Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/21/19952. 3. 4. 5. MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 21, 1995 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East Call to Order Roll Call Approval of Minutes: February 6, 1995 Approval of Agenda Unfinished Business a. 1994 Annual Report New Business a. 1616 Currie Street (Nienast) Code Variation Lot Division b. 297 South Century Avenue (Ramsey County Correctional Facility) Conditional Use Permit Revision Visitor Presentations Commission Presentations a. February 13 Council Meeting: Mr. Sandell b. Representative for the February 27 Council Meeting: Mr. Axdahl Staff Presentations Adjournment WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION This outline has been prepared to help you understand the public meeting process. The review of an item usually takes the following form: 1. The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed and ask for the staff report on the subject. 2. Staff presents their report on the matter. 3. The Commission will then ask City staff questions about the proposal. 4. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. 5. This is the time for the public to make comments or ask questions about the proposal. Please step up to the podium, speak clearly, first giving your name and address and then your comments. After everyone in the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting. The Commission will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. The Commission will then make its recommendation or decision. All decisions by the Planning Commission are recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes the final decision. jw/pc\pcagd Revised: 01-18-95 MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION February 6, 1995 7 P.M. City Hall Council Chambers 1830 East County Road B I. Call to Order Chairperson Axdahl called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Lester Axdahl Commissioner Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Jack Frost Commissioner Kevin Kittridge Commissioner Dave Kopesky Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Mary Martin Gary Pearson William Rossbach Todd Sandell Marvin Sigmundik Milo Thompson Present Present Present Present Present Present Absent Present Present Present Present III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. January 3, 1995 Commissioner Martin moved approval of the minutes of January 3, 1995, as submitted. Commissioner Fischer seconded. Ayes-Axdahl, Fischer, Frost, Kittridge, Kopesky, Martin, Rossbach, Sandell, Thompson Abstention-Sigrnundik The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Martin moved approval of the amended agenda, adding item 7. D.-Job Description under New Business. Commissioner Fischer seconded. Ayes-all The motion passed. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-06-95 -2- V. PRESENTATION: GARYGERKE Chairperson Axdahl presented a plaque to Gary Gerke in appreciation for his time, effort, and insight as a member of the Planning Commission. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Comprehensive Plan Amendment: NURP Standards Ken Haider, City Engineer, presented the staff report and answered a question from the Commission. Chairperson Axdahl opened the public hearing for comments from the public. Since there were no comments, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Rossbach moved the Planning Commission recommend revising the following policy on page 22 of the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan to read as follows: The City requires drainage and erosion control plans with new developments. Such plans shall not increase the rate of runoff and shall prevent erosion. The City will use the National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards in the design of new storm water ponds. Commissioner Frost seconded. Ayes-all The motion passed. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Planning Commission Elections Commissioner Fischer moved the Planning Commission reappoint Les Axdahl as chairperson. Commissioner Martin seconded. Ayes-Fischer, Frost, Kittridge, Kopesky, Martin, Rossbach, Sandell, Sigmundik, Thompson The motion passed. Abstention-Axdahl Commissioner Rossbach moved the Planning Commission reappoint Lorraine Fischer as vice-chairperson. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-06-95 -3- Commissioner Frost seconded. Ayes-Axdahl, Frost, Kittridge, Kopesky, Martin, Rossbach, Sandell, Sigmundik, Thompson Abstention-Fischer The motion passed. B. 1994 Annual Report Commissioner Fischer said she felt the report did not communicate well and could be improved with little effort. She would like geographic locations given to help identify the titles of items considered, and also additional comment under Planning Commission and Council Action. Commissioner Fischer thought it should be noted if an item was approved by the Commission with a few or many conditions, and also if the Council approved with the same or different conditions. She also asked about planning for 1995 activities. The Commission discussed the Commercial Property Study as a 1995 activity and questioned the status of the Phalen Chain of Lakes Report. Commissioner Fischer suggested an annual tour, an annual comprehensive plan review update, a video about the public heating process, and a video with historical archive material depicting how staff and the public have worked together to reach major decisions affecting Maplewood (i.e., Highway 36 and White Bear Avenue becoming the Maplewood Retail Addition) as other 1995 activities. Commissioner Kittridge mentioned that the City of St. Paul, Ramsey County and the State of Minnesota are putting a plan together for an indoor weapons range on the north side of the current St. Paul Police range in south Maplewood. He felt that this might be a concern in 1995. Commissioner Rossbach expressed interest in the status of the cluster housing in Marine-on St. Croix. Commissioner Fischer also suggested in-service training for the Commission and asked if a joint meeting with the Community Design Review Board about the Community Property Study would be profitable. Commissioner Fischer moved the Planning Commission ask staff to revise the 1994 Annual Report and resubmit it to the Commission. Commissioner Rossbach seconded. Ayes-all The motion passed. C. February 21 Meeting Commissioner Frost moved the Planning Commission have their next meeting on Tuesday, February 21 (President's Day is on Monday, February 20). Planning Commission Minutes of 02-06-95 -4- Commissioner Martin seconded. Ayes-all The motion passed. _ D. Job Description--Director of Community Development Chairperson Axdahl mentioned that Mike McGuire, Maplewood City Manager, asked him if the Planning Commission might be interested in reviewing and commenting on the job description for the Director of Community Development. The Commission reviewed and discussed the description. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS There were no visitor presentations. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS A. January 9 Council Meeting: Associate Planner Roberts reported on this meeting. B. January 23 Council Meeting: Commissioner Kopesky reported on this meeting. C. Representative for February 13 Council Meeting: Todd Sandell STAFF PRESENTATIONS There were no staff presentations. ADJOURNMENT Xl. The meeting adjourned at 8:12 p.m. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Planning Commission's 1994 Annual Report February 9, 1995 INTRODUCTION The City Code requires that the Planning Commission prepare an annual report to the City Council by their second meeting in February. This report should include the Commission's activities in the past year and major projects for the new year. 1994 ACTIVITIES The Commission considered the following: 11 changes to the land use plan 1 conditional use permit for a planned unit development 8 changes to the zoning map 9 preliminary plats 4 preliminary plat time extensions 5 ordinances 14 conditional use permits 2 home occupations 11 vacations of fight-of-ways or easements 9 variances ll miscellaneous requests The Commission also completed work on the commercial property study and sent it to the City Council. The Council is planning on reviewing this study at a Council-Manager workshop. 1994 LAND USE PLAN CHANGES The Commission considered eleven changes to the land use plan in 1994. Changes Oak Ridge Estates South (Lakewood and Maryland) Phalen Townhomes (Frost and English) PC Action Council Action Approved Approved Approved Approved Bittersweet Estates (Bittersweet and Demont) Frost and English (open space) Holiday Station (Lower Affon and McKnight Road) Mapleleaf Estates (Cypress and Conno0 Maplewood Townhouses (1 lth and Ariel) Maplewood Retail Center (White Bear Ave. + Hwy 36) English and State Trail (R-2 to OS) Larpenteur and Century Avenue (open space) County Road D and Woodlynn (open space) Approved Approved Tabled Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved No action Approved Approved Approved Denied Approved Approved yet 1994 ZONING MAP CHANGES The Commission considered eight changes to the zoning map in 1994. Changes PC Action Council Action Oakridge Estates South (Lakewood and Maryland) Phalen Townhomes (Frost and English) VOA Care Center (Sherren and Cope) Bittersweet Estates (Bittersweet and Demont) Holiday Station (Lower Alton and McKnight Road) Mapleleaf Estates (Cypress,and Conno0 Maplewood Townhouses (1 lth and Ariel) Maplewood Retail Center (White Bear Ave + Hwy 36) Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Tabled No action yet Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved 1994 ATTENDANCE Name Appointed Term Expires William Rossbach 10-10-89 12-96 Gary Pearson 12-10-90 12-96 Todd Sandell 08-08-94 12-96 Milo Thompson 10-10-94 12-97 Jack Frost 12-10-90 12-97 Mary Martin 02-25-91 12-97 Kevin Kittridge 10-12-92 12-97 Dave Kopesky 08-08-94 12-95 Lorraine Fischer 1970 12-95 Lester Axdahl 08-08-74 12-95 Marvin Sigmundik 03-14-83 12-95 *Completing the term of a previous member 1994 Attendance 20 out of 23 20 out of 23 8 out of 9* 5 out of 5* 20 out of 23 12 out of 23 19 out of 23 9 out of 9* 22 out of 23 22 out of 23 16 out of 23 MEMBERS WHO RESIGNED IN 1994 Roger Anitzberger Sherry Allenspach Gary Gerke 1995 ACTIVITIES The following are the possible activities of the Planning Commission for 1995: 1. Commercial Property Study - follow closely and work with the City Council to move the study along. 2. Have the Phalen Chain of Lakes study presented to the Planning Commission. 3. Have an annual tour of development sites after the City hires the new Director of Community Development. 4. Do a review of the Comprehensive Plan for possible changes or updating. 5. Have a video tape made about the public heating process. 3 6. Have in-service training for the Planning Commission. 7. Monitor the status of the proposed cluster housing ordinance in Marine-on-St. Croix for possible use in Maplewood. 8. Have a joint meeting the Community Design Review Board (CDRB) about the commercial property study. p:mi~n~,~e~.swo (s.~ ~nma repom) MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PROJECT: DATE: City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner Conditional Use Permit Revision, Design Review and Roof-Equipment Screening Waiver Ramsey County Correctional Facility Addition February 16, 1995 The Planning Commission should review the conditional use permit. The Community Design Review Board should review the design and roof-equipment screening waiver. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PROJECT: DATE: City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner Conditional Use Permit Revision, Design Review and Roof-Equipment Screening Waiver Ramsey County Correctional Facility Addition February 16, 1995 INTRODUCTION Project Description Ramsey County is proposing to do the following at the Correctional Facility at 297 South Century Avenue (refer to the location map and property line/zoning maps on pages 11 and 12): Construct a 5,000-square-foot, one-story addition. Refer to the site plan on page 13. This addition would be for an expansion to the visitor area and a new medical ward. The proposed medical ward space would replace the old medical ward. It is not a new facility. There would not be an increase in inmate count or new cell space. This addition would be brick to match the existing building. Construct three second-story mechanical-equipment additions. Refer to page 13. These additions would be brick to match the existing building. These additions would house heating, ventilation and air-conditioning units. Replace some of the metal siding on the outside of an existing second-story mechanical- equipment structure. 4. Build a new stairway on the back of the building. 5. Construct an asphalt service drive behind the building to an existing loading area. 6. In_fill windows with brick to match the building. Refer to the elevation drawings (separate attachment). Requests The applicant is requesting the following: 1. A conditional use permit (CUP). The Code requires a CUP for public buildings and to revise an existing CUP. 2. Approval of design plans. 3. Waiving of the screening requirement for a proposed roof-mounted exhaust hood. DISCUSSION Conditional Use Permit The proposed changes are needed to upgrade the existing visitor area and medical ward and would not increase the inmate population. In 1991, the City Council required that the County provide the City with an annual report on the average annual inmate population. Refer to the minutes on page 17 and the letter from Steve Dombach on page 18. The CUP allows the County to exceed the 29% felon limit, but requires that the County let the City know when the County exceeds this limit. The correctional facility's administration has no control over the type of inmates admitted. The County district court system determines this. There have been no escapes or problems with the correctional facility. The Council should grant this revised CUP. Roof-Equipment Screen Waiver Screening would not improve the building's appearance or affect property values. The workhouse addition is far enough from Century Avenue (405 feet) and the nearest homes (525 feet) that the proposed gravity hood would not be noticeable. Screening would direct more attention to the building's roof than if the County painted the equipment to match the building. On June 22, 1993, the Community Design Review Board approved a roof-equipment screening waiver for the equipment installed with the last expansion. Neighbor Concerns 1. Don't expand the medical ward - Use the existing hospitals. The proposed medical ward is a replacement of the existing one that is in need of upgrading. An in-house clinic is needed for short term, minor medical care. 2. Move the entire correctional facility west within the woods. This is impractical and would sacrifice open space and a regional recreation area. 3. The additions would increase traffic and ambulance runs. The proposed additions would not create a higher inmate population. There is no foreseen reason why traffic or ambulance calls would increase. 4. There may be adverse affects on the Woodbury neighborhood. The only commotion or effect foreseen is construction activity while the additions are being built. The proposed medical ward addition would stay within the outer boundaries of the existing building. There would be no encroachment towards any homes. 5. Two neighbors have said that they have been bothered by inmates near the road. Chief Collins found no record of such complaints. 6. There will be additional services and defendants. There are no additional services or inmates proposed. 7. We want more trees on the east side of the parking lot. The County is proposing to plant two trees that they had removed near the building. These new trees would be east of the parking lot. Refer to the site plan on page 13. Steve Dornbach, the assistant superintendent at the facility, said that they would be agreeable to planting additional trees as well. 8. I object if this raises my taxes. Bruce Thompson, with the Rarnsey County/St. Paul joint purchasing office, said that the funding for this project has already been appropriated and it will not raise taxes. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution on page 19. This resolution revises the conditional use permit for a correctional facility at 297 South Century Avenue. Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions (I have underlined the additions/revisions and crossed out the deletions): All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the City_. The Director of Community Development may approve minor chang, es. 3 2. The County shall inform the City of the following: If the percentage of felons increases above 29% of the inmates or if the percentage of gross misdemeanors increases above 33% of the inmates. b. Of any applications for a license for the facility that increase the maximum number of inmates above 293. If the daily population exceeds the County's license for more than 21 (twenty-one) consecutive days. If condition 2.a. or 2.c. occurs, the City Council may reconsider the conditional use permit. The City must approve any increase in the facility inmate population license prior to it becoming effective. o City in -'-~ ,3-- The Council shall review this permit one year ffc, m ....... c,c. cupancy c,f'~-,,,~A The County Corrections Department shall file an annual report with the City Manager, breaking down the average annual population (i.e., misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor, felony) in the annual average population. At the present time the farm operation is not posing a threat to the health, safety or welfare of the surrounding land uses, but shall be considered in future hearings on this matter if it changes. The vrovosed construction must be substantially started within one year of Council approval or the vermit shall become null and void. The Council may extend this deadline for one year. II. Approve the plans (stamped January 4, 1995) for the expansion of the Ramsey County Correctional Facility at 297 South Century Avenue, subject to the findings required by the Code. Ramsey County shall do the following: Repeat this review in two years if the City has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Submit a revised landscape plan for staff approval showing additional trees east of the parking lot before getting a building permit. 4 3. If any required work is not done, the City may allow temporary occupancy if' The City determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. The City receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The mount shall be 150% of the cost of the unfinished work. c. The City receives an agreement that will allow the City to complete any unfinished work. 4. All work shall follow the approved plans. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes. III. Waive the screening requirement for the rooftop mechanical equipment on the Ramsey County Correctional Facility addition because: 1. It would not improve the building's appearance or affect property values. 2. The building is a long distance from Century Avenue and the nearest homes. The City waived the screening requirement for the roof-equipment installed on top of the 1993 additions. The County shall paint the roof equipment to match the building. (code requirement) 5 CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed owners of the 194 properties within 350 feet of this property. Of the 69 replies, 28 were in favor, 13 objected, 26 had no comment and two had miscellaneous comments. In Favor 1. Eight neighbors responded by saying that they are in favor because the changes are needed. 2. Seven stated that the changes are not extensive and would not affect them. 3. We want them to continue to have self-sufficiency. (Schneider, 422 O'Day Street) 4. As long as an improved berm is provided to cover height. (Josephson, 1364 Cedarwood Circle) 5. They are good neighbors. We have no problem. (Kirby, 592 Deer Ridge Lane) 6. It does not appear to have any unfavorable effect on the area. What kind of medical facility is being planned (chronic - acnte)? (Eng, 2588 Pond Avenue) 7. There would be no impact to the Williams Pipeline facilities. (Williams Pipeline Company) 8. I am in favor, bnt would not favor any new building or addition higher then any existing building. (Schlattman, 530 Deer Ridge Lane) 9. It ensures continued usage of this land for this purpose rather than rezoning it to commercial development. The correctional facility has never been a problem to our neighborhood. (Lehman, 550 Deer Ridge Lane) 10. They need it. We have not experienced any disturbance from the inmates. There is good supervision. (Trooten, 544 Deer Ridge Lane) 11. It would seem to be an appropriate location to expand. (BBC Estates, Woodbury) Opposed l. We have under-utilized hospital and educational options through the community. Why add more brick and mortar when unjustified. City planners need to park the old thought processes that you solve every perceived need with more building. Use the existing resources to solve this problem. Our hospitals can use the business and this client criminal base does not need further rehabilitation - i.e. pampering!! (Hall, 415 O'Day Street) 10. 11. 12. I would rather have my tax dollar used for more useful programs or a reduction in taxes!! I prefer no change at all. (Motz, 2595 Pond Avenue) Establish a future, long-range building location hidden by trees, bushes, etc. from public view. Refer to the map on page 15. (Nielsen, 1324 Cedarwood Court) Refer to the letter on page 16. (Starkey, 350 O'Day Street) It will increase traffic on Century Avenue and the facility is across the street from my house. There will be an increase in ambulance sirens and emergency vehicles at all times of the day and night which would be disturbing to the peace and quiet of our community. (Stensgard, 1097 Cedarwood Drive) We are concerned about any adverse effects this addition could have in our community. (Mondor, 512 Deer Ridge Lane) I oppose because of the increase in traffic this building would create. I think you will build regardless of what I say. But, if you're really concerned, add another entrance to this facility and close down the current one. My house is across from the existing entrance. I see all the increased traffic. As it already stands, we have been bothered by the guys they let stand out on Century Avenue! (Gomez, 1064 Cedarwood Drive) You are adding an additional service, bringing in additional defendants. Leave it a work farm. We do not see how the use would not change with this addition. These defendants and other defendants often need medical help. Update and improve the ~- Don't add services! (Lance, 454 O'Day Street) I object because of the third level visual effects. Would prefer adding wing to existing structure. 0Vleagher, 381 O'Day Lane) I object because of the medical ward addition. Question of the severity of patients using medical/psychological facility. (Sandstrom, 1080 Cedarwood Drive) No! We don't need the extra traffic, pollution, noise, dust, lower value on my property and tracks. There might be a chance on it's use, if they would enter from Lower Alton Road. (NOT Century Avenue). We don't need more emergency calls at that location. Fire etc. (Herget, 6016 Linden Road) I object unless they put more trees on the east side of the workhouse. We live across the street. (Charmer, 1096 Cedarwood Drive) 13. I object to this proposal only if it raises my taxes. (Johnson, 543 Deer Ridge Lane) 7 Miscellaneous Comments l. Why weren't these changes put in when the up-grade was made several years ago. (Stone, 523 Deer Ridge Lane) We note the County's letter said there would be "minimal effect on the surrounding area, environment and traffic on surrounding streets." Is it possible to tell us what the effect will be? This page says mechanical room additions. Reverse page says medical/rehab additions. 3. As long as our taxes will not be affected. (Evans, 375 O'Day Lane) SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 144 acres Existing land use: REFERENCE INFORMATION Ramsey County Correctional Facility and County farm land SURROUNDING LAND USES Ramsey County property surrounds the correctional facility. There are single dwellings east of Century Avenue in Woodbury. PAST ACTION On December 9, 1991, the City Council issued a CUP for two additions to the facility. This expansion added 50 beds and a fenced courtyard. The City Council required review of the CUP again one year after the occupancy of the additions is approved. On May 10, 1993, the City Council reviewed the CUP. The Council directed staff to send a letter to the Chief Justice of the Ramsey County District Court and the eight Maplewood legislators voicing support of the endeavors of the Ramsey County correctional authorities. On June 22, 1993, the Community Design Review Board waived the screening requirement for any new roof-top mechanical equipment at this facility. The Board required that the County paint the equipment to match the color of the building flashing. PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: G (government facility) Zoning: F (farm residential) Ordinance requirements Section 36-437(1) requires a CUP for public building. Section 36-448Co) requires an amended CUP to enlarge or structurally alter a building for which a CUP has been granted. Section 36-442(a) requires that the City Council make nine findings to grant a CUP. Refer to the resolution on page 19. Section 36-27(b)(3) requires that roof-top equipment be screened from streets and neighboring properties. The Community Design Review Board may waive the screening requirement for mechanical equipment if they determine that screening would not improve the building appearance or protect property values. If the Board waives this requirement, they shall require that the mechanical equipment be painted to match the building. Section 25-70 of the City Code requires that the CDRB make the following findings to approve plans: That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the City's comprehensive municipal plan. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetical of good composition, materials, textures and colors. p:sec 12\workhous.cup Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Written statement dated I~cernber 28, 1994 5. Building Relocation Sketch from Borg Nielsen 6. Letter from Lincoln and Mich¢le Starkey dated January 18, 1995 7. Council minutes dated De¢~aber 9, 1991 8. Letter from Steve Dornbach dated February 15, 1995 9. Resolution 10. Plans date-stamped January 4, 1995 (separate attachment) lo Attachment 1 LOWER LONDIN LA ~IIE ST MAILANO WOOD DR &¥ LOCATION MAP 11 PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP N 12 FENCE AREA high AD~DITION AT HAIN LEV"EL NEH HECI-IANI ADDITION AT L~'fl-'I:R  NEH TREE5 REPLACIN~ REHOVED MIN. 2-1/2" PLA., FIELD LOCATE RAMSEY COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Attachment 3 SITE~3 PLAN RAMSEY COUNTY Community Correctional Facility Attachment 4 Wold Architects and Enaineers December 28, 1994 The pro~ec~ being submitted for review is an addition to the existing Ramsey County Community Correctional Facility. The Intended uae of the property will n(X be changed f~om that existi~. The addition Is essential for the Correctional Facility to me~ ~ program needs. A new medical ward and expanded rehabilitation program ~ace will be accommodated in the addition. Because ol the relative size o~ th~ propoaed pro, ct in relation to the existing facility, the acldl~ion will have a very minimal effect on the surrounding area, environment and traffic on surrounding streets. mpt\9492 14 Commission No. 9492 · Attachment 5 flMI &Mil WOOD Dlq Ge :lie J Attachment 6 16 jlhe use would cause minimal adverse environmenta,I Approval is subject to the following conditions: ]. o Attachment 7 All constr~lction shall follow the site plan, date-stamped November 4, 1991. lheCtty Council may approve major changes, after a public hearing and recommendation from the Community Desiqn Review Board. lhe Director of Communit~F Development may approve minor changes. lhe County shall inform tile City of the following: a. If the percentage of felons increases above 29% of the inmates or if the percentage of gross misdemeanors increases above 33% of the inmates. b. Any applications for a license for the facility that increases the maximum number of inmates above 293. c. If the daily population exceeds the County's license for more than 21 (twenty-one) consecutive days If condition 2a or 2c'occurs, the City Council may reconsider the Conditional Use Permit. lhe City must ~pprove any increase in the facility inmate population license prior to it becoming effective. lhe City Council shall review this p~rmtt one year from the date occupancy of the addition is approved. ~z/~)The County Corrections Department shall (rile an annual report with the City Nana~er breaking down the average annual population (i.e., misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor, felony) in tile annual average population. 5. At the presunt time the Farm operation is not posing a threat to the health, safety or welfar.e of the surrounding land uses, but shall be considered in future hearings on thi~ matter if it changes. 17 Atta~ent 9. T Fi Attachment 8 Correctional Fad Arthur J. Cavara, Supe:in;e:.~, Stephen J. Dornbach,.:~$t :L: ~:i, , ~97 South Century Aven ~. F&ut, M~ Tel: 612-298-5408 Fax: 51Z-Z~-b4:~Z February 15, 1995 Tom Ekstrand City of Maplewood Planning 1810 E. Co. Rd. B Maplewood, Mn. 55109 Dear Mr. Ekstrand: In 1994 the Ramsey County ",'~ ..... The average daily populatl::% ~ did we exceed our l~cen£~ed "~ misdemeanors, and 40% mis~-:.:,~.;:~ ~ T~,ose of us here 8t the "work are located, we t:-y to rmque~t~ from our n~ighbor~ of the fact that once agaJr program~ we are in the the we~t side of our facillt]' security feature both to vi£itor~ aw~V from the buil,~= Observers may have noticed J .... was removed recentily. We water in 1993. Our main well O)3~r~atio;] well ~et~ork Department of Natural Rescurc-~-~ . level data for use in mon]to: level trends in the Metro ~rility had 3271 admissions. was 268 inmates. At no time :. 33% felon~, 27% oro~ m]e to enjoy being where we ~-" by responding to any on or qum~tion~. We are proud escape from our locked :lng a new security fence on ~rovide an additional and LO keep unwanted landmarks, the watertower after hooking up to city to the statewide ,..''~mmmnc with ~he I~i~ne~oEa now provides valuable water supply and analyzing water Assistan~ Superintendent 18 ..... ome R~e ~u~ty TIDTAL F'. 02 Attachment 9 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Ramsey County Community Corrections Department applied for a conditional use permit to add onto the Ramsey County Correctional Facility. WHEREAS, this permit applies to 297 South Century Avefiue. The legal description is: EX PART SWLY OF NEW AFTON ROAD; N 1/2 OF NE 1/4 & EX CRESTVIEW; PART NE OF AFTON RD OF SW 1/4 OF NE 1/4 & SE 1/4 OF NE 1/4 & NE 1/4 OF SE 1/4 (SUBJ TO RDS & PIPE LINE ESMT) IN SEC 12 TN 28 RN 22. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: o On February 21, 1995, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council this permit. The City Council held a public hearing on ,1995. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The Council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The Council also considered reports and recommendations of the City staff and Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve thc above- described conditional use permit, because: 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. The usc would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, haTardous, detrimental, 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 mn-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. 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. 19 - 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the City. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes. 2. The County shall inform the City of the following: ao If the percentage of felons increases above 29% of the inmates or if the percentage of gross misdemeanors increases above 33% of the inmates. b. Of any applications for a license for the facility that increase the maximum number of inmates above 293. Co If the daily population exceeds the County's license for more than 21 (twenty-one) consecutive days. If condition 2.a. or 2.c. occurs, the City Council may reconsider the conditional use permit. The City must approve any increase in the facility inmate population license before it becomes effective. 3. The City Council shall review this permit in one year. The County Corrections Department shall file an annual report with the City Manager breaking down the average annual population (i.e., misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor, felony) in the annual average population. At the present time the farm operation is not posing a threat to the health, safety or welfare of the surrounding land uses, but shall be considered in future hearings on this matter if it changes. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of Council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The Council may extend this deadline for one year. The Maplew6od City Council approved this resolution on ,1995. 20 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Code Variation and Lot Division 1616 Currie Street February 14, 1995 INTRODUCTION Request Shannon Nienast is requesting that the City Council allow him to divide the property at 1616 Currie Street into two lots. (See the maps on pages 9-11.) He owns the property and is having the house built on the property. The first (east) lot would have 21,780 gross square feet with the house at 1616 Currie Street. The second (west) lot would be the area west of Currie Street extended and would have 17,160 gross square feet. Mr. Nienast intends to sell the vacant lot and keep the other lot with thc house. To approve the lot division, the City must approve a code variation. The variation is to allow lots that would not have enough frontage on a public street. Section 30-8(f)(1)(a) of the City Code requires all interior lots to have at least 60 feet of frontage on a publicly dedicated and maintained street. Each of the proposed lots would have 30 feet of frontage on Currie Street. Reason for the Requests Mr. Nienast wants to divide thc property so he may sell the proposed vacant lot and keep the house and the east lot. He is just finishing the house. BACKGROUND On August 28, 1989, the City Council approved revisions to the Woods and Ponds preliminary plat. A condition of this approval was the developer giving the City an easement for the temporary cul-de-sac at the south end of Currie Street. The City required the developer of the Woods and Ponds plat to design the street this way a person could possibly extend it to the south. On June 15, 1990, the City approved a lot split for the property at 1600 McKnight Road. This lot split created the lot with the house at 1616 Currie Street. OPTIONS (from least to most desirable from the City's perspective) Approve the lot split as requested by Mr. Nienast. Condition the split on the property owner dedicating a street and utility easement for the extension of Carrie Street to the' south property line. Approve the lot split as requested by Mr. Nienast. Condition the split on the property owner dedicating and improving with utilities and pavement Cun'ie Street to the south property line. 3. Table the lot split until the City approves a preliminary and final plat for the area. This option would delay a lot split until the City has approved a final plat. An advantage for the City with this option is that a preliminary plat for the area should include the property to the south of this site in the design. The City could then approve a lot split based on the preliminary plat design and having all the public improvements built or covered by a developer's agreement. Option 3 would be more expensive for Mr. Neinast. He would have to have the property surveyed and prepare grading and utility plans. Mr. Nienast does not want to do a preliminary plat. 4. Deny the split. This option means that the property owner would have to wait to divide this property until Currie Street is extended with pavement and utilities. This is the safest option for the City, but the least desirable for Mr. Nienast. DISCUSSION Access to the Property to the South There is property south of Mr. Nienast's property that the owners may want to develop. This is the rear of lots fronting on McKnight Road, including those at 1580, 1560 and the undeveloped parcel south and east of 1540 McKnight Road. The owners of the property south of Mr. Nienast may want to have access to their property from Mr. Nienast's site. Section 30-15(b) of the City Code requires that the City not approve a lot split unless it would not adversely impact the subject property or surrounding properties. The City Attorney has advised me that the City has a duty to provide access to the property to the south. This requirement should be a condition of a lot split or plat. The Attorney stated in a similar case that denying access to the property may render that property unusable which could expose the City to a takings claim. 2 City Staff prepared a concept plan for a road to the south of Currie Street through Nienast's property to McKnight Road. (See the concept plan on page 12.) If the City approves the lot split, Maplewood should require that Mr. Nienast provide a street and utility easement to the south property line as a condition of the division. Future Street Mr. Nienast is requesting a lot split based on a road location that the City has not yet approved. The lot split would limit the options for the street design. City Staff did a concept plan for a location for a future street on page 12. This street would provide access to the rear parts of the properties to the south. While we have not done any engineering studies, this road design seems like the most logical design. Mr. Neinast also may decide to change the width of the west lot. The proposed split would not effect these changes. If approved, the property owner should pay for all the construction costs of extending Currie Street to the south. Building Inspection Mr. Nienast is now having a contractor build the house at 1616 Currie Street. Maplewood has not made a final inspection of the work. This should be done before Mr. Nienast occupies or sells the house. The building inspector says that the work is almost complete. Additional Homes If the City approves the lot split, the City should require the owner to build Currie Street with public utilities and a temporary cul-de-sac is built to his south property line. This would insure that no one builds another house on this site until there is an improved public street and utilities to serve the lots. If the City allows another house on this property without improving Currie Street, it would be difficult to deny similar requests for the properties to the south of this site. The City has had trouble with multiple homes on a common driveway (Libby-Valiukas case). Since the City has not approved a future street location or grading plan, it could be difficult to know where to place another house so it would not adversely affect a future plat and street designs. Conclusion Allowing the proposed lot division without an improved public street could cause problems for the City and the owners to the south. A difficulty with this reques~ will be who pays for the extension of Currie Street when it is built. There is not an undue hardship unique to this property and the property owner has a reasonable use of the property with one house. The proposal would change the character of the area since it would allow two houses that would not have at least 60 feet of frontage on an improved public street. Finally, the code variation would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the City Code. RECOMMENDATIONS Ao If the B. Deny the proposed code variation and lot division for the property at 1616 Currie Street. The City should deny these requests because: 1. There is not an undue hardship unique to this property. 2. The property owner has a reasonable use of the properly with one house. 3. The problems with site are not unique to the property. 4. The proposal would change the character of the area since it would allow two houses that would not have at least 60 feet of frontage on an improved public street. 5. The code variation would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the City Code. City wants to approve this request, the Council should do the following: Adopt the resolution on page 18. This resolution allows the division of 1616 Currie Street into two lots, both of which would not have 60 feet of frontage on an improved public street. This resolution requires that the property owner complete the following conditions before the City will sign the new deeds for the lot division: The legal description for the lot division shall follow the site plan shown on page 11 of the February 14, 1995 staff report. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes. Record with the County a permanent 60-foot-wide street and utility easement to Maplewood for an extension of Currie Street. The alignment shall be as shown on the site plan on page 11 of the February 14, 1995 staff report. The easement shall have a 30-foot setback from the existing house. The Director of Community Development may approve minor alignment changes. Dedicating and improving to City standards (including utilities, curb and gutter and pavement) Currie Street to the south property line. This shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Install a sign at the end of Currie Street and the driveway that states the address of the house. The owner shall keep this sign in place until the contractor finishes the extension of Currie Street. o The Building Inspector must approve a final inspection for the house at 1616 Currie Street. 4 Co Approve the lot division shown on page 11 of the staff report. Before the City stamps the deeds, a owner or developer shall complete the above conditions and the following conditions: Deeding to Maplewood a 60-foot-wide permanent public street and utility easement. This shall be for the extension of Currie Street to the south property line. City Staff shall approve the deed language before the owner records it. o Deed to Maplewood a 100-foot-diameter easement for a temporary cul-de-sac near the south property line. City staff shall approve the deed language before the owner records it. 3. Recording all the new deeds within one year. 5 CITIZEN COMMENTS We asked the nearby property owners for the opinion of these requests. We sent surveys to the property owners within 350 feet of the site. Out of 29 properties_, we received 12 replies. Two were for the request, nine were against, and one had no commdnt." Those for the requests had the following comments: The City will get more tax money when house is built on the new lot. Also, the City gets another $9,000 for cash connection fee like I paid. Also, someday it will be two lots anyway when the road goes through. (Nienast-1266 Beaverdale Road, applicant) 2. One house on each side of the street would be appropriate. (lson - 1628 McKnight Road) Those against thc requests had the following comments: l. Do not want the cul-de-sac extended. (Jerome - 1637 Currie Street) 2. Room for one house. (Kelly - 1643 Currie Street) The street should be improved and/or cul-de-sac moved. If an extension of moving of cul- de-sac of Currie Street is not done at this time and is not done within a reasonable amount of time and dirt or gravel road is access to these divided lots, then I would object to the division and also wonder why a permit was issued to begin with. (Vogl - 1655 Currie Street) It should stay the same - do not change lot sizes. We do not want to be charged for assessments. (Jensen - 1560 McKnight Road) I object to this proposal if the minimum backyard setback would not be met on the proposed second lot. (Arcand - 1600 McKnight Road) We object to further lot splitting and street expansion for residential construction will contribute to more destruction of the environment, ie, animal and bird migration, forests watersheds etc. This is not in keeping with the objectives of the DNR or the interests of the long-time residents in the community. The owner should develop the property as it exists now. (Simon - 1579 Myrtle Street) Also see the letters on pages 13-17 for additional comments. REFERENCE SURROUNDING LAND USES Northerly: Westerly: Southerly: Easterly: Houses on Currie Street Houses on MeKnlght Road Rear yards of houses on McKnight Road Houses on Myrtle Street SURVEY OF OTHER CITIES In 1992, the City staff surveyed twenty suburban cities to see if they allow homes that from only on private driveways. Only four allow such lots. These four cities require City Council approval for such a request. PAST ACTIONS ON SIMILAR REQUESTS On April 20, 1978, the City Council approved a request for Lorrie Heinzen to construct a house at 2554 Idaho Avenue. Ms. Heinzen's lot did not front on a paved street. The Council approved the request, subject to the owner paving a driveway to the existing street. On May 18, 1978, the City Council approved a request of James Sobota to construct a storage building east of 2054 English Street. This building is on property that does not front on a paved street. This approval was subject to two conditions---the City Engineer approving the driveway design and the applicant recording a maintenance agreement for the driveway. On May 1, 1980, the City Council approved a request from Keith Libby to build three homes on a land-locked parcel. The site is on Century Avenue, south of 1-494. Access to this parcel is only available via a 30-foot driveway easement from Century Avenue. This approval was subject to Mr. Libby installing a paved driveway on the existing easement to the City Engineer's specifications. The City also required the applicant to sign an agreement to maintain the drive to City standards, including snow plowing. On July 13, 1992, the City Council approved three requests for Radmila Popov for the Piletich property at 860 Burke Court. Burke Court is a private driveway. These requests allowed Ms. Popov to divide the property at 860 Burke Court into three lots. This approval also allows a total of five lots that do not front on an improved public street. On November 23, 1992, the City Council approved a construction agreement and street vacations for Marlow Priebe. This agreement allowed the property owner to build two houses on a private driveway. The property is south of the Eldridge Avenue right-of-way and west of Birmingham Street. These two houses are on lots that do not front on an improved public street. On July 26, 1993, the City Council approved a construction agreement and an increased front setback for Rodney and Susan Korf. These approvals were so the Korfs could build a house on an existing 7.5-acre tract of land east of Sterling Street that did not front on a public street. On October 11, 1993, the City Council approved a construction agreement for Steve Lukin. This approval was so Mr. Lukin could build a house on property that is north of County Road C and east of Kennard Street. The property does not front on an improved public street. On May 23, 1994, the City Council approved a driveway agreement and lot division for Gilbert Regnier. These approvals were so Mr. Regnier could divide the property at 2830 Keller Parkway (2870 Arcade Street) into two lots. The lot with the existing house would not front on an improved public street. UTILITIES There is sanitary sewer and water in Currie Street. kr:p/Sec 24-29/nienast.mem Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line / Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. City Staff Concept Plan 5. Letter from Ehlert - 1623 Currie Street 6. Letter fi.om Belland+Petersen - 1624 Currie Street 7. Letter from Horwath 8. Letter from Sam Cave 9. Resolution 8 7 ~ON 8 OON g Attachment 1 NORTH SAINT PAUL I. MARY,JOE LA. TIERNEY AVE. 3. MEADOW DR. 4. RIPL.LrY AVl... .~ IOAHO AV~.. oo : :' 5 ":.:7 RX3LL/NG HILLS EROSE ~' LOCATION MAP 9 Attachment AVENUE r: ;' ~:'~. .... .. 2334 i 4~, 1643, ~ ~ 347.00 ,,~'~' (4~) 5 1628 tSO. 03 16~29 1600 (5~) SITE 1642 1616 4 1641 1637 1633 1615 PROPOSED LOT SPLIT 1580 ~8 0~.. 1560 1605 I0 1567 170 Attachment 3 1623 r. ,.,,~,:, AN[) WOC.,D~, ~?:'.':.N ,./'~ V 13,200 ~ 1624 0 D~ £ND ADDIT'ION I 17,82o I I FST PROPOSED LOT SPLIT TOTAl. AW.A IJ~J40 S(IL~. SITE PLAN ll A[[~chment 4 CITY STAFF CONCEPT PLAN , KENNETH ROBERTS CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 1850 EAST COUNTY ROAD B MAPLEWOOD, MN. 5510~ Mr. Roberts, Attachment 5 December 20, 1994 I am writing to explain why I am against the proposed lot split of l&l& Currie Street. It is my opinion, and that shared by others in the neighborhood, that this proposed split should be tabled until further development in the area takes place. Having lived here for over two years, my family has grown accustomed to the benefits of the cul-de-sac. Where we know that it is only a matter of time before development takes away the safety of the current situation, it is necessary for proper planning and consideration of future development to take place prior to changes being made. Nhen we purchased our lot from Mr. Cave~ we were informed that the cul-de-sac was temporary and would be removed at developers expense at a time in the future when the road was extended to accommodate more houses. This understanding is similar to my neighbors. Allowing this variance to be granted would be in my understanding the extension of Currie Street. When the building plans were approved by the city, it was not granted to Mr. Nienast that he would automatically be allowed to split his property. As a matter of fact, at no time was I informed of the variance being granted to allow for the current dwelling to be built without the necessary frontage. I would like to point out that I am paying full taxes for a site on an improved street with curb and gutter. This clearly is not the current case. I request that this issue be delayed until further notice. At a time when changes allow for the road to continue, I have no problem with the proposed lot split. The recent sale of 1580 McKnight Road and the listing of the large 2.5 acre lot adjacent to 1540 McKnight Road should lead to development later this summer. In the meantime, the approval of this variance by the city council would have a negative impact on the value of my residence. My. family is currently investigating the possibility of selling our property~ and it is important for this issue to be handled in such a manner as not to limit the ease of our selling our residence. Extending the road past the end of a "temporary" cul-de-sac would not only not make sense, it would violate the premise under which my lot was purchased. I am very interested in the process by which this variance is handled. I would like the opportunity to be involved when this issue goes before the city council. The proper development of this street is in everybody's best interest. Thanks for your consideration, Steven P. Ehlert 1~25 Currie Street 13 Attachment 6 Attachment 7 16 Attachment 8 F.~. ~en Robez~cs Office of Conunity Develolment C~ty of Reqard~nq ~e applica~on ~o divide ~e lot a~ 1626 ~r~e. Bu~ld~nq should ~ all~ed on 1616 ~rrie only ~f ~e stree~ and o~er i~prove~en~s ~e extended to ~e Sou~ edqe of ~e pro~r~y. I~ see~ ~a~ ~f ~e ~on Is granted ~ houses( if ~s ~t~t~on ~s ~anted ho~ could a den~ed?) e~ll ~ built on land ~at has not pa~d for ~e i~prov~ents ~at are usually re~red buildable. ~at is, ~ey will ~ ~llt wl~out paying for sewer main m~ension, water ~in e~ension, If ho~es are build wi~out paying for ~e street e~ension, it is likely ~hat ~e ne~ homeo~ers ~ill spree ~e cons~ction of ~e street ~cause ~ey will have no ~nefit to gain and ~ill n~ ~ant .... ~o pay for ~e s~reet. ~ added incentive for ~e~ street e~ension after ~ey have built is ~at ~ey ~ill not ~ant to give up ~e ~nefit of ~e o~n s~ce ~ey sill en~oy by having an undeveloped s~eet for a yard. If ~e lot is ~ilt on vinous e~endinq ~e s~eet, it also increases ~he cost for prope~y o~ers south e~end ~e s~reet to ~eir profiles. Xt ~akes it nearly im~ssible for a private develo~r s~Ject lot ~cause ~e private develo~r has no ~ay ~o charge ~e ~titioninq land ~er for building a s~reet in front of her lot. ~e ~ers at 1623 ~d 1624 ~rie are presently ~rdened by a tem~rary cul D Sac ~at is to ~ removed when ~e street and ~is ~em~ra~ cul related i~prove~en~s are e~ended ~o ~e Sou~. D Sac ~cupies a large pa~ of ~e front yaras of ~ese ~o homes. If ~he city grants ~he petition without requiring the public improvements~ it is in effect requiring two proper~y o~ners to subsidize t.heir new neighbor by continuing ~o provide their front la,ns to enable their new neighbor access to her proper~y. This site should await development until the o~ner-is Milling to build a street extension or work with his neighbors to the south to plat end develop enough lend ~o Justify such a street extension. tehen Hr. Cave developed the ~oods and ponds plat, he offered to extend the s~reet onto this parcel but his offer was refused. If the property is now allo~ed to develop without standing the expense of public improvements, the City is sending a ~essage that it is more profitable to refuse to cooperate with neighbors who ~ant to develop ~heir lend then to cooperate. An additional advantage to requiring cooperation between neighbors in this case is that the lend miqht better be developed as 80 foot lots instead of 132 foot lof~ that now exist. This would also require oooperation between property o~ner~. Since~l¥ ¥our~ ~ file currie Attachment 9 CODE VARIATION/DRIVEWAY AGREEMENT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Shannon Nienast is asking that the City approve a Code variation to divide 1616 Currie Street into two lots; WHEREAS, the legal description of the property is: The East 295 feet of the North 132 feet of the south 659.03 feet of the west 1/2 of NW 1/4 of NW 1/4 of Section 24, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, Section 30-8(0(1) of the City Code requires all interior lots to have at least 60 feet offi.ontage on a publicly dedicated and maintained street. WHEREAS, the proposed lots would only have 30 feet of frontage on a publicly-maintained street. WHEREAS, the history of this request is as follows: 1. The Planning Commission discussed this request on February 21, 1995. They recommended that the City Council the request. 2. The City Council discussed this request on ,1995. The Council gave everyone at the meeting a chance to speak and present written statements. The Council also considered reports and recommendations fi.om the City staff and Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council allow the lot division for the existing house on the above-described property with the following conditions: The legal description for the lot division shall follow the site plan shown on page 11 of the February 14, 1995 staff report. The Director of Community Development may approve minor changes. Record with the County a permanent 60-foot-wide street and utility easement to Maplewood for an extension of Currie Street. The alignment shall be as shown on the site plan on page 11 of the February 14, 1995 staff report. The easement shall have a 30-foot setback fi.om the existing house. The Director of Community Development may approve minor alignment changes. Dedicating and improving to City standards (including utilities, curb and gutter and pavement) Currie Street to the south property line. This shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 18 4. Install a sign at the end of Currie Street and the driveway that states the address of the house. The owner shall keep this sign in place until the contractor finishes the extension of Currie Street. 5. The Building Inspector must approve a final inspection for the house at 1616 Currie Street. 6. Deed to Maplewood a 100-foot-diameter easement for a temporary cul-de-sac near the south property line. City staff shall approve the deed language before the owner records it. 7. Recording all the new deeds within one year. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,1995.