Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/4/1989 411 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 EAST COUNTY ROAD B, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA NOVEMBER 20, 1989 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Axdahl called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioner Lester Axdahl Present Commissioner Michael Ayers Present Commissioner Richard Barrett Present Commissioner Robert Cardinal Present Commissioner Sue Fiola Present Commissioner Lorraine Fischer Absent Commissioner Gary Gerke Present Commissioner Dennis Larson Present Commissioner William Rossbach Present Commissioner Marvin Sigmundik Absent Commissioner Ralph Sletten Present 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. November 6, 1989 110 The minutes were amended on page 6, the last sentence, to read: "Mr. Haggerty said Commissioner Sletten said his problem was with goldenrod and thistle, since it created allergy problems for his family, but after checking with the University of Minnesota, found that goldenrod is not an airborne pollen." The minutes were amended on page 7, first sentence, to read: "recommend adopting the ordinance, staff report dated October 31, 1989, regulating . . ." and the second paragraph, regarding the home occupation at 2136 Bradley Street, adding: "Dr. Zollinger asked if the commission had added any items to the eight conditions of the staff report. A commissioner read to Dr. Zollinger Conditions 9, 10, 11 and 12, which were added. Dr. Zollinger said that if Condition 9 were included in the motion, it would effectively kill his plans for home occupation" and add after 5B "See additional comments on page 7 after Item 5D ". Commissioner Sletten moved approval of the minutes as amended. Commissioner Gerke seconded Ayes -- Axdahl, Barrett, Gerke, Larson, Rossbach, Sletten • Abstentions -- Ayers, Fiola, Cardinal Planning Commission -2- 411 Minutes 11 -20 -89 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was amended under Item 9. adding: A. City Survey and B. Commission Recognition Dinner. Commissioner Ayers moved approval of the agenda as amended. Commissioner Barrett seconded Ayes -- Axdahl, Ayers, Barrett, Cardinal, Fiola, Gerke, Larson, Rossbach, Sletten 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Plan Amendment - Multiple Dwelling Densities Secretary Olson presented the staff report. A commissioner said he felt the Maplewood median for high density range on page 3 of the staff report, which is listed as 17.9 units per acre, was misleading as it is not a true median figure. Secretary Olson discussed with the commission the various densities of elderly housing in Maplewood. Staff said the study, compiled by staff with cities similar to Maplewood, did not include elderly housing densities. A commissioner said he is not satisfied with the people - per -unit figures being used at this time because he feels the figures are changing. Another commissioner commented that, after reviewing the other cities with lower densities and considerable open space, he didn't feel the density figures were low enough for Maplewood. Staff said Maplewood calculates the density according to the number of people per units, which allows more units when the number of people declines, which is unlike the comparable cities' method of calculating density. Staff said it was their intention to review all density figures after the 1990 census and make adjustments. Chairman Axdahl asked for comments from the public. There were no comments. A commissioner asked if apartments could be built using the elderly density figure and at a later date be converted to regular apartments. Staff replied that in the past the City Council has required a condition stating that the apartment be maintained for elderly and any change must be reviewed by the Council. Staff said some of the elderly housing is geared more for the elderly than other housing, for example housing 111 including medical facilities, which would make it more difficult to convert to regular housing. Planning Commission -3- . Minutes 11 -20 -89 Commissioner Ayers moved the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the resolution which amends pages 18 -30 and the Density Conversion Table of Appendix A (page A -2) of the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan by lowering the maximum population density from 22 to 17 people per acre in the RM, medium- density residential land use classification. Commissioner Cardinal seconded Ayes -- Ayers, Barrett, Cardinal, Fiola, Gerke, Larson, Rossbach, Sletten Nays -- Axdahl 6. NEW BUSINESS A. Alley Vacation: North of Kingston, between Edgerton and Payne (Dedrick) Secretary Olson presented the staff report. Mr. Olson said Northern States Power had located a cable south of • this requested alley vacation, but they said they did not object to this vacation because it would not affect their cable. Polly Dedrick, 605 Kingston Avenue, was present and said she was in agreement with the staff report. Ms. Dedrick said her yard and the two yards west of her both extend to the state trail. Ms. Dedrick said Effingham is a grassy area which is not used as a street. A commissioner asked staff to comment on Effingham's need to be retained by the City and whether it would be possible to vacate. Staff said there is no intention to maintain it as a street, but other considerations would have to be researched before staff could present a recommendation. It was discussed whether access for 1771 Effingham would be affected. The Commission discussed whether there is an existing alley east of 1746 -62 Edgerton, if it is possible to vacate that area also, and requested staff research this. Commissioner Cardinal moved the Planning Commission recommend approval of the resolution to vacate the alley between Payne and Edgerton, north of Kingston. Approval is in the public interest because: 111 Planning Commission -4- Minutes 11 -20 -89 1. The adjoining properties have adequate street access. 2. This alley segment is not needed for area traffic circulation or emergency vehicle access. 3. Maplewood's policy has been to vacate alley rights -of -way whenever possible. Commissioner Sletten seconded Ayes -- Axdahl, Ayers, Barrett, Cardinal, Fiola, Gerke, Larson, Rossbach, Sletten Commissioner Ayers moved the Planning Commission recommend that staff research the possible vacation of Effingham, establish the status of the north /south alley, and research the access to 1771 Effingham. Commissioner Barrett seconded Ayes -- Axdahl, Ayers, Barrett, Cardinal, Fiola, Gerke, 411 Larson, Rossbach, Sletten B. Home Occupation License: 1292 Kohlman Avenue (Young) Ken Roberts, Associate Planner, presented the staff report for this requested home occupation license to create stained and etched glass work from the basement and garage of the applicant's home. A commissioner asked if staff had information on how the lead used for soldering would be stored. Staff did not have information on lead storage. A commissioner asked if the Fire Marshal could inspect this home to see what equipment and materials are used. Staff replied that this could be made a condition of approval if the Commission so desires. A commissioner asked if it would be possible to delay this request until a time when the applicant could be present to answer questions from the Commission. The chairman said the questions could be referred to the City Council. A commissioner said he thought this was an ideal home occupation license application as it did not generate any additional traffic for the neighborhood and it is currently an existing hobby for the applicant and would • not require any changes in equipment. Planning Commission -5- Minutes 11 -20 -89 A commissioner asked if the requirement for liability insurance has been met. Secretary Olson said that at the time of issuance of the home occupation license, the City Clerk will check to verify that insurance requirements have been met. Commissioner Cardinal moved the Planning Commission recommend approval of a home occupation license for Jean Young to create stained and etched glass pieces at 1292 Kohlman Avenue. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with Section 17.21 (b) of the City code (home occupation licensing requirements). 2. No flammable liquids or hazardous substances shall be used. Commissioner Ayers seconded Ayes -- Axdahl, Ayers, Barrett, Cardinal, Fiola, Gerke, Larson, Rossbach, Sletten C. Preliminary Plat: Cave's Century 5th Addition Ken Roberts, Associate Planner, presented the staff report for this request for a revision of the approved plan for a preliminary plat. The approved plan is for 10 double dwellings and the applicant is now proposing a plat with 11 single dwellings and 2 double dwellings. A commissioner asked if the minimum lot widths have been met for the double dwellings. Staff said they have been met and this issue is further addressed in Item 2. b. of the conditions of the staff recommendation. Sam Cave was present representing the applicant but he did not have any comments. There were no comments from the public. A commissioner asked if the easements noted on the plan would be used for drainage. Sam Cave said the easement area along Century Avenue would allow drainage to go to a catch basin on the southeast corner of this development. Commission Sletten moved the Planning Commission recommend approval of the revised preliminary plat for • Cave's Century Fifth Addition, subject to the following conditions being completed before final plat approval: • Planning Commission -6- 41 1 Minutes 11 -20 -89 1. Submittal of a developer's agreement, with required surety, for the required public improvements. 2. Deed restrictions shall be recorded against the title of each double - dwelling lot or a homeowners' association agreement shall be recorded concurrently with the Cave's Century Fifth Addition plat to include, but not be limited to, the following requirements (required by Section 30 -16 (b) of the City code): a. Each double - dwelling structure shall have a uniform exterior appearance in terms of color, design and maintenance. b. If one unit is burned or destroyed, it shall be reconstructed in a uniform appearance, and if both units are burned or destroyed, minimum lot widths shall prevail for a single - family home. A double dwelling may be rebuilt meeting the original conditions of this section. c. Any disputes shall be submitted to binding arbitration according to the rules of the Minnesota Arbitration Association. Commissioner Larson seconded Ayes -- Axdahl, Ayers, Barrett, Cardinal, Fiola, Gerke, Larson, Rossbach, Sletten 7. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS There were no visitor presentations. 8. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS A. Council Meeting: November 13 and 16 Commissioner Rossbach attended and reported on these meetings. B. Representative for the November 27 and 30 Council meetings: William Rossbach 111 Planning Commission -7- 41 1 Minutes 11 -20 -89 9. STAFF PRESENTATIONS A. City Survey Secretary Olson presented the results of the survey of Maplewood residents. B. Commission Recognition Dinner Secretary Olson said the Council is considering either a summer picnic or formal dinner for members of the commissions and asked that the Commission comment on their preference. The consensus by the Commission was that a formal dinner be held. 10. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:42 p.m. 41 1 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Rezoning LOCATION: 1700 County Road D APPLICANT: City of Maplewood OWNER: Robert Hajicek Sr. DATE: November 21, 1989 SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The City is proposing the rezoning of an approximately 80 -acre parcel of land from F, Farm Residential and R1, Single - dwelling Residential to BC, Business and Commercial. The property is located between County Road D and St. John's Hospital and the Birch Run shopping center. It is shown on the map on page 5. BACKGROUND November 16, 1989: The City Council initiated a study by staff of properties which have zoning and land use designations that are inconsistent. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL Section 36 -485 of the City Code requires the following findings to approve a rezoning: 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. DISCUSSION The land use plan identifies this property as DC, Diversified Center. According to the Comprehensive Plan, "this commercial classification refers to facilities which have a regional orientation in terms of size and scale. The area in the vicinity 411 of Maplewood Mall is characteristic of the type of development that could be expected in such a district. This should be the most all - encompassing type of commercial district, permitting a wide variety of retail outlets, hotels, office buildings, medical centers, light industrial developments and high density residential areas." The DC land use designation appears appropriate for the property in question. The rezoning has been proposed to make the zoning consistent with the land use designation and surrounding zoning. It would also encourage the development of the property. One concern with the proposed change in the zoning of this property is the impact the rezoning will have on the property taxes. According to a commercial property appraiser at Ramsey County, the change in zoning might raise the valuation of the property and thus its taxes. It is important to note, however, that Ramsey County is not notified when the zoning of a property is changed by the City. The County usually checks on the valuation of properties once every four years and when it undertakes special studies of areas. These studies are often done when a large amount of development activity occurs in a particular area or neighborhood. Thus, Ramsey County may not inquire about the zoning of a property unless a study of the property is done by the County. While rezoning the property will not automatically increase the property taxes, it would be in the best financial interest of the City to have Ramsey County base the property taxes on a valuation that reflects the intended use of the property. RECOMMENDATION Approve the resolution on page 6 to rezone the Hajicek property south of County Road D between Southlawn and Hazelwood from F, Farm Residential and R1, Single - family Residential to BC, Business and Commercial, based on the findings required by ordinance and that BC zoning is consistent with the land use plan designation for this property. 2 REFERENCE Site Description Area: Approximately 80 acres Existing land use: a single - family dwelling Surrounding Land Uses North: County Road D, a 100 -unit apartment building and seven single - family dwellings East: Undeveloped property, Days Inn and Maplewood Mall South: Birch Run Center and St. John's N.E. Hospital West: Five single - family dwellings, undeveloped property and Hazelwood Avenue Attachments 1. Hazelwood Land Use Plan 2. Property Line /Zoning Map 3. Rezoning Resolution kenmemo31 110 3 ■ • Interchange � 0rcnQo ,, arterial 69 --._ - . 0 =a� J T � � • - • • - - = �► RAN. ter. wt.�ut.�e.at.iw. R.�t.ar. MI MI MOM 11111 • • U A - - • .• / ` 1 1 :r 7 - 6 W :: - _. - -_ f major c :::: c*:::::::::::::::44:::0 :;: ::: _---- oliector ■ ■ ~•� 1 . ■ 16. In 0 i �. $ ' C 1 f II E •r1 X 10 I a.. .m — I Qam.ve --1......,,,,, ---� RI t - '�.�.., A Rtlnor - LSC- - -M1I• 1 =..... j -______ BW c Rm , . I 5 • • p . 1..1 N / ' 1 L - II : :• . R L RB ._ 1 RI,' -= O S _:_:= T1 ' ost minor ~ art arterial - - -- • • • • _ r--, ' I. ril-7 • :=_____.3 Lam - _R L • s • - t_sc —._ice : ---:-• - : r: os I LA a-, o s s c i gl 111 1111 NM III II CI 11 !I - C.:pc:4 0 ... : ____ . _ .... �OS - RL L sc t [41111 ' HAZELWO D NEIGHBORHOOD 0 00 LAND USE PLAN N 4 Attachment 1 .l • iii, ti nnn v ,� ■■ 4 snr, .....ru...w . - filia ,IP-rb ■ .• ■ ,� � ......, .... : , `I ■ =yTjusis■SIIII*�lrs.asas OW sue.. ", .,, , ? ■ -.. UMW) . aa. utoa�f $r. -r.. C 21 .! may_ :� ..1., ..,........... f :: . - = • i t4 s �4 To R i! .....: 1 J -1----C ., ,,,,e7 . .....„..:........,...."....:. ____.,__ ''''' lM , J2' w r T . 1, re ,, , : ...._.... „... :7--,..,.... ..::::-...::::- J . .. . .7! f h • =.7r. g I .. 7K . . I . f £ "e.c. g�r2cN IL v/ � ' ) Lj - • • LOT -7 BLK•I 21 ; J i • PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP O . • N 5 Attachment 2 ■ REZONING RESOLUTION 411 WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood initiated a rezoning from F ► Y P g F, farm residential and R -1, single - family residential, to BC, business and commercial, for the following- described property: 1. Dorle Park, Lots 1 -18, Lots 19 -36, Block 2 and Lots 1- 7 and Lots 30 -36, Block 3. 2. Parcel Number 3- 29 -22 -11 -0001. This property is also known as 1700 E. County Road D, Maplewood; WHEREAS, the procedural history of this rezoning is as follows: 1. This rezoning was reviewed by the Maplewood Planning Commission on December 4, 1989. The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that said rezoning be approved. 2. The Maplewood City Council held a public hearing on , 1989 to consider this rezoning. Notice thereof was published and mailed pursuant to law. All persons present at said hearing were given an opportunity to be heard and present written statements. The Council also considered reports and recommendations of the City staff and Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL that the above - described rezoning be approved on the basis of the following findings of fact: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code and comprehensive plan. 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. 6 Attachment 3 5. BC zoning is consistent with the land use plan for this 411 property. Adopted this day of , 1989. 7 4 MEMORANDUM 111 TO: City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Rezoning LOCATION: South of Upper Afton Road, east of McKnight Road APPLICANT /OWNER: City of Maplewood DATE: November 28, 1989 SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The City is proposing the rezoning of an approximately 2.5 -acre area of land from BC, business and commercial to F, farm residential. The property is located south of Upper Afton Road and east of McKnight Road. This is shown on the map on page 5. BACKGROUND August 12, 1985: The City Council approved Ramsey County's acquisition of the subject parcel to make it part of the county's park system. The City purchased the property for the county park system with the understanding that the county would buy it from Maplewood when regional park funds are available. Funds may be available in 1990 or 1991. • May 22, 1986: The City Council approved a Comprehensive Plan amendment from LSC, limited service commercial to os, open space for the subject parcel. November 16, 1989: The City Council initiated a study by staff of properties which have zoning and land use designations that are inconsistent. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL Section 36 -485 of the City Code requires the following findings to approve a rezoning: 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 111 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. DISCUSSION The proposed F, farm residential zoning classification would be consistent with the OS, open space land use designation and would serve to "clean -up" the zoning map. Since the property is publicly owned and is surrounded by the Battle Creek Regional Park, the removal of the commercial zoning designation will help to clarify the City's intentions for the property. RECOMMENDATION Approve the resolution on page 6 to rezone the City's property south of Upper Afton Road east of McKnight Road from BC, business commercial to F, farm residential based on the findings required by ordinance and that F, farm residential zoning is consistent with the OS, open space land use designation for this property. • 2 . REFERENCE Site Description Area: approximately 2.5 acres of BC zoning. Parcel area = 3.5 acres Existing land use: undeveloped Surrounding land use: Battle Creek Regional Park mb /mem.UPPER.ZC Attachments 1. Battle Creek Land Use Plan 2. Property Line /Zoning Map 3. Rezoning Resolution kenmemol9 3 . REVISED . i 1 ; -Di -ea • � o jM CO �. • ' interchange - --AIL; ,1 ���� mil! f er ia . . ,.a „ -.1 0 ,,...... a., / I is • i � � o Q l� lam/ r . irvA ta - Interchange n _ i al im m Mb . OS ION ��i, _ ! " - nimunumommu.r�� ` OS `o 11 It mu .ta • , I -_ w _ E P p E° I! I HI Ii P:I I minor arteria w : �4� , I Me i ° a o 0 • I e - a. c • e OS m t S m • Lower Afton . • ____ major arterial /.• »)1< Co _ IRK. • mob _ c e FT . .. v� � 111 1 I � . 1 FP,-...4-4-. v ........ . 0.........040. , . . ear. irt7 . . i r ..... c o pi _ _ m - i Ill i) i BATTLE CREEK NEIGHBORHOOD LAND USE PLAN N 4 Attathr ent 1 j \O P . -, - . . : ..'•.- -- ;-7"..7. - ÷- --- - - -- - .,-,7-;— - - - - - • • -...,::,-;,- ....s...,,,as;:' : .. _ _ .. .•'. . , . ---,-, -,-,,,,, - „ __ ______, _ • ....- _•00. i 4 . , :i,* --_-.....- ls : '........!!" ci t N.,. -- . • ,,,,,,, SO *los, , . -. . • 7 •••"' F 54If- – t...- .-c, ,,•, .N. .. 'IL MAY E R .:.,...., /:' elF ..... -1 1 .......-r""r.."- . • •.-.. / Fal) •:§ . • ' "„ .... , .... - !„ 5 4 1 : \ I F I 4 . 'y i is: -.. .. e =- RA.5 EY COUN • t"=-SAMES"' I% 1 .4; ..1 Ai 1 - _ 41- - ' t ' 5 4 • r. I5 - 2; F ..,.- 1 - F ,.. • "...-** t. .:'... .-- , 0. • -' - 4. 4- . 4 .4 • 1: ' i':: 1 • 1 F I i •....... i I a ',• 10 - t: 1 1 ' — -- --- — -- -,....., _ — _4 ______ a:4LP _ .t • • .... • • • ArIr ■., - P s ' • "" Voms --- I., tL"Ir II as.. ., 1 ri I■ i, (e• 0 r 6; 11 I IL_ _ ;.r.zw• 4., < , F if ge ill ..t 4 • 4411,1611•00.3.‘07... li: 4 ill I li 1 .4 r a it- - _ - -z-z-:-.1.1-1.;,.. - .A.... - .3.d , e4ar_ e7.r- - --7--== -- - . • -- - - — - - –I I ■ - E ..1.. 1 4. .....„ 1 COUNTY Of RAMSEY •-• OPEN SPACE :It' el• er , I ; I/ I i 1 -, , , I i 1 („„..) ! )- ...! ,..•. • .....•• I— I 1 .. ; • I ce,..r, or AMASEY FOR BATTLE c E CR FI VARR f' 1 1 : LT>, I 1 1 6, a : zi 1.6.1....r■■.................a..........,.. a—,■.-.,,,.............., ..„,,,,,,,,m• - .- - — • • - - ,,, I, ,i 1 re-.-.- ---, -- —,-- •—• , , . j • I • •••• • • T. PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP n 5 Attachment 2 N . .. REZONING RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood initiated a rezoning from BC, business commercial, to F, farm residential, for the following - described property: The 2.5 -acre parcel south of Upper Afton Road, east of McKnight Road. This property is also known by PIN 1- 28 -22 -32 -0004. WHEREAS, the procedural history of this rezoning is as follows: 1. This rezoning was reviewed by the Maplewood Planning Commission on December 4, 1989. The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that said rezoning be approved. 2. The Maplewood City Council held a public hearing on , 19 to consider this rezoning. Notice thereof was published and mailed pursuant to law. All persons present at said hearing were given an opportunity to be heard and present written statements. The Council also considered reports and recommendations of the City staff and Planning Commission. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL that the above - described rezoning be approved on the basis of the following findings of fact: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. 2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and 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. • 6 Attachment 3 . t 5. The F, farm residential zoning classification, is consistent with the OS, open space designation, for the property. Adopted this day of , 19 . 410 III 7 MEMORANDUM 411 TO: City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Rezoning LOCATION: Century Avenue, South of the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad Tracks APPLICANT: City of Maplewood OWNER: Richard Pearson PROJECT: Rolling Hills Second Addition DATE: November 27, 1989 SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The City is proposing the rezoning of an approximately 19 -acre area of land from F, farm residential and M -2, heavy manufac- turing to R -3, multiple dwelling residential. The property is located south of the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad tracks and west of Century Avenue. This is shown on the map on page 5. BACKGROUND May 9, 1983: The City Council rezoned from M -2, heavy manufacturing to F, farm residential the northern portion of this site and rezoned from M -2 to R -3, multiple - dwelling residential, the site of Rolling Hills Manufactured Home Park First Addition. Council took no action on rezoning the current M -2 zoned parcel. At that time, it was the site of a recently burned single - family home. The owner did not have any plans for the site, so the Council left the M -2 zone to give the owner the maximum flexibility of use. May 11, 1987: The City Council approved a conditional use permit to develop the mobile home park on property zoned F, farm residential and M -2, heavy manufacturing subject to 15 conditions. November 16, 1989: The City Council initiated a study by staff of properties which have zoning and land use designations that are inconsistent. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL Section 36 -485 of the City Code requires the following findings to approve a rezoning: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. 1110 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. DISCUSSION The proposed R -3 zoning classification would eliminate the inconsistency between the R -M, medium - density land use designation and the current zoning. It would also eliminate the potential of an undesirable M -2 use if the manufactured home park was changed to another use. The manufactured home park is ninety percent full and has been developing in accordance with the original conditions of approval. While the R -3 zone does not allow a manufactured home park, the current park would be "grandfathered in" under the existing conditional use permit. RECOMMENDATION Approve the resolution on page 6 to rezone the Rolling Hills Mobile Home Park Second Addition property from F, farm residential and M -2 heavy manufacturing to R -3, multiple - dwelling residential based on the findings required by ordinance and that R -3 zoning is consistent with the land use plan designation for this property. 2 41 1 REFERENCE Site Description Area: Approximately 19 acres Existing land use: Rolling Hills Mobile Home Park Second Addition Surrounding Land Uses North: Chicago and Northwestern Railroad. North of the tracks is NSP property zoned M -1, light manufacturing. East: Century Avenue and single dwellings in the City of Oakdale. South: Rolling Hills Mobile Home Park, zoned R -3. West: Undeveloped property owned by the City of Maplewood that is zoned F, farm residential, and planned OS, open space. PLANNING Medium density residential (RM): This classification is 110 designated for such housing types as single - family houses on small lots, two - family homes, townhouses, and mobile homes. The maximum population density is 22 people per net acre. Farm residence (F): General farming or gardening, commercial greenhouses and nurseries, single - family dwellings, public parks and playgrounds, livestock raising and manufactured home parks are allowed in this district. Multiple- dwelling residence IR -3): Multiple dwellings, double dwellings and public parks and playgrounds are allowed in this district. Heavy manufacturing (M -2): This district allows any type of use although specified nuisance uses require a conditional use permit. mb /mem /rolling.ZC Attachments 1. Beaver Lake Land Use Plan 2. Property Line /Zoning Map 3. Rezoning Resolution 111 3 0 Ad 1 . ,J 1 Po✓ - Rill : e.)1,/x" . o •� • t • • tom. •' R 111 CL) ' •. 1 Rm 1 la o�. m 0,--isc ' major coilcclor ° Maryland Ave. • .. j .. - . r. r' 1 I `1111t11 ' 111 . - 0 t Rm 1 . 4 ..... J RI a. ; A — S t. i 1 l wa to r Ito gm . -,;" #d•MCD I . 1 2 B--'' W.4 SC O n. 0 - • .r. .AV , • ...... _ t I 9 ) • • ,.V i • I I 1 ih 1;1 . , 1 «, �� cr colicc " ,. t Harvester ill ... t . —151 Rh. P `- ..... E ji, O ai `. c C S E � . I I . .1. I, •.,.... 21 trle22 . M i nnehaha [ Beaver Lake 12f LAND USE PLAN N ■ 4 Attachment 1 ` 1 1 I 1 1 AVE. 4 • 1 M � .' , } i I— 7 1 ' •w.. z r ". . • ,_ _ TILO F . M1 � 1 is r, .17 in : • ;12 II M 1 1 i mM rir5 , �'I .... iilNlo I • • • • • • • 11. S. P. 1 a �;(? ---, j�0 . goL L / NG 1,-/ILLS { � � Mi iii z ADlJ ?i . - 2 . •*.) * 1 N1 6 401 I z NI i i . 11141A6 6.,. h u li j BOLL) j ,/ /LL j e . l Mos /LE Hof YIE . 1 • p,q . • r PV© R3 • :` , o .....•••nr_ . . . .... - ,7.7,737.7 . ••• • .,!' •..• . :. . .•:•! • • • west 1 .. W ` 1 L Al M {{}} f•• ,,. Ill Al 4 77 N, / • PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP 1['.\_%1k' • N __ . 5 Attachment 2 • REZONING RESOLUTION 410 WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood initiated a rezoning from F, farm residential and M -2, heavy manufacturing to R -3, multiple - dwelling residential for the following- described property: That portion of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 24, Township 29, Range 22, lying Southeasterly of the Chicago and Northwest Railroad right -of -way. This property is also known as the Rolling Hills Mobile Home Park Second Addition, Maplewood; WHEREAS, the procedural history of this rezoning is as follows: 1. This rezoning was reviewed by the Maplewood Planning Commission on December 4, 1989. The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that said rezoning be approved. 2. The Maplewood City Council held a public hearing on , 19 to consider this rezoning. Notice thereof was published and mailed pursuant to law. All persons present at said hearing were given an opportunity to be heard and present written statements. The Council also considered reports and recommendations of the City staff and Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL that the above - described rezoning be approved on the basis of the following findings of fact: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. 2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and 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. 6 Attachment 3 . 110 5. The R -3, multiple dwelling residential designation is consistent with the land use plan designation for this property. Adopted this day of , 19 . 410 7 Mk MEMORANDUM • TO: City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: Junction Avenue APPLICANT /OWNER: Lorraine Huss PROJECT TITLE: Lot Split DATE: November 27, 1989 SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to divide her property so that a new interior lot with 60 feet of street frontage on Junction Avenue is created. 'City code requires at least 75 feet of frontage. Section 36 -69 of the City code allows 60- foot -wide interior lots by conditional use permit. See the applicant's letter on page 8. BACKGROUND There is some precedent for this request. On November 21, 1963, The Maplewood Council approved a variance for a for a single - family home on a 60- foot -wide lot at 1201 Junction. This home was constructed in 1987. (This is the lot immediately to the west of the property in question and is shown on the map on page 7.) CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL As noted above, Section 36 -69 of the City code allows 60- foot -wide interior lots by conditional use permit provided that: 1. The findings required by code for a conditional use permit can be met. (Refer to page 4.) 2. There are at least two developed lots of record with the same or less width than proposed, within three hundred fifty (350) feet of the site on the street. Larger minimum side -yard setbacks may be required to balance the separation between adjacent structures. DISCUSSION This conditional use permit should not be approved until a storm sewer system is constructed in this area. Water pools in this area during heavy rains and the spring thaw. Most of the flooding is on Junction Avenue, but there is also flooding on the adjacent lot at 1201 Junction Avenue. Construction of another 411 house would aggravate this problem. Because of this problem, findings 4 and 6 for a conditional use permit would not be met- a new house would be detrimental to the adjacent property because 111 of water run -off and the property is not served by adequate drainage structures. (See page 4) There is precedent for this action. On December 6, 1979, the City approved a lot area variance to construct a hose on Birmingham Street, north of Ripley Avenue_ A condition of approval is that "no building permit shall be issued for this lot, until the drainage problem is resolved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer." This has not been done yet and the lot is still vacant. If a storm water system is installed, the conditional use permit should be approved. There are two 60- foot -wide lots immediately to the west of the proposed lot on the north side of Junction Avenue. In addition, there are seven lots which are 60 feet wide or less along the south side of Leland Road in the area surround- ing the applicant's existing 60- foot -wide lot (1206 Leland Road). If the conditional use permit is approved, the lot should be required to have a minimum of 15 feet of side -yard setbacks. This requirement is consistent with the side -yard setback requirements in the R -2 zoning district for 60- foot -wide lots. RECOMMENDATION Table the conditional use permit request until a City storm -water drainage system is installed to service the area. 2 • CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed 38 property owners within 350 feet of the site. Of the 22 responses, 15 were in favor, 5 had no comment and 2 were against. In Favor 1. She has been a nice neighbor for over 30 years. 2. I can see no problems with this and I approve. 3. I've got a 55- foot -lot - I see nothing wrong with it. 4. It will improve and finish the appearance of the block. 5. Most all the lots in this area are either 55 feet or 60 feet. We live on a 55 -foot lot. 6. It will add to the neighborhood and bring in more tax dollars. 7. I do not object to small lot for a single family home. 8. Each person should be able to sell their property - as well as buy it. 111 Objections 1. The lot is too small. Adding a house on it will not fit into the neighborhood (block) well. It shouldn't be developed. It should be offered for sale (or split) between the homeowners on either side. (Fliesher - 1216 Junction Avenue). 2. This area lacks sufficient water drainage. Water currently pools in part of this area during heavy rains and the spring thaw. I understand the problem is larger than simply dividing lots, but by changing the landscape on this particular lot it will increase flooding on Junction Avenue. Improvements are needed to the drainage pond on the south side of Junction. (Bjorklund - 1195 Junction Avenue). 111 3 A REFERENCE $ite Description Total area: 16,020 square feet Proposed lot area: 8010 square feet (60 x 133.5) for each lot Existing land use: A single- family home Surrounding Land Uses North: Leland Road and single - family homes East: A single - family home on an 80- foot -wide lot South: Junction Avenue and single - family homes West: A single - family home on a 60- foot -wide lot Planning Land use plan designation: RL, Low- density residential Zoning: R1, single - family residential Findings required for a conditional use permit (from section 36- .1 442 [a]): (1) The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's comprehensive plan and Code of Ordinances. (2) The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. (3) The use would not depreciate property values. (4) The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, or disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run -off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. (5) The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. • 4 (6) The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. (7) The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. (8) The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. (9) The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. kd /kenrmemo6 Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Property Line Map 3. Applicant's Letter dated 10 -14 -89 • 5 A <: / ill f . x z . . , c) rit..,......,..... :A ...-_. - _ ,, . -/-.'---'''"'"--:)\ j / • I . • V ' ti / / // A I VIVIIVr 116 ' ' ''. ohdnan /X NO $4,1f1:; ' —. e .. . '.* 97 4 ?) K AV 1 ...--1 if ve3 c • R • C - • t 5 a 4. • V J 1_ i g ' (I 03NNOR AV DEMONT a- I PL AtA MR M. S ALVERADO OR 4' - a M • �'? S OELLCRE[T OR _ • DEAf/VfLL[ 01 � D MERIDIAN OR \ � I , J. i• , EXTANT '£ T Q t N ' AV < o GERVAIS A\ GR AMa,IEMI AV XTAN W ' a VIKING DR Y ' < -- ---- -, � � � ' coPE Av Kru ck/e Head Lake Cope �...,..;...�.• _ A vi ;> ( \feller Jok �` 4. ' w � Artts. � � an _ © Q LELAND AN W Y CO • . DN o RD s � � NJR D AV .4 • Y 1 ' 0, - se" ST t ��� ELDRIDG SW ' • 1 Ca • r1 _la A 1 st , o N ROSEMAOD � r . 1 S AV 0 0 F ,...ro,,...._ .______... k J d ® i / FROST re /EL ;.ail' /, re AV o ®- ~ Sr s ON A � � k 2 ?Min SIE or W RIFLE C L 1- `< ` R ' JtECR N �� >r ® z o �/`� z z • 4 o ,/,1..._ ' Ram r � `ih E a ol ... 7 7 ° ~ 11! •W 21 1 ,./) C \ . bi ri MI er) 1 I ) \ % C\ \ ' ‘V 11" 011& LI i \< <.\\ \, to SAINT PAUL 6a 65 LOCATION MAP 'O 4 - N 6 ATTACHMENT 1 7 \ 130 . fowl 1 rr.,1 I rr.1 I • .I ;,Y, I 1.... r I �.r, 1 I 152 30 30 1 40. 40 r 601. I 60 j 40 401.471_10 1 40 ( 401 40 �40 144 140 � !. t .., 1444. 1 .•1 _ 14044 14 4 . 14• • A f • J GOUN-7 -'1 •- aL AD L J � — LL J.. � .* [[[ •=.: •" Lr_ 2b, s of - I IA 'ff,o X20 - ' � °T ' ' '." - - - - - -- - f f •.�, F4o [CI fiosirlo, • i- (24) a7) 4.17 1 1(x 1 p') I (s'. I L' I 1 c K 1 1 • tip') 1(`.) I �1 L }� it: 4 c. - 1 I I d Gift) 1, ,,� 1 ()( � ( I f e 17 lb � 19. ' • I 1 22 3 tb 1 26 27 2 3 , 2, t :d I Z 1 i y c , .., i i — — l — i s , s „ 4 • _ "I fae4D , '' I— } ' I �/ ' ' r pm .33sc. ��� 14 , 134-12 III •'r I >3 >r I ' a � , - � 1 Is j 14 11i It � 11 1 10 1' f 1 _ I104 iW koL �01,1 k, (�)I )1 16 • 4)14 1( 149': 132 4 is J` if 6 • i SS S - III 111.40 140 14014014 11•44 .: raj. — S EL �' !�::�'r' - -- m iKAPbsco Leff-de/Jr $ • 6 40 30 • I se 6• 0 4 1 • 4o V 401 • '4 • j • • I • I - ; • 1 o 1 8504. .55 et tt e � I /3f� ) . ;i. .... N /613 Y14-)� Z115). 1 ' ; Cie) ( 3 ) . . • 6 1, 1 • .. 24 :7 l l$ I a, t .�', I I 1 I Ib1 ! 1 I _ 1 u 1 1212 4'1' --"' I I' rt ) ✓ 1200 120 _ t ' . , . n �m.. 1 Q 1 - �- i - - �- -_ -' I . Ip� ��• �i Z . . _ - - L / i 1• -. II te 2 9 V.0 . • j of c 1201 4* 11213 IL3) 612-) 1 t-- � 1 I 1 1 1 I t 04 ; l6 14 1, 8 6 . S 4 r:151 1 13 1 :2 I 11. ��) to 1 • 11) . 1 3 I 1 • * Q • (at) 16"x) I 160 1 1 • • °O N _ • go e d 4Y0 .• . .. t • • 140 4,p 40 • 1 •• 1 • I • • ( • I w 1 \ 155 T.95 1 ,. N I ■ • �.� _ v R z. Ph • • Eo RL. t.E'; ■ ■ 2.0G.11 1s I 15 - .4& .• loo T 1 • f+ • S • 11f.f _;'' ( # ) 0 1 J irk i Si ) t 6 , . - g 1 \ \ o \ 1200 1208 1216 1 - _ a w (7)41444'. 3 ..... . ,, N. a ■ 07 t, 41, 'j .�q 7 • 37 .. i 5 („ 1 Zetl 4kp)/t): 8 v x. , M ., . - � : , ( e IL i 2137 043 g 0 13 \AN s O 104) ♦ � c ■ 213 9f� ` 3 q a� ( 7�) A' (1 0) 0 16 a 600) ! en) 0 1 / ( '" 17 ; . / (T5)4 :^/ 4 :• s 0 4 q S 019) MA, f .. 'PO 1 ` ( % 17 , m om .: q J 1 \9 7 PROPERTY LINE MAP N -.I 0 . 7 ATTACHMENT 2 • October 14 1989 Dear Council Members; I request your approval of this Conditional Use per:it because; ay husband and I bou;ht this property in 1953 as a i )lace for our child- ren to play and later for a retirea'at home. My husband died in 1931 and this is M lot to keep up, and I would like to gift this to my son, Kenneth, to build on or sell and build. Not everyone wants a large lot. There was an alley vac. in 1985. I submit a copy of a Real Estate tax statement showing a separate statement for each property, also the sewer assessment in 1959. I submit a copy of Notice of Hearing of ,61: assess ent showing both Junction St. and Lealand Rd. listed also receipt showing separate water :, service connection fees for both properties paid. Property lots on my street (Lealand Rd.) are costly 55', %5', and • 60' lots with beautiful homes and 50,o are retired residents. It is a wonderful location with a short distance to Keller G.lf Course for a retired golfer. It will also be a tax benefit for the city with a 90,3J0+ home on it. Thank You Sincerely icurs -- 4 a : 6: /44'4— Huss 1205 E. Le _land Rd. Maplewood, MN 55109 484 -2934 8 ATTACHMENT 3 411 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Director of Community Development SUBJECT: January Meeting Dates DATE: November 22, 1989 The regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting dates in January cannot be held because they fall on legal holidays - New Years Day and Martin Luther King's Birthday. RECOMMENDATION Reschedule these two meetings to the following thursdays - January 4 and 18. MEMO4 cc: City Clerk