Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/19/2002BOOK 1. Call to Order MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, August 19, 2002, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. August 5, 2002 5. Public Headng None 6. New Business a. House Moving Request- Bart Crockett (Sylvan Street) b. Building Requests - Shelley Schlomka (1501 Henry Lane) 1. House Moving 2. Conditional Use Permit (Accessory Structure) c. Anderson Hillwood Oaks Preliminary Plat (Dorland Road South) d. Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan 7. Unfinished Business None 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations a. August 12 Council Meeting: Mr. Mueller b. August 26 Council Meeting: Mr. Ledvina c. September 9 Council Meeting: Ms. Dierich 10. Staff Presentations a. Reschedule September 2 meeting (Labor Day) - Tuesday, Sept. 3 or Wednesday, Sept. 4? b. Meeting with other first-ring suburbs at Richfield City Hall - September 9, 7:00 p.m. 11. 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: The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed and ask for the staff report on the subject. Staff presents their report on the matter. The Commission will then ask City staff questions about the proposal. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there i~ anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. 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. o 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: 01/95 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, AUGUST 5, 2002 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. I1. ROLL CALL Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Mary Dierich Lorraine Fischer Matt Ledvina Jackie Monahan-Junek Paul Mueller Gary Pearson William Rossbach Dale Trippler Tushar Desai Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Sarah Sonsalla, Legal Council Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OFAGENDA Mr. Roberts added six items under staff presentations to be discussed. 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Board appreciation event Rescheduling of September PC meeting Training session September 30 City of Richfield Tour - Follow up on city tour State Planning Conference Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the agenda as amended. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - All The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the planning commission minutes for July 15, 2002. Commissioner Rossbach moved to approve the planning commission minutes for July 15, 2002. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-05-02 Commissioner Pearson seconded. The motion is passed. V. PUBLIC HEARING None. VI. NEW BUSINESS -2- Ayes- Dierich, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler Abstention- Desai, Ledvina a. Keller Golf Course Maintenance Building Conditional Use Permit (2166 Maplewood Drive). Mr. Roberts gave a review for a 10,560 square foot maintenance building at Keller Golf Course. The proposed building would replace the older of the two existing maintenance buildings on the site. The exterior of the proposed maintenance building would have metal panel siding and a standing seam metal roof. The building would have a metal panel exterior with dormers facing Highway 61. The plans also show a wainscot base panel for a contrasting color or for rock-faced block. The roof would be green, the sides would be white and the trim and doors would be beige. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for the proposed Keller Golf Course maintenance building. Commissioner Ledvina asked if there are any underground storage tanks and will they be affected by the improvement to this site? Mr. Roberts said the applicant could address that. Kevin Finley, Ramsey County Parks and Recreation, 2015 N. Van Dyke Street, addressed the commission. He said regarding the underground storage tanksl there is an abandoned gasoline tank buried near the existing hut where there will be pavement in the new construction and they will go over it. He said the storage tank has been sealed and approved by the MPCA. Commissioner Trippler asked Mr. Finley about the wash bay on the east side. He asked what kinds of things will be washed in the wash bays and how the wash water is captured and treated? Mr. Finley said they are installing a state-of-the-art recycling system. He said there is a series of three recycling tanks in the building adjacent to the wash pad. They wash the equipment down, it goes into the three tanks, and is biologically treated. The affluent is discharged into the sanitary sewer and the sludge is scooped out and recycled as compost. Currently, they are washing down the equipment and letting the water run into the sewer and along the ditch. He said the new system will be used primarily for cleaning the lawn mowing equipment. Commissioner Rossbach asked Mr. Finley what the cages are going to be used for in the storage area? Mr. Finley said the cyclone fence cages would hold chain saws, weed whips, and other power equipment that they want to keep under lock and key. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-05-02 -3- Commissioner Ledvina moved to approve a conditional use permit for Keller Golf Course, including a new maintenance building, at 2166 Maplewood Drive. The council bases the permit on the findings required by code and it 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 applicant must begin construction within one year after the council approves this permit or the permit shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes - All ~ The motion passed. Mr. Roberts said this will go to the CDRB meeting August 13, 2002, and then to the city council meeting on August 26, 2002, for approval. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Manufactured Home Park Closing Ordinance Amendment Mr. Ekstrand reported the answers to the questions that were asked by planning commission members at their July 15, 2002 meeting. He said staff does not taking a stance on this at the present time. Staff wanted to get input from the planning commission members to forward a recommendation to the city council. Commissioner Pearson said on page 3 of the staff report the taxes paid for Beaver Lake Estates are shown as $69,112. The homeowners that live in Beaver Lake Estates pay that dollar amount. Mr. Pearson said the park owner pays for the land and that dollar amount is just under $150,000. Mr. Ekstrand introduced Sarah Sonsalla, legal council with the city attorney's office. She was present to answer any questions that planning commission members may have. Commissioner Pearson stated that he has been a resident of Beaver Lake Estate Manufactured Home Park for over twenty years and is also the director for the park. Because of this he said would abstain from voting for any action the planning commission members decide to take. Chairperson Fischer said because Mr. Pearson gave an advanced abstention from voting, should Mr. Pearson sit in the audience or should he remain sitting with the planning commission members. Ms. Sonsalla stated it was okay for Mr. Pearson to remain seated with the planning commission members as long as he abstains from speaking as a planning commissioner and abstains from voting. ! Planning Commission Minutes of 08-05-02 -4- Commissioner Monahan-Junek asked the city attorney if there were a manufactured park closing announced tomorrow and there was not an ordinance in place, would the city have the opportunity to create an ordinance which would apply to the park closing at that time. Ms. Sonsalla said the city could adopt an ordinance after the announcement of the manufactured home park closing. This would however, create a problem of not properly notifying the park owner well in advance of this ordinance adoption. This could open the city up to a possible legal challenge. Procedurally and ethically, the city may want to give all involved parties ample time to respond to any potential ordinance change before the city council would adopt an amendment. Commissioner Desai said he would like a clarification about the last point. Ms. Sonsalla said the city would open themself up to possible legal action. Doesn't the state law already tell you if there is going to be a park closing you have to inform the residents in the park of that closing. Ms. Sonsalla said Minnesota State Statute 327C.095 doe~require that the park owner must give notice to the residents and to the city, nine months prior to a closing. She said because of the relocation benefits involved, it might be advisable to add the wording "to notify the park owners in advance of this additional expense." Mr. Ekstrand said the first question is does the city need a manufactured home park closing ordinance ? The second question is if an ordinance is needed what content should be included in the park closing? APAC is looking for they shall pay relocation costs. Some ordinances say they "may" pay relocation costs and some state they "shall" pay relocation costs. Commissioner Mueller asked staff if the planning commission does recommend to have an ordinance, does the planning commission get involved in writing the ordinance and the content of the ordinance or does the city council do that? Mr. Ekstrand said yes, if the city council decides to discuss this at a city council meeting and they decide the city should pursue this ordinance further and develop a code, it would come back to the planning commission with more details and the planning commission would discuss this again. Commission Mueller said regarding the state statute that says the statute does not mandate that homeowners in manufactured homes should be reimbursed in some form but the owner of the park "may" compensate homeowners. He asked if an ordinance was written, the city would change the wording to "shall" compensate, instead of may compensate. Chairperson Fischer asked planning commission members if they felt they had enough information and testimony from residents or should the commission open the discussion up to the public. Planning commission members felt they had enough information and felt no public testimony was necessary. Chairperson Fischer asked staff if there have been any inquiries about purchasing or acquiring any of Maplewood's manufactured home parks? Planning Commission Minutes of 08-05-02 -5- Mr. Ekstrand said he has not heard of any inquiries regarding purchasing any manufactured home parks in Maplewood. Commissioner Rossbach said he recently visited the manufactured home parks and thought about all the information he had read and heard. He does believe it will be hard to put a value or dollar amount on each unit when there are double wide homes that are worth as much as $80,000 and older units that are worth $500. He believes the City of Maplewood should have a manufactured home park closing ordinance. Commissioner Trippler said he has struggled with this item for some time now. He believes living in a manufactured home park is a choice. People choosing to live in a manufactured home park are taking a chance that a park could close. He would not vote in favor of a closing ordinance. Commissioner Dierich said as a citizen of Maplewood ~She believes the city owes it to the residents who live in manufactured home parks to protect and help the residents in the parks by passing an ordinance. The city should write an ordinance before a park closing while people are calm and people can think about what they would like to have in the ordinance. Commissioner Ledvina said from previous meetings, several of the planning commission members have talked about the parallels between renters and manufactured home park owners. Renters do not pay taxes on their property, as a manufactured homeowner does. Manufactured homeowners have the ability to move their home to another location and renters do not. He said if the City of Maplewood wants to write an ordinance for this, then they should do it now instead of waiting for the possibility of a park closing. Mr. Ledvina is in favor of passing a manufactured home park closing ordinance. Commissioner Mueller said he is in favor of passing a closing ordinance. He said maybe the park owners might have to raise the lot rent to be ready for a possible park closing to help with relocation costs. Commissioner Monahan-Junek said she supports affordable housing. She is willing to go through writing a closing ordinance for a possible manufactured home park closing. She is in favor of passing an ordinance for relocation costs only. She would need more information before making a decision to give a park resident money for the value of ones home. Commissioner Desai asked how it helps the manufactured home park homeowner by giving them $3,000 to $5,000 for their home. You are not helping them find a new place to live, you are basically giving them the money and they are on their own. In his opinion, it is not really getting to the root of the problem. He wonders where the people are supposed to go if there are no lots to move their home within 25 miles. Planning commission members have said the right thing to do is to help the homeowners, but how is giving them a small amount of money helping them relocate and start over. It's going to be very difficult to determine a fair dollar amount with newer units worth much more and very old units worth very little. He is not in favor of passing a closing ordinance. Chairperson Fischer asked staff if the distance to relocate was farther than 25 miles, would there be more opportunities for relocation. Ms. Fischer asked if the cost of the extra mileage would not make it economically feasible. Planning Commission Minutes of 08-05-02 -6- Mr. Ekstrand said the distance of a 25-mile radius comes from the state statute and that distance is locked in. Ms. Sonsalla said that is correct. The 25-mile radius is statutory. The city may be able to make the radius shorter than 25 miles but not farther. If the city council chooses to adopt this ordinance they would require the park owner to pay relocation costs. Or if they cannot relocate the manufactured home to a manufactured home park within 25 miles of the manufactured home park that is being closed, they would be entitled to relocation costs based on average relocation costs awarded to other residents. Chairperson Fischer asked planning commission members if the consensus was that members would prefer an ordinance written before the possibility of a park closing or after the fact. Members agreed to pursue writing an ordinance before to ~a park closing instead of after the fact. Commissioner Rossbach moved to recommend to the city council that they pursue adopting an ordinance for the closing of a manufaCtured home park. Commissioner Ledvina seconded. Ayes-Dierich, Fischer, Ledvina, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Rossbach Abstention-Pearson Nay-Desai, Trippler This item will go to the city council the first meeting in September. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Mr. Trippler was the planning commission representative at the July 22, 2002, city council meeting. Mr. Trippler said the two items discussed were the home occupation photography business on Montana Avenue that passed ayes all. The city council selected Tushar Desai as the newest planning commission member. b. There is no planning commission representation needed for the August 12, 2002, city council meeting. c. Mr. Ledvina will be the planning commission representative at the August 26, 2002, city council meeting. The only item as of now will be the Keller Golf Course Maintenance Building. Planning Commission . Minutes of 08-05-02 -7- X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Mr. Roberts discussed the following staff presentations: Board appreciation event will be Thursday, September 5, at 5:00 p.m. at Baffle Creek Park. Invitations will come in the mail and members should mark the date on their calendar. The planning commission meeting on Monday, September 2, needs to be rescheduled. Members will clarify the date at the next planning commission meeting. The planning commission meeting will be rescheduled for either Tuesday, September 3, or Wednesday, September 4. at 7:00 p.m. Group training session on September 30, i~ Maple Grove. Mr. Roberts asked commission members if they had an interest in visiting the Arbor Lakes site in Maple Grove as part of the new urban area to see as a group. The CDRB may be invited as well and members could either drive themselves or a small bus could be arranged to leave the city hall between 4:30 and 5:30 p.m. The commission will make a final decision that will be made at the next planning commission meeting. City of Richfield will be holding the MnAPA Conference on Monday, September 9, at 7:00 p.m. This will be discussed as an agenda item at the next planning commission meeting. Follow up on the city tour. Mr. Roberts asked planning commission members if they enjoyed the city tour and if they had any suggestions. Planning commission members said they enjoyed this year's city tour. They would like to spend more time discussing things in the city of Maplewood while driving. Speakers said they would like to have a list of the sites they would be stopping before the tour so they can put their thoughts together to speak to the group. They enjoyed Beaver Lake Estates manufactured home park tour and the dinner provided by Panera Bread. The bus was very nice and they enjoyed having a smaller group of people. They would also like to be told in advance what site they would be coming up to so they could be ready before getting to the site. The State Planning Conference will be held in Minneapolis in mid-September. Mr. Roberts said everyone is welcome to attend the conference. The City of Maplewood will cover registration costs. Mr. Roberts said this will be an agenda item for the next meeting as well. Xl. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Associate Planner SUBJECT: House Moving LOCATION: Sylvan Street, North of Larpenteur Avenue APPLICANT: Bart Crockett DATE: August 13, 2002 INTRODUCTION Mr. Bart Crockett is asking the city council to allow him to move a house from Edina to a vacant lot on Sylvan Street. (See the maps on pages 6 - 9.) The house is a one-story rambler with an extedor of blue lap siding. Refer to the photos on page 10. The pictures show the house with a tuck under garage. Mr. Crockett told me that he would not have a tuck under garage at the proposed location in Maplewood. BACKGROUND On December 18, 1980, the city council vacated the Kingston Avenue right-of-way from Sylvan Street to a point 135 feet to the east. After this vacation, the former right-of-way was divided between the adjacent properties to the north and the south. This vacation helped to create the vacant lot south of 1754 Sylvan Street that is now under consideration for the house-moving request. On June 24, 2002, the city council considered a request from Mr. Crockett to move a different house (from Oakdale) onto this lot. After much consideration, the council denied Mr. Crockett's request. (See the city council minutes on page 12.) CODE REQUIREMENTS Section 9-64(a) of the city code requires that the council make the following findings to approve a house moving: That the proposed building is compatible with those in the neighborhood it would be moved to. A determination of compatibility may be based on comparing the structure's extedor siding, height, mass, age and style of construction to the average home in the neighborhood to which the house is to be moved and the health, safety and welfare of the community. 2. That all city code requirements can be met. 3. That water runoff from the site will not cause an adverse effect on surrounding properties, 4. That the public streets can be protected from damage. DISCUSSION The design of this house would fit into the Sylvan Street neighborhood, The homes along Sylvan Street were built in the 1940s and 1950s. Most of these homes are ramblers, but there is a split- level to the south. There also are homes along Sylvan Street with stucco exteriors. Several of the neighbors originally thought that the lot is too small for a house. The zoning code requires lots for houses in the R-1 zoning district to have 10,000 square feet. This lot, according to the Ramsey County property records, is 11,941 square feet. As such, the lot and the proposed site plan for the house and garage can meet all city requirements. Nick Carver, the assistant building official, inspected the house. His preliminary inspection report is on page 11. This report outlines most, if not all, the work Mr. Crockett will have to do to the house. This includes bdnging all systems of the house up to current code standards and replacing the siding to meet current code standards. Property Values The Ramsey County Assessor's Office has told us in the past that multiple dwellings adjacent to single dwellings are not a cause for a negative effect on property values. If the owner properly maintains and keeps up the property, this house should not be a detriment to the neighborhood. The city has a rental housing maintenance code that all owners of rental housing must follow. City inspectors may write correction or other types of orders to the owners of rental properties that do not follow the maintenance and other city codes. Easement When the city vacated the Kingston Avenue right-of-way in 1980, the city failed to keep a utility easement over the south part of the site. This area has an existing sewer line and overhead power lines. (See the site plans on pages 8 and 9.) To remedy this situation, the city should require the property owner to dedicate to the city a drainage and utility easement over the south 30 feet of the site. RECOMMENDATION Approve the moving of a one-story rambler-style house for Bart Crockett to the lot south of 1754 Sylvan Street. The city approves the proposed site plan and dwelling orientation as shown on the site plans on pages 8 and 9. This approval shall be subject to the applicant doing the following: Submitting the following to the city for approval before the city issues a building permit: a. An irrevocable letter of credit or cash escrow for 1 1/2 times the estimated cost of completing the construction, including all yard work and extedor remodeling. The applicant shall complete the work within 90 days of the city issuing the permit. The director of community development may extend this deadline for sixty (60) days if there has been a reasonable cause for the delay. The construction shall meet all building code requirements. (Code requirement) b. A new certificate of survey for the site and vedfy the lot lines with survey pins. (Code requirement) A grading, drainage and erosion control plan to the city engineer. This plan shall show that the proposed house location and grades will not cause any adverse effects or cause any drainage problems for nearby properties. The city shall not issue a moving permit until the city engineer approves these plans and the construction shall follow these plans. (Code requirement) d, A drainage and utility easement from the owner to the city over the south 30 feet of the site. Sign an agreement to convey the title, This agreement shall allow the city to take possession of the house and property if the required work is not completed within 90 days after the city issues the moving permit. This agreement would allow the city the dght to complete the construction required by code or demolish and remove the structure. The city attorney shall prepare this agreement. (Code requirement) The applicant shall replace the siding and reshingle or repair the roof as needed. The applicant also shall meet all the requirements of the city's building inspection department, Move the house between the hours of 3 and 6 a.m. The applicant shall leave the house in the street until at least 7 a.m., but no later than 10 a.m, There shall be no excessive noise or work on the house or site between 7 p,m. and 7 a.m. (Code requirement) Place the house on the property following the proposed site plan. This approval shall be subject to the following changes: a. Set the house at least ten feet from the north property line and as far south as reasonably possible while meeting the setback requirements from the existing powedine. b. Any garage shall be set no closer to the alley to the east of the property than the setback established by the existing garage to the north. CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the 22 property owners within 350 feet of this site. We received five replies, Three were opposed to the request and two had comments. Opposed 1, We do not want any more rental property in the neighborhood. It is so nice as is and would be close to Mrs. Dubbe (at 1754 Sylvan Street), (Griffin - 1751 Gumey Street) 2. As was proven by Mr, Crocket's first request- He wants to move this house in for Rental Property. I do not need this 25 feet from my property. If it Js so good of a deal - why doesn't he move it to his neighborhood? (Huppert - 5 Kingston Avenue) 3. I still think this is a very bad idea for such a small space of property. I do not think Mr. Crockett has the best Jnterest for the community but for his self gain. (Taylor - 1765 Gumey Street) Comments 1. Please check water drainage very carefully before giving any approval for this project. (Dedder - 12 Kingston Avenue) 2, See the letter on page 13, REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 11,941 square feet Existing land use: Undeveloped OwneF Lois Jacobs SURROUNDING LAND USES Single dwellings to the north, east and south. Saint Paul Water Utility property across Sylvan Street. PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: RL (Iow-density residential) Zoning: R-I (single-dwelling residential) Application Date We received this application on July 25, 2002. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. City council action is required on this proposal by September 10, 2002. P:sec 18/Bart C house move 2.doc Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Site Plan 5. House Photos 6. July 30, 2002 inspection memo Nick Carver to Bart Crockett 7. June 24, 2002 city council minutes 8. Letter from Dubbe (1754 Sylvan Street) o COUNTY LITTLE CANADA RD. 8 SKILLMAN AVE. MT. VERNON AVE. FFN~rON- INGSg'ON B£LLW(X)D AVE. SUMMER AVE. Attachment 1 BELMONT LN. SK ILLMAN ROSELAWN L~)OO & RIPI KtNG~3TON £ ST. PAUL LOCATION MAP 6 Attachment 2 SAINT PAUL WATER UTILITY KINGSTON AVENUE' '~): SITE PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP 7 I Attachment 3 1 ~ 10 0 SITE PLAN 8 Attachment 4 ,. of' Vm:.tad KINGSTON AVE.. I I SITE PLAN 9 Attac~,~ent 5 Attachment 6 From: Date: Re: Bart Crockett Nicholas Carver July 30, 2002 Proposed building relocation project on Sylvan Street, Maplewood. This is a one story single-family dwelling with a tuck-under garage and fireplace. NOTE: The building was locked for inspection. Per 1997 Uniform Building Code, Buildings or structures moved into or within a jurisdiction shall comply with the provisions of this code for new buildings or structures. This project is subject to field inspection comments. Electrical circuits shall be inspected and approved. Wiring shall be upgraded to current minimum standards. Smoke detectors must be hard-wired and located in accordance with all applicable codes and manufacturer's instructions. Mechanical and heating systems shall be inspected and approved. All systems and components shall be upgraded to current minimum standards. All gas piping must be tested in accordance with the mechanical code. Plumbing systems, including but not limited to waste, vents and fixtures must be inspected and approved. Plumbing shall meet all current minimum standards. One window per bedroom mUst meet all 1997 UBC egress requirements. Existing windows do not meet this requirement. All beams, headers, joists and roof systems shall be repaired, altered or sized to carry all superimposed loads. In order to demonstrate code compliance the roof covering and ventilation must be certified by a licensed professional. Stairs, handrails, guardrails, and other code related items will be addressed individually but must all meet the requirements of the 1997 UBC. All glass and glazing shall meet the requirements of 1997 UBC Chapter 24. In order to demonstrate code compliance the fireplace (including flues, combustion air, hearth extensions, etc) must be certified by a licensed professional. Siding must be replaced to meet current code requirements. The new foundation must meet all current code requirements. Plans must be submitted to the city for review prior to the relocation process. 11 MINUTES MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M., Monday, June 24, 2002 Council Chambers, Municipal Building Meeting No. 02-13 Attachment 1. }louse Moving Request (Crockett)-Sylvan Street a. City Manager Fursman presented the report. b. Assistant City Manager Coleman presented the specifics ofthe report. Councilmember Wasiluk moved to approve the moving ofa one-sto~ stucco house and detached garage for Bart Crockett to the lot south of 1754 Sylvan Street. Th~ .approval. also includes the proposed site plan and dwelling orientation as shown in the memo dated May 9, 20...~2. This approval shall be subject to the conditions of approval as written in the memo date May' 9, .2002. Council also moved to approve staffs' recommendation for the city to.require $71,250 .b.e placed in an escrow amount in the event the job is not completed. Seconded by Mayor Cardinal Ayes- Councilmembers Koppen and Wasiluk Nays-Mayor Cardinal, Councilmembers Juenemann, Koppen and Collins Motion failed: Councilmember Juenemann was not in support of the motion due to the risk factor, looking at the impact on the neighborhood and also taking into account the time of the year. Council.member Collins was not comfortable with the house estimates Mr. Crockett submitted. Mayor Cardinal would much rather see a new house put on the site and would be open to looking at another structure, but not that particular structure. 12 Attachment 8 REC'EIVED 13 · ! MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Associate Planner SUBJECT: House Moving and Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: 1501 Henry Lane APPLICANT: Shelley Schlomka DATE: August 13, 2002 INTRODUCTION Ms. Shelley Schlomka is asking the city council to allow her to move a house and a detached garage from Point Douglas Road in Newport to her property at 150~ Henry Lane. (See the maps on pages 7 - 13.) The house is a rambler with an exterior of horizontal lap siding and would replace the existing house on her property. Refer to the maps starting on page 7, the photos on pages 14-19 and the applicant's statement on page 20. I should note the house now has a tuck-under garage that Ms. Schlomka will convert to a full basement after moving the house to her property. CODE REQUIREMENTS Section 9-64(a) of the city code requires that the council make the following findings to approve a house moving: 1. That the proposed building is compatible with those in the neighborhood it would be moved to. A determination of compatibility may be based on comparing the structure's exterior siding, height, mass, age and style of construction to the average home in the neighborhood to which the house is to be moved and the health, safety and welfare of the community. 2. That all city code requirements can be met. 3. That water runoff from the site will not cause an adverse effect on surrounding properties. 4. That public streets can be protected from damage. DISCUSSION The design of this house would fit into the neighborhood and would be a great improvement over the existing house on the property. Because of the isolated location, the house would not be visible from a public street. In addition, there are only two other houses within 1,500 feet of this site (1461 and 1481 Henry Lane). I had the assistant building official, Nick Carver, inspect the house. His preliminary inspection report is on page 22. This report outlines most, if not all, of the work Ms. Schlomka will have to do to the house. This includes bringing all systems of the house up to current code standards and possibly replacing the roof to meet current code standards. Easement Access to this property is provided by a road easement from Henry Lane across the adjacent properties. This easement has been in place for many years and has been how the property owner has gotten to her property. Conditional Use Permit - Detached Garage The garage that the applicant wants to move onto her property is 29 x 50 feet (1450 square feet). The maximum garage size allowed by the city code is 1,250 square feet. The code does allow the city council to approve a conditional use permit for oversized accessory buildings. The council recently made such an approval for the applicant's uncle to build a pole barn for the property at 1480 Henry Lane. ~ RECOMMENDATIONS A. Approve the moving of a one-story house and a detached garage for Shelley Schlomka to the property at 1501 Henry Lane. The city approves the proposed site plan and dwelling orientation as shown on the site plan on page 13. This approval shall be subject to the applicant doing the following: 1. Submitting the following to the city for approval before the city issues a building permit: a. An irrevocable letter of credit or cash escrow for 1 1/2 times the estimated cost of completing the construction, including all yard work and extedor remodeling. The applicant shall complete the work within 90 days of the city issuing the permit. The director of community development may extend this deadline for sixty (60) days if there has been a reasonable cause for the delay. The construction shall meet all building code requirements. (Code requirement) A drainage and erosion control plan to the city engineer. This plan shall show that the proposed house location and grades will not cause any adverse effects or cause any drainage problems for nearby properties or water bodies. The city shall not issue a moving permit until the city engineer approves these plans and the construction shall follow these plans. (Code requirement) c. All plans and information required by the city building official. Get a demolition permit from the city for the existing house. Sign an agreement to convey the title. This agreement shall allow the city to take possession of the house and property if the required work is not completed within 90 days after the city issues the moving ~permit. This agreement would allow the city the right to complete the construction required by code or demolish and remove the structure. The city attorney shall prepare this agreement. (Code requirement) The applicant shall replace or repair the roof as needed. The applicant also shall meet all the requirements of the city's building inspection department. Move the house between the hours of 3 and 6 a.m. The applicant shall leave the house in the street until at least 7 a.m., but no later than 10 a.m. There shall be no excessive noise or work on the house or site between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. (Code requirement) 6. Place the house and garage on the property following the proposed site plan. Bo Approve the resolution on pages 23 and 24. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for Shelley Schlomka to move a detached garage that would measure 29 feet by 50 feet (1,450 square feet) onto the property at 1501 Henry Lane. This permit shall be 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 applicant shall obtain all necessary building permits before moving the garage onto the property. 3. The owner shall not use the garage for commercial or business activities, other than agricultural related uses as specified in the farm residence zoning district, unless the city council approves such a request. 4. The city council shall review this permit in one year. CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the seven property owners within 350 feet of this site. We received no replies. For Opposed Comments REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 9.5 acres Existing land use: A single dwelling and accessory buildings SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Undeveloped Property East: Undeveloped Property with Road Easement South: Ramsey County Open Space West: Saint Paul ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS Section 36-77(a) allows a maximum of 2,250 square feet of combined accessory structure area on lots that are 42,000 square feet or greater, with no one accessory structure exceeding 1,250 square feet. Section 36-77(c) allows the city council to approve a conditional use permit to increase the area or height of an accessory building. CRITERIA FOR CUP APPROVAL Section 36-442(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. (See findings 1-9 in the resolution on pages 23 and 24.) PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: RL (Iow-density residential) Zoning: F (farm residence) Application Date The city received this appliCation on August 1, 2002. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. City council action is required on this proposal by September 29, 2002. P:sec 24-28/1501 Henry Lane.doc Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Location Map 3. Area Map 4. Property Line Map 5. Zoning Map 6. Site Plan (Existing) 7. Site Plan (Proposed) 8. Photos of existing house 9. Photos of new house (5 pages) · 10. Applicant's Statement 11. Signed statement from neighbors 12. August 2, 2002 memo Nick Carver 13. Conditional Use Permit Resolution Attachment 1 1. HUNTINGTON CT. 2. OAKRIDGE LN. 720S 17 1. CURRIE CT. 2. VALLEY VIEW CT. ,.5. LAKEWOOD CT. g60S NEW CENTURY' PL NEW CENTURY TER NEW CENTURY LN 18 SOUTHCREST [ Ple~ontv~w OAK HEIGHTS CT. P,~rk 1200S 19 BOXWOOD OVERLO01' CIR. 1440S 2O RAMSEY ~ 68°SwASHtNGTON NEWPORT LOCATION Park CARVER AVE. CO. CO. MAP iFver Lake Attachment'2 Ramsey County Space ? 1481/Henry Ln 1481 Henry Ln 1501 Henry Ln ~ SITE Ramsey County Open Space 1461 Henry Ln 1525 Sterling St ! / S Location Map 8 Attachment 3 Ramsey County Space 1501 Henry Ln 1481 Henry Ln SITE Ramsey County Open Space / 148 l~enry Ln 1461 Henry Ln Sterling St ~ NEWPORT 9 Attachme~.t 4- .... SITE 1501 HENRY LANE 1481 RAMSEY COUNTY OPEN SPACE 1461 I I I I L NEWPORT PROPERTY LINE MAP 10 Attachment 5 ZONING ~ Single Dwelling Residential (R-1 ) [~ 40000 Residential' Estate (RE-40) Farm (F) N Zoning Map 11 Attachment 6 SITE PLAN (EXISTING) ]Z g 0 0 ,NJ Attachment 7 /\ SITE PLAN (PROPOSED) 13 Attachment 8 14 Attachment 9 15 Attachment 10 In moving the house and garage fi.om 1660 Pt. Douglas Road to my present location, 1501 Henry Lane, I absolutely know it will improve the looks, living conditions and raise the property value of my home. The house I live in now is a 4-room farmhouse (including attic) that is over 110 years old and deteriorating. There is no full basement and the basement that exists is made of crumbling limestone. With this type of basement we have had a lot of pest control problems. Beside spiders and mice, we have had over 160 snakes in the basement. These living conditions no longer suit my growing family. We also have no garage and therefore have to park outside 100% of the time which will make it much more difficult this winter with the expected addition to our family. We are working with Semple House Movers and would like to move the house from 1660 Pt. Douglas Road to our property because it is newer, larger and very well built. We understand that after an inspection is done, we will n~d to meet all City Code requirements. If anything is out of code, we will than take action to get the residence brought to code so we can move into the house ASAP. The proposed house is very compatible with those in our neighborhood. Water runoff will not be a problem because the house will be placed in the exact spot that the existing house is located~ Some major difference's are, it will have a solid foundation, it will be more suitable and improve the living conditions for our growing family, it's newer, more updated, it's in much better condition than the house I'm living in now, and it will raise the value of our property and the neighborhood. As I mentioned in the proposed route of travel, the proposed move will not degrade the public health, safety or welfare. Scruple Movers will take measures to see the house and garage are moved properly and will not affect any neighbors. I hope you will agree that this is a good move not only for us as property owners but an improvement to the City-ofMaplewood. I have been a resident of South Maplewood for 32 years and hopefully will be a life long resident. Please call me with questions or concerns. Thank you very much. Shelley L. Schlomka 651-735-8326 20 Attachment 11 July 28, 2002 I think the idea Shelley Schlomka is proposing to the City of Maplewood is a good idea. By moving the house and garage from 1660 S. Pt. Douglas Road to the site at 1501 Henry Lane would not only increase the property value but also it would be an improvement to the neighborhood. By moving the house and garage on to her existing 10 acres, this will not have any effects or even be seen by any bordering properties. I am for this proposal and think it should be passed by the City of Maplewood. Name Address ~ Comments 21 Attachment 12 ro~ From: Date: Re: Shelley Schlomka Nicholas Carver August 2, 2002 Proposed building relocation project on 1501 Henry Lane South, Maplewood. This is a one story single-family dwelling with a tuck-under garage and gas fireplace. This project also includes a 29ft x 50ft detached garage and a 10ft x 15ft garden shed. The garage is totally finished and must be field inspected at the new site. The garden shed has evidence of decayed wood which would need to be replaced. Both structures appear to need a roof replacement. The owner/contractor indicated new concrete slab foundations for each accessory building. Per 1997 UBC buildings or structures moved into or within a jurisdiction shall comply with the provisions of this code for new buildings or structures. This project is subject to field inspection comments. Electrical circuits shall be inspected and approved. Wiring shall be upgraded to current minimum standards. Smoke detectors must be hard-wired and located in accordance with all applicable codes and manufacturer's instructions. Mechanical and heating systems shall be inspected and approved. All systems and components shall be upgraded to current minimum standards. All gas piping must be tested in accordance with the mechanical code. Plumbing systems, including but not limited to waste, vents and fixtures must be inspected and approved. Plumbing shall meet all current minimum standards. One window per bedroom must meet all 1997 UBC egress requirements. Existing windows in one of the bedrooms does not meet this requirement. All beams, headers, joists and roof systems shall be repaired, altered or sized to carry all superimposed loads. NOTE: Not able to observe floor structure due to finished ceiling. In order to demonstrate cOde compliance the roof covering and ventilation must be certified by a licensed professional. Roof appears to need replacement. Stairs, handrails, guardrails, and other code related items will be addressed individually but must all meet the requirements of the 1997 UBC. All glass and glazing shall meet the requirements of 1997 UBC Chapter 24. The window by the front door must be replaced to meet this requirement. In order to demonstrate code compliance the fireplace (including flues, combustion air, hearth extensions, etc) must be certified by a licensed professional. The new foundation must meet all current code requirements. Plans must be submitted to the city for review prior to the relocation process. 22 Attachment 13 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Shelley Schlomka is requesting that Maplewood approve a conditional use permit to move a 29- by 50-foot, 1,450-square-foot detached garage onto her property. WHEREAS, this conditional use permit applies to the property at 1501 Henry Lane. The property identification number is 24-28-22-32-0002 and the legal description is: Section 24, Township 28, Range 22, the SW ¼ of the NW ¼ of the SW ¼ in Section 24, Township 28, Range 22. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: On August 19, 2002, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. On September ,2002, the city council held a public headng. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The city council opened the public headng and allowed everyone at the headng a chance to speak and present written statements. The city council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approves the above-described conditional use permit based on the building and site plans. The city approves this permit because: 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 use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, 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 run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. o 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. o 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. 23 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: All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The applicant shall obtain all necessary building permits before moving the garage onto the property. The owner shall not use the garage for commercial or business activities, other than agricultural-related uses as specified in the farm residence zoning district, unless the city council approves such a request. 4. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2002. 24 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Anderson Hillwood Oaks Preliminary Plat 2310 Mailand Road East August 13, 2002 INTRODUCTION Project Description Broadway Builders of Lake Elmo, Inc. is proposing to subdivide 2310 Mailand Road East, a 1.34- acre parcel, into three separate lots and combine one of the lots with an existing outlot. The single- family house located on Mailand Road will remain and Broadway Builders will construct two new single-family houses, both with access onto the Dorland Road cul-de-sac. Requests To develop this project, the city council must approve the following: 1. Rezoning of the property from F (Farm Residence) to R-1 (Single Dwelling Residential). A preliminary plat for the creation of three new lots. The city's subdivision ordinance allows the city to process subdivisions that create three or less lots as administrative lot divisions. However, in this case one of the three lots will be combined with an outlot. The city's subdivision ordinance does not allow construction on outlots. For this reason, a preliminary plat is required. BACKGROUND October 28, 1991: The city council approved the Hillwood Oaks Estates final plat. This plat created 17 single-family lots and 2 outlots. One outlot (Outlot A) was required for drainage and the second outlot (Outlot B) was requested by the developer in order to retain control of the street access until the property owner to the west (2310 Mailand Road East) gave fair compensation for the construction of the Dorland Road cul-de-sac and other public improvements. (Refer to Hillwood Oaks Estates plat on page 8 and the March 27, 1989, city council minutes on pages 9 and 10.) December 17, 2001: The city council approved the acquisition of Outlot B, Hillwood Oaks Estates. The acquisition of the outlot was approved in order to facilitate roadway access for two new single- family lots to be subdivided from the rear of 2310 Mailand Road East; and to ensure fair compensation to the developer of Hillwood Oaks Estates plat for the construction of the Dorland Road cul-de-sac. The acquisition was approved on the condition that the city purchase the property from a willing seller. The owner of Outlot B turned down the city's acquisition offer. July 1,2002: Broadway Builders of Lake Elmo, Inc. reached an agreement with the two property owners to purchase 2310 Mailand Road and Outlot B, Hillwood Oaks Estates, in order to subdivide two lots from the rear of 2310 Mailand Road with access onto the Dorland Road cul-de-sac. DISCUSSION Hillwood Oaks Estates Plat The developer of the Hillwood Oaks Estates plat (Royal Oaks Realty, Inc.) originally tried to negotiate with the property owner of 2310 Mailand Road for the subdivision of two lots from the rear of the property with access onto the new Dorland Road cul-de-sac. The property owner of 2310 Mailand Road was not willing to negotiate for the subdivision of their land or pay for a share of the cost of constructing Dorland Road. For this reason, in 1989 the city council approved a reserve strip (Outlot B) on the condition that the outlot not be used for access to the cul-de-sac or transferred to another owner until fair reimbursement of costs for street, water, and sewer was made. Last year a new owner purchased the property at 2310 Mailand Road. The new property owner attempted to negotiate the purchase' of Outlot B in order to obtain roadway access onto the Dorland Road cul-de-sac for two new lots to be subdivided from the rear of the property. Royal Oaks Realty did not feel that the offer was fair reimbursement of costs associated with the development of the street, water, and sewer. In an attempt to facilitate the access onto Dorland Road, the city council approved the city acquisition of Outlot B in 2001 on the condition that the city purchase from a willing seller. Again, Royal Oaks Realty did not feel that the offer was fair reimbursement. In July of this year, Broadway Builders was able to resolve the conflict by offering to purchase both 2310 Mailand Road and Outlot B. Broadway Builders is now prepared to plat the property and build two new single-family houses. - Zoning The property is zoned F (Farm Residence) and is planned as R-1 (Single Dwelling Residential) in the city's comprehensive plan. The city's subdivision ordinance allows for the platting of single- family lots within the Farm Residence zoning district. To be consistent with the comprehensive plan, however, staff recommends that the city rezone the entire property from Farm Residence to R-1. Subdivision The minimum lot width for interior lots within the F and R-1 zoning districts is 75 feet at the established building setback line, not less than 60 feet at the front lot line, except that lots located on the bulbs of cul-de-sacs shall be no less than 40 feet in width at the front lot line. The minimum lot size within the F and R-1 zoning districts is 10,000 square feet. Lot 1 will contain the existing single-family house and will exceed the minimum lot size and lot width requirements at 31,745 square feet in area and 131 feet in width. The existing detached garage will be located over the new lot line. Broadway Builders will remove the garage in order to accommodate the new single-family house on Lot 2. Because of the additional expense added to the project by the purchase of Outlot B, Broadway Builders is proposing to subdivide the two new single-family lots on Dorland Road (Lots 2 and 3) slightly larger than the city's required minimum lot size for a higher resale value. The proposed lot Anderson Hillwood Oaks 2 August 13, 2002 sizes and lot widths for the two new single-family lots are as follows: Lot 2 - 15,517 square feet in area, 75 feet in width at the established building setback line, and only 30 feet in width at the front lot line. Lot 3 - 11,175 square feet in area, 85 feet in width at the established building setback line, and 75 feet at the front lot line. Lot 2 does not meet the minimum lot width of 40 feet at the front lot line for lots along the bulbs of cul-de-sacs. For this reason, staff recommends that Broadway Builders relocate the lot line between Lots 2 and 3 to ensure that Lot 2 has at least a 40-foot-wide front lot line dimension. Utilities There are sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water located in the Dorland Road cul-de-sac to serve the two new single-family lots. DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer: "No engineering concerns with the preliminary plat." John Banick, Police Lieutenant: "1 have reviewed the Anderson Hillwood Oaks plat and currently do not have any public safety concerns at this time." RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt the rezoning resolution on page 16. This resolution changes the zoning map from Farm Residence to Single Dwelling Residential (R-l) for the proposed Anderson Hillwood Oaks plat. The city is making this change because it will: a. Not detract from the use of neighboring property. b. Serve the best interests and conveniences of the community. c. Cause no negative impacts on the city's public services or facilities. Approve the Anderson Hillwood Oaks preliminary plat date stamped July 31, 2002. The developer of the plat must complete the following conditions before the city council approves the final plat: Submit final construction and engineering plans for approval by the city engineer. The plans must include grading, drainage, and erosion control. b. Revise the plat to show that Lot 2 has a 40-foot-wide front lot line at the cul-de-sac. Co Broadway Builders of Lake Elmo, Inc. and Royal Oaks Realty, Inc. must sign a mutual agreement and covenant with the city which covers all financial considerations for fair compensation of Outlot B, Hillwood Oaks Estates No. 1, as . drafted by the city engineer. Anderson Hillwood Oaks 3 Augu~ 13,2002 do Submit a tree plan that shows all large trees located on the two new lots and indicates which trees the developer will preserve with the construction of the two new single-family houses. All large trees removed from the two new lots must be replaced one-for-one, not to exceed 10 trees per acre, as required by the city's tree preservation ordinance. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer must place temporary orange safety fencing at the grading limits, including around all trees to be preserved. Record the final plat with Ramsey County. Anderson Hillwood Oaks 4 August 13, 2002 CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed all property owners within 350 feet of this site. Of the 242 properties, 15 responded with the following comments: Peter & Marlene Moreno, 371 Dorland Rd S: This proposed project, it seems, would have no effect on our home. Therefore, I would not oppose said project. Nancy J. Deboer, 383 Dorland Rd S: Since I am not an immediate neighbor, I do not have strong feelings one way or the other. Albert E. Childs, 2307 Mailand Rd E: The 2310 area is like a park. We often see deer on the property. The area is wooded and so peaceful to look out our window. I do not object to the new homes, I just hope they keep as many trees as possible. Mark & Patricia Cangemi, 2300 Mailand Rd E: Access must be limited to Dorland Road cul- de-sac for both new houses. Houses must be of comparable style and cost of homes of neighborhood. Landscaping of new homes must not adversely affect water drainage to properties to west and northwest or cause standing water. Sewage and electrical to be from cul-de-sac. Absolutely no access through to Mailand for two new lots.. o Jacqueline Elaine Forrester, 2365 Dorland Lane: This should be good for the community and increase the property value. Go ahead!! Richard & Darlene Farbo,-2288 Teakwood Ct E: We do not know the area well enough to comment. Audrey K. Darling, 2328 Dorland Ct: My only concern with increased development in south Maplewood is the increase in traffic, i.e., McKnight/Lower Afton Road. o James & Dorothy Zoch, 2309 Mailand Rd E: We live directly across the street from 2310 Mailand. We love the park-like setting across from us. We hope this would not be disturbed! Thank you very much! Mark & Ann Hall, 511 Dorland Rd S: My name is Mark Hall (wife, Ann) and we reside at 511 Dorland Road. First, thank you for the opportunity to weigh in with our comments in regards to this matter. With open spaces disappearing in our city, we would like you to consider purchasing the property in question with money from the "open spaces fund" and create an "official urban wildlife sanctuary" such as the one on the 2300 block of Hillwood Drive (less than 1/8 mile east of the proposed development). In this case, the wildlife area is private ownership, but with larger open space opportunities no longer available, what about shifting the focus from those large area purchases to smaller area purchases? The area can be taken care of through neighborhood volunteerism and be a trigger mechanism to neighborhood unity and possibly volunteerism in general. In closing, this is a unique opportunity for our community to be in the forefront by taking the open space ordinance that was passed by the voters a few years back and redirect the effort to save the larger open spaces to saving the smaller spaces that are scattered throughout our city. Thank you. Anderson Hillwood Oaks 5 August 13, 2002 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Ngonje Emilia Dibaki, 370 Dorland Rd S: Please know that mom bushes have been chopped off around this area and we have more heat now than it used to be. My recommendation is plant more trees around the houses as you build to shade the sun. Christine Garlick, 2362 Mailand Ct, Unit 176: I have no objections to this. I do not see how it would have any bearing on my way of life, especially considering I live in the densely populated McKnight Townhomes. I believe your decision should be based upon the comments provided by single-family homeowners physically closer to proposed site. Glenn Tengvall & Cathryn Manhart-Tengvall, 2363 Dorland Ln: This project should not affect me because them is some distance from where I live. Only comment that I have is if there must be development in our area, I would rather see single-family housing rather than multi-townhouse complex. In addition, as long as the natural wild plants and tree areas are not affected. Van & Phyllis Brostrom, 530 Dorland Rd: I am concerned that many of the beautiful trees will be destroyed. Miland & Myma Meek, 580 Holly Lane N: We have no objection to this subdivision. Elizabeth Rosenthal, 413 Dorland PI: It is all about the money to be made!! God forbid that one precious block of space in Maplewood be left undeveloped. Anderson Hillwood Oaks 6 August 13, 2002 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 1.34 acres Existing land use: Single-Family House SURROUNDING LAND USES There are single-family houses located to the north, south, east, and west of this site. PLANNING Existing Land Use: R-1 (Single Dwelling Residential) Existing Zoning: F (Farm Residence) Criteria for Approval Rezoning: Section 36-485 of the Zoning Code requires that the city council make the following findings to rezone property: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the Zoning Code; The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded; The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare; The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. Application Date The city received the application materials for this request on July 31, 2002. State law requires cities to take action on all land use requests within 60 days. Therefore, city action is required on the Anderson Hillwood Oaks Preliminary Plat by September 29, 2002, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. p:sec 12-28~Anderson Hillwood Oaks Attachments: 1. Hillwood Oaks Estates Plat 2. March 27, 1989, City Council Minutes 3. City Location Map 4. Location Map 5. Zoning Map 6. Land Use Map 7. Site Plan 8. Rezoning Resolution 9. Proposed Preliminary Plat (separate handout) Anderson Hillwood Oaks 7 August 13, 2002 Attachment 1 N _,_ ~o 4 ,_-_% _J II I OUTLOT SEE D~TAIL F -Ng'6os},'SB'.E'I .b_ _. ,~o.~_ J I§ 189,64 [A$[MENT OUTLOT A ! I '~'~ ,,,~ DRIVE.. ;.' I':: LL :~' C '.:' ~+" Hillwood Oaks Estates PI&~ $ 8 a. Time Extension h. Preliminary Plat Revisions ~,~ _ ~ ..~ Attachment 2 1. Manager McGuire presented the Staff. report. 2. Lawrence S~mpsted, representing the developer, Robert Mennen, spoke on behalf of theproposal. 3. Robert Hennen, the developer, explained the need for preliminary plgt revisions. Mayor Greavu moved to approve a one-year time eztension for the Hillwood Oaks Number One preliminary plat, sub~ect to the March 14, 1988' conditions of approval revised as follows: deed to convey Outlot B to the City. A restriction shall be recorded against the title stating that this outlot may not be used for access to the cul-de-sac or transferred to another ownership until a fair reimbursement of costs for street, water and sewer is made to -the City. The City Council shall determine what a fair reimbursement is. The City shall then attempt to reimburse this money to the · developer. If the developer cannot be located, the City shall retain this money. A recordab!e deed shall be submitted to the City Engineer to transfer title for Outlot A to the City. 16 3-Z7-~9 Approval of final grading, utility, erosion control and drainage plans by the City Engineer. The grading plan shall include the location of the proposed building pads and the style of each proposed dwelling (walkout, split-entry, etc.). The proposed house styles and locations and street plans shall provide for, or be revised to show: (1) an undisturbed fifteen-foot-wide strip along the east and west pla~ boundaries and (2) the removal of as few healthy, mature trees as possible to construct necessary public improvements, dwellings and 4fir,ways, Future revisions to the approved grading plan may be a~thorized by the City Engineer, provided the intent of the ore=al! grading plan is not compromlsedi b. Each mature tree to be saved shall be shown on the grading plan. These trees shall also be identified on the site. Submittal of a signed developer's agreement with the required surety. This agreement shall address, but not be limited to: a. Construction of all required on-site public improvements. Removal of the temporary cul-de-sac for Hillwood Drive. constructioD of a permanent Hillwood Drive street section (curb, gutter, etc.,) and restoration of the temporary cul-de-sac area outside of the permanent street section to an acceptable grade with grass. c. Construction of Riil~ood Drive at least thirty feet west of the southwesterly extension of the east line of Lot One, Block Two. Replanting of trees, as necessary, so that there are at least 10 trees on each acre (2-inch plus new or 4-inch plus diameter existing) following all construction. Trees may be relocated to the berm on Outlot A (City pond) subject to the location being approved by the City Engineer. e. A cash escrow for the construction of a five-foot-wide concrete sidewalk on the north side of Hillwood Drive. Construction of the sidewalk is contingent upon the City council's decision regarding the revised sidewalk plan in the City's comprehensive plan. The owner(s) of this property shall release, by deed, any right that may run with this property .to use the 33-foot-wide access easement that abuts the northwest corner. Any changes to the preliminary plat conditions must be approved by the City Council. Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach. l0 Ayes - all. Attachment St. Paul Little Canada o St. Paul 2310 Mailand City Location Map Attachment 4 2310 Mailand Road Outlot to be Combined with 2310 Mailand Rd. ! TF_A..K'~V.. OOD DRIVE I I N Location Map 12 Attachment 5 2310 Mailand Road MAll_AND ROAD ..... Z TEAKWOOD DRIVE 1'4 ZONING ~ Light Manufacturing Heavy Manufacturing Neighborhood Commercial Commercial Office Limited Business Commercial Business Commercial Modified Business Commercial Shopping Center Small Lot Single Dwelling Residential Single Dwelling Residential Double Dwelling Residential High Multiple Dwelling Residential High Multiple Dwelling Residential Condo Planned Urban Development 30000 Residential Estate 40000 Residential Estate Farm Zoning Map 13 Attachment 6 MAILAND ROAD 2310 Mailand Road TEAKVVOOD COUF LAND USE ~ Light Manufacturing ~1~ Heavy Manufacturing ~ Neighborhood Commercial ~ Commercial Office ~±~ Limited Business Commercial ~ Business Commercial Modified ~ Business Commercial ' ' Small Lot Single Dwelling Residential i ~ Single Dwelling Residential ~ Double Dwelling Residential ~--' Low Multiple Dwelling Residential ~ Medium Multiple Dwelling Residential ~ High Multiple Dwelling Residential ~ 30000 Residential Estate ~ 40000 Residential Estate ~ Park [_~_~ Opon Space ~ School ~ city Z TEAKVVOOD DRIVE OAKRIDGE DRIVE Government Library Cemetery Church iFiroStatio. Land Use Map 14 N Attachment 7 0 \\ NOTE: \ AR[: AT I / / .?CURB I~L£~ ARE A1 / TOP OF CURB / / / ',:. / / ('. S 15 ZONING MAP CHANGE RESOLUTION Attachment 8 WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood is proposing the following change to the City of Maplewood's zoning map: Farm Residence (F) to Single-Family Residential (R-l). WHEREAS, this change applies to the property located at 2310 Mailand Road East in Maplewood, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the property is being platted into three single-family lots. WHEREAS, the new legal description for 2310 Mailand Road East and the two new lots is as follows: Lots I through 3, Block 1, Anderson Hillwood Oaks. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: On August 19, 2002, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve the rezoning change. On ,2002, the city council held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council conducted the public hearing whereby all public present were given a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described change in the zoning map for the following reasons: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. 5. The owner plans to develop this proPerty as single-family houses. The Maplewood city council adopted this resolution on ,2002. 16 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan White Bear Avenue between Ripley Avenue and Larpenteur Avenue August 14, 2002 INTRODUCTION Hillcrest Village Smart Growth Study The Metropolitan Council and their design consultants, together with the cities of St. Paul and Maplewood, have developed a neighborhood redevelopment land use plan for the Hillcrest Shopping Center and the contiguous part of Maplewood north of Larpenteur Avenue. This plan, called the Hillcrest Village smart growth site, was developed over the past 1% years. Also involved with the development of this plan were concerned property and business owners. The Met Council presented this plan to the public on April 25, 2002. Refer to the Hillcrest Village plan on page 5. Since then, St. Paul and Maplewood have each held an informational meeting with their respective neighborhoods that would be affected by this plan. Request Staff is requesting that the planning commission, community design review board (CDRB) and housing and redevelopment authority (HRA) forward a recommendation on the Hillcrest Village plan to the city council. The council needs to decide whether the city should adopt the redevelopment plan for Hillcrest Village, some variation of it or not adopt it at all. BACKGROUND On Apdl 26, 2001, the Metropolitan Council, Calthorpe and Associates (an urban planning group) and HGA (a local architectural firm) held a workshop at Woodland Hills Church in Maplewood. This workshop allowed area residents, business owners and St. Paul and Maplewood staff and government personnel to participate by offedng their desires and preferences on how they would like this area to redevelop. On May 24, 2001, the Met Council held a follow up meeting at Woodland Hills Church to present the consultants two development alternatives they created from input received at the Apdl 26 workshop. On July 2, 2001, the planning commission reviewed the two development alternatives and had the following comments: Features the PC liked 1. Realignment of North St. Paul Road to meet White Bear Avenue at a right angle. 2. Grocery store. 3. The walkable/bikeable aspects of the plans. 4. The large neighborhood square ('village green' concept). 5. The townhouses, provided they are affordable to the average person and not overpriced. 6. Attempts at traffic calming and slowing on White Bear Avenue. Features the PC did not like 1. The potential nuisance of parking spaces behind buildings visible to residential units. 2. Possible difficulty for the eldedy or disabled in having parking in back, unless there are back doors. On July 9, 2001, the city council reviewed the two concept designs and concurred with the planning commission's comments. On November 13, 2001, the Maplewood City Council passed a development moratorium for that portion of the Hillcrest neighborhood in Maplewood. This moratorium will allow staff to coordinate the development of design cdteda for this area with all interested parties and smart- growth participants. This moratorium expires on November 13, 2002 or at such time as the city council adopts amendments to the city's zoning ordinance, zoning map or comprehensive plan. On Apdl 1, 2002, staff presented the final Hillcrest Village plan to the planning commission for their information. Since this presentation was informational only, no action was taken. On April 22, 2002, the staff presented the final Hillcrest Village plan to the city council at the council/manager.workshop to update them on the plan. No action was taken. On April 25, 2002, the Met Council gave a presentation of their final draft of the Hillcrest Village plan to the public at Woodland Hills Church. On June 18, 2002, Maplewood planning staff held a neighborhood informational meeting to get comments about the Hillcrest Village plan. On June 19, 2002, the City of St. Paul Planning and Economic Development (PED) staff held their neighborhood informational meeting. On August 13, 2002, the CDRB discussed the Hillcrest Village plan and recommended approval of this redevelopment plan in concept. The CDRB expressed strong concern that they be actively involved in drafting future design guidelines for Hillcrest Village. On August 13, 2002, the HRA discussed the Hillcrest Village plan but did not move to support or deny. The HRA expressed several concerns and questions, however. In summary, their comments were: 1. How would snow be removed with a lot of street-side parking? 2. Traffic would be noticeably increased. 3. Is there a market for the proposed housing? They have reservations about this. 4. It may be a disservice removing existing viable housing for new housing. 5. The future building on the Plaza Theatre site does not seem feasible. 6. The plan should include, at least show, the Jr. Achievement block. 7. Can the existing infrastructure handle these changes? 2 _ DISCUSSION Neighborhood Meetings Maplewood's Neighborhood Meeting On June 18, 2002, the Maplewood planning staff hosted a neighborhood meeting at city hall to present the Hillcrest Village plan to the residents along White Bear Avenue between Frost Avenue and Larpenteur Avenue as well as the owners of the involved business properties on White Bear Avenue and Van Dyke Street. The majodty of those attending this meeting were not in favor of any redevelopment. Many wanted to know when redevelopment would happen and how much they would be paid for their properties. Business owners wanted to know what would happen to their businesses during redevelopment. Refer to the comments on pages 6-10 that are responses to a questionnaire we mailed to property owners and comments received at the meeting. St. Paul's Nei,qhborhood Meeting On June 19, 2002, the St. Paul PED staff held a neighborhood informational meeting. Virginia Burke, of St. Paul's staff, told me that the residents and business owners in St. Paul had a more favorable response than Maplewood received. The Met Council's redevelopment plan remains the preferred plan. Ms. Burke explained that there was support of this plan by residents, business owners and groups like the White Bear Avenue Business Association and neighborhood planning councils. It should be noted that St. Paul is working with Centex Corporation for the redevelopment of the Hillcrest Entertainment Center (formerly Hafner's Bowl) property into multiple-family housing. Final Development Plan In total, the final Hillcrest Village redevelopment plan consists of 98 townhouse units, 291 apartment units, 10 single dwellings, 36,400 square feet of office space and 151,300 square feet of commercial space. In Maplewood alone, there would be 16 townhouse units, 129 apartment units, 36,400 square feet of office space and 76,000 square feet of commercial space. Conclusion This plan is to be used as a guide for Maplewood and St. Paul redevelopment activities. The design criteria the Maplewood planning staff is drafting will also become part of the development guidelines for Hillcrest Village. The Maplewood City Council needs to review the plan, decide if they agree with this plan or would like to change it in some way. The council may also choose not to pursue the adoption of the plan at this time. The Met Council has said that Maplewood would be considered more favorably for grant funds if we adopt this plan or a close variation of it. They realize, of course, that each city's council may not find all aspects of their redevelopment plan totally to their liking. The Met Council would hope, though, that the smart growth concepts and design elements depicted in their plan would be promoted by each city. (There are six smart growth redevelopment sites throughout the metro.) 3 RECOMMENDATION Forward a recommendation to the city council on the Metropolitan Council's Hillcrest Village Redevelopment plan. p: com_dvpt~miscell~hillcrst.7'02.mem Attachments: 1. Metropolitan Council's Hillcrest Village Final Concept Plan 2. Questionnaire Replies 3. Comments from Property Owners 4 CONCEPT REDEVELOPMENT PLAN March 15, 2002 I Commercial/Office Building ~ Mixed-Use Building [~ Residential Building I~'~ Funxre Commercial Building '~ Indicates Number of Stories BLOCK W1 12,900 SF Commercial , 16 Townhome Units [ .... 42 Off-Street Surface Spaces i ,, LARPENTEUR BLOCK W2 16,800 SF Commerc/al 71 Off-Street Surface Spaces CA BLOCKS W3a & W3b 17,400 SF Commercial [ ..... 4 Single-Family Units 50 Off-Street Surface Spaces BLOCKW4 38 Apartment Units 16 Off-Street Surface Spaces BLOCKS WSa & WSb 16 Townhome Units 2 Single-Family Units BLOCKW6 12 Townhome Units Attachment ,,, ] ..... IFORNIA AV IDAHO HO¥? A¥£ ;;AVENUE ~ , BLOCK E3a 1_ ...... i 21,700 SF Commercial [] ~ 42 Apartment Units ~ 81 Off-Street Surface Spaces BLOCK E3b 19,400 SF Commercial 44 Ap~'tm~t Units 71 Off-Street Surface Spaces BLOCKS ~'-4a & E4b 10 Townhome Unit~ 2 Single-Family Units 38 Apartment Units BLOCILS 'gSa & 22 Townhome Unit~ Single-Family Units ~ ~ t BLOClr.q E6a & E6b ~ ~ 22 Tovmhome Units CaRhorpe Associates HILLCREST VILLAGE Smart Growth Twin Cities Metropolitan Council City of Maplewood City of St. Paul Attachment 2 HILLCREST VILLAGE QUESTIONNAIRE Of 116 questionnaires sent out, 10 people responded as follows: 07110~02 1. I like the concept of redevelopment for this area: 4 Yes 4 No I Unsure Mary Sturm, 1759 White Bear Ave, Maplewood, 651-777-6009 (home) 651-296-5485 (work): "Unsure, not afraid of added housing, but not sure of design mix." 1789 T. Bottari, 6-7-02: "No." Tschida, 1721 White Bear Ave, Maplewood: "Yes." Kent Wilcox, 1779 White Bear Ave, Maplewood: "No." Anonymous: "Yes." Anonymous: "Yes." A concerned Maplewood Resident: "Yes" Ken Schwaltz, Performance Transmission & Machine, 1735 Van Dyke St., Maplewood: "No." Rose Ulrich, Meister Investmen_ts, 651-777-7184: "No." I agree with the proposed locations for business and residential uses. 2 Yes 2 No 5 Comments If not, what would you like to see changed? Mary Sturm, 1759 White Bear Ave, Maplewood, 651-777-6009 (home) 651-296-5485 (work): "Keep North St. Paul Road in place. Leave existing housing in place." 1789 T. Bottari: "Keep business separate from housing. This plan reminds me of old (turn-of- the-century) neighborhoods in Chicago, II1., built before cars, when people walked to stores, work, etc., lived over their bakery, behind their Mom & Pop grocery store, rarely left the neighborhood, except to go downtown on the trolley or 'el'. Also they didn't have checking accts - check cards or credit cards or pc's." Tschida, 1721 White Bear Ave, Maplewood: "Encourage commercial use." Kent Wilcox, 1779 White Bear Ave, Maplewood: "Too much traffic as is! This plan would re- route traffic making White Bear Ave. more congested!" Anonymous: "Yes." A concemed Maplewood Resident: "Yes" Ken Schwaltz, Performance Transmission & Machine, 1735 Van Dyke St., Maplewood: "No. Face lift on White Bear Ave and leave Van Dyke alone." Rose Ulrich, Meister Investments, 651-777-7184: "No." 3. I like this plan because: Mary Sturm, 1759 White Bear Ave, Maplewood, 651-777-6009 (home) 651-296-5485 (work): "Some green space - that's good.' 1789 T. Bottad: "We could use a little spit and polish." Anonymous: "Area needs a face lift." Rose Uldch, Meister Investments, 651-777-7184:"1 don't like anything about it." 4. I don't like the plan because: Mary Sturm, 1759 White Bear Ave, Maplewood, 651-777-6009 (home)651-296-5485 (work): "Seems so abstract this is causing clear anxiety tends to cause folks to let property run down due to uncertainty of future. Neighbor already muttered that he wouldn't put another dime into his house if the intention was to take our homes gradually or right now for other uses." 1789 T. Bottad: "Where's White Castle, Jerry's Chicken, Steve's Market (he's getting better), the Dollar Store, Snyder's etc? When people are force to move out they don't come back. Is the plan child friendly? Tschida, 1721 White Bear Ave:_ Maplewood: "Don't want too much Iow income housing." Kent Wilcox, 1779 White Bear Ave, Maplewood: "Traffic noises, traffic congestion and Iow income housing attracts problem families." Ken Schwaltz, Performance Transmission & Machine, 1735 Van Dyke St., Maplewood: "If the people in the Hillcrest and Maplewood community want to redevelop this community let them do it the way they want to not thru the Metropolitan Council." Other Comments: Mary Sturm, 1759 White Bear Ave, Maplewood, 651-777-6009 (home) 651-296-5485 (work): "It doesn't look much like what the neighbors planned at early meetings and the business owners sure seem upset. Change is difficult but it's the uncladty of this plan that is exacerbating that. Also don't replace $100,000 homes with $170,000 townhomes and call it affordable housing. Also the uncertancy about piecemeal dev do it all or nothing." 1789 T. Bottad: "1 live on White Bear Ave., have since 1976. I don't know what plan you have for my part- more mix??? More traffic? County 5 coming through from Century Ave (120)? Kent Wilcox, 1779 White Bear Ave, Maplewood: "Area businesses concerned that they will be 'forced out'." 7 A concemed Maplewood Resident: "No more tattoo shops. No 'Mr. Nice Guy drug paraphernalia type shops. No adult book/video stores. A ~ood grocery store like Kendell's or Knowlan's. NOT Steve's warehouse. No more Chinese restaurants - we have enough now. Nor more bars or liquor stores. 'No "hang-out" shops. Well lit - well patrolled area. No sex offenders. No traffic detoured to residential streets. I look forward to seeing the area beautiful - but not a lot of businesses that we don't need or want in the area. Office space yes - good reputation businesses." Rose Ulrich, Meister Investments, 651-777-7184: "If the east side of Larp & White Bear in Maplewood is such an eye sore - start with Xcel and the phone co. putting the utilities underground. That would be an improvement alone. It probably would be best if you find the money first and start buying us out." P:/com_dvpt/Hillcrest Village Questionnaire Attachment 3 HILLCREST VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS 6/18/02 1) Larpenteur resident: "No way." 2) Brad & Marian Whitney, 1763 East Larpenteur: "1. Concem about property value. 2. Concern with inability to say no. 3. Concern on time frame of development. 4. Roundabout." 3) Jean Nelson, 2201 Birmingham, Maplewood, MN, 55109: "The northeast corner of White Bear & Larpenteur needs a face lift more so than any businesses on Van Dyke but it appears the owners of the property do not understand that these meetings are for input. And they also said we have no intention of fixing up the property. They could at least be a little more open to the concept - of appearances and be willing to work with the community and not against it. I live in Maplewood but work on the St. Paul side of the proposed project at H&R Block. There needs to be a balance of commercial and residential. We were originally in Hillcrest which leaked and the new front may look ok to the public but if you go in the back rooms - the walls are falling apart - hundreds of electrical and phone wires everywhere - inside is a dump. We are now in Hafner Center and the structure of the building is a little better but also needs improvements." 4) Nathan Block, Plaza Theatre, (651-503-0434): "1 agree that something needs to be done to White Bear Avenue. I would prefer that it not displace the Plaza Theatre. I would love the city to intervene so that I could purchase the small parcel of land on which the Plaza resides from Woodland Hills Church. So far, the church is unwilling to sell. I want to keep giving the community of Maplewood/St. Paul an affordable alternative to seeing movies." 5) 6) Gary and Claudia Lonetti, 1956 Price Ave, Maplewood, MN, 55109, 651-777- 8220:"6-18-02. We do not want subsidized and (Iow income) housing. Keep the businesess but fix them up, including, do some landscaping. Take a close look at sinnage and class it up. There is nothing wrong with No. St. Paul Rd. except it needs to be re-surfaced." R. Meissner: "1 agree that the Ave needs to be redone'so keep up the good work. Most of the Ave is rented with absent landowners. All the tenants can be replaced in new units (business units)." 7) David L Johnson, 1743 White Bear Avenue, Maplewood, MN, 55109: "Plan for more commercial/office b!dg on White Bear Ave and less resident housing on White Bear Ave." 8) Ken & Jackie Schwartz, Performance Transmission & Machine, 1735 Van Dyke St.: "Against the proposal completely. Area needs facelift. Why don't we see what St. Paul agrees to? That's the area that really needs work." 9) Len & Irene Klein, 1741 E. Larpenteur: "Plan not acceptable." lO) Gene TSchida, 1721 W.B.A.: "Start with redevelopment going further up W.B.A. on residential side." 11) 12) 13) North Suburban Tile & Carpet, 1715 Van Dyke St.: "We don't want to move. Redevelopment of our street will close our business. We need help keeping the neighborhood clean and safe. The buildings don't cause this problem." Minn. Health Family Physicians, 1814 No. St. Paul Rd.: "No. St. Paul Rd. is a dangerous intersection. It is hazardous for our employees to cross the street to SA. Over the last 5 years we have had homeless people sleep in the wooded area behind the old Berger King building and trash is dumped off monthly. Traffic crosses through Blockbuster parking lot all day long. Junior Achievement parking would be an option for us if plowing a walk way for people and a safer North St. Paul Rd or another option would be to close the road allow us to Purchase more land for parking." Rose Ulrich, Meister Investments: "Show us the money and we'll be out." p:/com_dvpt/Hillcrest Development comments l0