen the 20 -foot strip to 35 feet and
construct the drive as far to the south as possible.
2
S • CITIZEN COMMENTS
Staff surveyed the 38 property owners within 350 feet of the
site. Five replied. All were opposed. They had the following
comments:
"This neighborhood was complete when we moved in 1 -1/2 years ago.
If we would have known a house would be going in behind us and
spoiling our view of the open space behind us, we wouldn't have
built on this lot. Allowing a house to be built on a subdivided
lot would set a precedent for other homeowners to do the same"
(The Larsons - 1848 Sterling Street).
"It would have a bad image for Maplewood when unsightly lots are
created. Not good for the wildlife. Obstructs view for some
owners on Knoll Circle and Sterling" (The Telser- Gadow's - 2525
Knoll Circle).
"Putting a house on lot A would be impractical and will effect
the view and value of adjacent lots. It would set a precedent"
(The Greens - 2507 Knoll Circle).
Refer to the letter from the Wildes (1864 Sterling Avenue) on
page 10.
Refer to the letter from the Sontags (2519 Knoll Circle) on page 11.
go /memoll.mem
Attachments
1. Location Map
2. Property Line /Zoning Map
3. Site Plan
4. Letter: Bruce Beck
5. 1972 Minutes
6. Letter: Wildes
7. Letter: Sontags
110
3
a
i NORTH SA /NT PAUL
I m Im • / i
r O 1 HOILOY/AY I ® 120
v is Z )
rn AI QPJ Q x V Q J I 5
l < �� S > l
mmums. H A RIPI 2 AV
\\N„.....71 C! ca } � ,� KINGSTON Ay
=
t a r.
Z PRIC AV o Z z
z C Y Q W
Q .F- .
) 4.
2 t-
o
Q
LARPENTEUR AV LU
Iii 1 1 -' "
0 o 0 I DAHO AV
2 Y 2� rn
...TANA AV -I
(I) (1) CURRIE ST
NEB RASKA AV (2) MYRTLE CT p �
a° J (2) PI / 1
.3 - -
ar rgN i
~
ti BE
NLANA C7
2 S OAK M /L L ial I T I
C ANGELA 1c7 I CT I 1
2 �1
C 1 MICKEY ) 6 ) jZA)
ECKNE LA ` IVY J A 1
F �OLP�N /NQq
L � QY9TE I .i ..' W { J y
IB /.$Q'�_ 1L 1 H Z 5
An !\ ? 13 1 1 � IW e'
31 ` A— L AND 1 Ay
•I HAWTHORNE AV
2 MARYL
le! _ m
.[II" LOCATION MAP
1 860 North Sterling Street
N
4 Attachment 1____,
[° ) . ,
•
•
1
•
-- •$ II ," � I Oi.- L O WAY • -III LI k _ IP ' ��• � (3) (�) �" ass se tso
US °
W I K' 'I 3 ; , ft ;23� ,.23k 2
G 8 •
Z 9 (7) ; (Z2) L . -(23) 2.33 ac. .
- 8 7 o �-'4 (24) �4) F 0
4^Y (6) ( 6 l ' • 04 ^0
3 _ t (,\ :„1/� 2.32.
Y�A ••'7 , u
TIERNEY
3, . 422.26)
cis 63) r , N e 10 _
W I 2 (it) ) Proposed Variance
e NJ 5 d v
.n -•� 3 , ( iG v
s.
• 6L m 6 V • • �IG� o •
1
( j S ` Ala! Proposed Lot Split Lines
V • r
4. i d, - L.° :e e i 6 . ,1 �
S N./ MEADOW -,,� -. °•� . P A
• I O p v (2 1�k 0 . N) ill 1 _._.__d____±.
:. 6?) ;22 "' 2 M A P L ° - WO : , 1 , , ti 4tcp'i'..
'''''
(28) O•"1" ) . 2 e ^ r ^ 0 ° 0
• ^v et It lie ., Q 8
122 At ,74\ K ) 18 - , .55- ,te t
. eP 7� e ' f. ° $ KNOLL ; � �
,: , ( 4) ~ e ,_ CI C Z i F
______-------
„5, .. h . i a • '
.S R ` a , 2q 4
RIPLEY 0 u 05)9 � (3Z) -,--• L. !c r l9 , b 4,0,32 ' 4 N C 33 / ar 6 C ' ,
q II -- • N a N J V • (3z (0 (4 4 `� • (42 G ✓ � n ( 6 . ) 10 11 K N 1 o a
z.. �-L ^+ •
S (43) ■6
e
PROPERTY LINE /ZONING MAP
Variance and Lot Division Lot B and Lot A
0 N i
A, 5 Attachment 2
.I
1
•
•
Proposed Variance
1 Nor1A ((Al of 8ou111 882 foe of fa 1/4 of 8E 1/8 l.e1Ion 1328.22
N 88°41 ' 24'E 363.09 -
4 ° ° 330.08 M
^ -- 11 N88°41 1 24 E 183.05 o
: 33.01 4 150.04 0 0 •
LO� M
•
N N
~° W i � I
O p ° I c.�i O j } i
W 8 ��^ 44 �. O e ; i
W 1. '••2 -• 25.1 v µe t T pp o
a < c ONC. G belle
1St y Oi .A `o
« D0.1vE • S C•
•
•
�: rl PATlO p�CK 1 •
• i f, 150.0 C: 180.04 e
d
• o S 88 363.0• W
- 1 Norio l i n o .f ul A 182 fool of PA 1/4 of 1/0
-. O
«N Z
'u Y
Proposed Lot Split Lines
t
[le 1
N
[ .
SITE PLAN •
Proposed Variance and Lot Division
6 Attachment 3
GALENA &BEC • I I I I I I. A RNEYSATLK�
EXECUTIVE OFFICE CENTER
RICHARD 1. GALENA SUITE 402 AREA CODE 612
BRUCE L. BECK 2785 WHITE BEAR AVENUE NORTH TELEPHONE 770 -2400
TODD STEDTFELD SAINT PAUL (MAPLEWOOD), MINNESOTA 55109 -1307 FAX 770 -9033
April 19, 1990
City of Maplewood
1830 E. County Road B
Maplewood, MN 55109
RE: Zoning Code Appeal
Our Client: Nancy Welch
Dear Sir /Madam:
Nancy Welch currently owns a parcel of property located at 1860 Sterling,
with dimensions of 110' x 363'. Ms. Welch is 60 years old, lives by
herself, and is disabled. It is impossible for her to maintain this
entire parcel of land. A great portion of this parcel remains unused,
40 and it is Ms. Welch's desire at this time to subdivide the lot.
The character of the locality is one of development and this proposed lot
division would be further endorsement of that character. If the
ordinance is strictly enforced, it will continue to cause undue hardship
to Ms. Welch. Currently, she has to seek additional help to assist in
maintaining this property. It serves no reasonable use and she has no
desire to continue maintaining it when it could have a more economic
use. The character of the area supports development and she wishes for
this property to fit into that character by allowing another residential
home to be constructed upon it. As it stands, the unused property serves
no purpose.
Furthermore, strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause additional
undue hardship to Ms. Welch and to Ray Metzal. Ray Metzal, at this time,
has purchased the proposed split property on the condition that the
variance is approved. He has lived in the neighborhood for 25 years and
wishes to continue doing so by residing on this proposed subdivided lot.
Mr. Metzal has already sold his existing homestead. Strict enforcement
of the ordinance would basically put him on the street with no place to
live. He likes the neighborhood and wishes to continue residing there.
The circumstances are unique to Ms. Welch in that there is no street
access available to the back part of her lot. She has no choice but to
construct a 20 foot wide driveway running adjacent to the northern
411 boundary of her property. This boundary is currently marked by a row of
pine trees, which will serve as a sight barrier to the driveway.
This variance would be keeping with the spirit and intent of the
ordinance. The spirit and intent of the ordinance is to have lots which
7 Attachment 4
s April 19, 1990
• City of Maplewood -
letter, page 2
are of large proportion (i.e. 10,000 square feet and 60 feet of lot
frontage). The proposed lot division would yield a second lot that is
23,466 square feet, but the only means of getting to it would be that
northerly driveway which would place the lot frontage at 20 feet. It
would be impossible and unreasonable to have a 60 foot wide driveway.
This unreasonable 60 foot driveway would run within inches of Ms. Welch's
house. It is necessary to have a means of access to this back lot, which
falls well within the total square footage needed to keep with the spirit
and the intent of the ordinance. The only feasible means of access is
this proposed 20 foot driveway.
Ms. Welch feels that her Variance Application has met the two findings
required by state law.
We do not anticipate having any neighborhood opposition to this
proposal. This subdivision will benefit the City of Maplewood in that it
will add another residential dwelling to the real estate property tax
rolls. We request that the City Planning Commission and City Council
approve this request.
• Sincerely,
GALENA & BECK
. ,
Bruce L. Beck
MKA /BLB /dal
Encl.
cc: Ms. Nancy Welch
111
8
•
•
John Welch - East side of Sterling Avenue at Tierney Street.
1. Manager'Miller stated the applicant proposes to create a 12,000
square foot 'lot out of an existing 2.05 acre tract of land. The
dimensions of the proposed lot would have 80 feet of frontage and
• 150 feet of depth. It is the recommendation of the Staff that the lot
division be approved with the full understanding of all parties that:
a. If Highway 212 is developed and extended through the commun-
ity this lot and the resulting lot will more than likely be sub-
ject to an undesirable noise condition whether the extension of
212 is at grade or depressed.
b. That the seller of the property today who will retain owner-
ship to the remaining 1.8 acres of land will be imposing devel-
opment difficulties to his remaining parcel as a result of an
irregularly shaped parcel'of land in the easterly portion which
will become difficult to develop in the future.
These recognitions are advanced simply to inform all parties that
they are acting on their own course of action and assuming all risks
both existing and future for the development potentials of the area and
that they are informed knowing full well of the potential repercussions
which may result.
2. Councilman Greavu moved to approve the lot division request of Mr.
John Welch.
• Seconded by Councilman Wiegert. Ayes - all.
•
) 7 Z . (Coo/1(1c, /`I ANTES •
•
•
9
Attachment 5
•
a a-F1
IA NI 1 9313 V .
1
p r i l 30, 199; -
City Of Maplewood
Geoff Olson
Community Development
18.30 E County Rd B
Maplewood, Minn. 55109
Dear Mr. Olson:
Thank you for your recent letter informing us of the
requested split of our neighbors lot. We appreciate the
opportunity for input on this matter. Our concerns I'm sure
are similar to those our community leader will have.
First, the cre ation of a0 foot lot will set a dangerous
precedent which could have a negative effect on property
owners in the Maplewood community. By allowing these small
lots, houses that were no more then shacks could be erected
devaluing the neighboring homes.
• At the 1860 address., what would prevent the
purchaser of
this "lot" from erecting a garage with a minimal set back
from the street. With no other building close to it, except.
F
our house, the aesthetics . of the area would suffer along
with our property value.
At this time it would appear that the intention is to use
this "lot" as a roadway. It was pointed out to us sometime
ago that a road could not be any closer than ten feet to our
property line. Is this establishment of a "lot" a way of
getting around these restrictions?
If the Commission and Council see fit to approve of this
request could it be done in another way. In order to assure
that no building would ever be erected in this small area
could Ms. Welch simply give someone an easement to use that
portion of her lot for a specific purpose'
S' icerel
rj Bo/441A' Wiiiiiv
John and Bernadette Wildes
1864 Sterling St.
770 -2572 Res. .
296 -2000 Wk.
111 .
10 Attachment 6
it .
O EHI
Hines Interests Limited Partnership
May 1, 1990
Mr. Geoff Olson
City of Maplewood
1830 E. County Road B
Maplewood, Minnesota 55109
Dear Mr. Olson:
I an writing you to express my concern over the application
for a variance to subdivide 1860 Sterling Street into two
single family lots.
Having recently purchased my home at 2519 Knoll Circle, I
was very careful to select a lot location as well as the
III City and School District of my choice. Prior to my purchase
I reviewed the areas adjacent to my lot and made the
observation that these areas could not be developed under
current laws and ordinances. (I have over 12 years
experience in real estate management, leasing, sales and
development, and I am current employed by the owner and
developer of the Norwest Center and Pillsbury Center in
downtown Minneapolis.)
Prior to my purchase, I specifically examined 1860 Sterling.
Although I did not get a legal opinion, it was clear to me
that the appropriate frontage did not exist to construct an
additional dwelling through subdivision of the lot. It was •
confusing to me how that lot could be sold, except to an
adjacent land owner, which would be fine.
I believe the manner in which the house is constructed at
1860 Sterling is inconsistent with the high quality
standards set forth in the City of Maplewood. Not only is
the orientation of this dwelling inconsistent with
neighboring dwellings but the house was built extremely
close to the Southerly lot line. Under the quality
standards of operation currently exemplified by the City of
Maplewood, I would question whether or not this existing
dwelling would be permitted, if it were built today.
III
640 Pillsbury Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 -1409 Area Code (612) 338 -8250
11 Attachmcnt 7
r
•
Mr. Olson
May 1, 1990
page two
In summary, it was the large lot sizes and open areas which
made 2519 Knoll Circle so attractive to us. By adding
dwellings in back of the dwelling, we not only lose some of
the spacious feeling we enjoy, but we create a second rate
development with distinct similarities to some of the older
neighborhoods of St. Paul, where lots have been divided in
this manner.
I oppose this subdivision for the purpose of creating a
second dwelling. The highest and best use of this property
would be one of the following:
a) not allow it to be subdivided round
111 b) subdivide and create a City owned playg
c) subdivide and sell as open land to an adjacent
landowner.
It is clear to me that all of the houses on the North Side
e
of Knoll Circle would sustain a significant loss s in valu
and appreciation if a second dwelling was
proposed.
Thank you for your solicitation of our opinions and for your
continuing commitment to excellence in the City
Maplewood. Please call me at 338-8250 if
to yo grant th
discuss this matter further or if you
variance or hold a public hearing.
;, „erely,
um ;�l. • *
v J . - o a V
Step -n g
2519 Knoll Ci cle
Maplewood, MN 55109
/pm
411
12
1
0110 MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager
FROM: Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: Code Amendment - Motor Fuel Station Ordinance
DATE: January 1, 1980
INTRODUCTION
Bill Hentges, vice - president of the Hentges Company, is
requesting that the City amend its motor fuel station ordinance.
He is requesting that the City permit fiberglass tanks and
piping. The Hentges Company represents Owens Corning Fiberglass
Corporation. Mr. Hentges recommends that the City require
double - walled tanks and piping if the City wants more protection
against leaking tanks. He also recommends that the City require
a system that detects leaks between the walls. The current
ordinance permits single - walled tanks and requires in -tank
monitoring equipment, as well as manual daily measurement and
recording of tank levels. (Refer to Mr. Hentges letter on page
10.)
BACKGROUND
IP The City Council adopted the motor fuel station ordinance on
September 11, 1989. The Hoisington Group, a planning consulting
firm, prepared the current ordinance. They met with
representatives of the service station industry, the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency and the Minnesota Health Department.
DISCUSSION
The Hoisington Group recommended that the City not allow
fiberglass tanks because of the danger of cracks developing
during installation and later from frost heaves. They also felt
that fiberglass tanks are more susceptible to damage from higher
alcohol blends of gasoline. While this is not a problem now, it
may be in the future. Some of their information came from the
steel tank institute. Mr. Hentges has provided me with
information that fiberglass tanks are as safe, if not safer than
steel tanks. Many service stations use fiberglass tanks. Public
agencies, such as the Post Office, the State of Minnesota and
public schools, also use them. It is difficult for a non- expert,
however, to sort through the conflicting evidence from the steel
tank institute and the fiberglass manufacturers.
I tried to get an impartial opinion by calling the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency. Mr. Tom Clark of that agency told me
that the warranties and performance of new steel and fiberglass
tanks are about equal. The installation of fiberglass tanks is
41/0 more critical, especially in a high water table. Manufacturers
have reformulated new fiberglass tanks to withstand higher
alcohol blends. His agency allows fiberglass and steel tanks.
The Pollution Control Agency does not require double - walled
tanks. They feel that with the adoption of the new rules
requiring monitoring for all tanks and cathodic protection for
steel tanks, single - walled tanks will provide enough protection.
Mr. Clark also informed me that he was not aware of any other
cities in Minnesota that prohibit fiberglass tanks or require
double - walled tanks. Brooklyn Park requires a secondary
containment system, such as an impervious liner under the tank.
The State of California requires double - walled tanks. This may
be due to the danger of earthquakes.
Double- walled tanks are at least 1 1/2 times the cost of a
single - walled tanks. Without more evidence that they would be
significantly safer than single - walled tanks, I cannot recommend
that the City require them now.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the ordinance on page 13, which would permit the use of
underground fiberglass tanks and piping.
2
I/10 REFERENCE
Brian Ettesvold: Executive Director of the Minnesota Service
Station Association
His association does not have a position on steel versus
fiberglass tanks. He personally recommends against fiberglass
tanks to his members because:
1. Fiberglass tanks are more susceptible to cracks from frost
heaves in the severe Minnesota climate.
2. The ground that the contractor installs the tanks on must be
perfect or a sharp rock could puncture the tank as it flexes
with ground changes.
The Minnesota Service Station Association opposes double - walled
tanks because they are not necessary and are much more expensive
than single - walled tanks.
The following information is from the 1989 Hoisington Group
report.
COMPARISON OF TANK TYPES
4110 There are four basic types of underground storage tanks:
1. Steel tanks cathodically protected by an impressed current,
sacrificial anodes or some other type of equivalent
protection.
2. A noncorrosive material such as fiberglass reinforced
plastic (FRP) or equivalent.
3. Composite tanks - steel tanks with a fiberglass coating.
4. Double - walled tanks of steel or fiberglass.
STEEL TANKS
STI -P3 tanks are manufactured under the specifications of the
Steel Tank Institute and is the recommended steel tank. The tank
is protected from corrosion in three ways:
- Via electrical isolation (nylon bushing) that insulates
the tank from piping and other attachments and prevents
the corrosive currents that might result from
dissimilar metals •
- Via a protective coating
4110 - Via cathodic protection utilizing a sacrificial anode
3
1/10 Advantages:
- Long history (20 -30 years) of no underground leaking
- Cheaper to install than fiberglass tanks
Impressed Current Cathodic Protection
Impressed current cathodic protection introduces an electric
current into the ground through a series of anodes that the
contractor attaches to the tank. The tank is protected from
corrosion because the electric current flowing from these anodes
to the tank system is greater than the corrosive current trying
to flow from it.
Disadvantages:
- The station operator must check that the rectifier is
in operation once a'month.
- The system is subject to vandalism; the electric
service may be disconnected by accident or
deliberately.
Sacrificial Anodes
Sacrificial anodes are pieces of metal more electrically active
than the steel tank. The electric current will exit from the
anodes, rather than the tank, because the anodes are more active.
Thus the tank is the cathode and is protected from corrosion
while the attached anode is sacrificed.
Advantages:
- Once a year inspection by a qualified person
- Does not use a power supply
Disadvantages:
- Anodes must be monitored and replaced as they corrode.
- Anodes may not be able to produce an adequate
electrical current to prevent tank corrosion under
certain soil conditions.
FIBERGLASS TANKS
Advantages:
- Resistant to corrosion
41/
4
Disadvantages:
- Haulers must load the tank perfectly or it can develop
cracks before it arrives on site.
- Proper installation is important due to the chances of
tank rupture caused by uneven soil loading.
- Many installers do not want to install fiberglass tanks
because of the liability involved in installation.
- Alcohol blend fuels weaken the walls if fiberglass is
not coated with resin coatings; also chemicals and
alcohol mix may change in the future.
- Shorter known history (17 years) than cathodically
protected steel tanks (20 -30 years).
DOUBLE - WALLED TANKS
Double- walled tanks consist of one tank nested inside another
tank. There are three basic types of double - walled tanks:
double- walled steel tanks, double - walled coated steel tanks and
double- walled fiberglass tanks.
Advantages:
- The risk of leakage is reduced by the inner tank and by
the leak detection system built between the walls.
Disadvantages:
- Subject to the same problems described for fiberglass
and steel tanks.
If the cathodic protection system is not working
properly, then the outside tank will also corrode.
Humidity between the two walls can cause moisture
build -up which creates conditions for corrosion.
- Very costly (up to one and one -half times as costly).
LEAK DETECTION SYSTEM FOR TANKS
Federal and soon -to -be adopted State regulations require that
tanks are checked at least once a month to see if they are
leaking. One or more of the following monthly monitoring methods
must be used:
41/0 - Automatic tank gauging (in tank)
- Monitoring for vapors in the soil (outside of tank)
5
11;
- Interstitial monitoring (in tank)
- Monitoring for liquids in the groundwater (monitoring
well outside of tank)
- Other approved methods
AUTOMATIC INVENTORY SYSTEMS
In -Tank
Automatic Tank Gauging - Electronically checks the motor fuel
level in the tank continuously, records deliveries made to the
underground storage tank, and checks for leaks and other sudden
losses.
Interstitial Monitoring - Electronically monitors for leaks.
Used in the spaces between double - walled tanks and containment
facilities or vaults.
Outside of Tank
Vapor Monitoring - Permanently installed monitoring system
samples vapors in the soil gas surrounding the tanks. Leaked
petroleum produces vapors that can be detected in the soil gas.
Monitoring Wells - Check the ground water table near an
underground storage tank for the presence of released petroleum
on the water table. The regulations allow manual and automatic •
methods for detecting petroleum in the monitoring well.
LEAK DETECTION FOR PIPES
Pipes connect the underground storage tanks to dispensing
islands. Federal regulations for leak detection for pressurized
pipes require two things:
- Install an automatic line leak detector, and
Conduct an annual line tightness test or conduct
monthly leak detection monitoring using one of the
following methods: vapor monitoring, ground water
monitoring or interstitial monitoring.
Leak detection for suction piping requires:
- Conduct line tightness test every three years or
conduct leak detection monitoring as described for
pressurized piping. You do not need to have leak
detection if your suction piping meets some basic
design requirements.
6
REGULATORY AGENCIES
The following agencies regulate underground storage tanks and
other fuel station operations:
1. Environmental Protection Agency (Federal)
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has written
regulations for many of the nation's underground storage
tank systems. One of the goals of the EPA is to make sure
each state has a regulatory program for underground storage
tanks that is as strict or stricter than the Federal
regulations.
2. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency plans to adopt new
Federal Environmental Protection Agency regulations on
underground storage tanks this fall. The new regulations
will require the following:
- Certification that the tank and piping are installed
properly according to industry codes.
- Protection of the tank and piping from corrosion.
- Equip both the tank and piping with leak
detection /monitoring systems.
- Report to the regulatory authority at the beginning and
end of the tank's system operating life.
- Keep records on site that can be provided to an
inspector for leak detection performance and upkeep as:
- Last year's monitoring results and the most recent
tightness tests.
Copies of performance claims provided by the leak
detection manufacturer.
- Records of recent maintenance, repair and
calibration of leak detection equipment.
- Records showing the last two inspections of the
corrosion protection system.
3. Fire Marshal
The National Fire Code also regulates underground storage
tanks and piping installations. This code requires that all
underground tanks and piping be protected from corrosion by
cathodic protection or constructed of an approved corrosion-
. 7
resistant material. The Code also states that before being
covered or placed in use, tanks and piping connected to
underground tanks shall be tested for tightness in the
presence of the Fire Chief.The fire code also requires that
operators maintain accurate daily inventory records.
memo21.mem
Attachments:
1. Letter: William Hentges
2. Ordinance
8
1. ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MOTOR FUEL STATION ORDINANCE TO PERMIT
THE USE OF UNDERGROUND FIBERGLASS TANKS AND PIPING
THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS (additions are
underlined and deletions are crossed out):
Section 1. Section 3 6 - 151(2)(1)(13) is amended as follows:
13. All new or replacement underground fuel storage tanks shall
meet the standards of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
and shall have a UL listing appropriate for its use. In
addition, installation plans must be submitted to the State
Fire Marshall's Office for approval. be STI P3 or an
permitted.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect upon it passage and
publication.
Passed by the City Council on 1990.
4111)
9
14^1100 ti E C 2 6 lyf?-+
TIN a He ry tq e s
PETROLEUM, AUTOMOTIVE AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT FOR THE UPPER MIDWEST
6524 Walker Street Suite 131
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55426
Phone A. C. 612 929 -1900
FAX A. C. 612 929 -0042
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
1830 E. COUNTY ROAD B.
MAPLEWOOD, MN. 55109
12/22/89
Attn: Geoff Olson
Dear Mr. Olson,
I would like to thank you and Jim Embertson for taking the
time to meet with me and discuss the new Maplewood ordinance
covering motor vehicle fueling facilities. I have looked
over the copy of the ordinance you provided and I would like
to comment on a few of the provisions in it.
Under Division 7, Sec. 36- 151(2),(1),13. "All new or
replacement underground fuel storage tanks shall be STI -P3 or
an equivalent steel tank manufactured by a licensee of the
Steel Tank Institute. Fiberglass tanks and piping are not
permitted. I asked you for the reasoning behind this
provision and why the prohibition of fiberglass tanks and
piping. After talking with you and going through the
ordinance and the reference on pages 18 thru 24, I can see
that you may have been given some mis- information by your
consultants or from the Steel Tank Institute. I would like
to take this opportunity to correct some of these mis-
conceptions and to rebut some of the lies spread by the Steel
Tank Institute.
Owens Corning first started to develop fiberglass tanks for
underground gasoline storage in the late fifties and early
sixties at the request of several major oil companies who
knew that they would need non - corrosive tanks in the future.
As early as 1968 the THE HENTGES COMPANY representing OWENS
CORNING FIBERGLAS CORP. supplied fiberglass tanks to be
installed in the Minneapolis /St. Paul area. By 1976 OWENS
CORNING FIBERGLAS had ten times more tanks installed than
STI -P3. In 1989 O/C TANKS manufactured it's 200,000th tank.
These figures only concern OWENS CORNING tanks and do not
include the many tanks supplied by other U.L. fiberglass tank
manufacturers. O/C TANKS is still the worlds largest
underground tank manufacturer,
A DIVISION OF HENTGES ENTERPRISES, INC.
10 Attachment .1
Steel tank manufacturers would like you to believe that
Fiberglass tanks only account for a small percent of the
market when in reality it represents the fastest growing
segment and supplies the majority of tanks to the major oil
companies for their underground fuel storage needs, companies
such as SHELL, CHEVRON, TEXACO, MOBIL, UNION, CONOCO require
fiberglass tanks for their corporate owned locations, AMOCO,
FINA, and many large fortune 500 companies are starting to
require double wall fiberglass underground storage tanks to
insure that they can meet future code requirements.
The steel tank manufacturers have become desperate in their
struggle to retain market share and have started a propaganda
campaign that borders upon being libelous. Claiming that
fiberglass tanks will melt when alcohol is added to gasoline,
when in fact there has never been a U.L. labeled fiberglass
tank failure due to alcohol. They claim a longer history
when in fact OWENS CORNING had U.L. Labeled tanks installed
for years before the first STi -P3 tank was installed. They
claim never to of had a failure, when in -fact many STi -P3
tanks have failed to provide the corrosion protection
promised, provide no protection against internal corrosion,
or corrosion caused by stray electrical currents, tanks have
been found leaking product and have had structural failure.
Steel tank people like to over exaggerate the care that
should be taken when handling fiberglass when that same care
is required to protect the delicate coating on a STi -P3 tank
and the anodes and leads. STi -P3 tanks must also be
protected from hold -down straps and the damage they can cause
if not installed properly. STi -P3 tanks also must have their
cathodic protection systems carefully monitored and
maintained by qualified corrosion engineers in order to meet
the minimum federal requirements.
Most of the above information also applies to fiberglass pipe
which has become the standard in the petroleum industry.
I also would question the decision to rely only on in -tank
monitoring systems for leak detection and daily sticking of
tanks. The main problem with this system is that the tank
needs to be full whenever the leak detection program is run
and this must be done every 30 days, and the margin of error
allowed would permit small leaks to occur with out detection
or large amounts could be lost over longer periods of time.
Several systems are on the market, such as double wall tanks,
vapor monitoring and other systems, which provide a more
reliable method of leak detection.
The reason in -tank monitoring is popular within the industry
is because it eliminates the need to daily stick the tank for
inventory control purposes and the system can be tied into
off -sites computers for management purposes, not because of
superior leak detection capabilities.
11
I know the intent of this ordinance was to provide the city
of Maplewood and its residences protection from possible
environmental hazards caused by leaking underground fuel
storage tanks and piping. In order to provide the best
protection possible I would strongly recommend Double -Wall
Fiberglass tanks which provide corrosion protection on both
interior and exterior surfaces of the tank, along with
containing any leaks so that the soil or water is not
contaminated. Type II Steel double wall tanks with corrosion
protection on all interior and exterior surfaces also will
contain any leaks.
Double wall piping is also available to provide the maximum
amount of protection.
Please look over the information I have provided regarding
both fiberglass and STi -P3 tanks. I would like to have you
and the council reconsider the ordinance and to amend it to
allow the use of U.L. fiberglass tanks and piping and to
consider double wall tanks and pipe. Also to consider
alternate forms of leak detection for tanks and piping.
would be happy to make my self available for any meetings and
to provide any additional information you may require.
Sincerely,
THE HENTGES COMPANY
William E. Hentges
Vice - President
12
' ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MOTOR FUEL STATION ORDINANCE TO PERMIT
THE USE OF UNDERGROUND FIBERGLASS TANKS AND PIPING
THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS (additions are
underlined and deletions are crossed out):
Section 1. Section 36- 151(2)(i)(13) is amended as follows:
13. All new or replacement underground fuel storage tanks shall
meet the standards of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency_
and shall have a UL listing appropriate for its use. In
addition, plans for installation shall be approved by the
State Fire Marshall's Office. be STI P3 or an equivalent
ctecl tank manufactured by a licensee of the Steel Tank
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect upon it passage and
publication.
Passed by the City Council on , 1990.
Attachment 2
13
410 MEMORANDUM
'TO: City Manager
FROM: Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan - Land Use Classifications
DATE: May 1, 1990
INTRODUCTION
I am proposing that the City replace the land use classifications
in the Comprehensive Plan with the City's zoning district
classifications. I am proposing this change for several reasons:
1. Using one set of classifications for the land use plan and
another for the zoning ordinance is confusing. The public
rarely understands the difference, even though the City
tries to explain it at public hearings. People understand
zoning better than land use plans. If the City Council
approves this change, the City could describe the land use
plan to the public as a future zoning map.
2. Most of the land use classifications are too vague. This
causes two problems where the City Council has not yet zoned
property for its long -term use. First, it is difficult to
decide which zone goes with which land use classification.
As a result, we cannot advise the public of the specific
uses that the City would allow a developer to build.
The second problem is that the Courts may allow the most
permissive zone that fits under a vague land use
classification. The City may want a more restrictive zone.
Identifying the future zone on the land use plan will avoid
this problem. As an example, the City could zone a
property shown for LSC, limited service commercial use on
the land use plan to BC(M), business commercial modified,
LBC, limited business commercial (offices) or NC,
neighborhood commercial. The property owner may want a
BC(M) zone, while the City wants an LBC zone. It may be
difficult to defend a denial of the BC(M) rezoning in court,
since the rezoning would be consistent with the land use
classification.
Making this change would involve changing the land use
classifications to zoning classifications. This would be simple
for properties that already have their long -term zoning. As an
example, the City would show a property zoned for BC, business
commercial as BC on the land use plan. A problem would occur
where the City has not yet zoned a property for its long term
use. The City would have to determine what the long -term zoning
should be. As an example, the City could rezone a property that
is zoned F, farm residential, but planned for SC, service
commercial use, to BC, business commercial or BC(M), business
commercial modified.
A second problem would be how to handle land shown for open space
on the land use plan. One solution is to create an open space
zoning district. Such a district would have to allow a minimal,
but reasonable use of the property to avoid a legal taking of the
property.
One alternative to this change would be to rezone all the
undeveloped property to its long -term zoning. The disadvantage
is that it may sharply increase property taxes. This may force
the property owners to sell their land before they want to. This
would be particularly hard on people who are living on the
property.
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize staff to replace the land use classifications in the
City's land use plan with zoning classifications. Staff will
bring back the specific changes for approval with the update of
the Comprehensive Plan.
go /memo4.mem
•
2