The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06/19/2007 MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesdav. June 19, 2007, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes June 5, 2007 5. Public Hearings a. 7:00 2008 - 2012 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) b. 7:45 Lot Division Proposal (Carye - 2291 Hazelwood Street) Lot Area Variance Lot Width Variance Rear Yard Setback Variance 6. New Business None 7. Unfinished Business None 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations June 11 Council Meeting: Mr. Walton June 25 Council Meeting: Mr. Desai July 9 Council Meeting: Mr. Hess July 23 Council Meeting: Mr. Pearson July 30: Annual Tour 10. Staff Presentations 11. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JUNE 5, 2007 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Harland Hess Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Joe Walton Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Present Present Present Present Present Absent Present Staff Present: Ken Roberts, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the planning commission minutes for May 21,2007. Commissioner Trippler had corrections on pages 6 and 8, and a clarification to page 15. On page 6, in the seventh paragraph, second line, change the word if to is. On page 8, in the ninth paragraph, first line, after the word follow, insert the word and. On page 15, in the fifth paragraph, fourth line, Mr. Trippler wanted to clarify that council member Kathleen Juenemann hadn't left the meeting early; she just left the meeting before the conclusion of business. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the planning commission minutes for May 21,2007, as amended. Commissioner Hess seconded. Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood V. PUBLIC HEARING None. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-05-07 -2- VI. NEW BUSINESS None. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Conditional Use Permit Revision - Keller Lake Convenience Store (2228 Maplewood Drive) Mr. Roberts said Roger Logan, the owner of the Keller Lake Convenience store, is proposing a revision to the conditional use permit (CUP) for the property at 2228 Maplewood Drive. This permit allows a motor fuel station to be within 350 feet of a residential zoning district. The proposed revision to this permit is for the expansion of a nonconforming use. This station is nonconforming because it is within 350 feet of a residential property. The proposed permit revision is necessary to allow the LP (liquid propane) retail dispensing facility that is on the property to remain on the site. The city approved a permit for the installation of the LP dispensing facility about one year ago. The contractor installed the tank about 15 feet from the east property line of the site (exceeding the ten-foot setback requirement of the state fire code). Unfortunately, the city issued the permit for the tank in error since the city code requires the owners or contractors that install such tanks to usually keep them at least 350 feet from a residential property. City staff is working with the owner/operator of the store, Mr. Logan, to resolve this matter. Mr. Roberts said on May 1, 2007, the planning commission first reviewed this proposal. The planning commission, after much discussion, tabled this matter to allow staff to research several questions. These included safety and setback standards for propane dispensing facilities. After the May 1, 2007, planning commission meeting, staff sent seven questions to the Fire Marshal, Assistant Fire Chief, Butch Gervais, and his answer is in bold below the question. What would likely happen if the tank developed a leak? Where would the propane qo? What safety features does that tank have to help minimize the risks to the neiqhbors? Propane is heavier than air so it would stay low and can be controlled with water spray. What could cause a tank like that one to explode? How often, if ever, do such commercial LP tanks explode? If it did explode, what miqht happen? If there was heavy fire impinging and relief valves did not work containers can act like a rocket. Is it necessarv or even practical to have a concrete safetv barrier or wall installed on the east side of the tank (to help protect the house that is about 133 feet to the east of the tank)? I don't believe it would be necessary. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-05-07 -3- Are there state or federal codes or safety standards for the installation and operation of such tanks that YOU could provide to me that I could share with the PC and with the City Council? Butch Gervais gave the attached information to staff to include in the staff report for the commission and council. How is the safety or risk level of this tank compared to other hazards in the world - fires. car accidents, accidents in the home, etc? There is a risk with everything but I see no big issue with this tank. Bottom Line - is this a safe place for the tank and does this installation pose much risk for the homes to the east? I feel everything should be okay. Also, does it matter where the underqround fuel tanks for the station are on that site and does their location pose any special concern on this property? I am not aware of any concerns. Commissioner Hess said based on the guidelines researched by staff for the various cities, Oakdale has a 50-foot setback from a residential zoning boundary, Woodbury has a 110-foot setback, Roseville has a 50-foot setback from the front property line, a 40-foot setback from the property line and a 1 OO-foot setback from the rear property line. White Bear Lake and Inver Grove Heights do not have a setback and Stillwater follows the state requirements. Commissioner Hess wondered if the 350-foot setback for Maplewood seemed unrealistic and should the city take a look at modifying that setback after knowing what other municipalities use as the setback? Mr. Roberts said that would be a good discussion point for the commission. There are two different setbacks to keep in mind. One is the setback of a similar LP facility from a property line on commercial property and secondly, the setback for the same facility from an adjacent residential structure. Commissioner Hess said one of the caveats might be the size of the LP tank itself and how it's implemented, whether it's an above or below tank. Mr. Roberts said if you want to request that the city council consider a code amendment, the planning commission could make that a separate motion. If the commission has some details they want staff to look into as part of that, the commission could include that in the motion. Commissioner Hess said that's the direction he's heading towards to see if the city council wants to reconsider the 350-foot setback. Commissioner Trippler said that was the direction he was going as well. It seemed that the only reason the commission is hearing this item is that the applicant was granted a permit from the city that shouldn't have been approved based on the setback ordinance. However, if the city had a 100-foot setback instead of a 350-foot setback, then this would not be an issue. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-05-07 -4- Mr. Roberts said that would depend on how the city defines the 1 OO-foot setback. If the 100-foot setback is to the structure, then yes, if the 1 OO-foot setback is to the property line, then no. Commissioner Trippler said based on the information that staff had provided and looking at the data regarding what the setbacks are for LP tanks throughout the state. He said he doesn't like supporting a variance when the ordinance doesn't make sense and in his opinion that is where this is right now. The city has an ordinance that doesn't seem to fit the data compared to what other municipalities are doing. Rather than issuing a variance he said he would rather see the city council change the ordinance to make the ordinance meaningful. He thinks that it's important that people see ordinances as being applicable and meaningful and not just something the city council passed just because they can, because if that happens, people tend to ignore the ordinances then. Chairperson Fischer said when this item was discussed last time, staff referred to the 350-foot setback as a commonly used factor in some of the city's ordinances. She asked if the city has other ordinances that have 350-foot setbacks as the limiting factor that should be looked at in view of today's conditions? Mr. Roberts said besides the current LP tank requirement there is the 350-foot setback for a motor fuel station and an auto maintenance facility cannot be within 350 feet of residential. The 350-foot setback was put in about 1992. The concern with motor fuel stations and maintenance garages was for potential noise from air tools and the possibility of fuel tank fumes that could affect nearby residential. The city council thought at the time if there was a separation between residential that would minimize any negative affects on nearby residences. Staff didn't know why LP tanks were included in 1992, but it was. The record isn't very clear. There may be other uses that require a 350-foot setback as well. Chairperson Fischer asked if it was possible that the city didn't know about or think about other setbacks when the ordinances were written that could now fall under an area of concern and should be less than the 350-feet setback? Mr. Roberts said things are always changing. At one time the city didn't have an ordinance for cell phone towers so when cell phones became popular the city had to write a new ordinance for the installation of cell phone towers. Things change, habits change, people change, and the city has to amend the ordinances on a regular basis to keep up with the changing times. Commissioner Pearson said he feels the 350-foot setback should not be applied to this LP tank, it doesn't fit and it's overkill, but he feels the 350-foot setback ordinance was a part of the commercial property study to prevent encroachment on R-1 neighborhoods. So, before the city council would change that 350-foot setback, the city may want to review the ordinance and see what the affect is since the city passed the ordinance to prevent encroachment on R-1 neighborhoods. Mr. Roberts said that would be a big study to do. Commissioner Yarwood said he appreciated the information that the staff put together in the staff report which was very helpful. He said he felt more comfortable with this after seeing what other cities are doing. One issue is the safety of LP tanks, and the second issue is the aesthetics of LP tanks. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-05-07 -5- Commissioner Yarwood said propane tanks are more common in rural areas and not so common in residential areas of the city. He too would rather see the ordinance changed. When the ordinance is changed the city needs to keep in mind the safety aspects, but also the value of the home. Commissioner Trippler said it would've been nice to have the fire marshal here because the in the material it states that a complete failure of the tank, which would be an explosion of the tank, is highly unlikely, because of the valves that are built in to release the pressure before that happens but he would have liked to ask the fire marshal what the impact of an explosion would have been. Mr. Roberts said Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal, Assistant Fire Chief, planned to be here after his meeting at 7:00 p.m. atthe fire station. Staff had hoped he would be here between 8:15 and 8:30 p.m. If the commission has the information they needed to vote on they could do that as well. Commissioner Trippler said he believes he has all the information he needs. Commissioner Desai asked if the commission were to turn this recommendation down and ask for an amendment change, how long is the process in terms of getting an amendment change? Mr. Roberts said a lot of that would depend on the city council. City council may not take that direction; they may want staff to do something different. If this went to the city council and they said this looks like a good idea and gives this study to staff he guessed that would be at least a 60-to-90 day process by doing more research and bringing a proposed code amendment back to the commission for the review and then to the city council. Commissioner Desai asked if in the mean time this LP tank permit would continue to operate as is? Mr. Roberts said yes. Commissioner Trippler moved to adopt the resolution starting on page 38 (attachment 9) of the staff report. This resolution approves a conditional use permit revision for the existing motor fuel station and for a LP (liquid propane) distribution facility on the property at 2228 Maplewood Drive. The city bases the approval of the permit revision on the findings required by the code. This permit shall be subject to the following conditions (the deletions are crossed out, new conditions are underlined and any additions are in bold and underlined): 1. The planninCl commission recommended that the city council ask staff to revise the city ordinance that allows LP tanks 350 feet from a residential lot line and thus dropped the recommended condition number 1. 2. Tho sito shall bo kopt froo or rubblo, junl<, or inoporablo motor vohiclos and dobris and thoy shall keop tho non pavod oroas plontod with groGs and mov'Iod on 0 rogular basis. 2. The owner or operator shall keep the property free of iunk. or inoperable motor vehicles and debris and they shall keep the non-paved areas planted with qrass and mowed on a reqular basis. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-05-07 -6- 3. Thoro shall bo no light or glaro onto tho homo to tho oast. 3. The owner or operator shall ensure that there is no Iiqht or liqht qlare from the site on the residential property to the east. If the owner or operator wants to add liqhts or make any chanqes to the exterior liqhtinq on the site, they shall submit to the city a detailed site-liqhtinq plan that includes fixture desiqn, pole heiqhts and liqht-spread intensities at residential lot lines. This plan shall ensure that residential neiqhbors cannot see any liqht bulbs or lenses directly and that liqht intensity and light spread meet the parameters of the city's liqhtinq ordinance. The owner or operator shall submit this plan to the city for staff approval. 'i. /\ny sound from oxtorior spoakors shall not bo audiblo nt tho oaGtorly proporty line. 4. The owner or operator shall ensure that any sound from exterior speakers is not audible at the easterly property line of the site. 5. Thoro sholl bo no gas dolivorios bororo 7:00 a,m. or aftor 10:00 p.m. 5. There shall be no motor fuel. propane or other deliveries to the site between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 6. Construction of a Gix foot high fonco along tho oaGt sido of tho site. 6. The owner or applicant shall maintain a screeninq fence that is at least six-feet tall and 100 percent opaque around the east and north sides of the property. The owner shall maintain and repair the fence so that it remains in qood condition and so it is 100 percent opaque. 7. Hours oporation sholl bo from 6:00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. 7. The hours of operation for the store and business shall be limited to the hours between 6:00 a.m. and 11 :00 p.m. 8. The city council shall review this permit revision in one year. Commissioner Yarwood seconded. Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood The motion passed. This item will be heard by the city council June 25, 2007, or July 9, 2007. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Ms. Kelly Smith, the property manager at Wyngate town homes, at 1750 and 1752 Village Trail East, Maplewood, addressed the commission. She said these are tax credit properties with 50- three and four bedroom units. She said she read the minutes from this development approval and saw there was a picnic area, a playground, and other things shown on the master plan. She said there are also 800 townhomes in the area. She asked what the status of building the playground was? Planning Commission Minutes of 06-05-07 -7- Ms. Smith said the kids living here throw rocks, run through the shrubs, and cause problems. She said there are over 100 children living in these townhomes getting into mischief, so the playground is definitely needed as soon as possible. Mr. Roberts said he believed the playground was shown on the master plan but staff didn't know what the timeframe was for the playground to be built. Legacy Village has the sculpture park and on the west side of Kennard where the trail goes under Kennard, there is supposed to be a playground as part of the master plan. The time of the installation is the question. Staff doesn't have an answer to that and because the City of Maplewood doesn't have a Park and Recreation Director, he would recommend she speak to Chuck Ahl, the Public Works Director, who is doing park development for the city so maybe he can give you further information. Otherwise, staff would recommend attending a city council meeting and ask the question during visitor presentations. Mr. Roger Logan spoke regarding his concerns about the Keller Lake Convenience Store LP tank and the neighbors living next to his business who have concerns. Commissioner Trippler said the commission had recommended approval of the CUP to the city council. IX, COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. South Maplewood Study Mr. Trippler said he attended the fourth south Maplewood study meeting that was held June 4, 2007, at Carver Elementary School. He said the consultants put together a very good presentation. They looked at two alternatives that were put forth; they had maps and people put dots on the maps representing areas where there were concerns. The consultants provided sheets of paper to write their concerns or comments on relating to the dots that people put on the map. It was well organized and a very concise presentation. Mr. Roberts said the consultants studied the area south of Carver Avenue and studied various land uses and zoning scenarios. They did an analysis to see how much development could occur if all the current zoning was followed and if the current land use designations were followed. The consultants made up two scenarios based on common practice and more innovative development styles. They looked at the number of units each of those innovative development styles would generate and high and Low ranges depending on the density for high, medium and low housing. The two scenarios the consultants made up were the ones they were soliciting comments for. For example if you built senior housing here and town homes in another area at 4-units per acre or 6-units per acre, and then asked what the concerns were. It will be interesting to see a summary of the comments to see if there is a consensus regarding the pros and cons. Mr. Roberts said from that, staff expects that the consultant will start putting together some recommendations. The moratorium on south Maplewood ends in November so the city has to keep moving forward if the city is going to make changes to the comprehensive plan, the zoning map, changes to the ordinances, or all of those, the city has to form some recommendations and get some direction and bring that to the commission to get those implemented by November 2007. There were 25 to 30 interested citizens that came to the meeting. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-05-07 -8- Commissioner Trippler said he found it extremely interesting that when that was looked at, the land use in the comprehensive plan which is the legally controlling document forthe south Maplewood area using gross acreage there could be over 1,700 units in that area of south Maplewood. Mr. Roberts said that would be for undeveloped property, staying out of the wetlands, staying off of slopes, and using gross acreage to get the higher density assuming there would be sewer on the properties. Commissioner Trippler said if you use "net" acreage instead of gross acreage the unit count was reduced to 900 units. If you used the zoning map, it reduced the units to between 500 and 700 units. If scenario number 2 is used, it reduced the unit count to 300 to 400 units. He said he also found it extremely interesting that the consultants looked at the met council's projected housing unit increase over the next 30 years and they project Maplewood will add 1,900 additional housing units between the year 2007 and 2030, The City of Maplewood would have 450 to 600 units in the Gladstone area alone if the Gladstone area gets redeveloped. If you look at the infill units for Maplewood, the city has been averaging 50 to 100 units each year for infill. If the Hillcrest area gets redeveloped that could be another 200 to 300 units. He said he thought there was no great pressure to cram housing units into the south leg of Maplewood because it doesn't look like Maplewood is in risk of not having 1,900 housing units by 2030. The Metro Urban Service Area calculated that there should be between 3 and 5 units per acre. Maplewood has 6,3 units per acre, so Maplewood is already over the minimum housing units required. Chairperson Fischer asked if staff thought the city council would be looking at the gross acreage versus net acreage when it comes to units per acre? Mr. Roberts said anything is possible and it will be interesting to see if the consultants recommend that as part of the study. Staff doesn't know what other cities do. Staff thought the Met Council is going to a net acreage calculation. Chairperson Fischer said there used to be a model ordinance for things on environment and things like that. Do they have a model ordinance as to how that's counted as net or gross acreage? Mr. Roberts said there may be an ordinance in the guidelines for updating the comprehensive plan that staff hasn't looked at but the consultant should know the answer to that. It will be interesting to see if that is one of the recommendations. Chairperson Fischer said she wasn't sure how that would be handled today under different terms. b. Mr. Walton will be the planning commission representative at the June 11, 2007, city council meeting. Items to be discussed include the (CUP) for Costco at the north side of Beam Avenue, west of the Bruce Vento Trail and the (CUP) for Corner Kick Soccer Center at 1357 Cope Avenue. Planning Commission Minutes of 06-05-07 -9- c. Mr. Desai will be the planning commission representative at the June 25, 2007, city council meeting. Items to discuss include the Pond Overlook, Rezoning (F(farm to R-2), (CUP) for Planned Unit Development, and the Preliminary Plat. There is a city council work shop session tentatively scheduled for a joint meeting to discuss the comprehensive plan prior to the regular city council meeting. (The Keller Lake Convenience Store, 2228 Maplewood Drive may be heard tonight). d. Mr. Hess will be the planning commission representative atthe July9, 2007, city council meeting. The (CUP) for (The Keller Lake Convenience Store, 2228 Maplewood Drive may be heard tonight). It's possible that the (CIP) Capital Improvement Plan for 2008-2012 might be heard. It will be heard by the planning commission on June 19, 2007. e. Mr. Pearson will be the planning commission representative at the July 23,2007, city council meeting. f. Annual Tour Mr. Roberts said the city's annual tour is scheduled for Monday, July 30,2007, from 5:30 to 8:00 p.m. If the commission has anything to add, please contact staff. Otherwise, call the community development department regarding your attendance status. g. Mr. Desai asked staff a question regarding an update on the potential lawsuit that was going to be filled by the developer in south Maplewood. Mr. Roberts updated the commission regarding the lawsuit between the CoPar Development and the City of Maplewood regarding the 72 plus acre parcel of land in south Maplewood called Carver Crossing. The case was heard by District Court Judge, Kathleen Gearin, and Mr. Roberts updated the commission regarding the recent findings of the court and the status of the case. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS None. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:53 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) June 5, 2007 INTRODUCTION The city updates the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) each year. The Capital Improvement Plan is part of the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan. State law requires the planning commission to review all changes to the comprehensive plan. The purpose of this review is to decide if the proposed capital improvements are consistent with the comprehensive plan. The planning commission will hold a public hearing about the proposed plan on Tuesday, June 19,2007. Please take the necessary time to read and study it before the hearing. In addition, please bring your copy of the proposed plan to the hearing on June 19. DISCUSSION Pages 5 through 9 of the plan provide highlights of some of the proposed projects and cost comparisons of the proposed plan to the 2006 - 2010 CIP. RECOMMENDATION Approve the 2008-2012 Capital Improvement Plan. kr/p:miscell/2007 cipmemo (2).mem Enclosure (PC only): Capital Improvement Program MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANTS: LOCATION: DATE: Greg Copeland, City Manager Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner Lot Width, Lot Area, and Setback Variances and a Lot Division Robert and Linda Carye 2291 Hazelwood Street June 13, 2007 for the June 19 Planning Commission Meeting INTRODUCTION Project Description Robert and Linda Carye are proposing to subdivide their 21 ,780 square foot lot at 2291 Hazelwood Street into two single family lots. The Caryes are proposing an addition and improvement to the existing house on the corner lot and a new single family house will be constructed on the new lot to the west (on Cope Avenue). Requests In order to proceed with the project the applicants are requesting the following city approvals: 1. Variances: Minor lot area variance for the new lot (500 square feet), a minor lot width variance for the corner lot (.99 feet), and a rear yard setback variance for the existing house to the new lot line (7.64 feet). 2. Lot Division: Subdivision approval to split the existing lot into two single-family lots. BACKGROUND November 10, 1986: The city council approved a preliminary plat and lot width variances for the Bossard Addition. The plat subdivided a 1.85 acre single family property at 2291 Hazelwood Street into six new single family lots (Attachment 6). The lot width variances were approved to allow the two corner lots to be 95 feet in width, rather than code requirement of 100 feet for a corner lot. The preliminary plat was conditioned on the existing house (Carye's current house at 2291 Hazelwood) be moved or demolished to comply with the rear yard setback. May 1987: The city council approved the final plat for the Bossard Addition. The final plat included five lots rather than six. The applicant at the time chose to drop the sixth lot from the plat rather than move or demolish the existing house to comply with rear yard setbacks. 2000: Robert and Linda Carye purchased the single family house at 2291 Hazelwood Street. Prior to moving into the house a storm caused extensive damage including the loss of several trees, destruction of the detached garage and shed, and interior damage. 2001: The Carye's home was flooded by a defective water softener, which was followed by four sewage backups. The flooding and sewer backups resulted in the production and spread of mold spores throughout the entire house. 2006: The house has sat vacant since approximately December, 2006, after the Caryes moved to Boston to tend to family matters. DISCUSSION Variances Lot Width/Lot Area Variance: City code at section 44-106 states that the minimum lot area and lot width in the single dwelling residential zoning district shall be 10,000 square feet and 100 feet (for corner lots), respectively. The applicants are requesting that the city approve a 9,500 square foot lot (new lot on Cope Avenue) and a 99.01 wide lot (corner lot). This requires a 500 square foot lot area variance and a .99 (less than 1 foot) lot width variance. These variances deviate 5 percent or less from the code. City code at section 44-1131 states that a lot area or lot width variance which deviate 5 percent or less from the code could be approved by city staff administratively. However, in this case the location of the new lot line will create the need for a rear yard setback variance for the existing house. Rear Yard Setback Variance: City code at section 44-109 states that the required rear yard setback in the single dwelling residential zoning district shall be 20 percent of the lot depth. The front of the existing house faces Hazelwood Street. The lot depth of the new corner lot from this orientation is 99.01 feet, with a required rear yard setback of 19.8 feet. The existing house will maintain a 12.16-foot rear yard setback to the new lot line, requiring a 7.64-foot rear yard setback variance. State Statute: In order to comply with the state land use law, the city council is required to 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. You cannot put your property to a reasonable use under city ordinances. b. Your problem is due to circumstances unique to your property that you 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. Hardship: The applicants have submitted a statement supporting the variance (Attachment 1). In summary they state that the proposal would maintain the spirit and intent of the single dwelling residential zoning district by establishing ample space between the proposed houses, while maintaining an appropriate residential feel in keeping with the neighborhood's character. However, because of the placement of the original house, which was built in 1914, the lot division is not possible under the strict application of the code without tearing down the existing structure. There is precedence in approving the lot width variance for the corner lot in that the city approved a 5-foot lot width variance for the lot to the north in 1986 with the approval of the Bossard Addition preliminary plat. Also, the corner lot across Cope Avenue is only 78 feet in width. This lot could 2 have been platted prior to the city's 1 OO-foot corner lot width requirements. The 9,500 square foot area proposed for the new lot (adjacent Cope Avenue) is very minimal and in keeping with the lots along Cope Avenue which range from 9,147 square feet to 10,000 square feet. The rear yard setback variance is needed due to the placement of the existing house. The applicant adequately describes the hardships for the variance in their statement. In addition, staff finds that the impacts of this setback variance can be lessened with modifications to the proposed addition described below. ExistinG Conditions The existing driveway is a gravel driveway with two accesses exiting onto Hazelwood Street. The exterior of the house has siding missing in several places. There is a 6-foot-high wood privacy fence located on the north and west property line. The fence was constructed with the structural supports facing the neighbors, which violates city code. There is an unsightly 6-foot-high chain link fence (temporary fence) installed from the southwest corner of the house to the back yard. Several neighbors have made comments about the poor condition of the existing house and the previous lack of yard maintenance while the house sat vacant (refer to the Citizen Comments section of the report). Maintenance of the home and lot are also a concern of city staff. Because of these concerns, city staff recommended that the Caryes make the proposed improvements, or at least some improvements, to the existing house prior to requesting a lot division and variance from the city. The Caryes indicate that they do not want to make any alterations to the house prior to the lot division and variance approval in the event (as a last resort) that they have to demolish the structure and then create two lots without a rear yard setback variance. To ensure that the applicants complete the residing of the house at a minimum, staff recommends that the applicants submit a cash escrow or letter of credit to the city to ensure completion of the work prior to the city stamping the lot division deeds. The applicants should also sign a right-of- entry agreement allowing the city to enter the property to complete the work if needed. Other conditions of approval should include the removal of the temporary chain link fence and either the removal of the 6-foot-high wood privacy fence or alteration of the fence to ensure that the side of the fence facing the neighbors is finished, with no structural supports showing. Proposed Improvements The Caryes propose to remove a small porch from the rear of the house, add a 60-foot wide addition to the south side of the house along the existing back wall, and convert the gravel driveway to a concrete driveway. The addition will include a two-car, tuck under garage. With the addition the house will measure 80 feet as viewed from the rear of the house. The 80-foot span will maintain a 12.16-foot setback to the new rear property line. There will be two front doors to the house, with no doors constructed on the rear or sides. City staff finds that the impacts of the rear yard setback variance could be lessened with the reconfiguration of the addition aligning with the front of the house, not the back of the house. For this reason staff recommends that the addition maintain the required 19-foot rear yard setback in all areas, leaving only the 20-foot-wide existing portion of the house with the 12.16-foot rear yard setback. This will allow additional space for a rear yard and allow for reconfiguration of the house to include a door or deck on the rear of the house. The existing gravel, double driveway will be removed and replaced with a concrete driveway exiting onto Hazelwood Street. The city's engineering department is recommending that this 3 driveway be relocated to exit onto Cope Avenue. The relocation of the driveway onto Cope Avenue will be more consistent with the neighborhood and safer due to the fact that there are cars entering and exiting Highway 36 off of Hazelwood Street. Proposed New House It is not clear if the applicants propose to construct the new single family house themselves or sell the lot. The plans submitted do include the location of a single family house on the new lot. The attached garage and deck on the new house is proposed to have a 5-foot setback from the existing single family lot at 1515 Cope Avenue, which meets city code requirement. The property owner at 1515 Cope Avenue has expressed concern over the loss of privacy with proposed location of the new house in the Citizen Comments section of the report. For this reason staff recommends that any new house constructed on the lot maintain at least a 10 foot setback from both side lot lines (for the house, garage, and deck). In addition, screening in the form of a fence or landscaping should be added to the west property line of the new lot to ensure privacy for the neighbors. OTHER COMMENTS RECEIVED Building Department: Dave Fisher, Building Official submitted the following comments: 1. Building permit is required to demolish any structure over 120 square feet. 2. The Carye's existing house has been under construction for many years. I would recommend the city require escrow of $30,000 to ensure the existing house will be sided at a minimum. 3. In 2006 a citation was issued for tall grass by Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal. 4. I would recommend the city obtain in writing the Carye's assurance to maintain the property throughout construction. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Adopt the attached variance resolution. This resolution approves three variances associated with the creation of the new lot for a single dwelling west of the house at 2291 Hazelwood Street. These include having a lot area of 9,500 square feet (500 square foot lot area variance), a lot width of 99.01 feet for a corner lot (.99-foot lot width variance), and a 12.16-foot rear yard setback variance for the existing house to the new lot line (7.64-foot rear yard setback variance). The city is basing this approval on the fact that the lot area and lot width variance are in keeping with the surrounding properties and the ability of the applicant to prove a specific hardship for the rear yard setback variance that meets state law requirements including: a. The problem requiring the rear yard setback variance in this circumstance is a problem that the current owner did not cause (i.e., location of the existing house). b. The variance will only be required for the 20-foot-width of the existing house, causing minimal impacts to the adjacent property. 4 c. The variances and the creation of a new lot and construction of a single family house in this location will not change the character of the area as surrounding properties are all single family houses with similar lot sizes. Approval of these variances is subject to the following conditions: a. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit for the existing house at 2291 Hazelwood the applicant must submit the following: 1) Submit a cash escrow or letter of credit to cover 150 percent of residing the existing house. 2) Sign a right-of-entry agreement allowing the city to enter the property at 2291 Hazelwood Street to complete siding of the house if necessary. 3) Sign a maintenance agreement promising to maintain the property per city code requirements throughout construction of the addition. 4) A revised site plan or survey showing that the addition will maintain a 19-foot rear yard setback to the new rear yard lot line and the relocation of the driveway from Hazelwood Street to Cope Avenue. 5) Removal of the temporary chain link fence. 6) Removal of the 6-foot-high wood privacy fence or alteration of the fence to ensure that the side of the fence facing the neighbors is finished, with no structural supports showing. 2. Approve the lot split site plan date stamped May 15, 2007, for a lot division request to subdivide the 21,780-square-foot single family lot located at 2291 Hazelwood Street into two single family lots. Lot division approval is based on code requirements (Section 34-14- lot divisions) and is subject to the following: a. Submit a survey to staff for approval which shows the following: 1) Legal descriptions of both lots. 2) Location and setbacks of existing house on the corner lot. b. If the new lot (adjacent Cope Avenue) is to be sold or deeded to another party, deeds describing the two new legal descriptions for both lots. c. Once the above-mentioned conditions are met, the city will stamp the surveyor deeds. These must be recorded with Ramsey County within one year of the date of the lot division approval or the lot split will become null and void (city code requirement). d. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit for the new house on the new lot (adjacent Cope Avenue), the following must be submitted to staff for approval: 1) Proof that Ramsey County has recorded the lot division. 5 2) A signed certificate of survey showing the location of all property lines and the location of the new house with at least a 1 O-foot setback from the house, garage, and deck to both side property lines. 3) Submittal of a screening plan ensuring screening from any proposed deck on the new house to the existing house to the west at 1515 Cope Avenue. 6 CITIZEN COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 51 properties within 500 feet of this site. Of the seven replies received, two were for the proposal and five were mainly against or expressed concern. For 1. Sylvester and Katherine Unertl, 1495 Sherren Street East: It is alright with us. It will be better than the way it is now. 2. Judy Baier, 2240 Hazelwood Street North: It is fine with me. Against 1. Patricia Collier and William Johnston, 1526 Cope Avenue (written comments): This home was not vacant - it was lived in until December of 2005. I believe it was then abandoned and not kept up nor was the yard kept up and their taxes were not paid and they were, and maybe still are, on "good faith mortgage agreement, only paying $200 per month. No guarantee this will be paid for and finished. Must demand an escrow deposit of enough to complete job and if they do not pay contractors. 2. Jerome and Lynnette Erickson, 1474 Cope Avenue East (written comments): We feel like the corner would look very drawn together and not much yard for either house. Someday if the old house would be taken down only a very long house would fit there. 3. Roy Pogue, 1516 East Cope (telephone call): He expressed concern that they can actually complete the project. The city should guarantee that funding is actually available. 4. Dennis and Kaye Norbeck, 1502 Sherren Avenue East (e-mail comments): The Norbecks submitted an e-mail expressing concern over the condition of the existing house in addition to other concerns (Attachment 7). 5. Jim and Kathleen Hakala, 1515 Cope Avenue East (e-mail comments): The Hakalas submitted an e-mail expressing concern over the condition of the existing house in addition to other concerns (Attachment 8). 7 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Existing Use: Vacant Single-Family House SURROUNDING LAND USES North: East: South: West: Single Family House Proposed Comforts of Home Assisted Senior Housing Single Family House across Cope Avenue Single Family House PLANNING Land Use: Zoning: Single Dwelling Residential (R-1) Single Dwelling Residential (R-1) Criteria for Approval Administrative Variance: Section 44-1131 through 44-1134 of the city code allows city staff to approve lot width and area variances in the single dwelling residential zoning district administratively if the variance does not exceed 5 percent deviation from the minimum requirements. Other Variances: State law requires that the city make two findings before granting a variance: 1. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. 2. 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 the conditions allowed by the official controls. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not created by the landowner, and a variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Lot Division: Section 34-14 of the city code allows city staff to approve three new lots from a parcel or tract in any single calendar year without the need for platting. The lot division must be filed with the county within one year of city approval. 8 Application Date The city received the complete application for the variances and lot division requests on May 14, 2007. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for any land use proposal. The 60-day requirement on this proposal ends July 13, 2007. P/sec10/2291 Hazelwood Street Attachments: 1. Statement Supporting Variance 2. Location Map 3. Site Plan 4. Existing Elevations 5. Proposed Elevations 6. Bossard Preliminary Plat 7. Norbeck Comments 8. Hakala Comments 9. Variance Resolution 9 Statement Supporting Variance Robert and Linda Carye seek a vmiance from the strict application of Map1ewood Codes concerning lot size and yard setbacks in an R-l or R-2 residential district. The Caryes seek to split their '/2 acre lot at 2291 Hazelwood in order to build a new home next to the existing house, which will be refurbished. The site plans and elevations accompanying this application depict the Carye's proposal for the property. The existing house would be refurbished and expanded, using materials and design features intended to hannonize the house with the existing neighborhood. The stonn damage to the house will be repaired, the structure refurbished, and additional living space added. The restoration wi\1 also eliminate the double-entry gravel driveway, replacing it with a single-entry concrete driveway off Hazelwood Street. On the newly created lot, the Cm'yes intend to build a home for sale or rent. The new home is also designed by the architect working with the Caryes on the existing structure and is depicted on the site plan. Design elements of the new home will fo\1ow the addition described above, with the overaU goal to blend in with the other homes in the neighborhood. The Caryes do not intend to se\1 the lot to a third-party builder, but develop it themselves. The residential lots sUlTounding 2291 Hazelwood are aU approximately '4 acre with modem homes. The Cm)'es' proposal is a reasonable use for this land and would bring the land in closer confonnance with its surroundings, by harmonizing the lot size and updating the shuctures on the property. However, because of the placement of the original home (built in 1914), the lot split is not possible under the strict application of the code without tearing down the existing structure. The Caryes have not moved the existing building or altered its dimensions since acquiring the property. As depicted on the attached plans, the proposal would sti11 maintain the spirit and intent of the R-lIR-2 zoning codes, in that it establishes ample space between the proposed houses and maintains an appropriate residential feel in keeping with the neighborhood's character. The variance wi11 a\1ow the Caryes to make significant upgrades to the existing building, add new housing to the area, and make lot upgrades in confonnity with the single-family planning envisioned for the area. The proposal, as a whole, converts an over-size lot with an outdated structure into modem housing which wi11 enhance the property value of sUITounding propeliies. RECEIVED IliA,\' 1 4 2 Attachment 2 - ~ -:~~-~~~~_- ~~_~-_---~---Hig-nway_3U-- ~-~~----- ~--- ~~ - - m__n~-~- _-~~-_--_=_-__ __ u_ ~ -=_Qqp~~~ven!!e_=n ~ ....... CI) " ~ ~ "'0 o o --. _----__ _ -_....:-.~_--_. _-- ~~~- _---':'_ -::::__'---:: 3;:-.-. _..,-c::. -. ____ -~.--::_ Q) -.- N co :J I o ;;1;;;- _, d____ , Location Map . 2291 Hazelwood Street I .:..- ~-=-~ -::c- _- - ~.:.- ~~ .-- ~--' ,--- - ,.----- -- -- ;::1 LI c. I .~ ] ill ______. _:L_.. m 3 ]::1 3.._____ ._..':) ..__ -d.-__ N w E s .,-___ _____ - __ ___ .~__"______ __m___ "/ Q 'd'd J- ___~==_-==:_::-_~t!!':9..~=::_-:::::-''''- ._._._._._._._._._.~~~~-~ _._._._._._.. '-'-'-'-'f.C I f" \ ~ I b I .Vlt', I ._.1 I I I I I I I 1 I ",I ~. ,.,1 1::' ,.,1 ..' ~I "''''''''''''~ , '" ~ 5 '" , I \ i XOII ':flU , i I L..__.!!~~)_~V~1(~~~.- , i Ii , i Ii I I '...l I~ - 1 ~ i t: \\ c'i ~I i ~' i \ill I L. , I i\l'.; , I I, , I I '" '" ~ '" -.-.-.--- -.-.-. N w s I 1 I I I I =~~::~?::~~(~~=~~-~:~~~._._. '" :~ I' :;J !< i I = I~ i, c i ~ r: i I i <= <6 I' '" ~:. .J I ! :(: ~ ' I E-I"'- . I : o"l. ,<= I ~~ i~ . . '" j !~ I 1 I I I I I ,. I ~. . I I ... . ._._.._._1._. . .., ..... ._._.--1 , . I 'I t: Ii, <...v Ie II ~~ I : ~ 8 I ,; .,;~, ... . i ~ I I .~!_ _____ _ _ _ _ ___~--. .':''I~ _ _ _ _ ---10"-66- - --- -- _._-0 OO'9L _ ____--/'-_________. ---------::::::1 ----_.____-________ .10.SL1---------------- t",,,,,,,,,,,,L,,:,,,,,,,,,J ~ '" ~ E Attachment 3 L""""",,,l,,,,,,,,,,,,J \ill ~ ~ ~d ':J ..,~ ~"'" ..1'; ~' """"'''': '%' ti Cl .:It ~ l1\Je. Site Plan o o o Attachment 4 ~:;I!J-I..!1!lIi.f,.I.U:'\U!.l.~~ ---l18F[1.0~~ l~ I I I I I I t: ::t-=-----i:::---------':!r J ___ ______ --------- --:J --- ------- --------- -- EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION SCA1.(, lt~. "1'.0" _ .!!...\Sf\l1':!'o"TftOO..!iHE\".\TlO:'l 't;.IIl!.!:- I I I I I I II I I:: -e:-:---------:5'-----~ :!J -- --------- ------ --- -- --------- ------ --- EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION sc.....u:: 1.I.~.I.-4' .ID1'.OE.n..>.U.1lJ.:;,l;J14;.... ~UUo1a:... $[l;O,'\l) fl.OOR [L[,',H10:i 10l'.'11.~ iiiEiiW-m~ f1l\UFLOOll.~Ll\'A.no.'i ~-- II II U=======~ EXISTING EAST ELEVATION SC"L[ol.ll""}'.{I" II I I I ~=====ic:_ld EXISTING WEST ELEVATION SCA.U:Ii....I.... Existing Elevations Attachment 5 1ll1'.oLtL\tt..w.;,1J'c.. llU:..UEJ:l."U~ SECO:-1l fUKlII Hn".\lIO'> IOI'.tJll" ~.aE~ ruc.-rFLOOII[l[\".\lIo.,< \ga'.Q" t==== =:::3 _-=--=-":J UII II ---- bt II =======J::J EAST ELEVATION 5CAU:: 11~' "1'.4" SOUTH ELEV A TJON OF GARAGE It SCAl,.[:III-"I',q" Proposed Elevations ...LO~<u:.eL.~T1::...w..tJti: ..IJ:.U:J.lU'I..uE~ SECo.\llflOOHELEY,\TIO.'i --~ ..-n..n~'" U~ ~ FlllSTFWORtU\'ATlO:; --~ II II U=======~ c.=-:::::-_ ____I ____:J WEST ELEVATION SCALi:01JI~''I'~ I I I II C: :E:-------- ~ -- ---------------- ------- -- ---------------- NORTH ELEVATION SCALt, 11l~~I''''. Proposed Elevations WC" ~ , SECTION AA $C.l,Lt'I.II"-I'.Q" ~ SECTION BB K.u.E: I.It". I'''. "Q --------l l!)l'.Ou.:L.\tt..l.U:cJ ~It:... S((O:>.U fLOOR EI..EY,\TIO.... lor.tVj" "EiEiiUl.Ui: 1~ ~ flllSTfl.OORtLE\".\,llO.s ~-- :<1"_ lUl',Ou:.L.I1E.w.:..J)JC- l.\l.C..O[..!j.ll~ SECO.'U fl..OOll [lE\',\llO;i 1....1.11.. ~1~ rutSt fLOOR El[y,\no;i 100'.0" Proposed Elevations o o _ --1E!:!l.\'llJI~.\lJJl~~ ----Illi5U1..~T\2,'l~ ,q I I I I _ E _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 5 =- =- ~ - !!..Uf"f:'iTflOO..!!.El.r....UIO'l '!::.1Il!!:.... SECTION AND SOUTH ELEVATION I Sl:.\.U, II."~I''''. o 0 _ ~Lt~ll.WLUl!1'1 .lor.om" .--lW>U~T]J!,"'.l!!2::!!.:.- I I U I I =-1-==========<__--' I _c_________~__~ SECTION AND SOUTH ELEVATION _ !!.....nMf:'ITn'OO.l!.EL[\.ulO~ '!:;,IlE:- sc.uE, 1""~I'",- Proposed Elevations Attachment 6 __--,--l-~'-:..J_ 80 ~_ .~, ~~J ! \1 I .' ---, . /1 I 2 ;' / .2 --l I .~-----='--:---I----{-' I I I ~-~---~~~--~~~-I~': :____.,.""~__.------ _~~E!!!~!! ___~':.~:.:::,,-,-- ___ _______ --C--=-=1:.- -~ I ~---\ - r-~ /- _: 80 - - . - - ::.'-...-' ~ :'-~--;-~ 90 s~\ ,-1" I \ \ .' 7~:- -- '-:~~;-~\I- '~'- / j fH I , \" o_~-:~. 1 -.. .J,~.. ~! / ~\ti... \ ! 1~' i II \ \ /- / I r 1'--____ , ~// \ ./1 / /' / / ~, <, I _~ \ (/ C ' I -; -" /'/ / 0 i ;/-:;: ) I '/ g \ 'I Shed to be r;m;ved LOwe 1 i i ng to be kept ~ , '--1. \, /1 f, J:: I " - :lJ___~.l / l I i ~ I .f ~,'. I ""0 . '. -.L.....~I . i. 4 ::_0 5 :J......._ 6/1 j--- ~ Ii: I -- u~"o SF - __ K8r~ Sf" ___ - ____ l2:KlO.OO '$T : . ! I \ - I" .~_ __'~:"~~O'"'"":' . ) 95. ") .~" I" c r-=-- ---- -----' j I -"- _L___ \ .. - I I --COPE: AVE- ~=--- -- _--.J!...::..- =1 I ---L---L-.---''''~ ~.. . ,.-., I - ._..._~-.:;;;;;":":...._......-..rn"';;;;;--- - _) I ~ I' I : , I -----------_____..D!*"-I'~_ '---- S I I ----------~---~----------------r ~ ---T-80-1-80-T-===~' '-l -(: Bossard Preliminary Plat 11-1 0-86 N C "Fe;-- ~. I / , <t 0:: C. .... , \ ~[ l """ ~n <.v -'- -- -.. ..........,.lInT I'..OQII , (WI..'" , I N w E s I I l r I Attachment 7 Shann Finwall _ ~._^"."._.____._,_"'______""._._~~_ _ _,____..._.~,_,_,._._..,__'~'''_... "__"_M."",."___...__"",,__~_._."""_,""_m_' ..."""-.._..."____"...._~_____.~_".,_.".... - - .. From: KNorbe6@aol.com Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 3:27 PM To: Shann Finwall Subject: Carye Lot Division at 2291 Hazelwood Street June 11, 2007 In response to the request for a lot division and variance for the property at 2291 Hazelwood Street, we have some concerns regarding this request. The house has been vacant for several years due to the fact that it really is uninhabitable! The house was built in about 1914 and Peter Moritz lived there all his life with few, if any modern conveniences. The paint is probably full of lead. The walls and insulation, unless it has been replaced, is probably full of asbestos. The wiring mayor may not be up to code. The house mayor may not have city water and sewer. (We all had septic tanks and well water when we moved here in 1967.) Now the house has been damaged with flooding and sewage backups and has left the inside full of mold. This is all very unhealthy. The house as it sits at 2291 Hazelwood is crammed toward the house on the corner of Sherren Avenue and Hazelwood Street with several overgrown pine trees that should be removed. These trees could be the cause of some of the pipe damage in this old home. Tree roots that have broken the lines. The existing old house at 2291 Hazelwood is not being restored a historical sight and due to the fact that it does not fit into the neighborhood and is uninhabitable, the best solution is to demolish it and build an appropriate home at 2291 Hazelwood or facing Cope Avenue. The house plans for Cope Avenue seem as though the house the Caryes' plan to build would fit into the neighborhood. Our final concern is, do they, the Caryes' themselves and their children plan to live at 2291 Hazelwood OR do they plan to qua se fix up the old house and rent or sell it to someone else that may OR may not know of all the structural damage that has taken place? From all the information that we have received regarding the damage, it is hard to believe that they could adequately repair the damage without gutting everything, even the frame or support walls. The exterior is in dire need or repair also. When the Moritzs' lived there, he had his farm and flowers,and the house was acceptable and livable. Today, we feel that is NO longer the case and this has become an "eyesore." They also, during all the legal issue that they had, did not even have the courtesy to take down their mailbox! We had Lillie News, Oex Phone Books, and all sorts of other trash that we neighbors picked up when walking the neighborhood. Neighbors have done this year round for several years! One double house with garages, driveways, and nicely landscaped on the property that faces Cope Avenue that fit into the existing neighborhood would be a better solution! We shouldn't have to put up with the "old eyesore" that no longer is suitable for the neighborhood. We have already had Sherren Avenue infiltrated with a home that does NOT fit into the design or neighborhood. That home was allowed to be brought in and sits at the address of 1516 Sherren Avenue. The house is maintained well, but it does not reflect the feeling of the neighborhood. It should have been put onto a lot where the house would have fit into the style and age of the rest of the neighborhood! All the involved neighbors, we are sure, feel badly about all the damage the Caryes' had and all the legal hassles. However, we all want the best for our neighborhood and not at the hand of the Caryes' to recoup 6/11/2007 their financial losses! Sincerely, Dennis and Kaye Norbeck 1502 Sherren Avenue East Maplewood, MN 55109-2630 KNorbe6@aol.com See what's free at AOL.com. 6/11/2007 Page 2 of2 Attachment 8 Shann Finwall From: JANDKOL@aol.com Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 8:59 PM To: Shann Finwall Subject: Robert & Linda Carye Lot Division and Variance Request 2291 Hazelwood St. Attachments: Info on Site Plan.jpg; New House Deck.jpg; Old House.jpg Shann Finwell AICP-PLANNER City of Maplewood June 10, 2007 This message is from: Jim and Kathleen Hakala 1515 Cope Ave E Maplewood, MN 55109 The existing house has sat vacant for three years this October. In that time and longer we have had to live next to a eyesore of a home. From siding and shingles missing to the fence being installed backwards to a pod sitting in the front yard and long grass all summer long. We have seen birds flying in and out of the west side peak and a cat that lives in or around the house. Needless to say it has not been helpful to the value of our neighborhoods property. About two months ago the Caryes stopped by to ask if we would sign a variance. They were not very speCific about what they wanted. We told them we wouid not sign anything at this time. Since then we have heard from some of our neighbors that the Caryes had told them that everyone else in the neighborhood had signed the variance. Again we did not sign the variance. Our concerns with this proposal are: Existing House: Is it safe for anyone to live in? Will it be thoroughly inspected by the city and fire inspector before any decisions are made? From the drawing we see that the remodeled home will be 80 Ft. wide (north to south) this is not consistent for our neighborhood. We do not believe that the remodeled home will harmonized with the existing homes in the neighborhood. We are also concerned that such a large home will adversely affect the value of the homes in our neighborhood. We also are wondering why anybody would want to build a house that size bordered by two busy streets and not have a backyard? New Lot New Home: The lot floods when it rains hard (see diagram). We want to know where the water will be diverted to? The new home is proposed to be 5 feet from the property line with a deck on our side of the home. The deck on our house is elevated 6 feet and is 22 feet from the property line. We would be looking right down on the new homes deck. If the new home is built we would want it closer to the existing homes property line and built opposite so that the deck is on there side of the house, which is in conformance with the surrounding homes. We are not in favor of either adding on to the existing home or the building of the new home. We do not think this conforms with the single family planning envisioned for our neighborhood. It will make the existing home twice as big as the other homes in our neighborhood and cram a small home in what should be the existing homes backyard. Before making any recommendations please take the time to come out and see and try to envision what this proposal would mean for our neighborhood. We have attached 3 pictures taken on June 10, 2007 Thank you, Jim and Kathleen Hakala 1515 Cope Ave E. Maplewood, Mn 55109 651-777 -6402 jandkol@aol.com See what's free at AOL.com. 6/11/2007 ,"" \. "LB \if "'1\ M ~ 1 '" 11 z , ::; i ,. t: it '" t~ ~ Ii ~ h !~ '011 HOUSE ,t- ,n I I 0'1 , - I .....'\. . , nl I. , h\ \:7 .. 0> .m , I D HOUSE 0-""= 0 I 1 --ci -.~::::'\: , I 0> ~(\i _ GARAGE , , € N 4b <Jo' I 1 ~ rr C'J ~ , , EXISTING FItN - -- ~ r' .-. i.>.i..L5' f;lil I;l Z ~ -< f;lil ~ U , " , G II jLOT AREA ARAGE' , I .9,500,00 SQ. Fr, " , ,I : ~il I~i iil ,j!: I . , II i . iii' , 1 . .: I'. I",,-+-, '" I' "'j ;B\~ c--<I~ i:1 ',' I '2:>1~~?P iii II" ....-lii..t.,: tbi'n. ':~ ',I ~ ""-..1'=Ju,z:<, iii I ~.' J:Si:5 i! I! i .c;:..:' HI' I 1._._._._._._.-:-._._.!PL.!:r.\,!!~L_._._._. _,I 'j , i' -'-'-'-'c-'!:! -'---, I . 3a.9S/8' . - I ;., . 80'-413116' :;' 13'.>) ,/8' ~I j..,i i t;1 !~ i II' I II! : II' ~ II I I II: I I... 1 1"'1' I ,~I . I" ! ii: i '\ : \. i ' 'I i : I . ' ~_.Jf~_._._.L~p~. .-.-.-.-.-. -------- ----- II ,. I Q;l 1'1 t,) Ii Z ,., "" II J;;:;. !i I ~ I. I ~ "I ~ lj ~ I. I R ~,''''' " " ,. , - ..-..-..-..-..- .-..-.. ' - -..-..-..-..-..-..-..-.. ri "" 30' SETBAcK": is: LOT AREA ! i I 12,376,25 SQ, Fr. i I' I ' 1 , . YI" ._._._..1'.1..-.-._.__._1 I 1~S.00' -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.. - -------- 1 , HOUSE HASELWOOD STREET SITE PLAN @> SCALE: ~ I . o ,. la 'JJ1 40' ~ DE~ON'BEFORE.~~~A I &0' Ii; ; '] lr ~ it fll 2 tl'~ h!t I ~H!. ! flll1i J II) it ~H !ls, hi ;S1;' .h ~~ ii~ <.:I d! :&&0&.. !: III =:..< ~ -<""I ~ ~~ ~ ... 8= = ~ ~8 !:l !:2 ~~ o \lIl "" '" ell ... ;: 0 :;::!:i ~ =: ~i Attachment 9 VARIANCE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Robert and Linda Carye applied to the city for approval of three variances from the zoning ordinance. WHEREAS, the variances apply to the proposed single dwelling lot west of the house at 2291 Hazelwood Street. The legal description of the single dwelling lot is Lot 5, Block 1, Bossard Addition. WHEREAS, Section 44-106 of the Maplewood Code of Ordinances requires that lots for single dwellings have a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet and a lot width of 100 feet for a corner lot. WHEREAS, Section 44-109 of the Maplewood Code of Ordinances requires a rear yard setback of at least 20 percent of the lot depth. WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing a 9,500 square foot lot (new lot on Cope Avenue) and a 99.01 wide lot (corner lot). This requires a 500 square foot lot area variance and a .99 (less than 1 foot) lot width variance. WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing a 12.16-foot rear yard setback from the existing house to the new lot line, requiring a 7.64-foot rear yard setback variance. WHEREAS, the history of these variances is as follows: 1. On June 19, 2007, the planning commission held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing an opportunity to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council the variances. 2. The City Council held a public meeting about this request on July 9, 2007. The city council considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. The city council the variances. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described variances for the following reasons: 1. The problem requiring the rear yard setback variance in this circumstance is a problem that the current owner did not cause (i.e., location of the existing house). 2. The variance will only be required for the 20-foot-width of the existing house, causing minimal impacts to the adjacent property. 3. The variances and the creation of a new lot and construction of a single family house in this location will not change the character of the area as surrounding properties are all single family houses with similar lot sizes. 1 Approval of these variances is subject to the following conditions: 1.. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit for the existing house at 2291 Hazelwood the applicant must submit the following: a) Submit a cash escrow or letter of credit to cover 150 percent of residing the existing house. b) Sign a right-of-entry agreement allowing the city to enter the property at 2291 Hazelwood Street to complete siding of the house if necessary. c) Sign a maintenance agreement promising to maintain the property per city code requirements throughout construction of the addition. d) A revised site plan or survey showing that the addition will maintain a 19-foot rear yard setback to the new rear yard lot line and the relocation of the driveway from Hazelwood Street to Cope Avenue. e) Removal of the temporary chain link fence. f) Removal of the 6-foot-high wood privacy fence or alteration of the fence to ensure that the side of the fence facing the neighbors is finished, with no structural supports showing. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2007 2