Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/19/2006MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, December 19, 2006, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. December 5, 2006 5. Public Hearings 7:00 Saint Clair Hills Development (Carver Avenue, east of 1— 494) Development Moratorium Variance Rezoning (R -1(R) to R-1) -- 6. New Business None 7. Unfinished Business None 9. Visitor Presentations 10. Commission Presentations December 11 Council Meeting: Mr. Grover December 18 Council Meeting: Mr. Yarwood January 8 Council Meeting: Mr. Pearson January 22 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler? 11. Staff Presentations a. Reschedule January 1 Meeting — Tuesday January 2 or Wednesday January 3? b. Reschedule January 15 Meeting — Tuesday January 16 or Wednesday January 17? c. Possible permanent meeting night change — Tuesdays or Wednesdays? 12. 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 thb podium, speak clearly, first giving your name and address and then your comments. 6. 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. 7. The Commission will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. 8. The Commission will then make its recommendation or decision. 9. All decisions by the Planning Commission are recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes the final decision. jw/pclpcagd Revised: 01/95 • s DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:11 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Vice -Chairperson Tushar Desai Commissioner Mary Dierich Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Michael Grover Commissioner Harland Hess Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippier Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Present Absent Present Absent Present Absent Present Present at 7:11 p.m. Staff Present: Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Ken Roberts, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Hess seconded. Ayes — Desai, Fischer, Hess, Trippler, Yarwood The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the planning commission minutes for November 20, 2006. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the planning commission minutes for November 20, 2006. Commissioner Yarwood seconded V. PUBLIC HEARING Ayes — Desai, Fischer, Hess, Trippler, Yarwood a. Easement Vacation — Jensen Estates (north of Hoyt Avenue) (7:13 — 7:33 p.m.) Mr. Roberts said Maplewood city staff, at the direction of the city council, is proposing that the city • vacate part of an existing easement. This easement is now 20 feet wide and is between Lots 6 and 7 of the Jensen Estates plat. Specifically, the easement is on the west side of the property at 2320 Hoyt Avenue. Planning Commission -2- Minutes of 12-05-06 The council directed staff to vacate the east six feet of this easement to ensure that the trail that the developer is to install will be kept to the west of the existing house. This shift is necessary too provide the homeowners room for the landscaping and retaining walls on their property. On September 25, 2006, the city council considered a request of Mr. Schroeder of 2320 Hoyt Avenue to not require the developer to install a required trail within the development. The council denied this request and so the city will still be requiring the developer to install the trail. As designed, this trail will run north -south from the Hoyt Avenue cul-de-sac to the north property line of the development. Mr. Schroeder originally requested that the city not require the installation of the trail because of concerns about grading, drainage and landscaping. However, the council directed staff to work with the developer to ensure that the city -required trail be installed while keeping as far from the Schroeders' home as possible. The possible trail plan and partial easement vacation should meet the requirements of the city council and help alleviate some of the Schroeders' concerns. Commissioner Trippler said according to the survey map shown on page 8 of the staff report which was done by Hedlund it appears the house on lot 6 is going to be closer to the easement than the house on lot 7, is that correct? Mr. Roberts said that may be. Until the city gets a specific house survey for that lot it may or may not be closer. They have to stay out of the easement but they can come right up to it. Mr. Chuck Ahl, Maplewood Public Works Director, said Lot 6 is still owned by the developer and he is selling it to a builder. We had a homeowner who was not aware of the trail to begin with now the trail signs are up and the trail is going to be built and before someone puts a house up on Lot 6 the city can build the trail and the house can be built accordingly. Commissioner Hess said he went out to the site on Sunday and in looking at the survey done by Hedlund it shows the slope at 4.0% to the end of the trail. He asked if the trail has to be ADA compliant? He wondered how that would be accomplished with the amount of grading that would have to be done. Mr. AN said this plan was put together because of the ADA requirement for the trail that you mentioned. The grading is relatively steep. Originally Lot 7 had retaining walls and plantings there and now will be able to make this fit on the site which was a compromise to make this work. Lot 6 will have to be graded accordingly based on the trail elevation. For the ADA requirements you can have short segments up to 7 or 8% but typically they have to be shorter than 100 to 125 feet long and then you have to have a landing area. The 4% is the beginning of the landing area and if you look at the grades to the north towards Currie Street it actually flattens out there. This will very easily meet the 5% once it is constructed. The builder may have to bring in additional fill for Lot 6 and this will clearly be an extra expense for the developer and builder on the site. However, it was their error for not telling the people buying the lots that the trail was going in therefore, the city council determined the developer and builder should incur the expense for that. Commissioner Trippler asked if there were any sidewalks on Currie Street? He said he's in favor of trails and sidewalks but he can't see that the trail is going anywhere because it doesn't connect to Currie Street or anywhere else. Planning Commission -3- Minutes of 12-05-06 Mr. Roberts said as staff he worked with this property the original plan was to have two temporary cul-de-sacs and eventually have the streets connect. Then this developer came in and the property owner to the north came in and they both said they didn't think that would work so the connection never happened. Staff believes the thought for the trail is to allow pedestrians to move between neighborhoods without having to cut through yards. Street to street there isn't a connection but it gives people more choices rather than having to walk across or along McKnight Road which could be dangerous. Commissioner Trippler asked if there were any sidewalks on Larpenteur Avenue? Mr. Roberts said no. At some point there may be sidewalks but that would be between the city and the county. It is and has been the city council's thought wherever we can put sidewalks and trails in the City of Maplewood that we want to do that. Commissioner Hess said the property line area of Lot 7 looks like there are two 30 -foot tall evergreens where the trail will be going. He asked if those trees would be removed for the trail? Mr. AN said once the city gets a site plan for the property to the north the city plans to construct the trail around those evergreen trees. Chairperson Fisher asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Roberts said in this case the city is the applicant but the city did notify the neighbors for their opinions. Ms. Gail Schroeder, 2320 Hoyt Avenue, Maplewood, addressed the commission. She said originally we petitioned the neighbors regarding the fact that nobody wanted the trail to go in. However, this situation is a compromise having the developer and builder pay for the trail to go. Commissioner Trippler asked if Ms. Schroeder said she and the neighbors didn't want the trail to go in and you did a petition against it? Ms. Schroeder said we petitioned the residents on Currie Street and Hoyt Avenue and brought it to the city council stating we were against the trail going in. Commissioner Trippler asked how many residents signed the petition against the trail? Ms. Schroeder said she couldn't remember the exact number but it was less than 20 and more than 12 names. The city council said in the event that sidewalks were ever built on Larpenteur Avenue and McKnight the trail would eventually connect to Currie Street. Commissioner Trippler thanked the resident for her comments. Mr. Roberts said just for clarification that was at the September 25, 2006, city council meeting that was referenced in the background report in the staff report. 0 Chairperson Fischer asked if there was anyone in the audience wanted to speak to come forward. Planning Commission -4- Minutes of 12-05-06 No other audience members came forward. Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. i Commissioner Trippler said he was going to approve this request but he is now having second thoughts after hearing the neighbor speak. Commissioner Trippler asked why the petition was not included in the staff report? Mr. Roberts said staff did not include the petition in the report because the city council gave direction at the September 25, 2006, that even though the neighbors had a petition the city was still going to have the trail constructed. The direction to staff was to get the six feet of easement vacated so that is what staff brought to the planning commission. Chairperson Fischer said the neighbor was referring to the compromise of having the six foot easement vacated would leave in place the west 14 feet of easement. Commissioner Trippler said he felt strongly that the petition information should have been included in the staff report and was an important piece of information left out. Mr. Roberts apologized for not including it in the staff report. Commissioner Hess asked if there was some way we could reverse the city council decision since the neighbors don't even want the trail put in? Chairperson Fischer said this request came in as a result of the neighborhood petition and with the direction to vacate this part of the easement per the city council. Her thought is this trail gets kids through the area safely. Mr. Roberts said the commission could disagree with the city council and convey their feelings; staff is only doing what the city council requested. Commissioner Hess said he talked to Ms. Schroeder Sunday night about this and evidentlywhen they purchased their property the trail was not shown on the drawings and the trail came about after the fact. Mr. Roberts said it's unfortunate and the situation has happened in the past. As staff we plan to work with the developers to get the trails constructed when the street is constructed or at least have signage put up that would say Future Trail so hopefully this situation won't happen again. The developer didn't tell the builder and the builder didn't tell the buyer and that information was lost in the chain of sales. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the resolution on page nine of the staff report. This resolution is for the vacation of part of the drainage and utility easement on the west side of the property at 2320 Hoyt Avenue (between Lots 6 and 7, Jensen Estates). The reasons for the vacation are as follows: 1. It is in the public interest. Is 2. The city and the property owner do not need or use all of the existing easement for utility or trail purposes. Planning Commission -5- Minutes of 12-05-06 3. The two properties adjacent to the easement have adequate utilities and drainage. 4. The remaining easement area will be wide enough for the installation of the required trail. This vacation is subject to the property owners at 2320 Hoyt Avenue maintaining the drainage on the west side of their house and garage on their property. Commissioner Desai seconded. Ayes—Desai, Fischer, Hess, Trippler, Yarwood The motion passed. This item will go to the city council on either December 18, 2006, or January 8, 2007. Commissioner Trippler said the only reason he approved this request was that the neighbors were okay with the compromise that the city came up with to have a smaller easement for the trail. b. Carmax Auto Superstore (Northeast Corner of Highway 61 and Beam Avenues) (7:33- 8:51 p.m.) Mr. Ekstrand said Carmax Auto Superstore, and Bruce Mogren, the property owner, is proposing to develop the former Country View Golf Course property at the northeast corner of Highway 61 and Beam Avenue. Carmax would occupy a site at the northeast corner of Highway 61 and Beam Avenue. There would also be three future development proposals that would occur on the remainder of the golf course property. Two of these future uses are identified on the site plan as a medical office/retail building and warehouse/retail with gasoline sales. The third site is not yet identified. According to the site plans, these future lots would be developed as follows: The proposed Carmax used -car dealership will be on Lot 1 and include two buildings. The first would be an 18,744 -square -foot building for sales, service and display. The second would be a 750 -square -foot car wash. The majority of the site would be used for parking, primarily with sales inventory parking. There would also be a.55 -acre work -in -progress area surrounded by a six -foot - tall concrete -block screening wall. This area would conceal cars not ready for display or that are two old or in disrepair and not suitable for sale on this lot. There is no specific proposal yet for the site on Lot 2 which would be warehouse/retail/gasoline sales. This site plan is conceptual and not part of this review. Originally Lot 3 was part of the Carmax site. It will be a future development and there are no plans at this time for a specific proposal. Maplewood has a drainage easement over the proposed Outlot A for area ponding needs. Outlot B is shown on the plans as medical/office/retail but there is no specific proposal yet for this site and is not part of this review. Planning Commission -6- Minutes of 12-05-06 Mr. AN said the traffic study was done by Kimley Horn & Associates. Brandon Bourdon is here to discuss the traffic details and the impact this site will have on the traffic. The entire site will* generate a fairly significant amount of traffic for the surrounding area. The developer petitioned the city council to have a traffic study done which has been completed. The traffic study recommends the center medians be installed on Beam Avenue to control the traffic and that additional right hand turn lanes are necessary to the site. There will be $4.4 million in improvements done for this project. This site will have impacts on the 20 year operation of Highway 61 and Beam Avenue. This is a heavily traveled area and is one of the top 100 worst accident intersections in the State of Minnesota which means it's a very dangerous intersection. MnDOT also proposes upgrades to this intersection. The city will be upgrading the signal system and over $750,000 will be spent in this area. There are outside agencies other than the developer that will be spending $4.4 million on this area. Commissioner Trippler said he didn't see any future development plans for Lot 3 shown in the staff report. Mr. Ekstrand said no development plans have been proposed for Lot 3 yet. Earlier this summer in the previous Carmax proposal Lot 3 was part of the original site plan and was later reconfigured because of soil conditions which reduced the site plan and Lot 3 was taken out of the plan and now stands alone. Commissioner Trippler said from a traffic standpoint this Carmax site troubles him greatly because he sees nothing but disasters where the entrances and exits to the site are proposed. The entrance and exit points are shown at one of the worst intersections in Maplewood. He was surprised when he read that the transport truck was going to drive into a gated facility on Highway 61. In the past 20 years that he has lived in Maplewood he has never ever seen the transport trucks for Schmelz Countryside Volkswagen unload their cars in the parking lot, they have always unloaded the vehicles right on the frontage road of Cope Avenue by Menard's. In fact, most of the transport trucks deliver cars to the dealerships in Maplewood where they are not supposed and the dealerships know about it and don't do anything about it. This is very dangerous and he is concerned about this happening on Highway 61 in this location and having a gate on Highway 61 seems like a disaster waiting to happen and he doubts the truck would actually pull into the lot to unload cars. Maybe the gate could be moved to County Road D. The reason he asked what the future plans were for Lot 3 was because he thought the best way to access the facility was to bring the cars in on County Road D and across Lot 3. That way you are bringing cars into the facility and allowing them to leave the facility in a safer manner with less traffic. This way a vehicle can turn without a lot of difficulty. He said this is the first time he heard about having semaphores on Beam Avenue. This seems like it would only compound the traffic problem. He thought the reason we extended County Road D was to move traffic through the area and to get more vehicles off of Beam Avenue. He asked if the city had spoken to the developer about that idea at all? Mr. AN said the city spoke to the developer about that but the boundary between the Carmax site and Lot 3 has very soft soil and it would cost about $1.6 million to cross County Road D and is cost prohibitive. Mr. AN said that's why as staff we supported the access point to Beam Avenue which was consistent with the traffic study. Working with the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer and the MnDOT Metro Area Traffic Engineer and they concluded that access point was the best location for Carmax. Planning Commission -7- Minutes of 12-05-06 Mr. Ahl said the city thinks this will work well even at a 20 year projection where traffic levels usually double. The city doesn't want transport trucks unloading vehicles on Highway 61, especially since Nissan, Volvo, and Lexus just spent $425,000 having a new frontage road constructed north of County Road D so their transport trucks could make deliveries safely to keep trucks from unloading on Highway 61. The gated road on Highway 61 is not designed for transport trucks to turn in and that isn't where Carmax would put vehicles. Carmax has shown the city their plans regarding how the transport truck would get into the site and we are comfortable with that. Commissioner Trippler said he would recommend that if the gate has to be located on Highway 61 it would be advantageous to have a turn off lane and an egress lane so people can get some speed up. However, if Carmax could move the entrance to County Road D that would be preferable. Mr. Ahl said customers cannot go from the south part of the site to the north; the internal gate system does not allow that, the northern part of the site is where the vehicles are. The city was thinking that gate entrance would have five to ten vehicle trips per day which wouldn't justify a turn lane on Highway 61. Carmax is going to provide more information for the city regarding this. There are also some grading issues that would have to be looked at as well if that were to happen. That site used to be the old Venburg tire site which has been cleaned up and is part of the original easement agreement from 2004 that the Mogren's entered into an option to purchase from the city. If there is enough traffic to justify the egress and ingress lanes on Highway 61 it would be city staff's recommendation to move that to County Road D because of merging traffic. Commissioner Trippler said he tried to think of another car dealership or commercial warehouse that had a concrete wall of any kind around it and the only thing he could think of was the State Penitentiary in St. Cloud. He couldn't imagine why a six foot tall concrete wall would be needed to protect used cars. Mr. Ahl said a Carmax representative can address that. Commissioner Desai agreed with everything Commissioner Trippler said. He said he lives in the area by Maplewood Toyota and he drives those roads every day so he knows what the traffic problems are. This is a very dangerous area. He asked if these road improvements would be done on Beam Avenue first and then Carmax would be built or is Carmax going to be operating and then the road improvements get done after the fact? Mr. Ahl said it's likely the road improvements will be done by November of 2007 which may be before Carmax is built. Carmax will not be the largest generator of traffic from this site, it will be the user of Lot 3 which will be a big box retail facility. Mr. Ahl said if you recall when the Country View Golf Course was operating there were many accidents and congestion problems there with the turn lane going in and out of the site. When we add traffic capacity to Highway 61 and the Beam Avenue intersection we worry about road improvements. In this case MNDOT had proposed to do improvements in 2009/2010 but because of the concerns they have moved it up to 2007 which will really help improve traffic at this intersection. SCommissioner Desai asked if the left turn lane for vehicles driving into Carmax will be there or will Carmax not be allowed to have vehicles turning left into the area before then? Planning Commission -8- Minutes of 12-05-06 Mr. AN said he would have to verify that situation. 0 Commissioner Desai said currently Maplewood Toyota has a left turn on Beam Avenue turning onto Highway 61 and people are still stopping and creating accidents on a regular basis. So he believes that making a left turn into the Carmax site will cause the same problem that we had with the Country View Golf Course site. He strongly believes that situation needs to be addressed before anything else can be done in this area. Mr. AN said he didn't discuss all the traffic improvements here but there will be improvements on Beam Avenue that will have turning restrictions. Commissioner Desai said regarding the area that is classified as the Watershed District how will oil be protected from draining into the watershed area? Mr. AN said the city worries about that getting into the ponding system as well. That is a final design requirement for car dealerships, repair shops and service stations. There are oil skimming devices and requirements for stormwater systems to handle that. Commissioner Hess asked about the oil infiltration, and if there are plans to have containment tanks or trenching outside the building? Mr. AN said he isn't sure about the requirements for the inside of the building because that's a building inspector requirement but most buildings do have floor drains in them. The Public Works facility has floor drains, which is a local requirement. Public Works looks at skimming devices and there are ponds and outlet devices which are requirements that we get into during the final design. The final design is being done under the city, not by the developer, but it's being done at the developer's expense. Commissioner Hess said on page C3. 2A there are grading and paving notes and it looks like there is a provision noted for concrete walkways. At the last review he asked if they were going to put a sidewalk on Beam Avenue and he wondered if anything transpired because of that. Mr. AN said he wasn't aware of any sidewalks proposed along Beam Avenue because the city isn't proposing any along Beam Avenue. There is a dedicated regional trail system along County Road D so we are not proposing any sidewalks there. Commissioner Yarwood asked staff how many vehicle trips per day would be going in and out of the site and will that significantly add to the traffic along Highway 61? Mr. AN said Mr. Bourdon the traffic consultant with Kimley and Horn can address that question. Commissioner Trippler said the memo on page 34 of the staff report under the Infiltration Systems it states the bottom of this infiltration basin is near elevation 863. 0, which is likely near the normal (ground) water level. Plan Sheet C3.2A shows a normal water level (NWL) of 864.25 for the infiltration basin while the HydroCAD model reflects no such assumption. Tina Carstens from the Ramsey -Washington Metro Watershed District said in her report on page 46 of the staff report that the ground water is quite high in this location and therefore wouldn't meet the 3 foot separation to groundwater requirement for infiltration basins. That statement means to him that the rainwater gardens may not be very effective here. Planning Commission -9- Minutes of 12-05-06 Mr. AN said these aren't the rain garden designs, these are the infiltration ponds. One of the difficulties with this site is that the soils are not very stabile and the more water stored at a higher elevation will move the soils around and we want to keep the soils stabile. That comment means the assumptions from the developer's engineers need to be explored which has been done. The Ramsey -Washington Watershed District has a large complex on the south site and has the capacity within the area. We are working to meet those overall intents. The provision of 1 inch of infiltration still applies which is standard. That says the assumption is a little high however, they have enough infiltration and buffer areas for this site and meets the requirements as needed. Commissioner Trippier said on page 40 of the staff report, table 1, the sentence above says these existing and proposed wetland and buffer areas are illustrated in Exhibits 8 and 9. However, he couldn't find Exhibits 8 and 9 in the staff report. Mr. AN apologized, Exhibits 8 and 9 were the colored drawings he put on the overhead earlier. Those exhibits were not included in the staff report and if the commission would like a copy, staff can get that for the commission. Commissioner Trippler said that was fine that the exhibits were not in the staff report knowing those were just shown on the overhead by Mr. Ahl. Mr. AN introduced Brandon Bourdon to give the traffic report. Mr. Brandon Bourdon, Kimley Horn & Associates, addressed the commission. Based on the vehicle trips generated for the various land use assumptions for the area the overall trip generation would be roughly 11,000 vehicle trips per day. Of those 11,000 vehicle trips Carmax would generate about 2,700 per day so Carmax would generate roughly 25% of the total trips and the big box retail shown on the plans would be well over 50% of the total site trips on the overall development. The traffic volumes and site traffic over the peak hour would translate to a 20% increase in traffic on County Road D as well as Beam Avenue, including the traffic from the development area, not just the traffic for Carmax. Commissioner Desai said are the 11,000 vehicle trips happening currently or is that after the developments are in place? Mr. Bourdon said that would be the daily anticipated vehicle trips after the "whole" development site was done. Commissioner Desai asked what the current vehicle trip rate was today? Mr. Bourdon said there are roughly 25,000 vehicle trips per day now on Beam Avenue and this development would add about 3,000 more vehicle trips per day or 20% more vehicles to Beam Avenue equaling 28,000 vehicle trips per day. Commissioner Desai asked if Mr. Bourdon meant 3,000 more vehicle trips per day adding is Carmax to the site? Mr. Bourdon said that would be the total vehicle trips for the whole development site once it is completely developed. Planning Commission -10- Minutes of 12-05-06 (However, if you take 25,000 vehicle trips now plus the additional 11,000 vehicle trips for thd* entire site once it is constructed that equals roughly 36,000 vehicle trips - not 28,000 vehicle trips.) Commissioner Desai asked what the traffic level would be at the peak hours? Mr. Bourdon said the peak hours would generate about 400 additional vehicle trips on Beam Avenue. Today during peak hours there are roughly 2,000 vehicle trips per day. Mr. Roberts asked what the average number of vehicle trips for Highway 61 are? Mr. Bourdon said there are roughly 31,000 vehicle trips per day on Highway 61. Commissioner Yarwood said regarding the improvements Chuck AN was referring to, what is the general feel regarding the vehicle capacity the total improvements would add to this area in terms of the traffic volumes it can handle safely and effectively verses what the area handles today? Mr. Bourdon said looking ahead as to how the development would look when it is completely built up in 2010 the conditions are similar to what would happen if there were no improvements and regular growth occurred. Changing the traffic lane configurations at Beam Avenue and Highway 61 there will be some alignments that will improve safety considerably from what exists today. It also allows the signal to operate more efficiently because you don't have to separate the west bound movements from the east bound movements. Those improvements would have a minima* impact overall which is what we look for in a traffic study. We also look for what happens before the development and making sure would happen if there was "no" action verses if the development was built and the level of traffic remained the same and we took action to make the traffic level operate smoother. Commissioner Trippler said Tina Carstens from the Ramsey -Washington Watershed District commented on page 46, in number 5. of the staff report they would like something in the maintenance agreement regarding the pervious bituminous that would state no salt/sand usage and also a vacuum sweep at least annually. He said he looked for that recommendation in the staff report and he didn't see that. He asked if that would be covered in some other agreement? Mr. AN said after the city approval process sites like this have a development contract and then those conditions are listed there. The developer has to sign that agreement and post escrow money to ensure that the work is done and that the conditions will be part of the annual operating maintenance agreement that the city puts together. Mr. AN said the Public Works Department checks every year to make sure that is done. If you have seen the statement "to enter into a storm water maintenance agreement"; that is the agreement I am referring to where the condition is covered. Commissioner Hess said on page 43, item number 5., of the staff report Ginny Gaynor commented she would like to see more trees in the parking lot medians, he asked staff if that request has been modified in the plans? 0 Planning Commission -11- Minutes of 12-05-06 Mr. Ekstrand said he spoke to Ginny Gaynor and her thought is that having trees in parking lots is beneficial because the trees shade the vehicles. Staff is preparing the report for the CDRB meeting and landscaping is part of that report. Ms. Gaynor liked the idea of moving the trees closer to the parking lot and having trees in the parking medians to shade the vehicles. Staff isn't sure how the applicant feels about that request. Personally he has many trees on his property and often times sap drips onto his vehicles which can be a nuisance. Mr. Ekstrand said he was curious how the applicant felt about trees planted close to vehicles for sale in the Carmax parking lot. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Dave Sellegren, addressed the commission. He is a Land Use Lawyer speaking on behalf of Carmax. He verbally introduced the members for the Carmax proposal. He said because they weren't sure what the relationship was between the planning commission and the community design review board and the conditions they brought the whole team with in case there were questions from the planning commission. He said this is a very thorough staff report with a lot of information attached to it so he doesn't want to repeat what has already been written in the report. However, this project began as a larger project but due to the soil conditions on the site along with the large storm water pipes the site has been reduced and the concept has changed. Rather than going over the whole plan in detail he introduced Joe Jagdmann to report on the development. Mr. Joe Jagdmann, Real Estate Manager, residing at 12800 Tuchahoe Creek Parkway, Richmond, Virginia, representing Carmax, addressed the commission. He said Carmax is new to the twin cities area and the closest Carmax location is in Chicago, Illinois and Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Carmax has 74 facilities in 20 states nationwide. Carmax has grown in 13 years and sells over 300,000 vehicles a year. We are a transparent; no price haggle business, with a customer service policy. If you come to a Carmax lot wanting to sell your vehicle Carmax gives you an offer price that is good for 7 days whether you end up buying another vehicle from us or not. If you come in and decide to buy a vehicle from us, there is no price haggling, the sales commission is the same whether you buy a Ford Escort or a Lexus SUV from Carmax. The purpose is to serve the customer and not to drive up the average price of a vehicle. We offer a quality alternative to gimmicks. We also have sources of financing that are actually open the hours Carmax is open so we get actual real time quotes and present them to the customer. Carmax will employ 80 to 100 employees in this facility and at least 80 of those will be hired from the local area. For the last two years Carmax is a company that is on the 100 best companies to work for in America and amongst the 200 most admired. We are very grateful for the work that Mr. Chuck AN and Mr. Tom Ekstrand and their staff for all the work that has been done on this proposal so we want to thank them. Mr. Jagdmann put a site plan on the overhead and reviewed the site plan and described where everything would be located. The sales lot would be surrounded by a highway guardrail or bent pipe bollards and is surrounded with access controlled embassy -style security gates. If a thief tried to drive through that gate they would shear the top of their vehicle off before getting through the gate. Mr. Jagdmann said the six foot tall masonry wall extends north of the north wall of the northern most building and runs south along the east wall. The masonry wall will match the surrounding building. The purpose for the six foot tall masonry wall is so that they can have a work in progress area. Planning Commission -12- Minutes of 12-05-06 Mr. Jagdmann said the vehicles are driven in off of Beam Avenue. We put a truck template on the parking lot to make sure we can get around, stop and drop off the vehicle. We are aware of tho issues regarding transport trucks unloading vehicles on the street and are fully willing to be compliant with the law in that respect. Mr. Jagdmann described the layout of the site and how vehicles will come in to the site. The six foot tall masonry wall is needed so we can clean up the vehicles behind the wall which will make the overall site more attractive. We will discuss the details regarding the wall with the CDRB. Regarding the trees in the parking medians, Carmax tries to avoid having trees in the sales lot and prefer to clump the trees on the edge of the lot. We think trees in the parking medians cause problems with leaves dropping, birds sit in the trees and bird droppings land on the vehicles, and tree sap drips on the vehicles then so it would be Carmax's preference to "not" have trees in the parking medians due to the maintenance issues. However, we want to meet the landscaping ordinance and want approval from the city for this proposal. He showed a photo of their Carmax building in Harrisburg, Virginia. Mr. Jagdmann said this proposal in Maplewood would be a satellite facility and not a production facility. One of the commissioners asked why cars couldn't come in off of the north south connector street off of County Road D and Beam Avenue. Carmax drew the site plan that way and would've preferred to build in that fashion, but the cost to cross the property that way was so expensive due to the poor soil and we couldn't afford that. As a result, we reduced the site from a production facility to a satellite facility. -The difference being that a production facility reconditions vehicles and requires a larger site with 14 to 20 acres. A satellite facility would be 8 to 10 acres and the cars would be prepared at another location and brought to this location to be sold. There will be sidewalks on the north south road but he wasn't aware of any sidewalks planned on Beam Avenue. Regarding moving the transport gate from Highway 61 to County Road D there are* issues regarding the grade. If that could be worked out we would be willing to look at that and if that could be worked out we would come back with a new plan. Commissioner Trippler asked the applicant to show exactly where the six foot tall masonry wall would be located on the site. Commissioner Hess asked how they intended to dispose of oil and other flammables on the site. Mr. Jagdmann said in a satellite facility we have an above ground gasoline storage tank which will meet all applicable legal requirements. The service is done indoors. The flammables on the floor of the service building would be washed into the drain system where it goes through an oil/water separator, and into the sanitary sewer system. Commissioner Trippler asked Mr. Jagdmann to indicate where the employee parking would be as opposed to where the customer parking would be so he knows where the 9 foot and 9'/ foot wide parking spaces would be? Mr. Jagdmann said Carmax decided it would be much easier to make all the parking spaces 9% feet wide as opposed to the 9 foot wide parking spaces. We would also be adding a few more parking spaces. Mr. Roberts asked if Carmax would only sell used cars? 0 Mr. Jagdmann said we have a few new car franchises across the country but this location would only sell used cars. Planning Commission -13- Minutes of 12-05-06 Mr. Roberts asked where Carmax gets their vehicles they sell? Mr. Jagdmann said about half of the vehicles come to the lot from customers coming to the lot to sell their vehicle to Carmax. When we buy vehicles from the customer we sell half of them in an auction house like Manheim where vehicles are sold to licensed dealers. There are no auctions done at this site, those are done in auction warehouses. The other half of the vehicles are reconditioned and sold on the Carmax site. Mr. Sellegran said we generally agree with the staff conditions in the staff report, some of the wording may change because of some misunderstandings. We will meet all the requirements of the city and with the Watershed District. We ask for your recommendation so this can go on to the city council for final review and approval. Chairperson Fischer asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak regarding this proposal to come forward. Nobody came forward. Chairperson Fischer closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. Commissioner Trippler asked on page 48, attachment 11, is that legal description correct and does it include all the lots for the development site? Mr. Ekstrand said he will have to check on that because when he wrote this resolution he used the legal description for the report that he used earlier this summer. Before this goes to the city council he said he would make sure the legal description is correct. We don't want to be giving site plan approval for anything other than Carmax and we want to see the other lots come through for the normal review process. The PUD is for the whole site and the CUP is for Lot 1. Commissioner Trippler said in the recommendations it states a drainage and wetland report and DuWayne Konewko's report is called Stormwater/Wetland report. Would it be alright if we made it consistent and change the name of the report? Mr. Ekstrand said that would be fine, staff would make those reference changes in the report. Commissioner Yarwood moved to adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the Carmax/Mogren Addition development. Approval is based on the findings required by the ordinance and subject to the following conditions: 1. The development shall follow the plans date-stamped October 20, 2006, except where the city requires changes. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 0 Planning Commission -14- Minutes of 12-05-06 4. This approval permits the development of the Carmax site subject to the conditions of the city council. The future development sites are not approved at this time. The developers of these sites must submit all necessary applications and materials for evaluation of those plans as required by the city ordinance. 5. If the watershed district allows their twin drainage pipes to be relocated above grade as an open channel, the PUD shall also require that all developments within the Carmax/Mogren Addition actively and regularly pick up all litter from their parking lots to keep debris from entering this open channel. 6. The applicants shall comply with the requirements in the Engineering Plan Review dated November 21, 2006, by Erin Laberee and Michael Thompson. 7. The applicants shall also comply with the requirements listed in these plan review reports as follows: • The Stormwater/Wetland Report by DuWayne Konewko dated November 22, 2006. • The wetland and rainwater garden landscaping comments by Ginny Gaynor dated November 22, 2006. • The watershed district comments by Tina Carstens dated November 21, 2006. 8. The outdoor vehicle storage area is allowed. The concrete -block screening wall design is not allowed as proposed. The design of this smooth -faced concrete block wall must be resubmitted to the community design review board for approval. 9. The pervious -paving method proposed within the shoreland boundary area shall meet the requirements of the shoreland ordinance. This shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. 10. Vehicle transports shall not use any public right-of-way for loading or unloading. 11. The proposed driveway on Highway 61 shall remain gated and closed at all times except when needed for vehicle test drives. This access shall not be allowed for any other use. If the Minnesota Department of Transportation does not allow the highway access, an alternative design shall be subject to the city engineer's approval. 12. The dealership shall not store any materials or supplies on the outside of the building, except for what they store in the dumpster enclosure. 13. The dealership shall only park vehicles on designated paved surfaces. 14. The applicants shall obtain any required permits from the Ramsey -Washington Metro Watershed District, Ramsey County and the State of Minnesota and meet the requirements of those agencies. 0 15. The site plan shall be revised to move the driveway on Beam Avenue as far to the east as possible. This revision shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. Planning Commission -15- Minutes of 12-05-06 (01 16. The city engineer shall get the necessary approvals for wetland mitigation from the watershed district as part of the public improvements needed for this subdivision and development as stated in the report by DuWayne Konewko, Environmental Management Specialist. 17.All buildings, paving, unneeded utilities, etc. within the proposed subdivision shall be demolished and removed from the site by the applicants. 18.The applicants shall provide all development agreements, maintenance agreements and escrows required by the city. These agreements shall be executed and escrows paid before the issuance of building permits. Commissioner Yarwood moved to approve the preliminary plat for the Carmax/Mogren Addition, subject to the following conditions: 1. Signing of the following agreements with the city: • A maintenance agreement, prepared by the city, for the rainwater gardens, ponds and sumps. The project plans shall clearly point out the maintenance access route to each garden, pond and basin. The developer/owner of the property will be responsible for all such maintenance. • A development agreement with the city for the construction of the public road within the development site that will connect Beam Avenue to County Road D. 2. Revising the plat to rename all outlots with lot and block numbers. 3. The applicants shall dedicate any easements that the city may require for drainage and utility purposes. 4. The name of the street shall be subject to the approval of the city's public safety staff and city engineer. 5. The applicants shall pay the city escrow for any documents, easements and agreements that the city engineer may require that may not be ready by the time of plat signing. 6. The applicants shall comply with the requirements in the Engineering Plan Review dated November 21, 2006, by Erin Laberee and Michael Thompson. 7. The applicants shall also comply with the requirements listed in these plan -review reports as follows: • The Stormwater/Wetland Report by DuWayne Konewko dated November 22, 2006. • The wetland and rainwater garden landscaping comments by Ginny Gaynor dated Is November 22, 2006. • The watershed district comments by Tina Carstens dated November 21, 2006. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-05-06 Commissioner Hess seconded. The motion passed. -16- Ayes — Desai, Fischer, Hess, Trippler, Yarwood This item goes to the CDRB on December 12, 2006, and to the city council on December 18, 2006. VI. NEW BUSINESS None. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Ms. Fischer was the planning commission representative at the November 27, 2006, city council meeting. 0 The onlyitems to discuss were the CUP for Sand Lake for the materials storage and Y 9 recycling for the SPRWS which was passed by the city council. b. Mr. Grover will be the planning commission representative at the December 11, 2006, city council meeting. The items to discuss include the Alley Vacation for Judy Driscoll, south of Frost Avenue and east of Walter Street, the Walgreens proposal at the northeast corner of White Bear Avenue and Beam Avenues) for a land use plan amendment from LBC to BC, a zoning map change from LBC to BC and a lot division. Also the Resolution of Appreciation for former planning commission member, Jim Kaczrowski will be discussed. c. Mr. Yarwood will be the planning commission representative at the December 18, 2006, city council meeting. Items to discuss include Carmax Auto Superstore (Northeast Corner of Highway 61 and Beam Avenues) for a Preliminary Plat and a Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development, and possibly the Easement Vacation for Jensen Estates (north of Hoyt Avenue). X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS We will discuss at the next planning commission meeting rescheduling the January 1, 2007, planning commission meeting to either Tuesday, January 2 or Wednesday, January 3, 2007, when more planning commissioners are present. Planning Commission -17- Minutes of 12-05-06 XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:02 p.m. n • INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Jamie Jensen, representing Tyrus Land Company, is requesting city approval of a variance to a moratorium and a zoning map change. He is asking the city for these approvals for the undeveloped property on the south side of Carver Avenue east of Sterling Street. Please see his statement on pages 12 - 14 and the maps on pages 15 through 20. Requests The applicant is requesting that the city approve: 1. A variance from a development moratorium ordinance. Refer to the statement starting on page 12. 0 2. A zoning map change for the project site. This change would be from R -1(R) (rural residential) to R-1 (single dwellings). (Please see the property line/zoning map on page 16.) BACKGROUND On November 13, 2006, the city council gave second reading to a moratorium ordinance for many of the properties south of Carver Avenue. The adoption of this ordinance by the city council prohibits any -development or subdivision of any property south of Carver Avenue that the city has zoned F (farm residence) and R -1(R) (rural residential). This moratorium includes the properties in this request. (See the adopted moratorium on pages nine - eleven.) DISCUSSION Development Moratorium Variance As noted above, the council recently adopted a moratorium on development for many of the properties south of Carver Avenue. The moratorium will end in November 2007 or after the city approves changes to the comprehensive plan, to the zoning ordinance or to the zoning maps for the area. The council enacted this moratorium, as outlined in Section 1.02 of the moratorium, "to review existing and planned land uses and zoning designations and the existing natural and constructed features in the south Maplewood study arra, including a review of the diversity of housing options Within Maplewood because of zoning." Mr. Jensen is requesting a variance to the moratorium so the city may consider a zoning map change for the property. The city cannot consider the zoning map change for the property with the moratorium that is now in place unless the city approves a variance to the moratorium. I discuss the proposed zoning map change below. MEMORANDUM is TO: City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Planner SUBJECT: Moratorium Variance and Rezoning PROJECT: Saint Clair Hills LOCATION: Carver Avenue, east of Sterling Street DATE: December 13, 2006 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Jamie Jensen, representing Tyrus Land Company, is requesting city approval of a variance to a moratorium and a zoning map change. He is asking the city for these approvals for the undeveloped property on the south side of Carver Avenue east of Sterling Street. Please see his statement on pages 12 - 14 and the maps on pages 15 through 20. Requests The applicant is requesting that the city approve: 1. A variance from a development moratorium ordinance. Refer to the statement starting on page 12. 0 2. A zoning map change for the project site. This change would be from R -1(R) (rural residential) to R-1 (single dwellings). (Please see the property line/zoning map on page 16.) BACKGROUND On November 13, 2006, the city council gave second reading to a moratorium ordinance for many of the properties south of Carver Avenue. The adoption of this ordinance by the city council prohibits any -development or subdivision of any property south of Carver Avenue that the city has zoned F (farm residence) and R -1(R) (rural residential). This moratorium includes the properties in this request. (See the adopted moratorium on pages nine - eleven.) DISCUSSION Development Moratorium Variance As noted above, the council recently adopted a moratorium on development for many of the properties south of Carver Avenue. The moratorium will end in November 2007 or after the city approves changes to the comprehensive plan, to the zoning ordinance or to the zoning maps for the area. The council enacted this moratorium, as outlined in Section 1.02 of the moratorium, "to review existing and planned land uses and zoning designations and the existing natural and constructed features in the south Maplewood study arra, including a review of the diversity of housing options Within Maplewood because of zoning." Mr. Jensen is requesting a variance to the moratorium so the city may consider a zoning map change for the property. The city cannot consider the zoning map change for the property with the moratorium that is now in place unless the city approves a variance to the moratorium. I discuss the proposed zoning map change below. Section 4 of the moratorium ordinance outlines the criteria and procedure the city is to follow for considering a variance to the ordinance. Section 4.01 says "The city council, at their discretion, may grant variances from this ordinance based upon a determination that a proposed subdivision or development would be compatible with proposed land use and zoning, and that such proposals would keep with the spirit and intent of this ordinance. The procedures to be followed in applying for a variance from this ordinance shall be in accordance with state law on findings for variances and shall include the following: a. The applicant shall file a completed application form, together with required exhibits, to the Community Development Department. b. The application for a variance shall set forth special circumstances or conditions that the applicant alleges to exist and shall demonstrate that the proposed subdivision or development is compatible with existing or proposed land use and zoning. C. The city will submit the application to the planning commission for their review and recommendation to the city council. d. The city council may set, at its discretion, a public hearing before making a final determination on the requested variance. e. The city council may impose such restrictions upon the proposed subdivision or development as may be necessary to meet the purpose and intent of this ordinance. The issue for the city to consider with this variance is to determine if the request has special circumstances or conditions that merit approval and if the proposed rezoning (and then the proposed subdivision) would be compatible with existing or proposed land use and zoning. Zoning Map Change Mr. Jensen is asking the city to change the zoning of the property from R -1(R) (rural residential) to R-1 (single dwellings). As I noted above, the city may not consider this zoning map change until the moratorium and study are complete or if the city approves a variance to the moratorium. Section 441165 of the zoning code requires that the city council make several findings to rezone a property. They include: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code; 2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded; 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare; 4. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. 5 In this case, staff cannot determine if the proposed zoning map change would meet any or all of the required criteria. These are all elements and criteria that the city should be considering and reviewing as part of the study of the area that staff will be doing during the development moratorium. It also is important to note that public utilities are near, but not next to, the property in question. They are now located to the west of the site near the intersection of Carver Avenue and Sterling Street. The city or the developer would need to extend the sanitary sewer and water to the east to serve this site to allow the developer to construct the proposed subdivision. Before the city would allow such utility extensions to occur, however, the city would require the completion of a feasibility study for the public improvements. Such a study would help the city determine the size and location of the new utilities and would ensure that such improvements would be done in a logical, efficient, and economical manner. The feasibility study also would include a financing plan for covering the costs of the improvements (including the preliminary assessments for each affected property). Since there are not utilities immediately available to the site, and since the city has not done a feasibility study for the extension of public utilities in this area, staff cannot determine if the proposed zoning change would have any negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities. As such, and since staff is recommending that the city not grant the variance to the moratorium, the city should not approve the rezoning request from R -1(R) to R-1 for the Saint Clair Hills development. Conclusion The proposed moratorium request and rezoning do not meet the findings for approval. As such, the city should proceed with the study for the moratorium area as directed by the city council and deny • the applicant's requests. LJ RECOMMENDATIONS A. Deny the request of Jamie Jensen for a variance from the development moratorium for the property south of Carver Avenue and east of Sterling Street. This variance would allow the city to consider a rezoning request for the properties in question. City staff is recommending this denial because: 1. Strict enforcement of the moratorium ordinance would not cause an undue hardship to the property or to the property owner. 2. There are no special circumstance or conditions in this case that warrant the city approving a variance to the moratorium 3. The proposed rezoning (and then the proposed subdivision) would be premature and would not be compatible with the land use and zoning designations. 4. The proposed rezoning and subdivision would not meet the spirit and intent of the moratorium ordinance. B. Deny the proposed zoning map change for the proposed Saint Clair Hills development on Carver Avenue. City staff is recommending denial because: 3 1. The request does not meet all the criteria required by the city for a zoning map change. This is because the city cannot determine if the proposed zoning change would have any negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities. 2. Staff is recommending that the city not grant the variance to the moratorium. The moratorium prohibits the city from considering rezoning or development requests, unless the city approves a variance to the moratorium. CITIZEN COMMENTS City staff surveyed the owners of the 16 properties within 500 feet of this site and all those that own property on Carver Avenue between I - 494 and Century Avenue. The following are the comments the city received: FOR:. 1. Rezoning the two pieces is the right thing to do. We need to push for full development in this part of Maplewood. My property taxes for 2007 are going up 28%, this on top of a 100% increase over 2005 and 2006. How can I, or anyone else, live under these conditions? The only way our property is worth what the county is saying is to have it fully developed. It is great for the is neighbors to have rural atmosphere, but on whose nickel, or $7,300 in this case? It is time for a reality check down here by all neighbors. Thanks. (Jay Libby — 2591 Carver Avenue) AGAINST: 1. We are opposed to the rezoning because we think it should remain rural. The taxes are so high now that we could not afford city sewer and water assessment costs on top of that. They should only be allowed to put two houses on that lot as it is currently. It is unfair to include the Ledo property in the development when no deal has been made with the Ledosl! (Schlomka — 2511 Carver Avenue) 2. ! am for the moratorium as is! I am also opposed to the rezoning at any time. I moved to this neighborhood because of the nature, the wild deer that you are killing off every fall. Now we have wild turkey and other habitat in the area. With new homes and new residents, you will have to destroy them too! Also is Fish Creek going to handle the run off, not only us up on the hill, but also on the down side. We have a very unique part of Maplewood and it would be much better to keep as is. Land developers are a dime a dozen and destroy much of our natural beauty — and they say the housing market is down! (Woog — 2595 Carver Avenue) 3. Please see the e-mail message from Patty Gearin on page 21. 4. Please see the letter from Jim Kerrigan on pages 22 and 23. 5. Please see the e-mail message from Tom Horwath on page 24. 4 • 6. Please see the e-mail message from Douglas Coombs on page 25. 7. Please see the e-mail message from Connie and Mark Wiegel on page 26. 8. Please see the e-mail message from Amy Kaiser on page 27. 9. Please see the e-mail message from Chris and Jane Jenkins on page 28. 10. Please see the e-mail message from the Baileys on page 29. 11. Please see the e-mail message from Sue Bonitz on page 30. 12. Please see the e-mail message from Mark Bonitz on pages 31 - 33. 13. Please see the e-mail message from Ted Cyptar on page 34. 14. Please see the e-mail message from Patrick Bailey on page 35. 15. Please see the e-mail message from Nona Johnson on page 36. 16. Please see the e-mail message from Claire Jensen on page 37. 17. Please see the e-mail message from Jeff Jensen on page 38. 18. Please see the e-mail message from the Calhouns on page 39. 19. Please see the e-mail message from Uyen Campbell on page 40. 20. Please see the e-mail message from Dick Stehr on page 41. 21. Please see the e-mail message from Greg and Carol Thompson on page 42. 22. Please see the e-mail message from Carl Erb on page 43. 23. Please see the e-mail message from Carolyn Peterson on page 44. L� REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 5.22 acres (east parcel) and 3.39 acres (2510 Carver Avenue) Existing land use: Undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Single dwellings across Carver Avenue South and East: Ramsey County Open Space and Fish Creek West: Single dwelling at 2510 Carver Avenue and Sterling Street PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: R-1 (single dwellings) Existing Zoning: R -1(R) (rural residential) Proposed Zoning: R-1 (single dwellings) Findings for Moratorium—Variance Approval Variances from this ordinance may be granted by the city council based upon a determination that a proposed subdivision or development would be compatible with existing or proposed land use and. zoning and that such proposals would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this ordinance. The procedures to be followed in applying for a variance from this ordinance shall be in accordance with state law on findings for variances and shall include the following: 1. The applicant shall file a completed application form together with required exhibits to the Community Development Department. 2. The application for a variance shall set forth special circumstances or conditions which the applicant alleges to exist, and shall demonstrate that the proposed development is compatible with existing or proposed land use and zoning. 3. The application shall be submitted to the planning commission for their review and comment. 4. The city council may in its discretion set a public hearing prior to making a final determination on the requested variance. 5. The city council may impose such restrictions upon the proposed development or subdivision as may be necessary to comply with the purpose and intent of this ordinance. SECTION 4. VARIANCES 4.01 The city council, at their discretion, may grant variances from this ordinance based upon a determination that a proposed subdivision or development would be compatible with proposed land use and zoning, and that such proposals would keep with the spirit and intent of this 9 101 ordinance. The procedures to be followed in applying for a variance from this ordinance shall be in accordance with state law on findings for variances and shall include the following: a. The applicant shall file a completed application form, together with required exhibits, to the Community Development Department. b. The application for a variance shall set forth special circumstances or conditions that the applicant alleges to exist and shall demonstrate that the proposed subdivision or development is compatible with existing or proposed land use and zoning. c. The city will submit the application to the planning commission for their review and recommendation to the city council. d. The city council may set, at its discretion, a public hearing before making a final determination on the requested variance. e. The city council may impose such restrictions upon the proposed subdivision or development as may be necessary to meet the purpose and intent of this ordinance. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL Variances State law requires that the city council make the following findings to approve a variance from the zoning code: 1. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. 2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship" as used in granting of a variance, means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Rezoning Section 44-1165 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; 2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded; 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare; 7 4. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. Application Date The city received this application on November 27, 2006. State law requires that the city council take action on this request within 60 days of receiving the request. As such, the city council should act on these requests and notify the applicant in writing of the city's action by January 23, 2007. p:sec241st clair hill - mor. Var and rezone - 2006 Attachments: 1. Moratorium Ordinance 2. Applicant's Statement dated 11-14-06 3. Location Map 4. Property LinefZoning Map 5. Address Map 6. Existing Conditions Map 7. Preliminary Plat 8. Site Plan 9. e-mail message from Patty Gearin 10. Letter from Jim Kerrigan 11. e-mail message from Tom Horwath 12. e-mail message from Douglas Coombs 13. e-mail message from Connie Wiegel 14. e-mail message from Amy Kaiser 15. e-mail message from Chris Jenkins 16. e-mail message from the Baileys 17. e-mail message from Sue Bonitz 18. e-mail message from Mark Bonitz 19. e-mail message from Ted Cyptar 20. e-mail message from Patrick Bailey 21. e-mail message from Nona Johnson 22. e-mail message from Claire Jensen 23. e-mail message from Jeff Jensen 24. e-mail message from the Calhouns 25. e-mail message from Uyen Campbell 26. e-mail message from Dick Stehr 27. e-mail message from Greg Thompson 28. e-mail message from Carl Erb 29. e-mail message from Carolyn Peterson 9 • • • • Attachment 1 C. Mayor Longrie closed the public hearing. Add: Section 2 should include the Historic Preservation Commission and the Environmental and Natural Resources Commission ORDINANCE NO. 876 AN ORDINANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE PLANNING PROCESS, FOR PROTECTING THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF MAPLEWOOD AND FOR DEVELOPING LAND USE AND ZONING STANDARDS AND LAND USE PLANNING FOR THE AREA SOUTH OF CARVER AVENUE IN MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA The area under consideration in this ordinance (hereinafter referred to as the "South Maplewood Study Area") includes all the land south of Carver Avenue in Maplewood (refer to the South Maplewood Study Area map for the location) that the city has zoned F (farm residence) and R -1(R) (rural residential). The Maplewood City Council ordains: SECTION 1. PURPOSE 1.01 The City of Maplewood is currently conducting a study that includes land use, zoning and planning components for the area south of Carver Avenue. 1.02 The objective of the study is to review existing and planned land uses and zoning designations and the existing natural and constructed features in the south Maplewood study area, including a review of the diversity of housing options within Maplewood because of the zoning. From this information, the city may make changes to the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance or the land use plan in the area to create better -planned and constructed developments and neighborhoods. 1.03 In addition to the study, the city may need to revise the city's zoning ordinance, zoning map, land use map and comprehensive pian because of the following issues: - Land use - Minimum lot sizes - Public utility availability (including sewer and water and the costs and impact on the area) - Building setbacks - Open space connectivity - Existing city and county public land uses - Parks and trails connections - Mississippi River Critical Area considerations Mississippi National River and Recreational Area (MNRRA) considerations, including those of neighboring communities Metropolitan Council Requirements and Land Planning Guide Book (including, but not limited to, the strategies for protecting special resources including solar access, wind energy access, the urban service area and historic preservation). Pedestrian flow and safety Parking Historical features and the objectives listed in the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan Topography Wetlands, ponding and other water features Storm -water systems and management requirements Housing density The percentage of R -1(R) acreage to other land use acreage for residential purposes in Maplewood. The percentage of R -1(R) housing potential in relation to other designations for housing opportunities in Maplewood, i.e. single dwelling, 40,000 square foot lots versus 10,000 square foot lots, R-1, R -1(S), mid -density, high density to provide a comprehensive list of the housing options in Maplewood. The financial impacts of development on the city Street patterns and traffic flows Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District considerations and requirements MnDOT Highway and Traffic Plans for the area, including traffic and public safety Preservation of housing and life-style options 1.04 There is a need for the city -to do these studies so that the city staff and the city council will have current and relevant information before considering or making any changes to the city's comprehensive plan and to the city's zoning ordinance, zoning map and land use map for the area south of Carver Avenue. SECTION 2. DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT STUDY; MORATORIUM 2.01 The city council authorizes the city staff to do this study. City staff shall coordinate this study with the planning commission, the environmental and natural resources commission, the historical preservation commission, other government agencies, property owners, interested citizens, the city council and any other entities that may provide input to the study. 2.02 Upon completion of the study, city staff will present the study and its results to the planning commission for their review and recommendation to the city council. 2.03 A moratorium on development in the south Maplewood Study Area is adopted pending completion of the study and/or the adoption of any amendments to the city's zoning ordinance, zoning map, land use map or comprehensive plan as the city deems necessary because of the study. The city will not approve any new development, subdivision or building permit for a new building, except for those parcels that are two acres in size or smaller and now of record during the moratorium period. Maplewood may issue building permits for the expansion or remodeling of existing structures, for accessory structures or for one new principal structure on an existing lot of record where the owner does not subdivide the property. SECTION 3. TERM 3.01 The term of ordinance shall be for one year or until the city council adopts amendments to the city's zoning ordinance, zoning map, land use map or comprehensive plan as the city deems necessary because of the study or the city council takes any action that directly affects the study or the ordinance. 10 • • SECTION 4. VARIANCES 4.01 The city council, at their discretion, may grant variances from this ordinance basedupon a determination that a proposed subdivision or development would be compatible with proposed land use and zoning, and that such proposals would keep with the spirit and intent of this ordinance. The procedures to be followed in applying for a variance from this ordinance shall be in accordance with state law on findings for variances and shall include the following: a. The applicant shall file a completed application form, together with required exhibits, to the Community Development Department. b. The application for a variance shall set forth special circumstances or conditions that the applicant alleges to exist and shall demonstrate that the proposed subdivision or development is compatible with existing or proposed land use and zoning. C. The city will submit the application to the planning commission for their review and recommendation to the city council. d. The city council may set, at its discretion, a public hearing before making a final determination on the requested variance. e. The city council may impose such restrictions upon the proposed subdivision or development as may be necessary to meet the purpose and intent of this ordinance. Seconded by Mayor Longrie Ayes -All 11 Attachment 2 Tyrus Land Company 2483 15'b Street NW Suite C New Brighton, Minnesota 55112 651 633-5010 651 633-1404 (fax) �y-off, I -Application for Zoning Change /l 2. Variance Regarding South Maplewood Moratorium Introduction: Tyrus Land Company would like to develop 5.22 acres of land near the intersection of Carver Avenue and Sterling Street into 14 R1 single family residential lots of 10, 000 square feet or greater. The land is currently zoned RIR and under a development moratorium.. We request a zoning change to RI and a variance from the moratorium.. There is another 5 acre property that, due to its proximity, you may consider for the same changes we are requesting.. That property is on the corner of Carver Avenue and Sterling Street, 2510 Carver Avenue E, and is owned by the Ledo family. That property is currently under a life estate. The Ledo family has an agreement with Tyrus Land Company regarding the disposal of the property at the conclusion of the life estate. No formal application for that property is made at this time. Ripeness for Development: Any property becomes a candidate for development when enough factors are present to suggest that the property should be developed. From a political standpoint, the past actions of the City have prepared the land for development. The land is guided for single family homes, by the Comprehensive Plan. Street, sewer, and water, are all present and available to the property. The City has recently done a study of the area to determine impact of development in the area and have found that a much larger development would not pose a significant threat to the area, and there are several other large residential developments in the area North of this project. Two Properties as a Island. The two properties at issue here are separate and distinct from the other property South of Carver Avenue. These properties are relatively flat and are bordered on the East and South sides by Fish Creek. They suffer none of the access or topographic issues that hinder the development of the remainder of the property South of Carver. These two parcels are identical in character to the properties North of Carver, but have few, if any, character parallels with the other property South of Carver. 12 Existing Zoning The property is currently zoned to allow for only two acre lots. The City of Maplewood set up this zoning designation in this area because the area could not be served with sewer and water utilities. Larger lots are necessary for wells and septic systems. It might be expected that the area will revert to RI when services are available. This particular property already has services available so well and septic would likely not be allowed or make sense. The Sanitary Sewer Intercept line is within 400 feet of the property, and abuts the Ledo property. The water line is believed to be in the same location. The property is also under a moratorium that prohibits development in the area South of Carver Avenue. We would ask for a variance from the moratorium, Area Properties The properties across Carver Avenue from this property are zoned Rl . These properties would be served by the same services that are available to us. Under the current zoning rules, the property on the North side of Carver could develop, and extend services, but not the property on the South. That would mean that the property on the South would not have to participate in the cost of extending services down Carver. The property owners on the North side of Carver may object to having to cover the whole cost of extending services, which, at some time in the future, will benefit the property to the South. Copar Development: We are aware of the Copar development. We ask for none of the allowances they require. We will be offering single-family residential 10,000 square -foot lots, very low density, a reasonable and allowable cul de sac, and significant efforts with regard to Fish Creek. Property Tax Situation: The subject property was valued, for tax purposes, in 2003 at $109,900. In 2004 it was $172,300, and in 2005 it was valued at $234,000. The property value, as assessed by the county, has increased 113 percent. The limited -market -value was $359,300 in 2005. In the same time frame the Ledo property was valued at $196,000, then $236,100, then $280,900. It has a limited market value of $372,000. Several other properties in the area have encountered similar increases in value, and concurrent increases in property taxes. Property owners of many of these properties would like to take advantage of the sharp increase in value, and at the same time get out from under the high tax burden. Area Desire for Development: We first became aware of this area of Maplewood when we were requested to make a bid on the property of Rodney Korf. He is 1486 Sterling at the top of the bluff. We also contacted his neighbor, also named Ledo. Both of them wanted to sell and were looking for a developer, not a single family buyer. We spoke at length with Mr. Scott Schlomka at 1525 Sterling. The neighbors on either side of him wanted to sell, along with him, to a developer. We understand 13 that a developer did in fact purchase those three properties. We sat down with Don and Sue Schlomke and Eugene and Carol Schlomke, 1675 Sterling Street, about purchasing their property. We did not bid on these properties because they could not be developed. We have been contacted by a property owner on the North side of Carver, 2591 Carver, asking that we -make a bid for his property for development. We have not encountered any current resident that would prefer to have the property remain rural, save for Mr and Ms. Bailey. Rural property does not bring near the return that could be realized by a sale to a developer. The Broader Picture: This area is located in a first -ring suburb. All of the property is within a couple hundred feet of a multi -lane freeway that has recently been upgraded. The freeway has sapped the area of any remaining rural character. The subject area is in the flight paths of two airports. The St. Paul Downtown Airport and the Mpls-St. Paul International Airport both have flight paths that take airplanes directly over the area. The City also anticipates the development of this area. The area is located in Sanitary Sewer District 70. The "2003 South Maplewood Sewer Study" adopted by the City Council states that : 7, A gravity sanitary sewer can serve District 70 and the sanitary sewer flows from the 240- acre Bailey's Nursery parcel in Woodbury and Newport. When the city or a developer extends municipal sanitary sewer to serve District 70, the new pipe must be sized large enough to serve the 240 -acre Bailey Nursery parcel. (Italics added) 0 8. The capacity of the Carver Lake interceptor is large enough to accommodate flows from all of the study area, as well as the 240 -acre parcel in Woodbury and Newport owned by Bailey's Nursery. 9. Connections to the Carver Lake interceptor will be allowed by permit from the MCES. The interceptor would be metered at the points where it enters and exits Maplewood. Any flow that enters the interceptor between these two locations will be billed to Maplewood based on the difference between the two meter readings. (Italics added) If the City had no intention of seeing development in this area then the City would not have extended services to the property corner, or anticipated an extension of those services by a developer. The services are within 400 feet of the property. Conclusion The subject property is ripe for development and is correctly positioned for regular residential development. Zoning for this limited area should be changed from RIR to RI. Conversely, the properties South of Carver and East of I494, excluding the subject property, will not develop until City services are available. That is most likely to occur when the Bailey Nursery decides to develop, but not before then. November 14, 2006 14 Jamie Jensen President, Tyrus Land Company Attachment 3 Pieasantview Park I ! ---------- ---------------------- ________ ---------------_---- f` j 1 1_.11 ---------- S'kSi V O O ,' 1 411 ti 1 ! F / 1t _ L � ��•' wm,, �`�•,,.�, ,vim '� �^-• f (,= ----- - I I -- i ---1 ----- ---- = f; ii. , r --- ---- ---- - I , SITE ff I r i 1 II -- �,fr LOCATION MAP 15 4 N rl C3 II t 7C&VW'AVL-- T p, PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP 16 Attachment `4 01 li I -8N@F KvA__ __ I i ADDRESS MAP T7 OPEN SPACE .Tr Attachment 5 1 r i' n 1+1' r F -I fl if i ii it �r I j !I: I IIS I -8N@F KvA__ __ I i ADDRESS MAP T7 OPEN SPACE .Tr Attachment 5 Attac4ment'6 I I I I I 1, 2 2575 595 J 2511 4: 01, - - - - - - - - - - - - - &- -7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - N8' 800'37' F - "A: V I 1% r 41 % 2510 SITE All j I' iX- x e. y'. 7- r., OPEN SPACE �7 7 7 77 IV -**VVV3r E 19G99 EE 19 .99 7 SIR EXISTING CONDITIONS MAP L 18 Attlment 7 I I I I I 2575 2595 _ _ ^2511 CARVER AVE (C.S.A.H N0. 431 3 —...—..._. N 69' 632s1 —...—. CARVER AVE. — — — _-312.5 1 0 50 --------- p N 6B'00� 5 -•:DAO' J - Ij,2 1 5 I I I \\\ 9 1 Iw I Iw \ \ 2 eeIL r---- 1 —7— l 4 1 \ L� 1 I n 5 $` I r ' OPEN SPACE •� ss. its. j 69'14.35' E 1Bom j r�:i � ..—..—..—.._..�..� ° -• \ is i 1 PRELIMINARY PLAT 19 4 N Attachment 8 W.. SITE PLAN 20 pin OPEN SPACE !E D HB E R, pin 'A 111,111-11- M. - ---- --- 4 cc CN ------------------------- CAVI`FF AVE CS-- ------------------ --------- CAR K##-4-V4L — — — — — — — — —np QlXL — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — d Ol 13 g ' S—qFt - 1 j ___,I F7-- SITE PLAN 20 Attachment 9 Ken Roberts From: wipersplus@comcast.net 0ent:� Friday, December 08, 2006 9:43 AM 0: Ken Roberts Cc: hrcbailey@comcast.net Subject: A against a development Carver area 2575 carver ave Patty Gearin is for the moratorium and opposed to the re zoning of land at any time. Needed nature wild life in this area. This would kill off and destroy all the wild life. Fish Creek needs repair as is has been damaged and can not handle any more run off. Not only us but on the hill and the other side. Keep as is and land developers out as they are a dime a dozen. So make this clear I am against Tyrus Land Co. and any developments any where in south Maplewood area. P.S. This is in reference to reply needed for the city council of Maplewood, Thank You Patty Gearin Wipers Recycling LLC Shop 651-222-7247 Cell 651-231-3973 • 21 Attachment 10 December 5, 2006 Jim Kerrigan 2620 Carver Avenue St. Paul, MN 55119 Ken Roberts City of Maplewood 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 0 Re: St. Clair Hills Housing Development, Carver Avenue & Sterling Street Dear Ken: This will serve to respond to your neighborhood survey dated November 30, 2006, for the following two requests by Jamie Jensen of Tyrus Land Company: • Variance to the south Carver Avenue development moratorium • Rezoning from R1 (R) to R1 At this time I do not support approval of either of these two requests by Tyrus. In a letter I previously provided to your office, I detailed my concerns on the rezoning (see attached letter dated October 26, 2006). As relates to the development moratorium, it was put in place in order to provide the City and interested parties a period of time to study and determine the appropriate future land use for the south Carver Avenue area. The proposed Tyrus development is located almost in the middle of the study area. Allowing them to build now may be inconsistent with what is determined appropriate land uses for the area; furthermore, allowing development of this site now may eliminate use options for the area. A neighborhood group, Fish Creek Initiative, has now been formed to provide input to the City in its study effort. This group recently held its first meeting with approximately 20 neighbors in attendance. It was very evident that they do not wish to see any development in this area built to R1 density. There was a general consensus that no development should be allowed to occur in this area until all input has been considered through the study process 0 22 Letter to Ken Roberts, City of Maplewood, December 5, 2006 — Page 2 • The rezoning request by Tyrus is exactly what has been requested by Copar for their proposed residential project in this area. As you are aware, Copar has now brought legal action against the City following denial of their project by the City. It would seem that if Tyrus is allowed to proceed forward, such action could be interpreted as arbitrary and capricious and compromise the City's legal position with Copar. % With the development moratorium now in place, it seems most logical to study the south Carver Avenue area as a whole and not allow any exceptions. Once the planning study has been completed, Tyrus, if still interested, can undertake a project that is in accordance with the agreed-upon findings. Finally, I respectfully request that if action on the request by Tyrus moves forward that this letter (and the attached October 26, 2006, letter) be included in your staff report to the Zoning and Planning Commission and City Council. I would also ask that I be provided staff reports on this matter. You may e-mail them to me at the following: jkerrigan hopkinsmn.com. If you have any questions, please give me a call at 952-548-6340. Sincerely 17 Jim Kerrig n Attachment 23 Response to neighborhood survey/moratorium variance and rezoning request - south of Carver A. Ken Roberts From: Tom Horwath [THorwath@ci.edina.mn.us] Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 8:16 AM To: Ken Roberts Page 1 of 1 Attachment 11 Subject: Response to neighborhood survey/moratorium variance and rezoning request - south of Carver Ave. Hello Ken I appreciate an opportunity to formally respond to above mentioned subject. I do wish to make some specific comments regarding the proposal/requests of Jamie Jensen, and some general concerns regarding any further development in the area south of Carver Ave. My family has been living on our lot on Carver Ave. for 15 years now. We first purchased the lot 20 years ago. Our lot was selected after an extensive lot search in the east metro area. We found nothing comparable to it at that time. The large lot size, variable topography, and most important the density of trees not only on our land, but also throughout the neighborhood. The area was, and still is, of rural character, yet so close to the Twin Cities where both my wife and 1 Wished to live, work and raise our family. I have been a City Forester for 27 years. I have a great appreciation and love for trees. My favorite landscape/environmental areas are forests or woodlots which are basically managed in a natural way - allowed to function with minimal interferences and thus in a manner guided by nature's laws. Because of the proximity of our land, and that of our surrounding neighborhood, to the Mississipppi River, I regard the natural extended area to be classified as Riverine Forest Type. This type of forest is characterized by a more expanded diversity of species of trees than other forest types indigenous to this area. As such, this forest type and other environmental characteristics of this Mississippi Bluff area comprise a unique addition to the City of Maplewood. As such I think it would be desirable to protect wisely and with caution through the planning process. Both myself and my neighbors recognize the inevitability of some type of development occurring in this area. I also regard my property as an investment. The fine line is, what part of it is financial investment, and what part is investment for the future generations of owners to enjoy the same natural conditions that we � love and enjoy so much now. At this point, for the sake of brevity, let me respond directly to some specific comments in the letter I received in your notification packet. The statement in the letter from Tyrus Land Company that "The freeway has sapped the area of any remaining rural character" I found easy to disagree with. When I walk my own land, or further through the neighborhood, through the extended woods, or even drive on the local roads which are surrounded by natural woodlots running almost continuously, I see a rural look and feel a rural character. The continuity of this wooded area is what defines this neighborhood. The preservation of this aspect is what we all hope can be addressed throughout the planning process and during any inevitable future development. I am aware of a DNR initiative in the metro area to connect, or re -connect the fractured woodlots and natural wildlife corridors as much as possible - both on public lands and private as well. It would seem wise planning to me to not unnecessarily disconnect them in the first place. I think the claim that the area is sapped of rural character displays a worrisome attitude which lacks any motivations to attempt to minimize environmental impacts, or preserve the broader characteristics of the neighborhood. Another statement I wish to make comment on concerned the "benefit" for properties on the south side of Carver Ave. for extending services. Since we have already purchased, and maintain a functional well and septic system, I don't see service extensions as a benefit, but only as an unnecessary and expensive financial burden. Thank you for the opportunity to respond. We appreciate the opportunity to have our voices heard in the decision making process which so greatly affects our quality of life in this wonderful neighborhood. 12/5/2006 24 Page Attachment 12 Ken Roberts From: Coombsmpl@aol.com Writ: Friday, December 08, 2006 10:26 AM To: Ken Roberts Subject: South Maplewood moratorium Dear Ken, Thank you for the notices on the moratorium and Public hearing notice regarding Tyrus Land Co. It is nice to be informed. I was not, nor am I now for or against the passing of the moratorium. But now that the City has passed it I believe it should be enforced. I do not like flip flopping around. The rules for South Maplewood change frequently and usually without any notice to those of us south of 494. 1 believe the City needs to take the time afforded by the moratorium and develop rules for south of Carver that are consistent with those of the rest of the city .... and stick to them. For example; there is a 1.27 acre lot across the street from me. Why should someone be allowed to build on it when I cannot split my lot down to 1.27 acre parcels?????? Why were homes permitted to be built on the hills NW of me, interfering with my TV's and cordless phones without me being included in the decision process. The city does not allow me cable, satellite, or regular clear TV. Yet my property taxes soar because of the new homes which have all the amenities. So tell me, why should we like it when everyone wants to destroy what rural surroundings we still have. Whink theTyrus land project is mostly good. Of course I would prefer it stay undeveloped, but that would not be fair the e property owners who would like to sell, as many others in the area have already done. I would like to see bike trails, safely connecting the parks in South Maplewood and Woodbury, and along fish creek down to the Point Douglas Bike route. I would like to see a fire hydrant on the most eastward edge of the project on Carver Avenue. I would like to see cable access required to this area and ALL of South Maplewood. I would Like to see rninimum lot sizes consistent with those in the area. I would like to see the area to have its own water retention pond. And a tornado siren in the development or within a few blocks. I would like to see the business off the comer of Sterling on Carver removed (t has insufficient off street parking and to much traffic for a residential area). Sincerely, Douglas Coombs 2700 Carver Avenue C: 12/8/2006 25 Page 1 of 1 Attachment 13 Ken Roberts From: Connie Wiegel [conniewiegel@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 11:55 AM To: Ken Roberts Cc: Diana Longde (External); City Council Subject: Moratorium variance and rezoning requests - St. Clair Hills Housing Development - Carver Avenue and Sterling Street RE: The Moratorium variance and rezoning requests — St. Clair Hills Housing Development — Carver Avenue and Sterling Street (East of I-494) Maplewood - requested by Jamie Jensen of the Tyrus Land Company. Dear Mr. Roberts,- We oberts, We are writing to urge you to uphold the one-year moratorium on development that was recently passed for the area south of Carver Avenue. The decision to do so indicates to us that city leaders want to take a thoughtful, well -researched approach to potential development in this entire area. This is exactly what we must do. Allowing any piece of the area to be sliced off and developed without concern for the effect on the entire whole negates the purpose of the moratorium and would be irresponsible. I would also like to express my concern about how and who gets notified about these types of issues. We live less than 1/4 mile from the proposed development site and did not receive notification of the variance and rezoning request. It is only through a large network of actively engaged neighbors that we were made aware of the situation. I ask that you reconsider your policy on notification so that it is realistic for all areas of the city. We are hopeful that the city will engage in this process fairly and transparently, in a way that the concerns and input of all parties are respected. Sincerely, Connie and Mark Wiegel 2720 Carver Avenue, Maplewood 651-329-3776 12/7/2006 26 • Attachment 14 Ken Roberts From: Amy Kaiser [amy.kaiser@hotmail.com] Gent: Friday, December 08, 2006 4:19 PM o: Ken Roberts Cc: Diana Longrie (External) Subject: Response to Neighborhood Survey letter Dated 11-30-06 Dear Mayor Longrie, City Staff, and Council Members, In response to the neighborhood survey that my husband and I received dated November 30, 2006, we are against the variance and rezoning request that Jamie Jensen of the Tyrus Land Company is asking the city to grant him. This moratorium was put in to place to give the city time to study the area. There are Native American artifacts that have been found within feet of this piece of property. If Jamie Jensen or any other person is allowed to develop, this could cause conflicts and interfere with the moratorium. This area is very unique and we must carefully consider the impact we have on the area. The residents of this area live here because this is the type of lifestyle they choose to live. I ask the Council to support the Comprehensive Plan honoring the citizens the right to live the lifestyle they choose. I also ask the Council to thoroughly survey the area for it's historical value. This needs to become a priority included with the moratorium in order to honor the Comprehensive Plans historical preservation committment. I also would like to request that in the future all land owners in the moratorium area be notified of any requests made that require a variance to the moratorium so that they may respond also. Wank you, Amy Kaiser Get the latest Windows Live Messenger 8.1 Beta version. Join now. http://ideas.live.com 27 Page 1 of _1 Attachment 15 Ken Roberts From: chrisjenkins@usfamily.net • Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 6:38 PM To: Ken Roberts Cc: hrcbailey c@comcast.net; Diana Longrie (External) Subject: The Moratorium variance and rezoning requests - St. Clair Hills Housing Development - Carver Avenue and Sterling Street (East of 1-494) Maplewood - requested by Jamie Jensen of the Tyrus Land Company. Mr. Roberts, We are emailing you regarding the request for a variance and rezoning by Tyrus Land Company. We oppose the City of Maplewood granting this request due to the recent City of Maplewood imposed Moratorium so that all the issues surrounding development in this area can be studied as a whole. To grant this to one developer, leaves the door open for other developers to request the same treatment before the moratorium and studies can even be started. Thank you for hearing us on this issue. Chris and Jane Jenkins 1435 Sterling Street South Maplewood, MN 55119 651-776-1651 --- USFamily.Net - $8.25/mo! -- Highspeed - $19.99/mo! --- 12/7/2006 r� • Attachment 16 To: City of Maplewood Ken Roberts — Planner Ken.Roberts@CI.Maplewood.MN.US. Cc: Mayor Diana Longre mayorlon re yahoo.com December 5, 2006 RE: The Moratorium variance and rezoning requests — St. Clair Hills Housing Development — Carver Avenue and Sterling Street (East of I-494) Maplewood - requested by Jamie Jensen of the Tyrus Land Company. My Comments on the request: I am against this variance and rezoning request because it will disrupt and interfere with the one-year moratorium that the City of Maplewood has had the foresight to recently put into place. This unique area needs to be studied as whole for its historic value, potential traffic problems, the lifestyle preference of the present residents and many other issues. Because it is important to study the area as one complete piece, it is not appropriate to allow any pieces to be excluded — especially the . particular site in question, that directly borders on Fish Creek and is close to areas where Native American artifacts have been found (artifacts have been found on both sides of I-494 east and west). The City Council chose to support the Maplewood's Comprehensive Plan that specifically honors historical areas and citizen's lifestyle choices. I support the city's moratorium and its plan to take responsible action. It is important to bring together staff and the proper committees to research and study all of the area included in the moratorium, so that well thought out decisions can be made as to how this area can be responsibly conserved, zoned and developed in a way that respects the Comprehensive Plan, the land, and the neighborhood lifestyle. The site that Tyrus Land Company wants a variance and rezoning on is an integral part of the area to be studied. It is directly related to Fish Creek and on the path that ties the Mississippi River Corridor to Carver Lake. Therefore, I want this variance and rezoning request denied. I trust that the city will engage in this process with all parties involved to insure that the thoughts, opinions, and perspectives of all its citizens are respected. Sincerely, Joe and Michael Bailey 0 Z >--- S ' 29 Page 1 of 1 Attachment 17 Ken Roberts From: Sue.Bonitz@deluxe.com Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 11:42 AM • To: City Council Cc: Ken Roberts Subject: Tyrus Land Co. variance and rezoning request Dear Mayor Longrie and City Council Members, First, I would like to thank you for listening to the citizens of Maplewood and passing the 1 year moratorium on development south of Carver. The time needs to be taken to study it and it's effects to the area. The area can only be developed once and it should be done right. I strongly feel the request for a variance of the moratorium and rezoning by Tyrus Land Co. not be granted. Why should we give one developer a variance until the whole area is looked at. Then the next developer will want one. The whole area needs to be looked at as planned by the moratorium. There were a many things that bothered me about Tyrus's reasoning behind why he should have variance and how the area should be rezoned. Here are just a couple things that I felt they were really reaching on. - "We have not encountered any current resident that would prefer to have the property remain rural, save for Mr and Ms. Bailey" Well I know for a fact, because I was at the city council meeting the night the moratorium passed (and Tyrus was there too) that a lot of people spoke up against over -developing the area, myself included. Not to mention people north of Carver and a couple residents from the North part of Maplewood. - "The freeway has sapped the area of any remaining rural character." I feel is false. Our property backs up to the freeway and we have a wonderful view of woods and nature from every window. We bought here because of the feel of rural while still having close access to the city. Just because there is a freeway somewhere does not mean we can not preserve what is left. Freeways do not always mean development. Look at other areas of the state where 35 and 94 run. . It is really OK to preserve the feel of the area, Fish Creek and the abundance of nature it provides. What angers me is Tyrus and the other developers came in and bought this property knowing full well the zoning are now holding the city hostage. Most developers option the land until every thing is approved. I know they have a right to develop there land, but do it to the way it was zoned and responsibly. Maplewood is in compliance with the Metropolitan council. It is OK to have land that is left a bit open and to save areas of great beauty and that have great environmental impact. Finally, a note on the city's request for feedback by Ken Roberts was forwarded to me by a neighbor. I am upset that the whole area in question was not sent the notification. I understand that their is a 500 foot rule. Which for this area is not actually asking for a lot of feedback. It should go out to the whole area effected. It makes me feel that the City really does not want a honest responses. Sincerely, Sue Bonitz 1635 Sterling St. S. 12/8/2006 30 F-1 Tryus Land Company Requests For Zoning Change & Variance Ken Roberts From: Bonitz Mark [Mark.Bonitz@thomson.net] . Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 2:49 PM To: City Council; Ken Roberts Subject: Tryus Land Company Requests For Zoning Change & Variance Importance: High Dear Mayor, City Council Members & Ken Roberts: Page 1 of 3 Attachment 18 Earlier this week I was made aware that the Tryus Land Company submitted a combined request for a zoning change and variance to the current development moratorium in south Maplewood. I was not made aware of this by the city even though I live in the area of south Maplewood that is under the current moratorium. Someone needs to review the City of Maplewood's notification policy. I can assure you from comments of other concerned residents the policy is not working! Common sense should have dictated that at an absolute minimum, the City should have notify all of the landowners currently under the moratorium as this developer is requesting a variance from the moratorium itself. As a resident landowner in south MaplewoodI urge you to respectfully deny both of these nests without prejudice. The ink has barely dried on the enactment of the development moratorium. Most certainly, now it is not the time to be examining snapshots of "islands" in south Maplewood. Instead, we need to take the time to explore and refine the vision for this area. Not just for the developers but for the current and future residents of south Maplewood . Again, I urge you to enforce the current zoninct and deve%pment moratorium to a//ow us time to comp/ete the work we have a/ready agreed needs to be done. Furthermore, in response to the Tryus Land Company's specific justification I submit the following for your consideration: 4n "Ripeness for Development": Mr. Jensen states in his request "From a political standpoint the past actions of the City have prepared the land for development" Mr. Jensen has a point. The City imposed a development moratorium in 2002 at the request of south Maplewood residents. In 2003, the City, based on the findings of fact established the R -1(R) zoning classification which among other criteria was established to "protect the rural character of south Maplewood." In 2006 the City Planning Commission unanimously rejected another developers request for a change in zoning that involved a increase in density over its current R1 -R classification. In short, the City has Oepared the land for development by listening to the residents of south Maplewood in the first place and enacting the R -1(R) zoning classification. 1218/2006 31 Tryus Land Company Requests For Zoning Change & Variance Page 2 of .3 Mr. Jensen makes reference to "...a study of the area...". I believe he is referring to the E.A.W. study conducted on the property West of 494 that did not involve the Tryus Land Company's property which resides to the East of 494. As I have pointed out in previous • correspondence, an E.A.W. applies only to a specific development plan. The environmental conclusions identified in the original study apply to the subject property West of 494 and can not be reasonably extended to the Tryus property. In fact, given the Tryus properties proximity to Fish Creek I would urge the City to explore the need for a complete E.A.W. on any development boarding the creek, including this site before any plan is approved. On "Two Properties as a Island": Unless the Tryus Land Company's proposal includes digging a moat around the property it is, not in anyway, means, shape or form an island onto itself. It is however a integrated and significant part of the whole south Maplewood picture. Let us stay the course and work through the tasks outlined in the moratorium. On "Existing Zoning"; I agree ! - today the land in question is zoned R -1(R) The Tryus Land Company knew this upfront when they purchased the property out right. Moratorium not withstanding, why is it that developers in this area of south Maplewood never really embrace the existing look and feel of the surround neighborhood? Why do they always want more? Perhaps they just can't get no • satisfaction..... On "Area Desire For Development": Mr. Jensen states that he has not encountered any current resident that would prefer to have the property remain rural. Sounds like a severe case of selective memory to me. Is he not the same Jamie Jensen that attended the second reading for the currently adopted development moratorium proposal? Did the fact that nearly everyone who voiced their comments, with the exception of himself and one other developer, expressed their desire for the area to retain it's rural look and feel. If not selective memory, perhaps developer ears. On " Area Properties": Tryus attempts to conclude that rising property valuations and taxes equate to an area's ripeness for development. Truth is - most everyone's property evaluations and property taxes have risen in recent years due oto the shifting tides of revenue away from cities and counties by the State. On "The Broader Picture": • In response to Mr. Jensen's statement "The freeway has sapped the area of any remaining 12/s/2ao6 32 Tryus Land Company Requests For Zoning Change & Variance Page 3 of 3 rural charm" That's a mouthful ! I would suggest Mr. Jensen ask the Governor of Minnesota to issue a proclamation that any land abutting a freeway, or that planes f ly over, or that a developer says so ..... is hereby stripped of it "Rural Charm & Character" and is thereby declared Oipe" for development. I'm sure the Governor will get right on it. You just can't make this kind of stuff up. Respectfully Submitted: Mark J. Boniiz A proud owner of Rural Charm in south Maplewood CJ • 12/8/2006 33 Page 1 of 1 Attachment 19 Ken Roberts From: Ted L. Cyptar Investigations [ticinvestgatons@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 9:51 AM To: Ken Roberts Subject: st. clair hills it has come to my attention tyrus is requesting an. exemption from the moratorium. i would like the city council to first make a decision on aligning the city zoning with the comprehensive plan. i also have heard there are five (5) developers wanting to build developements not in compliance with city zoning within one mile of my residence. it seems to me these developers have unreasonable expectations that the city does not respect and follow their own zoning rules. ted cyptar, 1645 sterling st. so. 651.459.9669. i would appreciate a response. 12/7/2006 34 • is Page 1 of 1 Attachment 20 Ken Roberts From: Pat Bailey [pat.bailey@baileynursery.com] • Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 1:19 PM To: City Council; Ken Roberts Subject: Tryus Land Company Requests For Zoning Change & Variance Dear Mayor, City Council Members, and Ken Roberts: I'm writing to respectfully urge you to deny a recent variance and rezoning request made by the Tyrus Land Company. I support the recently enacted moratorium, as the whole area needs to be considered with respect to Fish Creek, traffic issues, conservation considerations, and area residents' desires. To grant any one party a variance is wrong. Let's wisely use the one-year moratorium to ensure a thoroughly well -thought plan for this unique area. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Patrick Bailey 1678 Sterling St S Maplewood MN • 0 12/11/2006 35 Attachment 21 Ken Roberts From: Johnson, Nona M [Nona.M.Johnson@HealthPartners.Com] Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 3:13 PM To: Ken Roberts • Cc: mayorlongre@yahoo.com; hrcbailey@comcast.net Subject: Moratorium Variance and Rezoning Requests - made by Jamie Jensen of the Tyrus Land Company To: City of Maplewood Ken Roberts — Planner Cc: Mayor Diana Longre December 6, 2006 RE: The moratorium variance and rezoning requests — St. Clair Hills Housing Development — Carver Avenue and Sterling Street (East of I-494) Maplewood - requested by Jamie Jensen of the Tyrus Land Company. My comments on this request: We have lived at 2513 Haller Lane (just off of Sterling Street) for six years and really enjoy the quiet lifestyle this area gives us. The rezoning request that would give Tyrus Land Company the ability to go against the moratorium currently in place would disrupt and interfere with not only the historic value and wildlife of this area but it would also cause the present residents many other issues. Thus I am against this variance and rezoning request. This unique area needs to be studied as whole for its historic value, potential traffic problems, the • lifestyle preference of the present residents and many other issues. Because it is important to study the area as one complete piece, it is not appropriate to allow any pieces to be excluded — especially the particular site in question, that directly borders on Fish Creek and is close to areas where Native American artifacts have been found (artifacts have been found on both sides of I-494 east and west). The City Council chose to support the Maplewood's Comprehensive Plan that specifically honors historical areas and citizen's lifestyle choices. I support the city's moratorium and its plan to take responsible action. It is important to bring together staff and the proper committees to research and study all of the area included in the moratorium, so that well thought out decisions can be made as to how this area can be responsibly conserved, zoned and developed in a way that respects the Comprehensive Plan, the land, and the neighborhood lifestyle. The site that Tyrus Land Company wants a variance and rezoning on is an integral part of the area to be studied. It is directly related to Fish Creek and on the path that ties the Mississippi River Corridor to Carver Lake. Therefore, I want this variance and rezoning request denied. I trust that the city will engage in this process with all parties involved to insure that the thoughts, opinions, and perspectives of all its citizens are respected. Moratorium Variance and Rezoning Requests - made by Jamie Jensen of the Tyrus Land Company Page 2 of� Sincerely, Nona Johnson and Vince Bastian 36 Attachment 22 Ken Roberts From: Claire Jensen [clairejensen c@visi.comj Iwent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 8:47 PM o: City Council; Ken Roberts Cc: Diana Longrie (External) Subject: Tyrus Land Company Request for Rezoning of Carver & Sterling area. City Council, Mr. Roberts, and Mayor Longrie, I understand that the Tyrus Company is trying to sneak through a Zoning change to our beautiful, rural part of South Maplewood that is part of the newly imposed moratorium. I find it very disturbing that the said company thinks that they can just push forward and show no recognition or respect to the fact that the moratorium is in place. It should be upheld 100% - NO EXCEPTIONS, otherwise, what is the point of having one? The reason we moved here 5 years ago, was because of the the rural nature of this area, please do not let it be destroyed and used up by money hungry developers. Please also ensure that in future, that all residents of the moratorium area are officially notified by your goodselves of any requests to defy the moratorium, instead of finding out on the grapevine!!!! Sincerely, Claire B Jensen 2533 Haller Lane E Maplewood, MN 55119 • • 37 Attachment 23 Ken Roberts From: Jeff JensenBeffjensen@upstairstechnology.comj • Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 8:47 PM To: Ken Roberts Cc: City Council; Diana Longrie (External) Subject: Fish Creek area moratorium and zoning change requests Dear Mr. Roberts, My neighbors and I are worried about certain types of development ruining our neighborhood. A few years ago, the city council voted to implement the RIR zoning in our area. We welcomed this zoning change to maintain the living look and feel of this area. Recently, the city council passed a development moratorium for our area to allow development study and holistically planning the area. We welcomed this decision too. There are reasons the city council enacted the zoning change. Nothing has changed since then, except land ownership. The original reasons still exist. There are reasons the city council enacted the moratorium. Let's uphold that decision so we can execute the research and holistically plan the area, instead of destroy it with disconnected separate plans and intense density levels. We must uphold these city council decisions. We cannot allow one entity an exception, as then others will require it too. We must not build medium to high density dwellings in the Fish Creek area. The residents live there because of the low density, natural surroundings, and wildlife. Higher on the hills is one of the few places in the metro where one can see both Minneapolis and St. Paul downtowns. It is a special area from which to watch the 4th of July fireworks with the neighbors, because of the visibility to many surrounding areas. Medium and high density development will destroy this pleasure, the wildlife, the natural setting. Additionally, the existing road infrastructure cannot handle the increased traffic load. When the Wakota bridge project caused the routing of traffic up Sterling, just getting on Sterling from our street, Haller Lane E, was regularly difficult in the morning, waiting for an entrance spot in the illegally speeding traffic. That time period was enough insight to understand the inadequacy of the existing roads and the impact of the speeding traffic. Still, the Bailey and Sterling intersection is a problem. Please uphold the existing moratorium and the zoning of R1R; we must not destroy the look and feel of this area, and must use the granted time to cohesively plan together. Sincerely, Jeff Jensen 2533 Haller Lane E Maplewood, MN 55119 0 n U Attachment 24 To: City of Maplewood Ken Roberts — Planner Ken.Roberts@CI.Maplewood.MN.US Cc: Mayor Diana Longre mayorlon er ,yahoo.com December 5, 2006 RE: The Moratorium variance and rezoning requests — St. Clair Hills Housing Development — Carver Avenue and Sterling Street (East of I-494) Maplewood - requested by Jamie Jensen of the Tyrus Land Company. My Comments on the request: I am against this variance and rezoning request because it will disrupt and interfere with the one-year moratorium that the City of Maplewood has had the foresight to recently put into place. This unique area needs to be studied as whole for its historic value, potential traffic problems, the lifestyle preference of the present residents and many other issues. Because it is important to study the area as one complete piece, it is not appropriate to allow any pieces to be excluded — especially the particular site in question, that directly borders on Fish Creek and is close to areas where Native American artifacts have been found (artifacts have been found on both sides of I- 494 east and west). The City Council chose to support the Maplewood's Comprehensive Plan that specifically honors historical areas and citizen's lifestyle choices. I support the city's moratorium and its plan to take responsible action. It is important to bring together staff and the proper committees to research and study all of the area included in. the moratorium, so that well thought out decisions can be made as to how this area can be responsibly conserved, zoned and developed in a way that respects the Comprehensive Plan, the land, and the neighborhood lifestyle. The site that Tyrus Land Company wants a variance and rezoning on is an integral part of the area to be studied. It is directly related to Fish Creek and on the path that ties the Mississippi River Corridor to Carver Lake. Therefore, I want this variance and rezoning request denied. I trust that the city will engage in this process with all parties involved to insure that the thoughts, opinions, and perspectives of all its citizens are respected. Sincerely, Paul & Cari Calhoun 2553 Haller Lane M Page 1 of 2 Attachment 25 Ken Roberts From: Uyen Campbell [ucampbe112@comcast.net] • Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 9:33 AM To: Ken Roberts Cc: City Council; Diana Longrie (External) Subject: Tyrus Land Company Variance and Rezoning Request Dear Mr. Roberts: We are writing to voice our ABSOLUTE OPPOSITION to Tyrus Land Company's request for a variance to the moratorium and a request for rezoning in the Cancer Avenue and Sterling Street area east of 1-494. We join in the arguments made by Mark Bonitz (a copy of which is attached below), George Gonzalez, Joe Bailey, Ron Cockriel, and many many others in this area, in opposition to the requests by the Tyrus Land Company. We are also writing to request that we be added to the City's mailing list for notices regarding any development in this Carver Avenue and Sterling Street area. Our mailing address is noted below. Thanks for your attention. We look forward to seeing you and other members of the Planning Commision on December 19th to formally note our opposition to Tyrus Land Company's requests. Sincerely, Keith and Uyen Campbell 2564 Haller Lane Maplewood, MN 55119 (651) 714-9742 From: Bonitz Mark Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 2:49 PM To:'citycoundl@ci.mapiewood.mn.us'; 'Ken Roberts' Subject: Tryus Land Company Requests For Zoning Change & Variance Important: High bear Mayor, City Council Members & Ken Roberts: Earlier this week I was made aware that the Tryus Land Company submitted a combined request for a zoning change and variance to the current development moratorium in south Maplewood. I was not made aware of this by the city even though I live in the area of south Maplewood that is under the current moratorium. Someone needs to review the City of Maplewood's notification policy. I can assure you from comments of other concerned residents the policy is not working! Common sense should have dictated that at an absolute minimum, the City should have notify all of the landowners currently under the moratorium as this developer is requesting a variance from the moratorium itself. • As a'resident landowner in south Maplewood...1 urge you to respectfully deny both of these requests without pre judice. The ink has barely dried on the enactment of the development moratorium. Most certainly, now it is not the time to be examining snapshots of "islands" in south Maplewood. Instead, we need to take the time to explore and refine the vision for this area. Not just for the developers but for the current and future residents of south Maplewood . Again, I urge you to enforce the current zoning and development moratorium to allow us time to complete the work we have already agreed needs to be done. 0 Furthermore, in response to the Tryus Land Company's specific justification I submit the following for your consideration: 12/11/2006 40 Page 1 of 1 Attachment 26 Ken Roberts From: dickstehr@earthlink.net Sent: Thursday, December 07, 20061:02 PM To: Diana Longrie (External); Ken Roberts Cc: hrcbailey@comcast.net Subject: Do not approve the variance request of Tyrus Land Co Ken Roberts Mayor Longrie I oppose the Moratorium variance and re zoning request by Tyrus Land Company for the St Clair Hills Housing at Carver and Sterling. This unique historic and natural area must be studied within the context of an overall plan for the Fish Creek Area. This is a critical site bordering the creek. The Comprehensive plan should be supported and a participative process used to develop a vision for the area that includes the input of all the stakeholders and particularly the residents of the Fish Creek area. To approve the variance at this critical juncture of the newly initiated effort to develop a vision for the area would severely limit options for connecting key resource areas of the Fish Creek and encourage a wide spread push to develop areas before a study gets a chance to mature . Please retain the moratorium and do not grant the variance or rezoning request! Sincerely, Dick Stehr 673 Haller Lane E Maplewood, MN 12/7/2006 41 Attachment 27 Ken Roberts From: GREGORY THOMPSON [thompsong@prodigy.net] • Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 8:24 PM To: Ken Roberts Cc: Diana Longrie (External) Subject: Re: rezoning Carver Avenue property To: City of Maplewood Ken Robers - Planner cc: Mayor Longrie December 10, 2006 Re: Moratorium variance and rezoning requests submitted by Mr. Jensen of Tyrus Land Company Mr. Roberts: We have reviewed the request submitted by Mr. Jensen of the Tyrus Land Company for a variance on the moratorium currently in place for land south of Carver Avenue. The moratorium was put in place by the City Council in November so the effects of development in the Fish Creek area could be studied. It is our understanding that the land to be developed by Tyrus Land Company abuts the Fish Creek open space and would impact the creek area. Mr. Jensen has also requested that the area be rezoned from R1 -R to R1. This was also one of the items that the City Council specifically addressed at the meeting in November and was to be included in the study under the moratorium. It is our desire that Mr. Jensen's request be denied. Sincerely, Greg and Carol Thompson 1528 Haller Ct. S. Maplewood, MN 55119 42 Page 1 of 1 Attachment 28 Ken Roberts From: Jucaerb@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 200611:18 PM To: City Council; Ken Roberts Subject: Request for Variance/So.Mplwd Mayor Longrie, Council Members, Mr. Ken Roberts I have become aware of a developer formal request for zoning change and variance from the south Maplewood moratorium, on properly east of 494. 1 wish to again confirm my support for the moratorium on all property south of Carver Ave. The contractor/developer conclusion that, 'The subject property is ripe for regular residential development", is an opinion contrary to the majority view of interested organizations and citizens of Maplewood. What is regular ? The word itself lacks limits. Let's take the time to address inconsistencies in zoning and land use in this beautiful and unique area of the city. We need to balance development within parameters recommended by the planning commission. Lets take the time to do it right. When it's gone it's gone. Respectfully, Carl Erb 2354 Heights Ave. E. Maplewood, MN 55119 or 12/7/2006 43 Attachment 29 To: City of Maplewood Ken Roberts — Planner Ken.Roberts@CI.Maplewood.MN.US. Cc: Mayor Diana Longre mayorlongre@yaho_o.com December 5, 2006 RE: The Moratorium variance and rezoning requests — St. Clair Hills Housing Development — Carver Avenue and Sterling Street (East of I-494) Maplewood - requested by Jamie Jensen of the Tyrus Land Company. My Comments on the request: I am against this variance and rezoning request because it will disrupt and interfere with the one-year moratorium that the City of Maplewood has had the foresight to recently put into place. This unique area needs to be studied as whole for its historic value, potential traffic problems, the lifestyle preference of the present residents and many other issues. Because it is important to study the area as one complete piece, it is not appropriate to allow any pieces to be excluded — especially the particular site in question, that directly borders on Fish Creek and is close to areas where Native American artifacts have been found (artifacts have been found on both sides of 1-494 east and west). The City Council chose to support the Maplewood's Comprehensive Plan that specifically honors historical areas and citizen's lifestyle choices. I support the city's moratorium and its plan to take responsible action. It is important to bring together staff and the proper committees to research and study all of the area included in the moratorium, so that well thought out decisions can be made as to how this area can be responsibly conserved, zoned and developed in a way that respects the Comprehensive Plan, the land, and the neighborhood lifestyle. The site that Tyrus Land Company wants a variance and rezoning on is an integral part of the area to be studied. It is directly related to Fish Creek and on the path that ties the Mississippi River Corridor to Carver Lake. Therefore, I want this variance and rezoning request denied. I trust that the city will engage in this process with all parties involved to insure that the thoughts, opinions, and perspectives of all its citizens are respected. Sincerely, � / ye- v 44