Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/4/1990 (2) ecret,. MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 18, 1990 7:30 P.M. 1830 EAST COUNTY ROAD B MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: June 4, 1990 4. Approval of Agenda 5. Public Hearings a. Cope Ave. and Ariel St. Detachment and Annexation Plan Amendment Rezoning 6. New Business 411 a. Lot Area Variance: Burke Ave. (Svendsen & Kaiser) 7 . Visitor Presentations 8. Commission Presentations a. Council Meetings: June 11 b. Representative for the June 25 Council Meeting: Gary Gehrke 9. Staff Presentations 10. Adjournment 411 } !■ !41, MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 EAST COUNTY ROAD B, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA JUNE 4, 1990 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Axdahl called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. 1 2. ROLL CALL Commissioner Roger Anitzberger Present • Commissioner Lester Axdahl Present Commissioner Richard Barrett Present Commissioner Robert Cardinal Present Commissioner Sue Fiola Present Commissioner Lorraine Fischer Present Commissioner Gary Gerke Present Commissioner Dennis Larson Absent Commissioner William Rossbach Present Commissioner Marvin Sigmundik Absent Commissioner Brian Sinn Present 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. May 21, 1990 • Commissioner Gerke moved approval of the minutes of May 21, 1990, as submitted. • Commissioner Anitzberger seconded Ayes -- Anitzberger, Axdahl, Barrett, Cardinal, Fiola, Fischer, Gerke, Rossbach, Sinn 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Barrett moved approval of the agenda as submitted. Commissioner Anitzberger seconded Ayes__Anitzberger, Cardinal, Fiola, Fischer, Gerke, Rossbach, Sinn 5. PUBLIC HEARING A. Holloway Avenue Ken Roberts, Associate Planner, presented the staff report for this proposed vacation of Holloway Avenue, • between Beebe Road and 6th Street in North St. Paul, and an amendment of the comprehensive plan. Planning Commission - 2 - Minutes 6 -4 -90 Commissioner Rossbach asked staff to further explain why the Council has denied the proposal to construct this street. Commissioner Fischer said that Holloway Avenue is designated as a major collector street on the comprehensive plan and that this designation was a wise one. The hearing was opened for discussion from the public. Mr. Engwer said he would like to have this issue decided at this meeting. Mr. Engwer said he could understand from a planning standpoint why Holloway Street should be constructed. Commissioner Fischer said that in the past the Council had assured the neighbors when the higher density zoning was approved that this area would not be developed until Holloway Avenue was constructed. Commissioner Fischer also stated that traffic now infiltrates all over the area and not on a designated collector. • Commissioner Gerke asked Mr. Engwer for the north /south dimensions of his property. Mr. Engwer responded it is 329 feet deep. Commissioner Cardinal asked staff why the Council has requested this vacation. Ken Roberts responded that his understanding is that if the street is not going to be constructed, the Council wants to vacate it. Mr. Roberts said staff's position is that the street should be constructed and not vacated. Commissioner Fischer said that many proposals for street construction were considered at the time the Furness Street apartments were constructed and all of the proposals included constructing Holloway Avenue between Furness and Howard Streets. Commissioner Fischer moved the Planning Commission recommend taking no action on the plan amendment and street vacation. This is on the basis that vacation would not be in the public interest because: 1. There is the potential for seven or eight new lots on north side of Holloway Avenue if the street 411 is built. All Planning Commission -3- Minutes 6 -4 -90 2. Constructing Holloway Avenue would improve emergency vehicle access for the homes and apartments on Furness and Howard Streets. 3. Constructing Holloway Avenue would relieve traffic on the surrounding local streets. This would be particularly desirable on 6th Street, which has no sidewalks, as children use this street to walk to Webster School. 4. The intersections of 6th and 7th Streets at North St. Paul Road are less safe than the intersection of Holloway Avenue and North St. Paul Road. 5. Constructing Holloway Avenue would make the intersection of Furness and 6th Streets safer by eliminating the off -sets. 6. The school district would like a local street, a sidewalk or a trail constructed along this right - of -way. If one of these were to occur, there would be a reduction in their bussing costs. This is because the children who live on Beebe Road would have safe, direct walking access to Webster School. Bussing would then not be necessary. Commissioner Rossbach seconded Ayes -- Anitzberger, Axdahl, Barrett, Cardinal, Fiola, Fischer, Gerke, Rossbach, Sinn The motion passed. Commissioner Fischer moved the Planning Commission recommend City Council move to construct the one -block extension of Holloway Avenue between Furness Street and Beebe Road in an expeditious fashion. Commissioner Gerke seconded Commissioner Fischer moved to amend her motion moving the Planning Commission recommend City Council move to construct the one -block extension of Holloway Avenue between Furness Street and Beebe Road in an expeditious fashion for the reasons stated in denying the vacation, as follows: Planning Commission -4- Minutes 6 -4 -90 1. There is the potential for seven or eight new lots on the north side of Holloway Avenue if the street is built. 2. Constructing Holloway Avenue would improve emergency vehicle access for the homes and apartments on Furness and Howard Streets. 3. Constructing Holloway Avenue would relieve traffic on the surrounding local streets. This would be particularly desirable on 6th Street, which has no sidewalks, as children use this street to walk to Webster School. 4. The intersections of 6th and 7th Streets at North St. Paul Road are less safe than the intersection of Holloway Avenue and North St. Paul Road. 5. Constructing Holloway Avenue would make the intersection of Furness and 6th Streets safer by eliminating the off -sets. 6. The school district would like a local street, a IIM sidewalk or a trail constructed along this right - of -way. If one of these were to occur, there would be a reduction in their bussing costs. This is because the children who live on Beebe Road would have safe, direct walking access to Webster School. Bussing would then not be necessary. Commissioner Gerke seconded Ayes -- Anitzberger, Axdahl, Barrett, Fiola, Fischer, Gerke, Rossbach, Sinn Nays -- Cardinal The motion passed. 6. NEW BUSINESS a. Street Vacation: Harris Avenue Ken Roberts, Associate Planner, presented the staff report for this City engineering department requested street vacation. Commissioner Rossbach asked the City engineer if the pond area will be developed, since a right -of -way to the pond area will be required. The City engineer 1 Planning Commission -5- 1410 Minutes 6 -4 -90 responded that the right -of -way Will be required for pond area maintenance purposes. Commissioner Rossbach moved the Planning Commission recommend approval of the resolution to vacate two portions of the Harris Avenue right -of -way. These are between Hazelwood Street and Prosperity Road. These vacations are in the public interest because: (1) There is no need for a public street in this location. (2) The adjoining properties have adequate street access. (3) The adjoining property owners have no interest in having the street constructed. (4) It has been the City's policy to vacate unused rights -of -way whenever possible. This vacation should be subject to the retention of a 30- foot -wide easement for public purposes. Commissioner Fischer seconded Ayes -- Anitzberger, Axdahl, Barrett, Cardinal, Fiola, Fischer, Gerke, Rossbach, Sinn The motion passed. 7. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS 8. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Council Meeting: May 31 Commissioner Fischer reported on this meeting. b. Representative for the June 11 Council Meeting: Bob Cardinal 8. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Ken Roberts, Associate Planner, presented an update on the proposed Truth -in- Housing permit. 9. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Detachment and Annexation, Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning LOCATION• Ariel Street, Between Cope and Castle Avenues APPLICANT /OWNER: Mario J. Cocchiarella DATE: June 8, 1990 SUMMARY INTRODUCTION Mario Cocchiarella is requesting approval of the following items: 1. Detachment of a 1.7 -acre parcel from Maplewood and concurrent annexation of the property to North St. Paul. 2. A Comprehensive Plan amendment from BW (Business Warehouse) to RL (Residential Low Density) for the 1.1 acres that will remain in Maplewood. 3. Rezoning of the 1.1 acres from M -1 (Light Manufacturing) to R -1 (Single Dwelling). 411 City staff is proposing to include the water tower site in the rezoning. Refer to the maps on pages 10 and 11 and his letter on page 13. REASONS FOR THE REQUEST Mr. Cocchiarella is developing the single - family homes to the south of this property. He would like to develop additional homes in this area. There is a preliminary drawing of his plan on page 12. Mr. Cocchiarella plans to sell homes on the north cul -de -sac from $80,000 to $110,000. He plans to sell homes on the south cul -de -sac from $120,000 to $175,000. Another reason for this plan is to prevent the extension of Ariel Street northward to Castle Avenue. Mr. Cocchiarella is concerned that eastbound traffic from Highway 36 and from the frontage road may de Velopment s of twoocul- de- sacs For insteadreason, plan athroughstreet. the de p Mr. Cocchiarella is proposing the detachment and annexation to put the lots around these cul -de -sacs in one City with a easily definable boundary. The development of the cul -de -sacs results in a lot configuration which does not follow the existing City boundary. The boundary bisects several proposed lots. 411 BACKGROUND • The City Council rezoned a small piece of the Hillcrest property to the west from BC, (Business Commercial) to R -1, (Single - Family Residential) in 1983. Hillcrest Development sued the City. The court ordered the City, in 1985, to change the land use plan and zoning for all the Hillcrest Development land on Castle Avenue to M -1, (Light Manufacturing) and the land on Cope Avenue to R -2, (Double Dwelling.) DETACHMENT AND ANNEXATION ALTERNATIVES 1. Deny the detachment and annexation. Ariel Street should then be constructed. Mr. Cocchiarella would probably not develop the area with single dwellings and Hillcrest Development would keep their commecial zoning. 2. Put the north cul -de -sac in Maplewood and the south cul -de- sac in North St. Paul. The disadvantage would be that North St. Paul will provide the utilities. It would be less confusing for the residents to live in the City that they get their water, sewer and electric bills from. It is also easier for North St. Paul to plow this cul -de -sac than Maplewood. The State Department of Transportation plows Castle Avenue. 3. Put the north cul -de -sac in North St. Paul and the south cul -de -sac in Maplewood. This may be confusing to residents since the lots on the east side of Ariel Street are in North St. Paul. Also, North St. Paul will be billing the residents living on the southerly cul -de -sac for water, sewer and electricity. 4. Detach the property from Maplewood as requested and annex it to North St. Paul. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL Concurrent Detachment and Annexation If both cities agree to the detachment and annexation, they may submit resolutions to the Minnesota Municipal Board. The Board • may then order the detachment and annexation. North St. Paul officials have shown support for this proposal. Plan Amendment and Rezoning City Code gives the following criteria for approving a rezoning: 411 2 1. The rezoning should be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance. They are to: a. Reduce traffic congestion. b. Improve safety from fire and other dangers. c. Provide adequate light and open space. d. Avoid overcrowding. e. Conserve property values. 2. The rezoning should not injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood. 3. There should be adequate public facilities, such as streets, sewers, water lines, schools and parks. DISCUSSION The City should support this project because it is consistent with the City Council's and residents' desire for single- family homes in this area. If the project is successful, Mr. Cocchiarella may try to develop the remaining commercial and R -2 zoned land with single - family homes. There are two issues with this proposal - -Ariel Street and the annexation. Ariel Street The City Council decided not to construct Ariel Street as a through street on March 27, 1989. Three members voted in favor and two against. Four votes were required for approval. Hillcrest Development requested this project. They have since applied for the vacation of Ariel Street. They have asked Staff to hold their application until the Council acts on Mr. Cocchiarella's proposal. Mr. Cocchiarella told me he would not be interested in the rezoning or single - family development if Ariel Street is constructed as a through street. Constructing Ariel Street with cul -de -sacs would keep traffic levels down and enhance the residential neighborhood to the south. The residents in this area do not want Ariel Street constructed as a through street. Staff conducted a survey of property owners within 350 feet of Ariel Street. Of the 12 replies, seven opposed a through street, four had no opinion and one was in favor. The person in favor is Jim Pomush who owns part of the commercial land on Castle Avenue. Those opposed, objected to the increased traffic. 3 The Pub Safety Department is in favor of thhrolghwstroet. • Chief Col llins feels that the through street option both greater ability for moving of traffic and access for p ublic safety vehicles. The Fire Marshall f ee ls thatrehe c l in de_ area are unacceptable. He would oto Cope Bear Avenue. put through, including P Avenue Detachmen and A nnexation Should the City allow North St. P to annex annexations another city sacs? There is a tendency to res for emotional reasons. Staff's reec th a is basedson wlat, would cause the least confusion for that provides and bills them r should live ublic services, such as snow plowing, water, sewer most of their public can then vote for the officials that seww er and e electtricity. provide those services. The City Council approved a similar lannexa ionetolNorthtSt. P aul in 1984. This was a seven-lot sing a Avenue. This was street, south of the DNR trail on Eldridge a provide servi ces cs case where it was easier for North St. Paul to p than for Maplewood. Mr. Cocchiarella's main interest is to prevent Ariel Street from being a through Street. He has only a secondary interest in the annexation. However, the two cul -de -sacs would create several problems with the cities' boundary. Lot Lines As you can see from the drawing on page 12, the City boundary cuts through the middle of s ev e ral lots. of City boundarycul- should follow lot lines or to reduce confusion. de -sac should be in the same city Snow Removal North St. Paul is in the best position to plow the north cul -de sac. The Minnesota Department of Transportation p lows Castle special trip Avenue. A Maplewood truck would need to make als to Ariel Street. pow the erthynorlthemsto •plowrthessouthernpp cul -de -sac as . Paul It t b would be easy for well. Utilities Either city could provide water to the cul-de sacsPfromsexisting lines at Cope Avenue and Ariel Street. pr ovide water, because they have a de -end line. since for e not treat their water for minerals, If this line is not to loop their lines to keep the water clean. 4 looped, they will have to periodically flush the line at the • hydrant. Maplewood has a sanitary sewer in Cope Avenue, but it does not extend to Ariel Street. North St. Paul has a line at this corner and should, therefore, provide service to the cul -de -sacs. North St. Paul would provide the cul -de -sacs with electricity. Tax Implications The loss of tax revenue to the Maplewood is small. If the project site remained in Maplewood, five single - family lots could be divided onto Ariel Street. Assuming that the homes would be worth an average of a $100,000 and would be homesteaded, Maplewood's share of the annual property tax for these homes would be $1511 each year. RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve the resolution on page 15 that approves the detachment and annexation of the property 160 feet west of the Ariel Street right -of -way, between Castle and Cope Avenues. Approval is contingent on North St. Paul agreeing to zone the property for single - family use and on the developer paying the deferred assessments. 2. Approve the resolution on page 16 that amends the comprehensive plan from BW (Business Warehouse) and RM (Residential Medium Density) to RL (Residential Low Density). Approval is because: a. Single - family homes would create less traffic. b. The properties to the south and east are planned for single- family homes. 3. Approve the resolution on page 17 that rezones the property from M -1 (Light Manufacturing) and R -2 (Double Dwellings) to R -1 (Single Dwellings). • 5 • BACKGROUND 411 SITE DESCRIPTION Total Acreage: 5.5 ac. Ariel Street right -of -way = 0.6 ac. Acres in North St. Paul = 2.1 Acres proposed to be annexed into North St. Paul = 1.7 Acres proposed to remain in Maplewood = 1.1 Existing Land Use: undeveloped land SURROUNDING LAND USES Northerly: Castle Avenue and Highway 36 Easterly: Single dwellings and undeveloped land in North St. Paul; planned and zoned for single dwellings Southerly: Water tower, single dwellings and undeveloped land; planned for W (Water Tower) and RL (Residential Low Density) and zoned for double and single dwellings Westerly: Undeveloped land; planned and zoned for commercial development 410 PAST ACTIONS November 4, 1965: City Council approved rezoning part of the Hillcrest Development site from R -1 (Single- family Residential) to BC (Business and Commercial) to allow for construction of a small shopping complex. March 1983: City Council started action to rezone the property from BC to R -1 in conformance with the Land Use Plan. This plan designated the property for low - density residential development (RL) . April 26, 1983: Hillcrest Development submitted a request for a change in the Land Use Plan designation for their property from RL (Residential Low Density) to LSC (Limited Service Commercial). June 20, 1983: Planning Commission approved the staff recommendation to amend the Land Use Plan from RL to RM (Residential Medium Density) and BW (Business Warehouse). July 11, 1983: City Council took no action on the recommended Comprehensive Plan amendment, leaving the Land Use Plan • designation as RL. 410 6 July, 1983: As a result of City Council's decision to take no action on the recommended plan amendment, there remained a conflict between the RL Land Use Plan designation and the BC zoning. City staff thus recommended rezoning the property from BC to R -1, as initially proposed by the City Council in March of 1983. September 12, 1983: The City Council rezoned the site from BC to R -1. September 14, 1983: Hillcrest Development filed suit seeking to overturn the City Council's downzoning of the property and to reinstate commercial zoning for the property. May 14, 1985: The District Court ruled in favor of Hillcrest Development and ordered the City Council to amend the Comprehensive Plan, as recommended by the staff and Planning Commission in June 1983, and to rezone accordingly. June 17, 1985: The Planning Commission, as it had in June of 1983, recommended that the Council change the Land Use Plan from RL to RM and BW. They also recommended that the Council rezone this area from R -1 to R -2 (Double Dwelling) and M -1 (Light Manufacturing). July 8, 1985: City Council approved the Plan amendment and 411 rezoning as recommended by the Planning Commission. March 14, 1988: The City Council denied a conditional use permit to sell truck toppers north of the water tower. March 27, 1989: The City Council did not approve a proposal to construct Ariel Street as a through street between Castle and Cope Avenues. PLANNING 1. The proposed RL (Residential Low Density) designation is primarily for a variety of single dwellings. An occasional double dwelling may be allowed. 2. The present RM designation provides for such housing types as single dwellings on smaller lots, double dwellings and town houses. 3. The present BW designation includes governmental and public utility buildings and structures, storage and warehousing facilities, wholesale business and office establishments, cartage and express facilities, radio and television stations, and other industrial uses of a lower- intensity nature. 411 7 mb go /memo18.mem (sect.11) Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Land Use Plan 3. Zoning Map 4. Site Plan 5. Letter from Applicant 6. Detachment and Annexation Resolution 7. Plan Amendment Resolution 8. Rezoning Resolution • 8 0 1 0 w '��a �;��l W I 1 kJ 1.4 I z ��(I /u/ - 4. POND �" N ° (/ b 1 rN/Vd IF SI/+EEI ' HL MAN AV 2 Y KOMLMAN AV I - (A4S:Aw/ AV) I- 4/4 NORTH SA i r W ° co ° Ro 23 "c" ^� N a+ z f29N,R22W r ; \ I L W • 3 2 Q w FOG DULL RO mil u Q IA a W _ Z 44 / Q ^ 2 J r H M !OR AV x ...DE MONT A V m p a u - ? 1 _ 8 RO • AV t • • I EL E t • z ? EXTANT z h 0 �H AV 0 )(TA: T AV u + GERVAIS GERVAI ,ERV M -J LI ,I ANOVIEW AV W CT / y cr ° m VIKING DR at C 4STLE AV RR N r K nuck a/ Head Loke COPE 4P. AV V COPE •V ...., s / 7 W — .. N 1 A I N D a „ l: = r ° V I a ] LAURIE 3 0 4 N 4 a x W • a i 2 LA R1E RO _ 2 SAN) MAST 2 2 A , E W i ° 25 _ O x _ CO > RO 0 ✓+ r ct 3 MI ANN 0 '~ AV a• ELOR IOG AV ; CI ■ !t'M`c4 w/� / Izo il J / , N EEEL wUNT ti A. IL / ' W + r A AV SKILLYAN �� ��Q4P R 7 E � �� N ■ TP • S SL �/ I V � P " N ROSEWOOD / I S AV r hr N AV ' o ' o p °. 5 I NORTH N a N I ° J 69 J AI �� v N N • r m Q 1 N W + S /rE R AV b SUM R h W 4" Q V 0 $ a ✓ EC �� L a ¢ 2 s v... r 2 a W ° `fi 7 . N Z 0 s+ RIP sy • RI Pt '" 5 t oW.LCtF / a >r y r � ��� MING,T A u vb ] 1.• ��• LAKE a z z + PRICE AV 0 z w u PRICE fA�GU� C� ; /� ) ; 1 ° u 1 • V t P 1 ° t t 2 \ {. 1 LOCATION MAP N 9 Attachment 1 . 1 OT. 0 iiii• 1 0 el. 00 OS) I T 00 0e ae0 .. HWY. 36 1 g 1 ' ■■■ ■■ ■■,<><. ■.....■■ Ra a . 1 ■ CASTLE AVE I 1 � I El Io 1 1 . :..::,::.4.,:;:;:::.::.*,:,.:....,:i::::::::. ..::„.:::„...::::„::::::::::::::::::::::„:, BW -.-,..:.,..,..:,..::.,...,.;.,....,..:....:;.,...1.!...,....,...,..,....:!..,..!..:::...,....,...,....,....:!..,:•!..,...,..•!...,..1..,..!...::::::: ..;::::::::::,:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: r J•II J Jsl 11e'i 1 I 1 vl i is , s ) ` t FL N � �► r 1 I . • •1111 : -• a III Q RM 1.33. • RM , . IL „4 - - ■ _� ■ 11• COPE AVE II II Ilia AI , !VA.. •+ 9).; dad a ','• r ' 11..•7 Le . r m ^ t o • U )) s� 0� O i• 7 h) • �t)))N © RT : .G f " " 196 8 1 974 1986 - ) c 1lr S r. s 08) : J (a « i4 i. ' . a• C 1 �� 1 (14) : ' O9) e I. (5. -- o z;»)< ; 2 v _ « , of 1, 1 , it (") � ' . p A — ' �in)• • 1. 3 & ' ' % � - - _ _ _ _ - ss,.1 -1. - - - ; • 1A d . w , �t. : ; .TLD —1•2.4.061 J 14i rc . 1 = r .,4yP.ti.,1 —'� RL .4 L8 4 2/ I •. /a t/ d .W �S (e�) P Z .fief•yy . -�^ ►' " I e" . A < • COND : , • • com �v v ) ; 6.3s OS) y - (!f) 1 : Z • • 12 (•_) ` to < 7 - T - 3 i ,. vs *a I $ •• ROAD do t �, 15 09 J cc ..• , ` LAURIE • 9. ti 7� r� -. • i• PN .....• _•'.— 7.. �i 47" . 16 is 03) 2 14 si Bs ' ° to); /.44). f. i if7 t , 8. j oy)! r_. , — - te2 % _ is_•4. `. 04.) 1 �: ` =„ , _' 3 i . , 3 II tats ,'•;' 1 _A O LEGEND LAND USE PLAN BW= Business Warehouse s, • Proposed Detachment to • RL= Residential Low Density North St. Paul RM= Residential Medium Density M Plan Amendment: IN to RL i N 1 • W= Watertower - ` 10 Attachment 2 ■ • 00 �. a fi 0 0 (es) e � I T - 00 SO Poo. 1 HWY. 36 1 g r■■t■ff•■assiosumana■gma• 1 . 1 CASTLE AVE 1 1 I o�o 1 I .............................. D ....,,,.....,., , ,,,,,,,E,,,,,,,,,,„::::::,:::::::::::::: : .............. i ......... :.. ...: .: „ .... ..: :::::::. :: .. ...:„ . .........„ . ... i. ..... : ...,.... : „ .. „ .. ....... ? „.... t . ::: : .... : : ...: .. ....i . ..„.....„... :.... .„...,......„...„ ...: „ .. ..„ ....!. ... : „ ... .„ . ..... i...1.. „.......: . ...i........: . ,.....:,.....: . . , •: : . :. ...„...... i. ..:„ .. „ : „ ...•••••••......................... .::::::::..::::::.......::: -----"-. In t ;(2.$) 1 e J n J .J 1 1 ., Mi 1s . h . C I I if • r An 1 h 1. al 14 111 1 • ■ ^ • 111 f le f �N ' - - -- � . ' 1.». 11 R2 I: i U 1 tm s1f COPE AVE >t ■ ■fin ffR IP# ,ecs - lao 4• , o � • a IP • I 01 , it e Z = , 3 4 4 CFI • er -.6. FLO, •'. 40 1 1� •� j868 1874 , 1886 ;�: ©e c T) 2 , 7 d• 7• w . I. •�, ' 111 17 43 >• 40 • . e �J4) • ' 09) c 1 (j. h ml, !) • 2 A 0 4 = lift )• . I. P 1 "0 12 ' I° ("' 1 It I . ,. , �t. :i \. ..a •1 .TLO t• 14.1918 � I , J • /•$.Ic • _ • ;%.10- RI: Z4LJl 4&I I.fa fi • N I : W -- a 00 N ' (!f) 1 Z 2 2 • Z • IL ol) . 4. ;`,,. t eq .)... • (�f� • _ : IMO ui..„1„>f ).+ � z "' ••• • •••• - a• 1 _ rat E * � _ ;_� T.3 •• . _r,•I • � " R O A D •� . III L 15 09) I ...- — _- ..- 7w �f AI'a. t• 00 2 •4 ! v IIf ri, '.44): EIJ; t Est ..if 4 w 1: 0 0 1 t cc r i l t t It 3 t• 4 . 3 , r i. LEGEND ZONING • M1 =Light Manufacturing - Proposed Detachment to 0 R1= Single Dwellings North St. Paul RZ= Double Dwellings Rezoning• M1 to R1 W =Water Tower ` 11 Attachment 3 Ex I iT o : S i ft Pl 4 cAser -E . .........-- -- I 1 / 1 11. / % 4/ . 1 1L4 13 / I 1 1 ! . * E / / 9 to �i/ 1 4� / 1 \ � 3 • / s I / l 1 1 cop( xi sti 06. Sew N I FQom Noz&Th 67: eA u c- Au .r AZ 4a6.640: - 4 t ET � J &EI1 �1�( Lv Dol> 11�v rrH s'' Pr -- — — — x(6TINC> eoo1 o Qe:4 Tv 4G 0ETAc...4g 61 MALE cvo00 1 � `rn BE REZo/J� 0L (Z eu2woo, i� - 1 Page 12. Attachment 4 /1/0 /C77/ 6'77 ! "�rlL GAT /G�T� S i G✓._ tz, ,gmNH.o f}' 6 zTGve C. / 77Z S April 23, 1990 Mr. Geoff Olson City Planner City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Mr. Olson: As per our previous discussions, I am writing to you to provide in detail, my plan for the properties legally described as Lots 23 - 30, Block 6, and Lots 1 - 8 and 27 - 30, Block 11, Dearborn Park. This is the area in Maplewood fronted on the north by Castle Drive (the Highway 36 frontage road) and by Cope Avenue on the south, more commonly known by its proximity to the water tower (see the attached Exhibit #1) . • As you know, I have already developed in excess of 90 residential lots south of this area, located both in North St. Paul and Maplewood. One of the obstacles encountered during this earlier development was the lack of economically feasible access to sanitary sewer, watermain, and storm sewer. In my version of this newest neighborhood, the City of North St. Paul would provide all services to the properties to be developed north and east of the water tower (See Exhibit #2) . The most important aspect of this proposal concerns the detachment of this property by the City of Maplewood and its subsequent annexation by the City of North St. Paul. Upon detachment, this property would be combined with other land east of the existing Ariel Street right of way for a combined plat in North St. Paul (refer to Exhibit #2) . This was done for three reasons: 1) The City of North St. Paul would like to complete its "loop" of services from the frontage road east to 7th Street in North St. Paul, since they have existing homes on the frontage road which need service. 2) Utilizing Maplewood services would be a costly, necessarily City completed and assessed project. The economic advantages are magnified when compared to trying to use • Maplewood services for these homes. 3) Once Ariel Street is vacated, there is no easily defined North -South boundary between North St. Paul and Maplewood. The detachment and annexation re- creates this line. 13 Attachment 5 • Mr. Geoff Olson Page 2 April 23, 1990 The advantages to this proposal are also many and varied: 1) The property surrounding the water tower would be essentially rezoned to R-1 single family from its present M -1 zoning. This is an opportunity to get this property back to its original zoning, an issue I believe is good for the property owners South of Cope and the City of Maplewood. 2) Ariel Street would be vacated north of Cope, thus cutting off traffic into the residentially completed areas south of Cope. 3) A natural break for City services then occurs west of the water tower. (eg. NSP services East of the tower; Maplewood services West of the tower.) To summarize, this project requires the following action: (Refer to Exhibit #2) 1) Detach a portion of Maplewood property east and north of the water tower for annexation by North St. Paul. 2) Rezone the property remaining in Maplewood as shown in • Exhibit 2 from M -1 to R-1. Thank you for your consideration and for the time granted myself and my engineers by Ken Haider and yourself. I look forward to hearing from you soon regarding planning commission and council dates. Best Regards, Mario J. Cocchiarella 14 DETACHMENT AND ANNEXATION RESOLUTION • WHEREAS, the Maplewood City Council has received a request from . Mario Cocchiarella for the concurrent detachment and annexation of the following legally described property: SUBJ TO VAC ALLEY & AVE, SUBJ TO ESMTS; LOTS 23 THRU 30 BLK 6 & 1 THRU 8 & 27 THRU LOT 30 BLK 11 IN THE DEARBORN PARK PLAT, SECTION 11- 29 -22. WHEREAS, Mr. Cocchiarella is proposing to plat this property for single - family homes; and, WHEREAS, the lot configurations for these lots do not follow the cities' boundary line; and, WHEREAS, North St. Paul will be providing the utilities, snow plowing and street maintenance for this development. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL that the above described parcel be concurrently detached from the City of Maplewood and annexed by the City of North St. Paul, subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval by the City of North St. Paul. 2. Payment of the deferred assessments. • 3. The City of North St. Paul agreeing to zone the property for single - family use. Approved on , 1990 by the Maplewood City Council. Attachment 6 i 15 PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mario Cocchiarella applied for an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan from BW, business warehousing and RM, residential medium density to RL, residential low density. WHEREAS, this amendment applies to the land 320 feet west of Ariel Street, between Cope Avenue and Castle Avenue. WHEREAS, the history of this plan amendment is as follows: 1. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 18, 1990 to consider this plan amendment. City staff published a notice of this hearing in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The Planning Commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that the plan amendment be 2. The City Council discussed the plan amendment on , 1990. They considered reports and recommendations from the Planning Commission and City staff. 410 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the above- described plan amendment for the following reasons: 1. Single- family homes would create less traffic. 2. The properties to the south and east are single - family homes. Adopted on , 1990. Attacment 7 16 REZONING RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mario Cocchiarella applied for a rezoning from M -1, light manufacturing and R -2, double dwellings to R -1, single - family residential. WHEREAS, this rezoning applies to the land 320 feet west of Ariel Street, between Castle Avenueand Cope Avenue. The legal description is: SUBJ TO VAC ALLEY 7 AVE, SUBJ TO ESMTS; LOTS 23 THRU 30 BLK 6 & 1 THRU 8 & 27 THRU LOT 30 BLOCK 11 IN THE DEARBORN PARK PLAT, SECTION 11- 29 -22. WHEREAS, the history of this rezoning is as follows: 1. The Planning Commission reviewed this rezoning on June 18, 1990. They recommended to the City Council that the rezoning be 2. The City Council held a public hearing on 1990. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The Council gave everyone at the hearing an opportunity to speak and present written statements. The Council also considered 410 reports and recommendations from the City staff and Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the above - described rezoning for the following reasons: 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. Adopted on , 1990. Attachment 8 17 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Lot Area Variance LOCATION: Burke Avenue, west of White Bear Avenue (Section 15) OWNER: Marion Svendsen and Donald Kaiser DATE: June 8, 1990 INTRODUCTION The applicants are requesting a variance from the City's lot area requirement in an R -1 zone. They own two 40- foot -wide lots that are 117.5 feet in depth. This makes their property 9400 square feet in area. The minimum in the R -1 zoning district is 10,000 square feet. Thus, the applicants are requesting a lot area variance of 600 square feet. They want to sell this lot for the construction of a single - family home. BACKGROUND March 14, 1988: The City Council approved a density variance and a zone change from R -1 to R -2 for the two lots to the north. This was to split the property into two 65- foot -wide lots, with 7600 • square feet each. REQUIRED FINDINGS State law requires that the City make two findings before granting a variance: 1. Strict enforcement of the City ordinances would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property. Undue hardship means that: a. The owners cannot put their property to a reasonable use under City ordinances. b. The owners' problem is due to circumstances unique to their property, that they did not cause. c. The variance would not alter the essential character of the area. 2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. DISCUSSION Having one home on a 9400 - square -foot lot will be in character with the existing conditions of the neighborhood. A division of • the property behind this site at 1764 County Road B into two 7,638 J square -foot lots occurred in 1988. The applicant's lot is 1762 square feet larger than each of these lots. There are four lots on the same side of Burke Avenue that are the same width and depth as the applicants' lot. Thus allowing one single - family home on a 80 -foot wide and 9400 square -foot lot should have no adverse effect on the neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution on page 8 which approves a 600- square -foot lot area variance on the basis that: 1. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to this property because: a. A single - family home is a reasonable use of this lot. b. The plight of the property owners is due to circumstances unique to the property and they did not create the conditions. c. Since the lot is similar in width and area to other lots in the neighborhood, this proposal will not alter the character of the neighborhood. • d. There is no additional property available to the applicants to increase the lot area. 2. The variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. 2 CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff mailed surveys to the 28 property owners within 350 feet for their comments about this proposal. Of the 15 replies, 7 were in favor as long as a single - family home is constructed on the lot. Eight replies had no comment. REFERENCE Site Description 1. Lot Size: 80 x 117.5 (9400 square feet) 2. Existing Land Use: undeveloped Surrounding Land Uses North: Single- family homes on County Road B. East: An undeveloped lot zoned R -1, single - dwelling residential. South: Burke Avenue and single - family homes. West: A single - family home on Burke Avenue. Planning • 1. Land Use Plan Designation: RL, low- density residential. 2. Zoning: R -1, single - dwelling residential. Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Property Line /Zoning Map 3. Letter of justification from applicant 4. Variance resolution kenmem38 411 3 1 Y KOHLMAN AV • , / ,- i 1I ° o z I �--� o co > Ro 23 I „c„ y z T29N,R22w I D W a \ 3 f 2 v IF 9 ¢ ED£NILL RD I O II Q a a la = I a 7 J DEmow A 1- p H Z. F BRO• AV V z EL E AV 0 EXTANT = H 01 /41',6, e - XTAN T AV �� GERVAIS GERWI GERVAIS AV Z s GRANOVIEW AV I Z CT / y m VIKING DR Y ` ` \4S TIE AV mamma RR N �� , CO AV Knuckle Head L oke COPE AV 1 AV H A- y V/ N _� ��1'�4)/ Q H I w 0 4 m I Fr u SAND- LAURIE HURST ¢ , V ° It v LA RIE RD U ID C9 2 I = 1 W 25 2 z o - ®_ Co p RD .B.. in O (. Q euiin- ° p II ~ ct m ELORIDG AV ; ® • 5 � ►o ; - „ 1- J �� ' H BE L •-.! OM w i or a II u if N ROS •'• • I RV- N a S Av /p� s I NORTH III m c 1- t ?• 1 INN v 'SUM I Y 4• q . Z H L�\ ° a o m S F A Rli � f /ELD 2 WAK KINGSTON Ay le o LAKE a 4 < PRICE AV ° PRICE G��' ���� ; _ = Wm 3 cc F- W gp C . its 110 111 1 1 64 65 r 1/ LOCATION MAP O Burke Avenue '1 1 � .__MMIO " 4 Attachment 1 • • y ' m" �1 I K fi t. s _4 Z 71.4 F � _ 1 _. YACA7FD_ . _ . S ::42 'Lop c.. ins l e ir t • • ' 30l o � •• � 1,2' — � � � � f i iti l in 1V . 92 at. n' I- (18 • 1-•• , � . ./A C. D•� i. • . _ 1„ . - - 2.?4.43/ _ , .�` , Q 7v ^i,5 u . .n �. 1 ' 7 . • 1 I ', ..7y1lO[ I go `d ieo' Imo" 4.9 ae. ;:i . -444.*; 4DS.r. . .2� 27 - /11;) WI 1 F-1. 41 1 i (Lo) a .f la 1 y i ,r. • :/, * i TM J 19 y :0 9th . 'At � s! • , 1 ((�3.v o-•• •. 603 f 5 0 r • ++ 425 .. ti 20 •73t f8' + _ _� , ~ t 2 .w - 4O . Y ms's w7 = • - —Ma .171:„. o f o ws �_� + ♦o i < 1 S rn ill ' 0 / 29 r : 13 12 It 101 S I A / (.00 , ' t \ . •GO cue A / q R .4. 5 ( ,'. � • • R _ (1) \' f o O 40 ' a' 4 �� _ __ t X :- 2 •��. • °, KJ , a FS 7:0 P • •o � N - �/ j3 , ee. 61 N In ;,..4,..t ., ; \ / 090 11 s.:.• / 3G!! •, ' A r .• •♦i!'3 \ -` S•. b • II r it ...> • 3 ( J i 0' A G ` 1 F(Fs)1 E . 431,0 + (- R .(211 LAN D SUF(. 1 N2 7(15)1 1 D C _ _--- 10 74. 3 - o Po 3 'T S .' ( -652. 3 ' 9 33 (.6 I 11111,111.1.1 +Zib.a __ _y, --/ . .1 .................. _ X10 bl�C) __ i SAME SIZED LOTS b PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP 0 Proposed Site for a Variance N 5 Attachment 2 ,► • r xr • rte. `i�.�`^-!c . / •,"� •/ / • .,:..-: ,.d......,, .-.0.4„.,..„, .,,,:,...‘ . ,,... . . • ,.,,,,-.,.,.. ..: •• . : .... -Z. Z / a.,- -L, . a # / 747.'' — .. • . / c -�t.. X.�/�. j r../.,e;:,1. - ..e.;-.i 10 x // 7 ..et-ti.•-,•--p-.%-# .. •;„•:•1, , 0_,... / -7) n £L ) �c- �CZ. .L iC.zc_.4 • � . . '- ar-Vtic.4, Ciz-e/ cA-c-e... 60- e--- 4 --/ , ,...21 cz-i_e_. 4-4-4-1.1,,c-re-i,e--...cici ; - ••• ..,, O /6 4. •. • .. •tl fro . . a c At , ). I . . 4 , ./ A . . . , 4 C.,■Ce.., 6.?".0...44 " • 1°•44041.e.e6 • • 4 '7 .... ".1 i - . 1 ■ 1 " c i . . . . (.. , 1 .4.7.7gia. , 14 „4,60 ..e.G . .1,...< . . • e . e . ./.. 4 , . , e .., e i ‘L't--Z........ - S e i fr 1 2. 4 .-".....g r e••••n2/ . . .* .'ij ,ii__„ -,ee,/,,,gc.pA}i444-tz,fee-irceoe__ E :-.'. it4i:t:e, e -..,1;'. - VT /644- 4)--4-4-)114414;7 1....... �� - - 'I — . • 7 -.- ca- .ec A /U o-11•0 cam■ 4ti � n 1-C •• . /id el ,/ a--& -r ` . . • .,..e • -- • • t v ���-Z- / 'e'er' �- `'t/'Q` � .. • 40 ,, ,.__. jie. . /2,,,,,,,,,a, l � o ,t' // 7 - ,e...e .rid - . ....: /7.),e, id.e._,,,L.4, 4..d...i -c1.2-4.-(_. 4,,,,,d,, 6 Attachment. 3 1 ---p2 — ,.c/ — J 2),... : . 1: '-- 2.1-4 - 4 4 A-4/ 4 -4%-e- 4- 71 4 - 0-1 - 4 -4 . 4. to do GXL • - 3i-e_ • ( - - -.1..e...i. 44 . 44 61-1 a. -4- . v i -4-it-d , tzt--2,,L, 20_, t4)-0_,e.L.e.4-1,4, 4 ie- ' ;: 1 12.-71-.L. /2-,:xc_..,04-0-4. cv--0.4.4,441.4. to-,4,2/1-0-R,,,,..,_ - i 01_e_. tc-Le.41.-A .-/ti).-4-.....4. et .., re.e..4.k...e. -1-tf_.1_,_e_:,,c-c... . • 6 Q-4- i es —„<.i 07659S, ..�;, / ' 1 z ' -ems cc--e- 7 .t..e. 1t.v . Ct. - -- - ,-c-di, 0 --- y „ _ , .frtzt Ci f -- 1 7-.Z.c, 4--1-4.-4 -e--/-A-r-4 - 4-e-e--4 / .t. 6--7c 0. ,e_e( is. • ......9-4 LA) ' 'll-t-c-<..c.4., - ' ' (. . - • .. /4-<-2?-4,;t . 477‹-Z.c., J-4 / 4-7 )26-A.A.,- ..--,4..1 e.- AI • 4.46st_e.,,,,j . . /. . 7 j a,. 2.a.ii A(.4,e 72 1 . 77 7— -- 8 - 37 • 7 VARIANCE RESOLUTION 411 WHEREAS, Marion Svendsen and Donald Kaiser applied for a variance from the zoning ordinance at the 1700 block of Burke Avenue. The legal description is: Lots 26 and 27, Block One of Kredel's Addition to Gladstone. WHEREAS, Section 36 -69 of the Maplewood Code of Ordinances requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet. WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing to construct a home on a 9,400 square foot lot. WHEREAS, this requires a variance of 600 square feet. WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows: 1. This variance was reviewed by the Planning Commission on June 18, 1990. They recommended to the City Council that the variance be approved. 2. The City Council held a public hearing on 1990. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The Council gave everyone at the hearing an opportunity to • speak and present written statements. The Council also considered reports and recommendations from the City staff and Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the above - described variance for the following reasons: 1. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration because: a. A single - family home is a reasonable use of this lot. b. The plight of the property owners is due to circumstances unique to the property and they did not create the conditions. c. Since the lot is similar in width and area to other lots in the neighborhood, this proposal will not alter its essential characteristics. d. There is not additional property available to the applicants to increase the lot area. 2. The variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. 410 Adopted on , 1990 8 Attachment 4