Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991 04-22 City Council PacketREMINDER: 6:30 P.M. MEETING - DISCUSSION OF AUDIT REPORT, MAPLEWOOD ROOM AGENDA MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7 :00 P.M., Monday, April 22, 1991 Council Chambers, Municipal Building Meeting No. 91 -08 A. CALL TO ORDER B. PLEDGE OF-ALLEGIANCE C. ROLL CALL D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Meeting of April 4, 1991 (Council /Manager) Meeting No. 91 -07 (April 22, 1991) E. APPROVAL OF AGENDA EA. APPOINTMENTS 1. Park and-Recreation Commission F. CONSENT AGENDA All matters listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the City Council and w i l l be enacted by one motion. There w i l l be no separate discussion on these items. If a member of the City Council wishes to discuss an item, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and will be-considered separately. 1. Approval of Claims 2. Planning Commission Annual Report 3. Preliminary Plat Time Extension: Gervais Overlook G. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 7:00 P.M., City Wide Water Project 90 -07: Assessment Hearing 2, 8:45 P.M., Code Change: Sideyard- Setbacks (lst Reading) H. AWARD OF BIDS 1. Banking Services 2. Playground Equipment I. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Preservation: Open Space 2. Land Use Plan Change: Lakewood Drive & Maryland Avenue (4 Votes) 3. Code Change Temporary Si=gns (2nd Reading 4 Votes) J, NEW BUSINESS 1, Approve Plans - Authorize Bids: Project 88 -12 - Beam Avenue_ 2, Parking Authorization and Fence Design: T -Birds 3, Plan Amendment: Co. Rd. B & White Bear Avenue (4 Votes) 4. Communication from Maplewood, North St. Paul, Oakdale School District 622 K. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS L. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8 9. 10. N. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS 1. 2. 3. 4. N. ADJOURNMENT COUNCIL /MANAGER MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD 4:30 p.m., Thursday, April 4, 1991 Maplewood Room, Maplewood City Hall A. CALL TO ORDER The Council /Manager meeting of the Maplewood City ouncil was held in the y y he Maplewood Room, Maplewood City Hall. The meeting was called to order b MayorGaryBastianat4:55 p.m. B. ROLL CALL Mayor Gary Bastian Present Councilperson Dale Carlson Present Councilperson Fran Juker Present Councilperson George Rossbach Present Councilperson Joseph Zappa Present Others Present: City Manager Michael McGuire Assistant City Manager Gretchen Maglich City Attorney Patrick Kelly Director of Public Works Ken Haider C. NEW BUSINESS 1. Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance /Model Wetlands Ordinance Director of Public Works Haider presented the proposed drafts of a grading and erosion control ordinance and a model wetlands ordinance. Following some discussion, it was the consensus of the City Council to place the draft grading and erosion control ordinance on a future City Council meeting agenda for consideration. 2. Property Acquisition Update City Manager McGuire presented a status report of the negotiationswithownersofthepropertiesonthecornerofWhiteBearAvenue and East County Road B. The City Council directed City er McGuire to Manager proceed with g p h the negotiations far the possible purchaseofthePearson, Monette, Wicklander, and Wonder Bread ro erties.p p The City Council directed staff to investigate the possibilit of using he two homes on t y g he Fulk property for community meetingroomspace. 3. Commissioner's Recognition Event Assistant City Manager Magl ich presented the different options for the dinner /lunch and gift possibilities for the Commissioners' recognition event. It was the consensus of the City Council that 1) the event be held on the evening of Saturday, June 29, 1991, at the Maplewood Days Inn, and 2) only the new Commissioners would receive a gift (a City portfolio stamped with their name). This gift is to be presented to the new Commissioners at one of their regular Commission meetings. 4. Commissioners' Terms The report regarding the Commissioners' terms, length of service, and attendance was discussed. 5. Take Home Car Policy City Manager McGuire presented his report and recommendation regarding the current take home car policy. Following considerable discussion, Councilmember Zappa moved that all take home cars be eliminated with the exception of the canine officers. There was no second, and the motion died. It was the consensus of the City Council that this item would be discussed again at a future meeting. 6. Miscellaneous Updates City Manager McGuire stated that there will be no action by the 1991 State Legislature on proposed legislation regarding Ramsey County's suburban courts and the consolidation of police services. City Manager McGuire also provided an update on the union /management 1991 contract negotiations. Councilmember Carlson left the meeting at 7:18 p.m. Councilmember Juker presented some information regarding the Fire Departments' audit report which will be discussed on Monday, April 8, 1991, at 6:30 p.m. E. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7 :32 p.m. A MINUTES OF MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 7:00 P.M., Monday, April 8, 1991 . Council Chambers, Municipal Building Meeting No 91 -07 A. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City Council of Maplewood, Minnesota was held in the Council Chambers, Municipal Building, and was called to order at 7:04 P.M. by Mayor Bastian, B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE C. ROLL CALL Gary W. Bastian, Mayor Present Dale H. Carlson, Councilmember Present Frances L. Juker, Councilmember Present George.F. Rossbach,. Councilmember Present Joseph A. Zappa, Councilmember Present D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilmember Zappa moved to approve the minutes of Meeting No. 91 -06 (March 25, 1991.) as corrected: 1. Item L, 1, b: add and specified 3- particular areas of concern: (a) grade crossings, (b) possible cut - through to Highway 61, and (c) path for shuttle to Mall area." 2. Item G, 4 h. should actually be Item G. 2 19 . 3. Item L. 4, a. change to "Councilmember Zappa . ." Seconded by Councilmember Juker Ayes Councilmembers Carlson, Juker, Rossbach, Zappa Abstain - Councilmember Zappa E. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mayor Bastian moved to approve the Agenda as amended. 1. N.E.S.T. 2. 375 E. Roselawn 3. Champion Auto Sign 4. Recycling 5. Park Commission /Council 6. Firefighter Relief Association Meeting 7. Attorney- Client Session to discuss pending litigation (after Item J) 8. Set date for 1990 Audit Meeting Seconded by Councilmember Zappa Ayes - all 1 4 -8 -91 i F. CONSENT AGENDA 3 t Counci 1 member. Zappa moved, seconded by Counci I member Carlson; Ayes - all , to approve the Consent Agenda items !,through 4 as recommended: 1 Approval of Ci aims Approved the following claims: ACCOUNTS PAYABLE: $ 654,839.96 Checks #12064 --12145 Dated 03 -13 -91 thru 03 -29 -91 3124975.5.1 Checks #12685 -12793 Dated 04 -08 -91 967 Total per attached voucher /check register PAYROLL : $ 125, 517.06 Payrol l Checks dated 03 -29 -91 10,227.79 Payroll Deductions dated 03-29-91 135, 744.85 Total Payroll 1,103,560.32 GRAND TOTAL 2. Authorization to Dispose of 1984 Records 91 -04 -43 RESOLUTION FOR DESTRUCTION OF CITY RECORDS WHEREAS M.S.A. 138.17 governs the destruction of city records; and WHEREAS, a list of records has. been presented to the Council with a request in writing that destruction be approved by the Council; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA, I. That the Finance Director is hereby directed to apply to the Minnesota State Historical Society for an order authorizing destruction of the records as described in the attached list. 2 That upon approval by the State of the attached appl i cation, the Finance Director is hereby authorized and directed to destroy the records listed. 3. Contract for Insurance Consultant Services Approved a three -year contract with Preferred Risk Consultants for insurance consultant services. 4. Selection of Insurance Agents Appointed Ekbl ad, Pardee & Bewel l , Inc., Hadtrath & Associates, Inc. and American Agency be the City's agents for obtaining quotes for property /casualty insurance. 2 4 -8 -91 G. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 7:00: Lot Width Variation & Lot Split: Frost Avenue & Adele Street KastnerC ) a. Mayor Bastian convened the meeting for a public hearing regarding a lot width variation and lot split. b. Manager McGuire presented the staff report. C. Director of Community Development Olson presented the specifics of the report. d. Mayor Bastian -opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents,P P pp The following person was heard: Mr. Gary Kastner, the applicant e. Mayor Bastian closed the public hearing. f. Commissioner Anitzberger presented the Planning commission report. g . Council member zappa introduced the following Resod ut i on and moved its adoption: 91 -04 -44 SUBDIVISION CODE VARIATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Gary Kastner applied for a variation from the subdivision code. WHEREAS, the legal description is: Lots 11 through 16, Block 4, Kavanagh & Dawsons Addition to Gladstone, Ramsey County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, Section 30- (f) (b) (1) of the Maplewood Code of Ordinances requires that corner lots have a minimum width of 100 feet. WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing a corner lot width of 83.1 feet. WHEREAS, this requires a variation of 16.9 feet. WHEREAS, the history of this variation is as follows: 1. The Planning Commission discussed this variation on March 4, 1991. They recommended that the City Council approve,the variation. 2. The City Council held a public hearing on April 8, 19910 City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The Council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The Council also considered reports and recommendations from the City staff and Planning Commission. IOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the above - described variation for the following reasons: 1. This variation would not affect the plan and. spirit of the ordinance. 2. Someone could build a house on this lot that meets all setback requirements. 3 4 -8 -91 3. The City has approved similar variations. Seconded by.Councilmember Carlson Ayes - Mayor Bastian, Councilmembers Carlson, Zappa 0 Nays - Councilmembers Juker, Rossbach h. Counci Imember Zappa moved to ap prove the. lot split to create three 1 ots subject to the following conditions 1. The applicant removing the two sheds from Tract B before the City signs the new deeds. 2. The applicant recording the new deeds within one year of this approval. 3. Removal of yard debris that exists. 4. Houses must conform to City Housing Codes and applicant must obtain necessary permits. 5. Replace curb on Frost Avenue and have no access to Frost. 6. House to have Adele Street address. Seconded by Councilmember Carlson Ayes - Mayor Bastian, Councilmembers Carlson, Zappa Nays - Councilmembers Juker, Rossbach 2. 7 :15: South of Minnehaha Avenue: Land Us-e Plan (4 Votes) Zoning Map Change (4 Votes) a. Mayor Bastian convened the meeting for a public hearing regarding the Land Use Plan and Zoning Map Change. b. Manager McGuire presented the staff report. c. Director of Community Development Olson presented the specifics of the report. d. Commissioner Anitzberger presented the Planning Commission Report. e. Mayor Bastian opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents. The following persons were heard: Phyllis Schwartz, 649 Ferndale Street Hesiem Qureshi, 900 Mendakota, Mendota Heights Jim Embertson, 585 Ferndale Robert Schwartz, 649 Ferndale Street Harold Pearl, 657 Ferndale Fransico Cahle, 2707 Margaret Bernard Mehr; 687 Ferndale Tom Anquist, 635 No. Ferndale Kim Cahle, 2707 Margaret f. Mayor Bastian closed the public hearing. 4 4 -8 -91 g . Councilmember Zappa introduced the following Res.ol ,ut i on and moved its adoption: 91 -04 -45 LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Maplewood City Council initiated a change to the City's land use plan from RH (residential high density) to RL (residential.low density). WHEREAS, this change applies to the property identified as Group One in the February, 1991 staff report. These are 2504 through 2550 and 2648 through 2688 Mi nnehaha Avenue. The property identification numbers are 36- 29 -22 -12 -0019, 36 -29- 2 2- 12.0020, 36- 29- 22 -12- 0021 36- 29- 22 -12- 0022, 36- 29 -22 -12 -0023, 36- 29 -22 -12 -0024, 36- 29- 22 -12- 0025,36- 29- 22 -12- 0026 ,36- 29- 22 -11- 0002,36- 29 -22 -11 -0005, 36-29-22-11 - 0006, 36- 29 -22 -11 -0009 36- 29 -22 -11 -0010 and 36- 29 -22 -11 -0060. WHEREAS, the history of t h i s change i s. as follows. 1. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 4, 1991. City staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The Planning Commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that the plan amendment be approved. 2. The City Council discussed. the plan amendment on April 8, 1991. They considered reports and recommendations from the Planning Commission and City staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the above-described change for the following reasons 1. The change would be consistent with the goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan, 2. The RL classification would be more compatible with the existing land uses than with the RH classification, 3. There are no plans to redevelop these lots with m u l t i p l e dwellings. Seconded by Councilmember Carlson Ayes - all g. Councilmember Rossbach introduced the following Resolution and moved. its adoption: 91 - 04 - 46 LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Maplewood City Council initiated a change to the City's land use plan from RH (residential high density) to OS (open space). WHEREAS, this change applies to the property identified as Group Two in the February, 1991 staff report. These are on the corner of Mi nnehaha and Ferndale. The. property identification numbers are 36- 29 -22 -11 -0010, 36- 29- 22 -11- 0011, 36-29-22-12 - 0001, 36- 29- 22 -12- 0002 36- 29 -22 -12 -0003 and 36- 29722 -12- 0004. The legal description i s Lots 4 and 5, B1 ock 2, Farrel 1's Addi ti on, and Lots 1 through 5, B1 ock One, Mi my Acres Addition. ki 4 -8 -91 WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows 1. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 4, 1991. City staff published a hearing notice in the. Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The. Planning Commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak -and present written statements. The Planning Commission recommended to.the City. Council that the plan amendment be approved. 2.0 The City Councill discussed the plan amendment on April 8, 1991. They considered reports and recommendations from the Planning Commission and City staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the above - described change for the following reasons: 1. The change would be consistent with the goals and policies in the comprehensive plan. 2. Development restrictions on these properties because of the wetlands prohibit any filling or building on them. Seconded by Councilmember Carlson Ayes - all h. Councilmember Zappa introduced the following Resolution and moved its adoption: 91 - 04 - 47 LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Maplewood City Council i n i t i a t e d a change to the City's land use plan from RH (residential high density) to OS (open space). WHEREAS, this change applies to the property located on the northwest corner of Margaret Street and Century Avenue identified as Group Three in the February, 1991 staff report. The property identification numbers are 36- 29 -22 -11 -0021 and 36- 29 -22- 11- 0022. The legal description is Lots 9 and 10, Block One of Farrell's Addition. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 4, 1991. City staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The Planning Commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that the plan amendment be approved. 2. The City Council discussed the plan amendment on April 8, 1991. They considered reports and recommendations from the Planning Commission and City staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the above- described change for the following reasons: 10 The change would be consistent with the goals and policies in the comprehensive plan. 6 4 -8 -91 2. The City is planning a storm water pond that will cover the entire site. Seconded by Councilmember Carlson Ayes - all i Councilmember Zappa introduced the following Resolutions and moved their adopt i on 91 -04 -48 LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood initiated a change to the City's land use planfromDR (development- research) and RH (residential high density) to LSC (limited service commercial) and OS (open space). WHEREAS, this change applies to the property located west of Carlton Street, south of the extension of the Margaret Street right -of -way and the wetlands and paneling on the 3M property. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1 . The Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 4, 1991. C i t y staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. as required by law. The Planning Commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that the plan amendment be approved. 2. The City Council discussed the plan amendment on Aril 8, 1991. Theyy considered reports and recommendations from the Planning Commission and City staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the above-described change for the following reasons: 1. The change would be consistent with the goals and policies in the comprehensive plan. 2. This site is part of the Carlton Racquetball Club site which the City is planning for LSC use. 3. High density residential development is not likely on this site because of the wetlands. 91 -04 -49 RESOLUTION: ZONING NAP CHANGE WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood initiated a change for the zoning map from R -3 multiple - dwelling residential) to M -1 (light manufacturing.) WHEREAS, this change applies to the property located west of Carlton Street south of the extension of the Margaret Street rig descriptionThelegaldescrition is the South 660 feet of the following properties: 7 4-8 -91 1. Except the North 324 feet; the part lying west of Carlton Street of following: The East 1/2 of West 112 of the East 3/4 of Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 (subject to road and easements) in Section 36, Township 29, Range 22, (PIN 36-- 29- 22 -12- 0018)0 2. Subject to avenue and sewer easement and except West 100 feet, the West 112 of West 1/2 of East 3/4 of Northwest 1/4 of Northeast 1/4 of Section 36, Township 29, Range 22, (PIN 36- 29- 22 -12- 0020). 3. Subject to avenue and sewer easement, the West 100 feet of East 3/4 of Northwest 1/4 of Northeast 1/4 of Sect.. 36, Township 29, Range 22, (PIN 36- 29- 22-12 - 0021). WHEREAS, the h i. story of this change is as follows: 10 On March 4, 1991, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the change. 20 The City Council held a public hearing on April 8, 1991. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The Council gave everyone at-the hearing an opportunity to speak and present written statements. The Council also considered reports and recommendations from the City staff and Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the above-described change in the zoning map for the following . reasons : lo The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning . code . 2. The proposed change wi 1 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 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. The proposed change would be consistent with the proposed LSC land use designation. 6. Multiple- family development is not likely on this site because of the wetlands. Seconded by Councilmember Carlson Ayes - all 3. 7:45: Maryland Avenue, Between McKnight Rd. and Lakewood Dr. Land Use Plan Change (4 Votes) Zoning Map Change (4 Votes) a. Mayor Bastian convened the meeting for a public hearing regarding a Land Use Plan change and Zoning Map change between McKnight Road and Lakewood Drive. 8 4 -8 -91 b. Manager McGuire presented the staff report. c. Director of Community Development Olson resented the specifics of the report,ort. P P d. Commissioner Anitzberger presented the Plannin Commission report.9 p e. Mayor Bastian opened the public hearing, callin for proponents or opponents.9 P P ppThefollowingwasheard . Vern Patten, 1262 No. McKnight f Mayor Bastian closed the public hearing. g. Councilmember Rossbach moved to take no action and leave the current Land. Use Plan and , zon Seconded by Mayor Bastian Ayes - all 4. 8 :15 :. Code Change: Underground Sprinklers 1st Reading)g) a. Mayor Bastian convened the meeting for a public hearing regarding a change in the code governing underground sprinklers. b. Manager McGuire presented the staff report. C. Director of Community Development Olson presented the specifics of the report, d. Mayor Bastian opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents, None were heard. e. Mayor Bastian closed the public hearing. f. Councilmember Juker moved to take no action. Seconded by Councilmember Zappa Ayes - Councilmembers Carlson, Juker, Rossbach, Zappa Nays - Mayor Bastian 5. 8 :30: Code Change: Temporary Signs (1st Reading) a. Mayor Bastian convened the meeting for a public hearing regarding a change in the node governing temporary signs. b. Manager McGuire presented the staff report. c. Director of Community Development Olson presented the specifics of the report. d. Mayor Bastian opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents. e. Mayor Bastian closed the public hearing. f. Councilmember Rossbach moved first reading to amend the code reqardinq tem orar signs to include any banner, portable sign, advertisin balloon, searchlight,manual .or electronic noise amplification systems Seconded by Councilmember Zappa Ayes - all 9 4 -8 -91 g.. Council requested the Community Design Review Board take a look at the partially deflated balloon on the ReMax building, 1y 60 8:45: Liquor License. Chalet Lounge - McDonough a. Mayor Bastian convened the meeting for a public hearing regarding an appl i cation for a liquor license. b. Manager McGuire presented the staff report. c. Mayor Bastian opened the public hearing, calling for proponents or opponents. The following was heard:. Tom McDonough, the applicant d. Mayor Bastian closed the public hearing. e. Councilmember Zappa introduced the following Resolution and moved its adoption: 91 - 04 - 50 APPROVAL OF LIQUOR iICENSE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that pursuant to action by the City Council of the City of Maplewood on April 8, 1991, an On Sale Intoxicating Liquor License was approved for Thomas J. McDonough, dba Chalet Lounge at 1820 Rice Street. The Council proceeded in this mutter as outlined under the provisions of the City Ordinances. Seconded by Councilmember Bastian Ayes - all H. AWARD OF BIDS 1. Recycling Containers a. Manager McGuire presented the staff report. b. Assistant Manager Maglich presented the specifics of the report c. Councilmember Zappa moved to accept the EXT bid of $4.81 for a 4 -.bag container and authorize purchase of 7,250 containers. Seconded by Mayor Bastian Ayes - all I. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1, Market Analysis for Proposed Community Center a. Manager McGuire presented the staff report. b. Rebecca Yount, Springsted, Inc. explained their proposal. 10 4 -8 -91 c. Mayor Bastian moved to approve the agreement perform _a market anal ys i,s. and reve_nuelco_st_ proposed .community center fgr an amount not t Seconded by Councilmember Carlson Ayes Nays wiitpri Inc. to projection study for the o exce ed . $12 Mayor- Bastian, Councilmembers Carlson, Juker, Rossbach Councilmember Zappa d. Don Wiegert, member of the Community Center Advisory Commission, spoke on behalf of the proposal. 2. Land Use Plan Change: Maryland Ave. &Lakewood Drive, Southeast Corner (4 Votes) a. Manager McGuire presented the staff report. b. Community Development Director Olson presented the specifics of the report c. Mayor Bastian asked if anyone wished to speak before the Council regarding this matter. The following were heard: Richard Sagstetter, part owner Richard Webb, developer of a senior project Richard Schreier, 2125 Desoto d. Mayor Bastian moved to have staff prepare a resolution. regarding land use change from RM to RH.and.submit it to Council for property relating to senior citizen housing. Seconded by Councilmember Zappa Ayes all 3. Code Change: R -1S District (2nd Reading - 4 Votes) a. Manager McGuire presented the staff report. b. Councilmember Zappa introduced the following Ordinance and moved its adoption: ORDINANCE NO, 684 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE R -2 (DOUBLE- DWELLING RESIDENCE) ZONING DISTRICT AND CREATING THE R -1S (SMALL LOT SINGLE - DWELLING RESIDENCE) ZONING DISTRICT THE MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. , Section 36 -9 is amended as follows: Section 36 -9. Zoning districts. 11 4 -8 -91 Sec. 36 -411. Appearance and screening. The operator shall: 1) Keep machinery in good repair and paint it regularly; 2) Remove abandoned machinery, equipment and rubbish from the site; 3) Have all structures necessary to the operation of the site approved by the City Council at the time that the Council approves the conditional use permit; 4) Remove all equipment and temporary structures not later than six (6) months after ending the operation or expiration of -the permit; 5) Where practical, use stockpiles of overburden and materials, including pl anti ngs, to screen the site; 6). Plant trees, berm or screen the perimeter of the site as required by the City Council. The Council may also l i m i t the height of material piles, where they would be visible to adjacent properties; 7) Preserve existing tree and ground cover where feasible, including the transplanting of trees, shrubs and other ground cover along all setback areas. Sec. 36 -417. Operations; noise; hours; explosives; dust water pollution; topsoil preservation; vibration. The following standards shall apply to any operation permitted under this article: 1) The noise level at the perimeter of the site shall be within the limits set by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2) shall not start before 7:00 a.m. nor continue after 7:00 p.m. 3) The operator shall not use explosives. 4) Operators shall use all practical means to reduce the amount of dust caused by the operation. The amount of dust or other particulate matter shall not exceed the standards of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. If a problem develops, the City shall have the authority to stop the operation until the problem is solved. 5). Operators shall obey all applicable city, county, state and federal regulations for the protection of water quality, including the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Federal Environmental Protection Agency regulations for the protection of water quality. No waste products or process residue, including untreated wash water, shall be deposited in any lake, stream or natural drainage system. 6) The operator shall retain all topsoil at the site until complete rehabilitation of the site has taken place according to the r e h a b i l i t a t i o n plan, 7) The operator shall not allow any equipment on the site to cause vibrations on adjacent property. 18 4 -8 -91 Seca 36 -418., Rehabilitation. The operator shall: 1 ) Start r e h a b i l i t a t i n g the site as quickly as p o s s i b l e after the mining operation has moved into another part of the site. 2) Rehabilitate the site in accordance with the rehabilitation plan. No rehabilitation slopes shall be steeper than five (5) feet horizontal to one foot vertical ; except that the City may permit steeper sl opes i f the Ci ty has approved them for recreational uses such as ski and sliding hills. 3) Cover all slopes and graded areas with at least three (3) inches of topsoil and plant such areas with enough ground cover to hold the soil. The operator shall maintain.such ground cover until it is self - sustained. 4) Eliminate all water areas resulting from excavation upon rehabilitation of the site, unless these water areas are on the approved plan.. 5) Grade the site so that no part, except land planned for open space, shall be lower than the minimum required for connection to a sanitary or storm sewer. Sec. 36 -419. The Council, in approving a conditional use permit under Article IV, may require an advisory body constituted pursuant to its motion on the permit. Secs, 6- 420 - -36 -435. Reserved, Section 4. This ordinance, shall take effect upon its passage and publication. Seconded by Councilmember Zappa Ayes.- all c. Councilmember Zappa moved to place a planning fee change in Section 36. Seconded by Mayor Bastian Ayes - all J. NEW BUSINESS 1. 1991 Budget Cuts a. Manager McGuire presented the staff report. b. Mayor Bastian moved to adopt the budget cuts as outlined in the report. Seconded by Councilmember Zappa Ayes - all 19 4 -8 -91 2. Maple Leaf Sculpture a. Councilmember Rossbach presented the staff report. b. Mayor Bastian donated $50.00 in the name of Christopher and Alexander Bastian toward the purchase of the Maple Leaf Sculpture. c. Councilmember Zap.pa moved to order the Maple Leaf Sculpture from Copper Land in Michigan to be paid for from donations. Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes - all 30 1991 Dispatching Contracts A. Manager McGuire presented the staff report. b. Mayor Bastian moved approve the dispatching agreements between the City and North St. Paul , Woodbury Fire Department. Oakdale fire Department and East County Line Fire Department /Oakdale Ambulance. Seconded by Council Juker Ayes - all K. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS 1. Frank Frattalone Mr. Frattal one asked the Council to reconsider his application for recycling mining operation. No action taken Mayor Bastian moved to suspend the Rules of Procedure to meet until 11:00 P.M. Seconded by Councilmember Carlson Ayes - all Mayor Bastian moved to suspend the Rules of Procedure to delete the Attorney/Client closed session from the Agenda. Seconded by Councilmember Carlson Ayes - all L. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS 1. N.E.S.T. a. Councilmember Zappa moved to suspend the Rules of Procedure to consider this item. Seconded by Mayor Bastian Ayes - all b. Councilmember Zappa reported he and Councilmember Rossbach had attended a meeting at 3M about a seminar to apprise citizens of services available to them. Z 20 4 -8 -91 c. Councilmember Zappa moved to authorize an. expenditure of $10.00 to provide a donation of a N.E. &J. ticket for the 3M seminar. Seconded by Mayor Bastian d. Councilmember Rossbach reported that North St. Paul and Oakdale are each donating a.N.E.S.T. ticket. 2. 375 East Roselawn Ayes - all a, Councilmember Zappa requested information regarding when the property at 375 E. Roselawn which was damaged by fire will be cleaned up. b. Staff stated the resident has received bids and has until Friday (4/-20) to start the clean -up. If they do not start` by then, the City will start on Monday. 3. Champion Auto Sign a. Councilmember Juker commented on the poor appearance of the Champion Auto Sign on North St. Paul Road. b. Councilmember Juker moved to direct staff to investigate and determine what can be done to improve.the sign. Seconded by Mayor Bastian Ayes - all 4. Recycling a. Mayor Bastian reported that one of the common comments at the Recycling Forum related to dissatisfaction with having to put the recycling materials on the curb by 6:30 a.m. b. Mayor Bastian moved to direct staff to investigate recycl i ng and garbage pick up times, Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes -. all c. Mayor Bastian asked if the City would have a "wood pile" at the recycling center on City property as it did last year, and whether the City can institute a wood chipping or burning operation. Council directed staff to investigate options and make recommendations. 5. Council /Park and Recreation Commission Meeting a. Mayor Bastian requested a meeting with the Park.and Recreation Commission to discuss park planning procedures and open space. b. Councilmember Zappa moved to direct staff to establish a meeting date with the Park and Recreation Commission. Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes - all 21 4 -8 -91 6 . Fi ref i ghters Rel i of Commi ttee t: 0f a Mayor Bastian stated there is an interest in sitting - down. with the Mayor, Manager, Public Safety Director, Finance Director and the Firefighters Relief Committee to discuss the relief payments. b. Councilmember Zappa moved to have a report regarding the nature of the City contributions made to the Rel_i of Association of the volunteer fire department. Seconded by Mayor Bastian Ayes - all M. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS 1. Meeting - 1990 Audit a. Mayor Bastian moved to establish a meeti ng date of April 22, 1991 at 6:30 p.m. to review the 1990 Audit. Seconded by Councilmember Zappa Ayes - all N. ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING Meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m. 22 4 -8 -91 Act n bY counoi . v Fnaorsed MEMORANDUM 14®d.if i e - To Michael A. McGuire City Maner peg ected From :. Robert D. Odegard, Director of Parks & Recreati Date w.. Subj Park and Recreation Comaaiss Appointment Date: April 16, 1991 The Park and. Recreation Commission has had an opening due to the death of Voya Piletich. The four applicants responded to the request in the MM,ewood Review for persons interested in the• Park. and Recreation Commission: Jef Carver, 2293 Snowshoe Lane Thomas Ginzl, 2.441 Nemitz Kimberly Leo, 2951 N. McKnight Roa Keith Turnquist, 2550 Valley View All of the applicants were requested to attend the Park and Recreat Commiss meet on Apr 15, 1991. The Park and Recreation Commissio interviewed Mr . Carvers Mr. Ginz and Mr. Turnquist and discussed their qualifications., The Commission members voted by secret ballot using a point system. All candidates were given either 3, 2 or 1 point. The candidate with the highest number of points is being recommended to f the three year term expiring December 31, 19930 It is the recommendation of the Park and Recreation Commission that.Jeff Carver of 2293 Snowshoe Lane be appointed to the term expiring December 31, 1993. Atto Applications of Candidates c: City Clerk MEMORANDUM TO FROM: SUBJECT: DATEO INTRODUCTION Cit Council Plannin Commission Plannin Commission Annual Report April 2, 1991 Action by CounOil Endorse Modif ied.---_ Reected.....-- ate Cit Code states that one of the Plannin Commission's duties is to review, prepare and report to the Cit Council about the Commission's activities in the past year and major projects for the new year.. 1990 ACTIVITIES The Commission considered the followin 17 chan to the Cit Land Use Plan 1 Planned unit development 20 changes to the zonin map 6 preliminar plats 4 chan to the zonin ordinance 9. conditional use permits 1 home occupationP 11 vacations of ri or easements 5.variances miscellaneous items Thehi number of chan to the Land Use Plan and zonin map were because of the updatin of the Comprehensive Plan. 1991 ACTIVITIES The major task fo 1991 will be to complete the update of the Comprehensive Plan., The Cit has held most of the land use hearin re b the Council. The text for the parks and housin chapters are about done. A draft should be read for the Council b mid-summer, The Commission would also like to discuss lon goals for the Cit at a special-work session, possibl With the Cit Co We have also started stud chan to the PUD ordinance and plan to take a tour of development in the Citye 1990 ATTENDANCE Name A ; ,pointed Term Expires 1990 Attendance William Rossbach 10-10-89 91 19 out of 2 0 Gary Pearson 12 -10 -90 1 -91 3 out of 3 Robert Cardinal 2 -11 -85 1 -91 14 out of 20 Gary Gerke 10-1101-89 16-92 19 out of 20 Brian Sinn -4 124 -90 1 -92 13 out of 14 Jack Frost 12-10-90 1-92 3 out of 3 Vacancy.1 -92 Roger Anitzberger 4 -24 -90 1 -93 7 out of 14 Lorraine Fischer 1970 1 -93 20 out of 20 Marvin Sigmundik 3 -14 -83 1 -93 12 out of 20 Lester Axdahl 8 -8 -74 1 -93 16 out of 20 MEMBERS WHO RESIGNED IN 1990 Dennis Larson 4 --9 -84 Sue Fiola 4- -28 -86 Ralph Sletten 4 -3 -80 Michael Ayers 9 -28 -87 Richard'Barrett since at least 1970 go/memo 8.mem (6.1) 2 C Maplewood Planning Commission -4- Minutes 4 71 -91 The commission opened the meeting to the public for those people who wou d -not be able o attend the next meeting and wished t comment. Gerald Hanson, 1783 Ho rd Stre t, -said there are enough existing multiple dwel ngs in this neighborhood. Mr. Hanso qu boned why.the pond, included as part-of this elopment - proposal , was. not purchased by the City when and next to the pond was purchased for a ponding s ent.. The director of public works explained e'e sting drainage pattern and, also, that. the de eloper, will be required to get approval and .obtain p rmits fr_ m the Corp of Engineers, Department of Natures Resources and Watershed District in order ' to f ill t s wetland. Commissioner Fis er moved the Pla ping Commission table this item at the request of t e applicant until the. next meet i g0_ Commissione Gerke seconded - Ayes-- An'tzberger, Axdahl, Cardinal., Fischer, Frost, Gerke, Martin, Pearson, Rossbach, Sinn The T?6tion passed. 60 UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Annual Report. Commissioner Fischer recommended that the names of members who resigned during the year be added to the attendance record and, also, suggested that a tour be added to 1991 planned activities.' Commissioner Rossbach proposed that future workshops be held for the Planning Commission to consider zoning goals for the City's comprehensive plan and a meeting with the City Council be planned to discuss future planning goals. 70 NEW BUSINESS _ a. Planned U it Dev lopments (PUDs) Commisscone R ssbach discussed previous workshops he has attended n PUDs, Commissioner Rossbach said that a well - plan ed UD ordinance is something that would A, MEMORANDUM T0: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT /OWNER: PROJECT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Preliminary Plat Time Extension Donald Nelson Gervais Overlook April. 14, 1991 SUMMARY INTRODUCTION Mr. Nelson is requesting City approval of a one -yeas time extension for the Gervais Overlook preliminary plat. (See the letter from his attorney on page 5.) BACKGROUND The City originally approved this preliminary plat on February 13, 1,984 The City has given the plat six one -year time extensions. The most recent extension was on March 26, 1990, subject to the original nine conditions. DISCUSSION Mr.. Nelson is selling this property to Argosy Investments of Minneapolis. Mr. , Dan Andersen of Anco Construction has contacted staff about the development needs and requirements on this site. He will be presenting plans to staff for this property soon. RECOMMENDATION Approve a- one-year time extension for the Gervais Overlook preliminary plat. REFERENCE Past Actions Februar 13, 1984*0 The Cit Council approved the 20-lot sin dwellin preliminar plat, subject to nine conditions. Februar 11, 1985: The Cit Council approved a one- time extension for this preliminar plat. September 23, 1985: The Cit Council conditionall approved the l .Frattalone final plat for the five westerly lots (Twelve throu Sixteen) of the development. Februar 10,, 1986, Februar 9, 1987, Februar 8.,, .1988,, Februar 27 1989 and March 26I * 1990: The Cit Council approved one- 10timeextensions for part of the Gervais Overlook preliminar plat. These time extensions were for the part of the plat not included in the Frattalone Addition (Block One and Lots One throu Eleven, Block Two), Planning Section 30-5 (e) of the Cit Code state "For one-year following Preliminary plat approval and for two (2.) years followin final approval, unless the subdivider and the Cit a otherwise, no amendment to a comprehensive plan or official control shall appl to or affect the use, development densit lot size, lot la or dedication or plattin re or permitted b the approved application. Thereaft = purs to its'.,re the city may . extend the .period ,by.a with the subdivider and subject to. all applicable _ and reguirements, or 1 0 t m sub m , recruire su mission of .. a new aDDlication., unless substantial ph activit n aditadinvestmenthasoccurred in reasonable reliance on the approved application and the subdivider will suffer substantial financial dama as a conse of a re to submit ,a new application. off kr\me,mo2.mem Attachments i Location Map 2. Preliminar Plat 3, Applicant's attorne letter of request t N W O d' C M 61 69 VADNA /S HEIGH 3 19 CO RD 0 120 N. z W 4 19 W BEAM AV ""r 2880 N. Q z N Q oA-cj w 2 Koh 1mon Lake crGeo Lod sc ' KOHLMAN v AQC. N J o J CO RD .. w .. 2640 N. - Z wr : J N 23 w (1 ti AaJPAEL.M C Cr W j PALM } / o J`• WWCR20vYr _ z CONNOR GpN R - -- 3 / PL A ZA CIR C MON AV (1) CONNOR AVo g V 2 ALVERADO DR o o 3 BEL LCREST OR F- 0" ,Z 4 DEAUVILLE OR 22 W gR0 5 MERIDIAN OR w Q 0 f PQ II 2 GERVAIS AV 35 0 2400 N. PKiNY L 58 LARX : o Keller Loke ktN URIE RD W H o ac yJ O CO RD B 4 ai BURKE AV F•- N N N cr _ j ELDRIDGE AV a w a z ELDRI GE AV ° ® ' • 1 k v QvOehrlne P cn N NT LA m Loke ELM NT qBELMOE'RGE AV "'N N t UA d/ N COPg _ CT COPE AV H LARK AV w N CO o R D v LELAND RD a 25 a JUNCTION Ali 0 E AV ac I 1) CHAMBERS ST N (I)ao E B SKI j ILLMAN LOCATION MAP 3 ATTACHMENT 1 W dov c,yv . Applicant's Site 1 t PRELIMINARY PLAT'FOR 20 LOTSJ - Final p•1 atted as the Frattalone addition on 9- -23 -85 • 4 Attachment 2 i JOHN E. DAUBNEY JANET C. FESLER • March 19, 1991 LAW OFFICES JOHN E. DAUBNEY ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 700 LANDMARK TOWERS 345 ST. PETER STREET ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 FAX (612) 224-1162 612) 224 -4345 ALSO ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN CITY OF MAPLEWOOD ATTN: Mr. Kenneth Roberts, Associate Planner 1830 E. County Road B Maplewood MN 55109 RE: Gervais Overlook - Preliminary Plat Time Extension My Client: Donald G. Nelson Dear Mr. Roberts: Mr. Nelson contacted our office through a third party last Friday. Mr. Nelson does request a further extension for final plat approval. Mr. Nelson is in the process of selling the subject parcel to Argosy Investments, Limited of Minneapolis. I was told that Dan Anderson, agent for the buyer, delivered a copy of the purchase agreement, and attachments, to the City on March 15, 1991. The purchase agreement is dated March 8, 19910 As of today, the buyer shall pursue the request for an extension. If my information is incorrect, please call me. Very truly yo J-o E . DaubneyAtNrneys,for Donald G. CF lid CC : Client elson 5 Attachment 3 CITY -WIDE WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT, PROJECT 90 -07 Chanae in Assessment Name and Address Area PIN Old C ange New Carl Jr. & -Jose hine L. Pedrop 4 08- 29- 22--44 -0028 21, 000 Delete:1 water ,14 , 0.00..... 797 Belmont Lane E.sewer,storm U. Maplewood, MN 55117 -2205 1 wat,swr. sere. Thomas J. & Florence Morris 2 01- 29 -22 -22 -0090 7,750 Delete:1 water l 7,000 James W. Hunt service 2348 Gall Avenue E. Maplewood, MN 55109 -1530 Horizon Child Care Partners II 7 11- 29- 22 -33- 0006 7,451 Delete:1 water 5 3650 Annapolis Lane N.service comm.) Plymouth, MN 55447 -5434 Carl E. & Nancy Levake 8 11- 29 -22 -31 -0001 3 Delete:1 water 500 9625 Mendel Road main .&1 Stillwater, MN.55082-9492 service Roger D. & Marvin J. Anitzberger 8 11- 29 -22 -31 -0015 11,125 Delete:i.sewor 110,625 1949 Castle Avenue E.service Maplewood, MN 55109- 2207 Xelma M. Pitzl & Billy D. Queen 8 11- 29 -22 -31 -0016 3, 875 Delete:-.1-sewer,3 2060 Highway 36 E.service Maplewood, MN 55109 -2834 r Gary Kastner Construction, Inc.10 16- 29 -22 -42 -0017 7,Add: 1 sewer 7, 750 1623 Christie Place service St. Paul, MN 55106 -1312 Gordon C..& Dawn L..Youngren 10 16- 29 -22 -42 -0100 8 Delete:1 Water :&3 1082 Fenton Avenue E.storm U:,1 water Maplewood,. MN 55109 -424.5 sewer service Roland C. Brandt 10 16- 29- 22 -43- 004.7 1,250 Delete:1 water 500 1736 East Shore Drive service Maplewood, MN 55109 -4210 R. J. Farnsworth 14 09- 29 -22 -23 -0013 6,500 Delete:1 U.3 2500 Keller Parkway N..1 service Maplewood, MN 55109 -1916 Project 90 -07 3 April 15, 1991 Bids for this project were received on April 5, 1991. The low bld amount was $3 12 3 9 9 The anticipated total. expenditure for engineering, inspection:, and other indirect expenses is 830,000. 00. The total project costs based on the bid. results is 4 The actual total project costs substantially equal the current approved funding of $ Th proposed assessment recovery is tabulated as follows Area .. Assessment Recovery 1 $ 106,000.00 2 74 3 151,740.40 4 191 5 40,625.00 61 60, 625.00 - 7 177,563 .40 8 72,750.00 9 40,420.00 10 263 11 114,303.70 12 55,125.00 13 120, 000.00 14 74,375.00 15 0.00 Total $1,543.,678.25 The total assessment recovery is $60,321.75 less than the roject .assessment re P . 0coveryshownInthecurrentfinancingAcomparison of current financing and proposed change to cover decreased assessment recovery is given in the following table: PROJECT 90 -07 COSTS AND FUNDING Current from Proposed Based Feasibil on Actual Bid Report Assessment Roll Chancfe Construction cost $3,517,122*80 $3, 572 123 .99 + 001.19 Engineering and indirect 861,177,20 830 00.0.00 31 177.2 0 4,37.8,30.0.00 $4,402423 99 +$23 823.99 Assessments $1,604,000.00 $1,543,678.25 - $60,321.75 Proj ect 90 -07 4 April 15 1991 PROJECT 90-07 COSTS AND FUNDING ( Continued) Current from Proposed Based A& RESOLUTION ADOPTION OF THE ASSESSMENT ROLL WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the city council has met and heard and passed on all objections to the proposed assessment for the construction of City -Wide Water Main Extensions and Miscellaneous Improvements as described in the files of the city clerk as Project 90-07 and has amended such. proposed assessment as it deems just, NOW,.THEREFORE,:BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA: le Such proposed.assessment., as amended, a coy of which is attached hereto and made apart hereof., is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against. the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to .be benefited by the proposed improvement int he amount of the assessment levied against it. 29 Such assessment shall be'-payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 19 years , - the ' f first of the installments to be payable on or after the first Monday in January, 1992, and shall bear interest at the rate of eight (800) percent per annum from the date of the adoption. of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date this resolution until December 31,,.1992, .To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 30. It is hereby declared to be the intention of the council to reimburse itself in the future for the portion of the cost of this improvement paid for from municipal funds by levying additional assessments, on notice and hearing as. provided for the assessments herein made, upon any properties abutting on the improvement but not made, upon any properties abutting on the improvement but not herein assessed for the improvement, when changed conditions relating to such properties make such assessment feasible. 4. To the extent that this improvement benefits nonabutting properties which may be served by the improvement when one or.more later extensions or improvements are made, but which are not herein assessed, therefore, it is hereby declared to be the intention of the council, as authorized by Minnesota Statutes Section 420 051, to reimburse the city by adding any portion of the cost so paid the.assessments levied for any of such dater extension or improvements. 5. The clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to. the county auditor to be. extended don the property tax lists of the county, and such assessments. shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes i Aotior, by MEMORANDUM T.O City Manager _ modif ied- -- FROM: Director of Community DevelopmentSUBJECT: Code Change - Sideyard Setbacks tDATE:February 23, 19 91 #; The Planning Commission considered this subject at their last meeting and recommended.that the Council take no action. ThePlanningCommissionthouhttherewasnotenoughughneedforachange. I have added a new alternative three since then and am recommending it to the City Council. I am sending the revised report back to the Planning Commission to see ` if they want tochangetheirrecommendation. MEMORANDUM TO City Manager FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Associate.Planner SUBJECT: Code Change Sideyard Setbacks DATE. February 22, 1991 INTRODUCTION The City Council asked Staff to report back on the City's sideyardsetbackrequirementsforsingleanddoubledwellings. The Council wanted to know if this setback allows enough room for access to the rear of the lot by emergency and construction vehicles. BACKGROUND The City has always required a five -foot minimum side yard setback for single and double dwellings The Council added an additional requirement in 1985 for homes with less than 75 feet of frontage the total of both side yards must be at least 15 feet. The intent of this was to prevent smaller -lot single dwellings from crowding together. Council amended the Code in 1980 to require a five -foot minimum side setback for all garages. Code had allowed a one -foot setback if the garage was 20 feet or more behind the house. ALTERNATIVES 1. Require at least a ten -foot side yard setback on one side and five feet on the other side. 44% of the cities on the attached survey use this requirement. However, they require that the ten feet be on the house side and the five feet on the garage side. This method would cause a problem in code interpretation if a property owner only proposed to build a house or a house with a tuck -under garage. Should the house have two ten -foot side yards? Should the tuck -under garage have a ten or f ive - f oot side yard, s ince 'there i s apart of the house over the garage? Letting the homeowner choose the side solves this problem. If the Council chooses this alternative, they should consider increasing the minimum lot width. This would maintain the current buildable width. 2,P Require 15 feet of total side and setback, with a f ive -foot minimum. Code currently requires this for smaller lots in R -2 districts. The problem with this method is that the side Y and setbacks might be only 7 1/2 feet on each side. This may not be enough room for construction equipment. 1 3. Require that there be at -least ten feet of sideyard on one side of a house, only if there is enough room. otherwise the current requirement of five feet would apply. 4. Make no change. DISCUSSION I recommend alternative three. The City should encourage, but not require a ten - foot sideyard setback, unless there is enough room. There is not enough publ need to be more restric I have not heard of any complaints from homeowners about the City -s sdeyard setback requirements. The Director of Publ .Safety believes that the current requirement is adequate for fire fighting or for access to an injured person. There is merit, however, in having one side yard setback of ten feet. Homeowners would have better access to their backyards for construction projects or to store an RV. The need to get an RV in the back or side yard may become important in the future if the City ever decides to. prohibit them in the yard. A larger setback would also improve privacy. Most new homes have at least one ten -foot sideyard setback. We checked the side yard setbacks on the last 73 single. dwellingbuildingpermitsandfoundthat88% had at least one side yard greater than 10 feet.' 95 had an accumulated width of both side yards of 15 feet or more. The: City should require a ten -foot sideyard for single dwellingswithlessthan75feetoffrontage. The City already requires these homes to have a total of fifteen feet of sideyard setbacks, Lt should not be a problem in most cases to have one ten -foot side yard. RECOMMENDATION Adoption of the ordinance on page 4. This ordinance would increase the minimum sideyard setback for single- dwellin s fromg five to ten feet on one side and on both sides of a double dwelling, if there is enough room for the proposed dwelling. TESFOC?T File Code No. 5.1) Attachments I. Survey dated December 3, 1990 2. Ordinance 2 SURVEY December 3, 1990 What is the minimum sideyard setback for a single dwelling and garage? C House in , feet) Gar a a in feet Maplewood 5 5 Crystal 5 5 New.Brighton 5 5 Maple Grove 5 5 total of both s ideyards must equal 15 feet) Columbia Heights 7 7 South St. Paul 9 5 Brooklyn Center 10 3 Apple Valley 10 5 Fridley 10 5 Shoreview 10 5 White Bear Lake 10 5 New Hope 10 5 Cottage Grove 10 5 Inver Grove 10 5 Woodbury 10 5 Blaine 10 10 Lakeville 10 10 Eden Prairie 10 10 total of both sideyards must equal . 25 feet) Golden Valley 10% of lot width on both sides for lots under 70-feet-wide; 15% of lot width on both sides for lots between 70- and 100 -feet- wide; 15 feet on both sides for lots over 100- feet - wide. Attachment 1 C ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR SINGLE AND DOUBLE DWELLINGS THE MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): Section 1. Section 36 - 71, Side yards, in the R - 1 district are changed to read as follows: Each lot M Ulm= Di adL. shall have two (2) side yards, each having a width of at least five ( 5) feet, ee-t-- to --*Ehe - The followin exceptions =eA i shall apply- 1 The side yard on the street side of a corner lot shall have a width of at least thirty (30) feet Except that, if the majority of the dwellings on the same street and within three hundred (300) feet of the lot to be built on have a setback from that street that is different f,_ ma thirty (30) feet, then all buildings or additions that are I0ei -ear erected a or moved on that street shall conform to that predominant setback as a minimum. The City Council may approve _a A conditional use permit -- to construct an addition to a single dwelling when such addition, or part thereof, extends into a minimum setback. 2) A church or a school shall have a side yard of not less than fifty (50) feet on each side adjoining other property or thirty (30) feet from a public right -of- way. 3) When two (2) or more adjoining lots are used as a single building site, the side yard requirements shall apply only to the outside lot lines. (Code 1965, § 904.050; Ord. No. 487, § 904.050, 6 -5 -80; Ord. No. 576, 1 1-14-85) 4) The side yard shall be increased to at least ten feet on one side of a house if there is enoucah room for the pro osed_.house . Section 2. Section 36 -90, side yards in the R -2 district, are changed to read as follows: Each single - dwelling on a lot with less than 75 .feet of width ~ -' Resi -enee r.; -, - shall have a side yard of at least five (5) feet on one side of a lot and ten J10) feet on the other side. The side yard for accessory buildings shall be five feet. Each single- dwellingxlot with 75 feet or more of width shall have side of at least five feet on each side of the 4 Attachment 2 The side Yand on the street side of a corner lot shall have wa dth of at least th,i., rty,(3 0 ) feet Except that. if the major of the I dwel l inafs on the same street and within three hundred Q 00) feet of the lot to be built on have a setback ffrom that street that i s different from thirty (30) f eet then a l li. iwi. - __ __ ._.I _w...lw_.. buildings or I additions that are erected or moved onI . ICY .r ......_ . r __._. that street shall conform to that predominant setback1_11__1 1_. __ _I_..i..I_ . __ _wra .•__. as a minimum. The City Council may approve I a conditional use permit I _ to construct an addition to a single dwelling.,-when such addition, or part thereof extends into a_ minimum setback. 2 A church or , school shall have a side yard of not less than fifty (50) feet on each side adjoining other property o thirty (3 n) feet from a p bl is right-of way . 3 When two (2) or more adjoining lots are used as a single building site, the side yard requirements shall . apply only to the outside lot lines. 4) The s -ide yard ,shall be increased to at least ten feet on.one or both sides of a proposed double - dwelling if there i.s_ enough room for the DroDosed dwel l inI 11.x_.._.. 5) The side , yard shall be increased to at least ten _ f t on one side of a single- dwelling with feet Lor more of. lot width, if there is enough room for the proposed house. Section 5. This ordinance shall take effect upon its passage and publication. Passed by the Maplewood City Council ,19910 Plann ng.Commission Ono 6- Minutes .3-4-91 Road. s. Potter said if the pro erty is changed, the property wner at 1250 N. McKni t Road would like it changed to M -10 Commissioner Cardinal moved he Planning Commission recommend the ity Council leave the current land use plan designatio and zon` g. (Staff will show this area as R -2 on t e upda of the land . use plan . ) Commissioner Anitz r er seconded Ayes--- Anitzberger, Axdahl, Cardinal, Fischer, Frost, Gerke, Martin, Pearson, Sigmundik Nays-- Rossbach The motion posed. Commi/ Rossbach said he ted nay because he does not t is good planning to allow a large number of duto be built in one a a. Even though the propeers have paid assessme is for double - dwelling, Mr. Rossbach felt y g gnzonechar es shoulndled by the City on an individual basis at the r of each property owner. 60 UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Code Changes: Sideyard Setbacks Ken Roberts, Associate Planner, explained the proposed revisions made to the staff recommendation since the Planning Commission last considered this proposed code change,,to the City's sideyard setback requirements for single and double dwellings. Discussion was in favor of an ordinance which would require at least one ten -foot setback on one side of the house, since most of the houses being built in Maplewood are on lots large enough to meet this requirement, but the Commissioners agreed that an ordinance should require compliance, rather than determining whether a situation is acceptable to the property owner before requiring compliance. Commissioner Rossbach stated that after further consideration, he does not feel sheds or garages would be negatively affected, since the change in the sideyard setback requirements would only affect the house. Planning Commission 77- minutes, 3-4-91 The Commission discussed what problems would be incurred when a property owner proposes to build a deck which would intrude on the ten foot setback. Commissioner Cardinal.moved the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the ordinance which would increase the minimum sideyard setback for single dwel 1 ings from five to ten feet on one side and on both sides of a double dwelling, if there is enough room for the proposed dwelling. The motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Rossbach moved the Planning Commission recommend an ordinance be adopted which would require at least a ten -foot s ideyard setback on one side of a single dwelling and ten feet on each side of a double dwelling. Commissioner Gerke seconded The Commission discussed how this proposed change could affect setbacks on both new construction and existing homes and in what instances variances might be required. The Commission voted on the motion. Ayes- Martin, Rossbach, Pearson, Gerke, Anitzberger Nays -- Frost, Fischer, Axdahl, Cardinal,. Sigmundik The motion failed for lack of a majority. 7. NEW BUSI ESS a. Lot W dth Variati and.Lot Split: Frost Avenue & Adele treet (Ka nerd The Comm i sion iscussed details of the ownership of a portion o th property which the applicant of the lot width varia 'on and division does not now own. The Commis io discussed with the Director of Public Works pla s for street improvements for Adele Street. Commiss' ner Fisc r moved the Planning Commission recommend: AGENDA N0._ AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager FROM: Finance Director RE: AWARD OF BIDS - BANKING SERVICES DATE: April 16, 1991 Ac t" on b'Y COUncil: Enaors a d...---- -- lao dif J a d..-,- ----- Proposals for banking services are due by 9:00 a.m. on April 18th. A recommendation regarding the bid award will be made at the Council meeting on April 22nd. tmc MEMORANDUM To: Michael A. McGuire, City Manager From: Robert D. Odegard, Director of Parks & Recreati,, Sub], : Award Of Bid For Pia OAW.03iby 07PlaygroundEquipment Date: April 16, 1991 Endorsee Introduction Da The e .. Park and Recreation Commission has reviewed the bids for playground equipment at Harvest (256l.Barclay),. Hazelwood 1663 County Road C), Playcrest (2390 Lydia Avenue, Geranium 2568 Geranium Avenue), Sherwood ( 2237 Kennard Street) and Vista Hills (2480 Mailand Road) Parks. It is requested that the CityCounciawardthebidintheamountof $90 ,000 as indicated below in the recommendation. Background During the interest survey process for improvements to Neighbor - hood Parks, the community residents indicated a great desire for playground equipment. The Park and Recreation Commission created a committee on Playground Equipment chaired by Bonnie Qualle to review playground equipment available and to meet with suppliers.The comm has met numerous times over the ast eighteenPg months with the salesmen and has had an opportunity to examine not only the catalog information, but also examples of the mate - rials that are being used today playgroundforlaround The Park Commission set a budget of $15,000 for playground equip-P went at each parr. It was decided after discussion with the play- ground suppliers that we would ask for a bid based on what the suppliers could provide for $15,000 in each Ygla round. Bids andp specifications were advertised as required and four bidders were accepted. Each bidder supplied a formal bid and included dia- grams of their equipment for each playground includin g installa- ton. On April 8th, the Park and Recreation Commission invited the four playground suppliers to discuss their diagrams for the -parks and to .answer any questions from the Commission. The Commission re- v all of the diagrams and chose six different schematics for presentation at a Public Forum on April 15th. Three diagrams were chosen for each park for presentation to the public. In many cases, the same diagram was presented for a number of parks.At the conclusion of the Public Forum, the Park Commission voted on the playground equipment that it is recommending be purchased for each park. Recommendation It is requested that the city Council award the $9 bid for installed Playground Equipment as follows; 60,0.00 - Earl F. Andersen & Assoc., Inc. 30,000 Miracle Recreation Equipment Co., Bob Klein Assoc,, & Funding for the purchase and installation of the equipment is requested to be approved from the following. sources : Geranium $15,000 from the Neighborhood PAC Fund Harvest 15, from the Neighborhood PAC Fund Playcrest - $ 15,000 from the Neighborhood PAC Fund Vista Hills - $15 from the Neghborhood?AC Fund Sherwood $15,000 from the.Commercial PAC Fund Hazelwood - '15,000 from the Commercial PAC Fund c: City Clerk FORM FOR VOTING ON PLAYGROUND EOUIPMENT EACH PLACARD HAS A LETTER ASSIGNED TO IT A THRU F),THREE DIAGRAMS HAVE BEEN SELECTED BY THE COMMISSION FOR EACH PARK PLEASE VOTE ON EACH PARK AS FOLLOWS: 3 ON YOUR FIRST CHOICE 2 — ON YOUR SECOND CHOICE 1 — ON YOUR THIRD CHOICE VISTA HILLS A B o?A E FA F GERANIUM C 3 D dtYae l E / SHERWOOD A /l- C aZ F PLAYCREST A'0 t-. A B i " F 13 Goo am am HAZELWOOD A B a 'FA F LL HAR 16' D Yrit'tacle E / J-/ MEMORANDUM Michael A. McGuire, City Manager Robert D. Odegard, Director of Parks & Recreation Neighborhood Park Search Area Between Linwood an Highwood; Century To McKnight April 15, 1991 To. From Subj : Date: Act:jovi by council o d.if i e The attached memorandum of March 19, 1991, Was requested to be tabled until the April 22, 1991, City Council meeting. A V AGENDA ITEM Xr. William Poppert will be unable-to attend the March 25th CityCouncilmeetingdueto 'bean out of town. Staff recommendsg that this - item be tabled to April 22 Council Meeting. To: Michael A. McGuire, City ManagerFrom: Robert D. Odegard, Director of Parks &Recreation Subj: _Neighborhood Park Search Area Between Linwood and Highwood; Century to McKnight Date:.. March 19 1991 Introduction The Maplewood City Council on February 1991 requested additional information regarding open space, ponding, storm sewers and obtaining land for parks in the area between Linwood and. Highwood, and Century o McKnight.. The uYgrequestt for this information was during the discussion of the Highwood MeadowsPratwhichisg a development of 83 lots for single dwellings. ck - * ound The attached memorandum of Februar i3 1991 gives the bacY • • g k ground information on the property owned by Mr. Ken Gerva i s andthenotionoftheParkandRecreationCommissiononJanuary14,1991, "that the Park.and Recreation Commission recommends totheCityCouncil- that at this,. time and at this price $158 000 it is not feasible to purchase this property for Neicrhb-orhoody because of high development costs, but if the City Council can seethe possibility of acquiring it for Open space, we feel it is a unique and valuable site e" Ayes: All. The park and Recreation Commission on February i 'y , 1991, reviewed the Staff Report dated February 6 regarding the acquisition of property adjacent to Highwood in the drainage area north of 2433 Highwood Avenue and the required purchase oqp f property from SchoolDistrict' 1622 and Mr. David Walburg. The Park and RecreationCommissionmadethemotion "that at this time, due to the cost of All the property and its limited use for active recreation the Park and Recreation Commission.does not recommend this area be purchased for the Maplewood Park System." Ayes: All, At the March 18, 1991, Commission meeting, Mr. William PopP ert of2433HighwoodAvenueattendedthemeetingndpresentedgpntedhis suggestion for acquiring the property adjacent to his home for open space. Mr. Ken Haider, Director of Public works discussed withnth the Commission the City ponding plan for this area* His comments reflected the future use of the City easement north of Highwoodforponding, gpg• ite n the present Maplewood Comprehensive Plan, the population between Linwood and lighwood was intended to be served by the Neighborhood Parks of vista Hills (2480 Mai land Road) and Pleasantview Park.(1100 Marnie). A mini -park at the east end of Phylis Court (Outlot A,. B) has also been acquired, but the topography only permits sliding and a potential area for play-. ground equipment if excavation is undertaken. As we have observed. the development of homes south - of Vista Hills and north of Carver, we are concerned that there is adequate Neighborhood Park sites for the population. With the development of both Vista Hills and Pleasantview Parks, the mount of space dedicated to active recreation is very limited. In the information provided for the revision of the Comprehensive Plan by the Park and Recreation Commission, discussion.included a Search Area for a Neighborhood Park between.Linwood and High- wood. By definition, a Neighborhood Park or Playground is an area for intense recreational activies such as field games, court games, Drafts., apparatus area skating,.Neighborhood Centers, etc. Its service area is a radius of one - quarter to one -half mile and serves a population of . 4 , 00 0 - to . 5 , o 0 0 people The recommended site size is 10 to 25 acres. With.this definition in mind, it becomes more difficult to acquire suitable land. 1) With the potential development of 83 additional homesites in the.Highwood Meadows Parcel, the amount of Open Space for consideration as a Neighborhood Park has been reduced. The owner of Highwood Meadows has offered us approximately 3 acres in the area adjacent to Highwood at a cost of about $47,000 Per acre; this we feel is not within our budget. 2 ) A second consideration is as parcel ,in the Northwest corner of Century and Highwood, but this location is too distant from the main population. 3) A'third possibility is the property in the northeast quarter of the area between Century and proposed Sterling,-And. south of Linwood NNW Section 13, Township 28, Range 22). This property has many hills which makes the costs to develop highly expensive. Rec2n.mendation The Park and Recreation commission will continue to pursue the potential of a Neighborhood Park for the area between Linwood and Highwood and recommend to the City Council its findings at an appropriate time. QRANJ2= To Maplewood Park and Rec •reation CommissionersFromRobertD. Odegard, Director of Parks & Recreatio niSubj : William Co Poppert Request To ConsiQu PropertyByHighwoodForOpenSpacePreservation Date0o February 6, 1991 RUISSEround 1.r William co Poppert of 2433 Hi hwood Avenue o1992sentgo January 16,a Proposal. f permanent Hi.ghwood Preservation LandopenSpace) to Geoff Olson, Director of the Co 'mmunity Develop --tent Department. A copy of his letter was maile to Park andRecreationCommissionersonJanuary18, 1991 The lett out-lines a Suggestion from+1,r .9 Po per that the city acquire 2.acres owned by David Walburg known as Valley g 3 acre View 0utlot A ananadjoiningparcel ' d P rcelowned by School District #622 to theeastof'Outlot A and touching Hlghwood Avenue and tcontribute , that he wouldpartofhispropertywhich. is adjacent. to the westtheSchoolDistrictp of S acquisition og f these .properties would be a cost factorIhave forthecityacontacted.Mrs Dave. Walburg., who is a developerandMr. Dick Julander 8usi e P n ss Manager for School District #622.The cost for the 5; acres would be aptishould • Itbenotedthatthere s a drainage easement ong the SchoolDistriproperty, Mr. Poppert s property, and Mrs Wahlbur g sproperty. At this time the Council has not made •a definite decslononhowtohandlethiswatereasementbuttheEngineeringDepartmentislookinguit , gineeringgpasapotentialholdingpond. The6acresiteisquiterollingwithsteepgradesoffandWouldnotbePgofHs.ghwoodsuitableforeitheraNeighborhoodParkoraMini- -Park. As Mr. Poppert . oints out, , "While this land has some iofthemostruggedcontours n the area making9 it difficult todevelopitisattractiveforhikingndforaestheticforthesurrounding g etic purposesoundingresidents. „ While we are all concerned about res •p ervation of environment, ourprimaryresponsibilityisthatofarksandPthedevelopmentofminiparks, Neighborhood Parks, and community rks.y P As we havediscussedovertheyears, there is a need for Open Space, butwiththelimitedfundsforacquisitionquisiti.on and development that wehaveavailabletous, it is very difficult to use •e these moniesforacquisitionofOpenSpacethathaslimitedusebytheentirecityIsresidents. Recommendati n It is say recommendation that at t 'his. time due to the costs of thepropertyanditslimiteduseforactiverecreation, creation, that the ParkandRecreationCommissionnotrecommendthatthischasedfortheMaplewood s area be purC ) II p Park System, I do do 40 w 46 dV V 4614.104 86-f 4 t : • —•" r_r. "+ l « ` O I q • s• w *_ M • — j ~ ~ 100 t r N• vv ;•^ #% qfsk all 1 ( 0143 •' Y MM W ` j »,r 0w• y r '• • t y , ; N h O A/ v/, • . M : w • A s !'s.. Y low 0-Oda 10ZOVA 4 of 41am Al L + vv i_ ` t .• Il 1. w . 1.- 1 4 ` i M lot f N t V M a I •Oj O . I M vri -vovIor1lJt4IeSr0 . to ts _ we a 7•:... 3 , v. • Zti •• _ O r . - Ct -ALLCR A Its. le Ljjs i r ` . 'A •fit °.' o` y 0 r t r: ' ±.v /IN ems Lv. y Y M t dp lo 44 ML to • o `•,• S •,• e ^ a• ! v N h /e O •. w . O J!o a ., p , . • • _ •• O- It ttl • • •• L17.6 ?O •O v • o ff, e fA! i t• • + V w I d•` MMI/ V. ! N . 7S +I=* 1' . L . 'f` N V V ` . c N •;! N , J ' to • Z z %A ILA co *LAKEWOOD ti • F;, V O O N - V • ? / ,,,.. .I • _ _ to ter et0 44 % • • « el• •Y • • 0 J *s' --% = • N ``M' ' i V t ''..~ • y 1, • Q O ^, • • e • 0 e . : t•+ tog t i t 89 10 Lek . M r yy' of .W . . •k V 0 N , y - ter. . + f .•. ALA P1 cr im-v Opp to v • • • . • tee M a 1 > f• 1'• B 7 Mso r _ '* T R-L—t I G ---- -- 130 63 too ` r *• tee *.-• —. p $ MMMWM W 4 •_ .. Q. ft _ r 0 •`• • 0. as •• • . •. • • Y r• fro• . t • • • ,ice ' ; ••.. . •J 3 • : • t i•• 1d1• N •f rn • ``. s • '+ i A A i MENORANDUM To: Michael A. 1 lYicGuire, City ManagerFrom; Robert D. Odegard, Director of Parks Recreation61) William Co Poppert - 2433 Highwood Avenue Proposal For Permanent Highwood Preservation Land Open Space 2) Ren Gervaie Property - Outlote E, F, G Preservation Open SpaceDate: February 13, 1991 It has been brought to the attention of the Maplewood Park andRecreationCommissionthattwoparcelsofroertadjacentscenttoppYjtheHighwoodMeadows 'Preliminary at (Kayser) are - 'Y being recommendedbytheownerstobepreservedasOpen . Space for the Cit.P y ckcrround Mr.. Ken Gervais is the owner of 12.6 acres of wooded propertynorthandwestoftheHighwoodMeadowsdevelowent. This areaisreferredtoonPtheattachedmapsasOutlotE, F and G. TheParkandRecreationComaissiononSaturda , January 12 hikedhrouhtheYY , g property and found it to have many steep hills, apondingarea, and an area that has been roughed out as -tial cul -de- a g a potenscifthepropertyisdeveloped. At the January 14th Park and Recreation Commission meeting, theCommissiondiscussedtheprosandconsoftheacquisitionroandm „ ion of thepropertymadethemotionthattheParkandRecreationCom-mission recommends to the City Council that at this time and atthispriceC158, it is not feasible to purchase -ert for 1121 P this propYaahbecauseofhighdevelopmentcostsbutiftheCityCouncilcanseetheossibilitofac Open p Y acquiring itforOPnSpace, we feel it is a unique and valuable site.Ayes** A11. Mr. William C. Poppert of 2433 Highwood Avenue has directed cor-respondence of January 16, 1991, lase attached) regarding a pro-posal for permanent Highwood Preservation Land (Open Space).The park and Recreation Commission on February 11, 1991, discocussedtheletterfromMr. Poppert in which be requests that theCityconsiderpurchasingValleyviewEstates (2.5 acres) owned byDavidWalburgandtheadjoining3acreparceloflandownedbytheSchoolDistricttotheeastofOutlotAandtouchingHighwoodlvenue. He has also offered to contribute some of his backyardpropertytowardthepotentialOpenSpacepropertyandwouldliketoexchangeitforsomeoftheSchoolDistrictproperty. f 1 Staff has contacted 1Kr. Walburg and School District #622 as to the availability. of their properties and the potential price for acquisition. It is estimated that the cost would be in excess of 490 000 for the properties The Park and Recreat Commission made the notion "that at this time due to the cost of the roPP arty and its limited use for active recreation, the Park and Rec- reation Commission does not recommend that this area he purchased for the Maplewood Park System." 22=2ndation It is recommended that at this time the City take no action to purchase either of the two proposed parcels for Open Space, c: City Clerk Wi l l ian Co Poppert Ken Gervais Geoff Olson Jeanne Ewald t w s • i s i 4 • ice. •V* • r •mow • „ . ter..• .. t . onto N WOOD dw y , v • we +* ' 1 • f • • • :•:: • :•: : :::: :: • :: : : : : : : ::: is • 6e so 200 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • ' N •• • • ::••:••••::••••• • • ••• :• • • to • • • • • :• ••: : : : :::: • : : : : ::••• :•: :: f :: : :: • s•••••• • •• ••••••••• r••••• a •••••••••••••.••••••••••••••• f••••a••••••• . - 40L•,` f•f s•f••• *•a••••fa••••• : : :• : i ::: • : :• ::• :: i : : :::: r , 0 :•: i :::•• ::: f : :: i :• :::: : :: • : :•:• i• :i :: • i : : : : ::• :•:: • : :: f :•: • : :•:• ••• •• J • • o ••••• f• ••••f•s•••••••••••••••••• •.••••••••••••••••• • 4p pq ••I •f•••••••••••••••• • •• •••••••a••••••••f••••••iiii :: • .• : : :•: : :: : : :: • : : : : ::• : • ••: : ••: :: i • :: :: : ::• : • •• • :: . •• O, , w• ty r • , W 0i a s .......... • ........ .. .ir a•••s•••••••••••••••••••a• •••••••••••••••••••••••• A h w Z • • s s • • • • • • • • • • •• • . • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • s • • • • • • • . • • • • • • . t .•••f••• v••f••••••••.••.•• .•••••..•••••••••••- •••••••••• 4V 41 too All Sokq ............................ Y 1 1Al Avg. i ,• s t: 1 .• ............• ................ t • t••j w• .',,fit• ;1•, mo I • ••••••••••••••ew dig 1 Pw t i4t .... • . M • .• :.:::• • ob WAIr ' !• • t'' • S • A 11 •• • •• .. Q © psi •.. • POMP. So* db wwaAbe& me s . ILj ' ' R 1 y PPAP R1= RESIDENTIAL SINGL DWELLING F= FARIMI RESIDENTIAL ' i PROPERTY LINE /ZONING MAP PROPOSED SUBDIVISION Q N ftoa It i•R at OM V' 4 of tut NW 1/4 MW the Noma 6w.* of the NE 1/4 of the SVW t of Sec • 13.7.28, R.22 elm • i r t}J 11 69•S7 F. --- 6fSo ?'* -- .%'fi'i%.,is " f, •! AVENUE o:, s:• K. .t ,. ,,o 60 o• ax &S sa. ty J. 02.11 r ; i. b o .; w• A f O w •W , a• . Alll .A •ti or j i t a se 4, •li •s t Y• + to . ''' L.Y E • • '•'v • + r i1i20 fit • •'' • . M . •. ' w • • w ? • . A• Ic qb forwe sa 04C 'powAft t • ! , t ; t t , ` ' • . . L `,e • :. all t.t •. Vo ILI as 06 wioil0 f. •4,t. . S: •,, ,; z ` i ••• • M , ! tab at Ar a • • • ', • • do POT, 00.0 0 .0 w jb 224 QJ •'•A L, Q 1 . f V • v N ••v4 v V A l.e 0 J r • s s.tipn s' s. d ~• i • I O tit...•s, liri! riArih art MM MW J/4 Ord tAe Sftt A v} Or of i1 t 'i't •..r • •t tT• .•,• / . - ' M& i rrva. /• • i • I r 1 • t 4 a 1 WILLIAM C. POPPERT 2433 Highwood Ave. Maplewood., MN 55119 w January 15, 1991 Ken Roberts Geoff Olson CoMMunity Development DepartmentCityofMaplewood 1830 E. County Road H Maplewood, MN 55109 ItE: Proposal for permanent Highwood Preservation Land (Open Space) As a longtime resident of the area I have decided that 'farsightedplanningandactionarenecessarydon'tyifwedont want to lose theuniquenaturalenvironmentthatis (or was) East Maplewood InthatmofferingthefollowingspiritofactionIap g proposal for anopenspaceareaadjacenttotheproposedHighwoodalonP , q Meadows des a dowsdevelopmentngHighwoodAvenuThproposalinclupotentialofferofadonationofsomeofmlandfor '1 ., have dis y .: the project.dis this proposal with the adj landownersdevelopersandmanyofthehomeownersinthearea. • speak for thew in I feel I cantermsoftheirstrong - support for this idea, DESCRIPTION OF LAND The parcels of land to be combined .under this proposal are. l ) theeast1/2 of outlot A, Valley View Estates 2.5 acres) ) owned byDavidWalburg, 2) an a 3 acre parcel of land oSchoolDistricttoweed by the the east of Outlot A and touchin HiHighwoodAvenueg 3) property that I currently wn southy of Clutlot A. These parcels of land have a large drainage •image easement area passingthroughthemandrepresentrelativelyruggedterrawouldgg n and .thereforebediffificulttodevelop. They are also made 'access for development difficult toelopmentbytheHighwoodMeadowsdevelowent . The remaining p yrepresentsomeoftheonlyinngwoodedland. in the area. 1 Page 2 LIBT OF G 8 OF PR SERVING T8IM PARCEL OF LAND AS OPEN SPACE: o There are few remaining undeveloped pieces of land in ' the area and this represents . the only wooded land in the 3,mmediate area,, o This area is currently a home for many species of wildlife ranging from pheasants and songbirds to deer and rabbits. o There is a dry creek and drainage easement through here which has suffered substantial erosion and needs further protection and maintenance by the City and /or County. o Due to the contour and drainage easement, such of this land is unbuildable and will-remain unbuildable. c There would be access problems if the land were to be developed for homes after the Highwood Meadows development. a There are grading problems imposed on Highwood Meadows if the potential open land were to be developed for homes. o The School District land is already owned by a public agency.The position of the School Board at the time of acquisition 2. years ago) was that it would be an open area as well as. the i nature area for a proposed school development. As Preservation Land it would. be fulfilling its originally specified use. I would expect that the School Board would continue to honor that designation of its use o 'chile this land has some of the most rugged contours in the area making it difficult to develop, it is attractive for hiking and for aesthetic purposes for the surrounding residents,, o This land and its trees are visible for a goodly distance around. It currently is accessible as it fronts Highwood and will be accessable as it adjoins a considerable ortion of the .F L- shaped Highwood Meadows development, including direct access off Valley View .Avenue. o There is an issue that I discussed with the previous landowner before the School District stopped a private sale and purchasedthislandfromhim. when my hose was built by its previous owner it was too close to the edge of the lot, representing an insufficient setback. .I had attempted to .buy a strip of .land from the previous owner right before the School Board acquiredit. when the School District Representative assured sae it would remain as open space, I felt the issue was closed. If this were to become part of a parcel of open land I would hope a trade for sufficient setback could be worked out with the School Board and /or City when I contribute my land to the pens ace parcel.t F Page 3 OPOBAL I. and perha s othersP in the area, would bewilling to donatePortionsofouradlandtotfollowingheCity..and /or County if thengconditionsaremet: 0 City and /or fount ,y to acquire Walburg s land, as he hascurrentlyproposed, for 'open space* This could alsoexpansiono P o a 11 ow forfutureaxpnofthedrainageeasement, if necessar as welaserosionprotectionofthissteeplyslopedland. ' 1 o : The piece of land currently owned by the School District to becombinedwiththeothersandthetotal permanent natural arcel designated as aratoropenspacearea . ANSULT feel that for virtuallylly all the parties involved this s awin - situation where everyone 'y tie benef its : o The residents in the area bane • s fit by preserving the environmentaa ,hiking area and last haven for wildlife. o : The H- ghwood Meadows Developdestroyasmuchnaturalterra tit does not have to lower and nor give u lots to provideroadacintotheWalburgland. In addition, thedevelopmentslotsbecomemorevaluable 'and desirable to thefutureownersastheyadjoinanopenspacearea. o Mr. Walburg is able to sell a otentiall use as open P y landlocked parcel forpland, as he has proposed. o. The School District can find a .permanent use for their :land as anatureareaaswasoriginallyirate •Tans tided, before their schoolPchanged. By turning it over to the Cit or County theyarerelievedofthefuturcareandmaintenance. It also hasthebenefitofcuringthesetbackroble •P m with my adjacent land. o The City and or County will then have 'approximately a 6 acrepreservationlaareaforaverycheappriceduetocontributionsbythepartiesinvolved. •in addition, they willhavedireccontroloverthlandforerosiondrainageareamanagement, n control and Page 4 I This proposal has been discussed with the ad scent homeownersj ,Landowners and developer, with support received on all counts. The combination of the contributions of various parties involved gives us a unique chance to set aside a small piece of land in this area to preserve the special enviro nment of East Maplewood. I trust that we can count on the support of the City Planning Department,the City Couuncil and all those involved. I await yourrecommendationonthestepstobegin - netting aside this land,Includ .. my contribut This represents a Ion -term forwaPg . . rd kinking step in continuing to keep Maplewood a quality area for current and future residents. oNSIDERA =o There is also the greater issue of the entire area and the effect of. piecemeal development on this unique environment.qu I would nextaskour . officials to pause and provide for a proactive open s acePPlanwith -input from the residents before develo ment continues.P sincerely, William CO Poppert cc: Maplewood City Council - c/o Mike McGuire, City ManagerMaplewoodPlanningCommittee Maplewood Park Department - Bob ode andlg Maplewood Park Board Ramsey County Parks -- Greg Mack Ramsey County Park Board School District 522 and School Board Maplewood Engineering - ten Haider Hi.ghwood Residents s :Pebtuary 28, 19 91 Mr Robert Odegard Director of Parks and Recreation Maplewood City Hall 1830 East County toad B Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Mr. Odegard, By this letter, I am offering or sale to the City ofgY Maplewood, one or more lots, as shown in the preliminary plat of Highwood Meadows;for use as a park, -a playground, or open space by the city. I am offering to sell these lots to the City or $25,000y each* The proposed, street and-lot layout would not be changed. I agree thatsuchlots, which might be purchased by the City, I will not bear future assessments for streets, water, and sanitary and storm sewerswhichmightbeinstalledbtheCity. The costs of uYYsuch improvementswhetherinstalledbytheCityorbymyself) will be borne by the surrounding benefited property, This selling price.will be in effect from today throughugh June 30, 1991. On July 1, 1991, the price will be adjusted upward (or downward) to reflect a possible change in the Consumer Price Index, of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, of the U . S . Department of Labor 'for the MplsStoPaularea, for the period of Jan. 1, 1991 to June 30, 1991. myoffertosellwillexpireonDec.. 31, 1991. The selling agent willbemywife, Olivia Kayser. I am also shown as owner of record of certain lands kintheNW4 of theNEkofSection13, T28 R22. You have shown an interest in theses lands. A part of these lands has been deeded to my children from apreviousmarriage. However, the deed was not P ermitted to be recordedsinceitwouldcreateaparcelwithoutaccesstoa .ublic road possible P p future development of this land into proposed lots is shown on a sketch plan which accompanied my request for preliminaryplatapprovalofHighwoodMeadows. Although I cannot speak for my 4 children, I believe that they would sell a few of the proposed lots which are shown on-the sketch planfor $25,000 each. The same arrangements for the cost of improvementsfortheselots.might be as I proposed for the cost of improvementsforlotsinHighwoodMeadows.that I offered for sale to the City, in the first part of this letter. However, if the City purchased the entire Rarcel . instead of only a few of the proposed lots (and consequently there would be no future assessments, or costs of improvements, to be borne b the surroundingg property, and also no planning costs), then I feel that a price of . 1.3,000 per lot would be appropriate. There are 51 ro osed full lotsPPand. 1 outiot in the parcel. The outlot has an area of about 1 full. lot. My recollection is that there are about 23 -24 acres in the parcel. MAO 2- If the City decides to purchase the entire parcel, then I think thattheCityshouldaccept (or cancel) the previous water tower assess- anent attributed to this parcel. This assessment is $13,000 plusaccruedinterest. • If the City wishes to purchase.a substantial Part but not all ofthe. parcel,. then I think we need to tak good look at the impact of the purchase on the costs of improvements on the remaining land. Through careful planning, it may be possible to not significantlyaffectthecostofdevelopmentoftheportionwhichwasnotpurchasedby' the City. In this case, the selling ice might be only slightlyworegPgy , ghtiythan $13,000 per proposed lot. I would expect. that the Citywoulacceptthecostsofplanningthedbeforethepurchasewasconsumated. In any event, the final selling price will be deter-mined through agreement between my four children and not a b myself.1 am off ' Yyofanyopinionsofitsvalue. My present wife, Olivia,has offered to serve as-an agent for the sale of this land. I also suggest that you consi urchase of other land 1pstheNofSection13, for a park. For example, a "FOR SALE'S sign is postedonlandin, the SEk of the Ntko The rea for is Pratt Boo o.C I talked to Jim Ferrawo, of this company, and he told me there is 10 acres for sale for $110,000. I believe that this land is not presents sewer -Yablewhichwouldnotbeadisadvantageforaark. The 'g P only possibledisadvantagesarethatitissomewhatremovedfromthecenterof population of the area to be served, and it is near a commer development . Also, you might consider a portion of E of the NEB- of the 1 '4 NW a which is owned by Albert and Dorothy Jirovec,, Please call me .if I had not clearly expressed myself. Regards, S James H. Kayser 2516 Linwood Ave., East Maplewood, MN 55119 Pratt Boo Realty Tel. No. (work) 733 -6243 Attn.: Jim Ferrawo home) 731 -8610 4225'White Bear ParkwaySu200 c.c..: White Bear Lake, MN 55110 Albert and Dorothy Jirovec William KayserY 2480 Linwood Ave., East 6408 81st Avenue North Maplewood, MN .55119 Brooklyn Park, MN 55445 Mary Kayser Nancy Marchetti 46 -270 Kahuhipa St. Apt.A -613 .3.302 Portland Ave., South Kanoehe, HI 96744 Minneapolis, MN 55407 Steven Kayser Evelyn Ce Wallace 5102 Bloomington Ave., So 9613 Glenside Court Minneapolis, MN 55417 Sun Lakes, AZ 85224 MRVE3T samems OUR two mopme D. MD SHE 00 K 1EST7bt • • dray , ICH F70N OWOfS • 43 N. O& q CM IV EW • AArdm lam. too • no Eton U K• 1Nt VIM OZJR OtYS iieS Otri 1M10 lirreltr R0. A03'TOME • li2Q &vi m 3! fide OOORrCM • ow #a st ftd ft 0 awft ERR/li"iE Cwt'ER • 10i0s 90prm 000 Co. ad. c Loa • see Fe" WI man AND - *.. o• SAAKE • =!a Amw tC1s • iV A LENG00 UNTM CEtt I • MD L ft !. NORTH M. C goo woft AMOI N 0p •X039 M~ 43ELN • Awtiwr IERw'000• Cope • NR1 111tilOE • tn» ytt R • tt31 ta+ic NlT BLS • 1000 lratler+d UAIGEFIELO Mo ffte Inl 1 JILL - Im OERtNIW B) WtRE`NOD NtTUtE lEtiTEA ETM• SEMANE [.1 at f101iS t J 4FTONR EIOrfT3 1 NSTA UMAW 111LLi rttamnEW0 wren A91.0 i I;Z79 - e2 MEMORANDUM I&o T City Manager e' echo ..-FROM : Director of Community Development teSUBJECT: Land Use Pl Chang M.rR.DATE April 12, 1991 The City .Council asked Staff to re app re a resolution changing thelanduseplanfromRM (residential medium density) to RHresidentialhighdensitgy) This change would be for the areaproposedforaseniorhousingprojectatthesoutheastcorMarylandAvenueandLakewood of Drive. I have added some reasonsforthechange, go /memo2l.mem (25 -29) attachment: 1. Resolution 2. February 22 Staff Report LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Richard Sa applied for a chan to the Cit land use plan.from, RM (residential medium densit to RH residential hi densit WHEREAS, this chan applies to the propert located at the south corner of Mar Avenue and Lakewood Drive. WHEREAS, the histor of this chan is as follows: 10 The Plannin held a public hearin on Februar 19,1991.'.Cit staff published a hearin notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surroundin propert owners. as re b law., The Plannin Commission gave ever at . the hearin a chance to speak and present written. statements. The Plannin Commission recommended to the Cit Council that the table thi chan until someone proposes a development for the propert 2* The Cit Council discussed the plan amendment on April 8- and April 22, 1991. The considered reports and recommendations from the Plannin Commission and Cit staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Cit Council approve a chan from RM ( residential medium densit to RH ( residential hi densit for five acres at the southeast corner of Lakewood Drive and Mar Avenue. Approval is for the followin reasons: 10 This chan is based on testimon at the hearin that this area will be developed with senior housin 2* The Council has stated in the past that the would approve densit increases for seni.or housin 3 Senior housin produces less traffic per unit than other t of multiple dwellin 4. The Council will consider chan this site back to RM after one year if construction has not started on a senior housin project. Adopted on April 22, 19910 MEMORANDUM To City Manager FROM: Director of Community Developme SUBJECT: Land Use Plan Change LOCATION: South of Maryland Avenue, east of Lakewood Drive DATE: February 22, 1991 SUMMARY INTRODUCTION Mr. Richard Sagstetter, of Arlington Properties, is requesting a change to the City's land use plan. The land use plan is the City's guide to how property should develop in the future. It also determines the maximum number of dwelling units that can be built on a property. This request is for the property on the southeast corner of Maryland Avenue and Lakewood Drive. The City has planned this property RM (residential medium density). (See the map on page 6). Mr. Sagstetter is requesting that the City change the land use plan for this property to RH (high density residential), Mr. Sagstetter is requesting this change because the City recently lowered the maximum allowed densities in residential areas. (See his letter on page 8.) The RH density would allow 365 apartments or 255 town houses on this property. This is similar to the 353 apartments allowed with the former RM densit The current medium density classification would allow 213 apartments or 149 town houses. I am also including the properties at 1060 - .1070 Lakewood Drive in this report. The City Council requested change to the landag use plan for these three lots from RM to RL because they are developed with three homes. The Council requested this change as part of the update of the City's land use plan. BACKGROUND March 20, 1980: The City Council approved a planned unit development (PUD) for the Arlington Properties site. This approval was,for 184 quad units in 46 buildings. The City's approval of this plan expired on December 13, 1983 February 27, 1984: The City Council changed the zoning for the Arlington.Properties site from F (farm residence ) to R - multiple - family residential),, November 16, 1989 The City Council asked staff to study the properties that have zoning and land use designations that allow different types of land uses. The Council wanted to study these areas as part of an update of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Au 20, 1990: The Cit Council reviewed proposed chan to several are includin Drive, the staff' stud and 1060 - 1070 Lakewood Au 27, 1990*9 The Cit Council lowered the maximum densities in the RL, RM,and RH areas in the land use plan. ALTERNATIVES 10 Approve the re la use plan chan from RM to RH for both sites. The RH desi allows a maximum of 12 units per gross acre. 2,* Keep the RM land use desi for both sites. The RM desi allows a maximu of 7 units per gross acre. 3 Choose alternative, one or two for the Arlin Properties site, but chan the land use plan for 1060 - 1070 Lakewood Drive to RL. The RL desi onl allows sin dwellin 4. Table this re until someone proposes a specific pro DISCUSSION Arlin Properties.Re The Council should not chan the land use plan for this site because of previous assessments. In 1987, the Cit assessed this propert at a rate of onl 5 units per acre for the water tower. The current densit limits are .4 9 9 - 7.0 units per acre The onl other assessment w for Mar Avenue. The Cit assessed this project on a front foota basis. Therefore, the Cit d limits had no effect. There was no assessment for service stubs. The Council should also not chan the land use plan because the reduced the Cit densities for all multiple - dwellin land. This would set a precedent to increase the densit on other undeveloped RM-planned land, such as the Hillcrest propert to the north. The Council should base an chan on the circumstances of an individual propert Some t of hi densit housin such as senior housin or town houses, could be a good use for this land. The site has excellent road access and it is surrounded.b land that is planned or developed with medium densit housin or open space. There is commercial propert and a manufactured home park across Mar Avenue and multiple dwellin to the east. The hills and wetland on the south separate this site from the sin famil area to the south. The Cit has planned Lakewood Drive as 2 a minor arterial and Maryland Avenue as a collector street on the major street plan. These streets provide excellent access to the property. There is no reason to make a change now, since no one has applied for approval of a Specific project. Someone presented a senior hous ing plan for 80 units on five acres at the Planning Commission meeting. No applications have been made yet. The developer of this project could meet the City's density requirements by reducing the number of units to 60 or buying an additional 1.6 acres Several Council members have been concerned with the number of multiple dwellings'in the Maryland Avenue area. Tabling this request would give the Council and the neighbors a chance to see what they are getting before increasing the density. The Council may be more comfortable increasing the allowed density for a senior project . or 184 townhouses (the previously approved project), rather than 365 apartments (the maximum number of apartments allowed ) . 1060 - 1070 Lakewood Drive The property owners requested that the City leave the RM designation for these three lots. They hope that their properties will.be more valuable to prospective developers with the RM designation. I can see no harm in leaving the RM class ification. These homes are next to multiple dwelling land to the north, front on a busy street and are not part of a single dwelling neighborhood. Unless the developer to the north buys their land, it is unlikely that these lots will develop into multiple dwellings. The maximum density is only 11 units. It may not be practical for a developer to pay for the homes and their demolition to build 11 units. The Council should consider a change to RL for these lots if the property to the north develops without these lots. RECOMMENDATIONS Table Mr. Sagstetterls request and the change to 1060 - 1070 Lakewood Drive until someone applies for Design Review Board approval of a specific project. 3 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE INFORMATION Flan change study area: 30.4 acres (Arlington Properties), 1.61 acres. (1U60 - Lakewood Drive), 32 acres (total). Existing land uses: Undeveloped and three single dwellings. SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Beaver Lake Mobile Home Park. East: Maple Greens and Sterling Glen Quads. South: Single dwellings and an undeveloped 7 acre parcel owned by the City for storm water drainage. West: Lakewood Drive and Beaver Lake. There is one single dwelling at 1099 Lakewood Drive, PLANNING Land Use Definitions Low Density Residential (RL) - This classification allows a variety of single - dwelling homes and an occasional double dwelling. Medium Density Residential (RM) - This classification allows a variety of multiple dwellings including duplexes, town homes and mobile homes. The density ranges from 4.9 - 7 units per acre. High Density Residential (RH) - This classification also allows a variety of multiple dwellings including town homes condominiums and apartments. The density ranges from 7 - 12 units per acre. Open Space (OS) - This classification allows playgrounds and parks, school grounds, lakes, trailways and environmental protection areas encompassing wetlands and flood plains. go /memo 21. mem Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Land Use Map (Existing) 3. Property Line\Zoning Map 4. 10 -10 -90 letter from Richard Sagstetter to the City 5, Plan Amendment Resolution (1060 - 1070 Lakewood - RM to RL) 4 LARPE NTEUR - 'AV lAJ' IDAHO AV XNA A 1) CURRIE ST X1£8 RASKA AV 2) MYRTLE CT sv o ( 2) P 3 ,t IViDrvsbQ a 2 Pit N - BE LAN1 i S OAK HlLC co - t ANGELA Xiwa Pr+airl MICKEY 1 Y ... ELKNEA Rr LA 68 :al 1 Z 31 NAKTHGRNEARYLANOAV fit: ST GER1N NOLBar •:::: , V !'. W AV ' c w t ESTER AV BRAND .y` LA AV 32 32 M10 0 iwnod cch a SE ENTH ST E Center E. lu y BUSH AV.J at ) Y MINNEHAHA = _ AY AV LOCATION MAP 5 Attac,hm'nt 1 oil. to L Ap ftmft. -mmo i R ' • Ole, 3 M40 Ran los Rm • m Or o Mary Ave. f i ; Z : ; ' • • • : : . a l " - S t i l l w a t e r Road 3 Sa • • '• 0S fl or collector .,...« Har of .v T R p _off low IE 0S SCSC , LSC' m or aIrttri Mi nnehaha P.. Rh 1 toe e ;R . fR"LJS ..SC or toilector 'Conway 6 Attachment 2 r RI= RESIDENTIAL LOWER DENSITY - LSC= LIMITED SERVICE COMMERCIAL CENTER Rm= RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY Rh= RESIDENTIAL HIGHER DENSITY 7 EXISTING LAND USE PLAN AREA OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT1...:.:..: NDM EN't" QQ A AIIP, IJ22.S1 .n. ' ( 1' a.; ' . . 44%1 $ soQ Rewp eS De,r•: 2:23+ 6'.1 wasList. r 1 w .A 1•K, ... t w OW 1 t•'• 6Y11 •1' •W NJl ••J 7x.71 E E •R 1 L,Lq K EI 1 •.•.•. ..: :: :: •.•: •: :•.• •.•. :. •: :: :::::::: ::.: i «>; 3Q 3T ACRES `::::. •::::.: :: r • , • • • • s , •• • • • •• • • , • • . • . • . • • • • • • • • • • ... • • • • , •.• • •'.i • • • • ., • • . • • hL 11 •2! 22 71 2MI Z1 25l Q ' ` .... • :::::::... .•....1. : . ::.'.•. ::: • ::.. :- ::.•:.'::::. :.: o + 1 r.;.; •.?: ::::•::: :::: . R 0.S E x AVE .4. .;... ..... .....AV 10 g ... .. ....... ....... ::..:.:... ...... ..•. :........... Y J.:•. : : :.... : L • a i . 3330 X . Ij • • • :: • :: • : : :ii : :. :: •1 f •••J. fs. Y. •rte••• •. •..Y, • •• ::• • : :•,,,.,ii: ..,,• , • _ .12 • ,; E. G E R A N i' U M AVE r r •':.:... :.•; : :.R'"' ..._. . t. .:. :•JG}L ..... ..... :. • l S il •:.:.:.. .. fd i A`!1 11 7t 110.• . >1 . to W or ......... ...... r ...... .... ....'' 108 c"') :a JESS:. 1084 .. lls Is so ok 1. h y • .. • • • • . • y Iry 1 SAVE. S! s i e s "R it> si Nrrs SCHOOL' 01ST. ~i • 5 N- 62i: ,,/ - :• .... . 3 I 1 , .; 2- r u•,.•. • •t6' Tat .,..w •.. .•"N It ... %y 1., .,; ? Ti *.ra,t•,!•te r. 2 - 1•J Au - t 1 to w s • : i j ems; '2t-# f!' ss.•1a _sue ' t rt ti t j ! ' • iMr r '•! Z0 I w" 1.1.1 .8 Ig Q :sJ {I.sss }. _ . sEur, f+ O' 21 ? , 6• — toy L oe 1 tam•... loo l0 1, I a t 2•+>e.{ =r °mot -4+- 3 2 1_ o • tr. F '~ ~•• t'2' r ?Jt ..},. -.Ji3 .1''S.tt -L IY1t ` J' s , l j : - - . I ', • • `. ! 2I i t f A (•J!i 1O" ., tI .i .,;y ,a-! l t • r f. 7 2 S K••b, I X (T 1.00• j1 • '` ' t r' A) .lc^_ ,•• : +i : S3ff, ` ' 6 Mohws rasT A • y 1 p, s••,f f 7th. 1 Au •` • t "q 4. PROPERTY LINE /ZONING MAP R1= RESIDENTIAL SINGLE DWELLING R3= RESIDE' NTIAL MULTIPLE DWELLINGAREAINOUESTION NC= NEIGHB€)RHOOD COMMERCIAL Q N 7 Attachment 3 R3 boundary j - i•, Lsr., sod • TOU16 3600 a R3 w I 0Willise01i31 - c i L., N M S . f BEAVER LAIJE TRA ER PARK i • V`04 QQ A AIIP, IJ22.S1 .n. ' ( 1' a.; ' . . 44%1 $ soQ Rewp eS De,r•: 2:23+ 6'.1 wasList. r 1 w .A 1•K, ... t w OW 1 t•'• 6Y11 •1' •W NJl ••J 7x.71 E E •R 1 L,Lq K EI 1 •.•.•. ..: :: :: •.•: •: :•.• •.•. :. •: :: :::::::: ::.: i «>; 3Q 3T ACRES `::::. •::::.: :: r • , • • • • s , •• • • • •• • • , • • . • . • . • • • • • • • • • • ... • • • • , •.• • •'.i • • • • ., • • . • • hL 11 •2! 22 71 2MI Z1 25l Q ' ` .... • :::::::... .•....1. : . ::.'.•. ::: • ::.. :- ::.•:.'::::. :.: o + 1 r.;.; •.?: ::::•::: :::: . R 0.S E x AVE .4. .;... ..... .....AV 10 g ... .. ....... ....... ::..:.:... ...... ..•. :........... Y J.:•. : : :.... : L • a i . 3330 X . Ij • • • :: • :: • : : :ii : :. :: •1 f •••J. fs. Y. •rte••• •. •..Y, • •• ::• • : :•,,,.,ii: ..,,• , • _ .12 • ,; E. G E R A N i' U M AVE r r •':.:... :.•; : :.R'"' ..._. . t. .:. :•JG}L ..... ..... :. • l S il •:.:.:.. .. fd i A`!1 11 7t 110.• . >1 . to W or ......... ...... r ...... .... ....'' 108 c"') :a JESS:. 1084 .. lls Is so ok 1. h y • .. • • • • . • y Iry 1 SAVE. S! s i e s "R it> si Nrrs SCHOOL' 01ST. ~i • 5 N- 62i: ,,/ - :• .... . 3 I 1 , .; 2- r u•,.•. • •t6' Tat .,..w •.. .•"N It ... %y 1., .,; ? Ti *.ra,t•,!•te r. 2 - 1•J Au - t 1 to w s • : i j ems; '2t-# f!' ss.•1a _sue ' t rt ti t j ! ' • iMr r '•! Z0 I w" 1.1.1 .8 Ig Q :sJ {I.sss }. _ . sEur, f+ O' 21 ? , 6• — toy L oe 1 tam•... loo l0 1, I a t 2•+>e.{ =r °mot -4+- 3 2 1_ o • tr. F '~ ~•• t'2' r ?Jt ..},. -.Ji3 .1''S.tt -L IY1t ` J' s , l j : - - . I ', • • `. ! 2I i t f A (•J!i 1O" ., tI .i .,;y ,a-! l t • r f. 7 2 S K••b, I X (T 1.00• j1 • '` ' t r' A) .lc^_ ,•• : +i : S3ff, ` ' 6 Mohws rasT A • y 1 p, s••,f f 7th. 1 Au •` • t "q 4. PROPERTY LINE /ZONING MAP R1= RESIDENTIAL SINGLE DWELLING R3= RESIDE' NTIAL MULTIPLE DWELLINGAREAINOUESTION NC= NEIGHB€)RHOOD COMMERCIAL Q N 7 Attachment 3 October 10, 1990 city of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B. Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 Dear Ladies /Gentlemen: We are requesting a comprehensive plan amendment on this-parcel due to the recent density change of zoned property in Maplewood. We have accepted and paid the. assessments levied on this parcel because of the old R -M density. The new R -H density would give us what we had before the change. Sincerely, Richard Sagstetter Enclosure 0 Attachment 4 LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Maplewood City Council initiated a change to the City's Land Use Plan from from RM, (residential medium density) to RL, (residential low density) WHEREAS, this change applies to the properties located at 1060, 1068 and 1070 Lakewood Drive. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 10 The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 22, 19910 City staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The Planning Commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council leave the RM designation 2. The City Council discussed the plan amendment on 1991. They considered reports and recommendations from the Planning Commission and City staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the above - described change for the following reasons: 1. The change would be consistent with the goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The RL classification would be more compatible with the existing land uses than the RM classification. 3. There are no plans to redevelop these lots with multiple dwellings. Adopted on , 19910 9 Attachment 5 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 EAST COUNTY ROAD B, MAPLEWOOD, FEBRUARY 19, 1991 10 C TO ORDER Chaff erson Axdahl called the meeting to o der at 7 p.m. 2.ROLL Commiss oner Roger Anitzberger Pr sent Commissi er Lester Axdahl went Commissio er Robert Cardinal sent commission r Lorraine Fischer Present Commisslone Jack Frost Present Commissioner Gary Gerke Pres Commissioner ary Pearson Present Commissioner ` lliam Rossba Present Commissioner Ma in Sigmundrik Absent Commissioner Br i n Sinn Present 3.APPROVAL OF MINUT a. February 4, 19 Commissioner is her moved approval of the minutes as submitted. Commisso er Gerke econded Ayes-- Anitzberger, Axdahl, Fischer, Frost, Gerke, Pearson, Sinn Abstentions-- Rossbach 40.APPROVA OF AGENDA Commi sioner Fischer moved appro al of the agenda as submitted.. Commissioner Anitzberger seconded yes--- Anitzberger, A dahl , Fischer, Frost, Ge ke, Pearson, Rossbach, Sin 5.PUBLIC HEARING a. Land Use Plan Change. Lakewood Dr. & Maryland Ave. Commissioner Pea removed himself from the Commission for consideration r of this item due to a conflict of interest. Planning Commission Minutes 2 -19 -91 2- Secretary Olson presented the staff report for this request for a change to the City's land use plan. Richard Schreier, 2125 Desoto Street, said he is a business partner in Arlington Properties with Richard Sagstetter (who requested the land use plan change). Mr. Schreier explained the request. Richard Webb,.7749 Cayenne, Woodbury, part owner in a management company which operates Rosewood Estates, a senior housing project in Roseville, gave a presentation for a similar project on Maryland Avenue and Lakewood Drive in Maplewood. Gary Pearson, 1209 Antelope Way, general manager for Beaver Lake Estates Mobile Home Park, spoke in opposition to a blanket rezoning of the entire 30 -acre area. Mr. Pearson said the higher density would add considerable traffic to an already high - traffic area. Chuck Stobbie, 2512 Geranium Avenue, spoke against this proposal because it would decrease property values and living conditions. - Betty Beane, 2505 East Rose Avenue, asked if the five acres needed for this project could be zoned high density without changing the land use designation on the entire area. Staff responded that it would be possible to change the land use designation for the project area only. Ron Williams, 1183 Glendon Street, said he is opposed to the high- density change for the entire 30 -acre area. Tim Kennedy, 1134 Glendon Street, said the area cannot handle any more high- density development. Judy Panushka, 2517 East Rose Avenue, said she is opposed to this land use change for the entire area. The occupant of 1134 Sterling Street suggested a survey be done to see how much vacant housing exists in the area and suggested that a scenic park could be developed on the corner of this property across from the lake. Joan Doehling, 1115 Sterling Street, asked if any assessments are planned and how they would be assessed. Staff responded he did not know of any assessments which would result from this project. Planning Commission -3- Minutes 2 -19 -91 Francis Dreawves said the sanitary sewer system in this area is not adequate for the ex sting development, Mr. Dreawves . said there are probl ems . with drainage in the area. Mr. Dreawves said further curb cuts will. add to the traf f is problems in this area. Ernest- Dreawves,. 1070 Lakewood Drive, Joyce Rasing, 1142 Sterling Street, Rita Murray, 2531 Geranium Street, and Kathleen Peterson, 1485 Mary Street, all spoke in opposition to this land use designation change. Secretary Olson, in response to a question from the public, discussed the Shoreland Ordinance. Commissioner Fischer moved that, on the assumption that the proposed senior housing meets the RM densities, the Planning Commission recommend tabling Mr. Sagstetter's request and the change to 1060 -1070 Lakewood Drive until someone proposes a development for the rest of property. This motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Rossbach moved the Planning Commission recommend tabling Mr. Sagstetter's request and the change to 1060 -1070 Lakewood Drive until someone proposes a development for the property. Commissioner Gerke seconded Ayes - Anitzberger, Axdahl, Fischer, Frost, Gerke, Rossbach, Sinn The motion passed. Commissioner Rossbach Moved the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council view the preliminary plans for the senior development that was shown to the Planning Commission at this meeting and that the Planning Commission, in a preliminary form, views this development as being possibly favorable for this piece of property. Commissioner Gerke seconded Ayes -- Anitzberger, Fischer, Frost, Gerke, Rossbach, Sinn Nays -- Axdahl The motion passed. MEMODUM TO City Manager FROM Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Land Use Plan Change - Maryland Ave. & Lakewood Dr. DATE: March 26, 1991 The Council asked staff to. check the August 27, 1990 minutes and tapes about the plan amendment for the density conversion table. The Council wanted to know if there was any discussion about giving special consideration to senior housing. There is nothing in the.minutes. There is discussion about this on the tape. Commissioner Rossbach, who gave the Planni Commis recommendation, said that the Commission had a concern with senior housing. Mayor Bastian repied that the Council shared - that concern. The Mayor moved approval of alternative three. As part of his motion, the Mayor several reasons for approving the change. One of his comments was about getting senior housing. He talked about a previous plan that the City tried to start to help seniors move from single dwellings to the Hazel Ridge senior project.when it was first built. The density tables that the Council adopted allow more units per acre fo senior projects than other multiple dwellings. The maximum density for apartments in medium density areas is seven units per acre, _while one- bedroom senior project can have up to twelve units per acre. The maximum density for apartments in high density areas is twelve. units per acre,,. while a one- bedroom senior project can have up to 21 units per acre. go /memo2l.mem (25 -29) Action by c ouno i l MEMORANDUM TO pity Manager ied --------FROM: Director of Community Mod if Development SUBJECT Code Change - Temporary Signs Rej ecte DATE:. April 10, 1991 The City Counc gave first reading to this on ordinance on Aril 8. The p only change was to change the word bullhorn to the words manual or electronic noise a system ". I have made this change on page 3 , under section 36 definitions go /memo29.mem (5.4) attachment; February 7 staff report JMXJ rM TO. City Manager FROM: Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Code Change.- Temporary Signs DATE: February 7, 1991 INTRODUCTION The City Council requested that staff update the temporary sign ordinance, especially the sections on novelty signs. The Council requested this after staff _issued permits for two balloon signs for two auto dealers on Highway 61, BACKGROUND April 27, 1987: The City Council considered an ordinance that would have reduced the length of time that a business could have a temporary sign from 60 to 40 days. The ordinance also included streamers or flags as a temporary sign. Five local business people objected to the ordinance at the meeting. The Council tabled the ordinance. They also requested that staff prepare a report defining flags, banners and streamers and to determine if anyone using such signage could be "grandfathered in". DISCUSSION There are several problems with the current ordinance: 14 - The size and time requirements are not consistent. The maximum size for flexible signs is 100 square feet, while the City limits rigid signs to 32 square feet. There is no height restriction on flexible signs, while rigid signs mustgg not exceed eight feet. Another example is with time. The City limits portable signs to 40 days each y ear while other temporary signs can be up for 60 days or until completion of a project. The proposed ordinance does not limit the size of temporary signs. The ordinance does limit the total time of all such permits for any one business location to 30 days, 20 The current ordinance does not define balloon signs. They are usually larger than the maximum size of 100 square feet for flexible signs. It is also hard to determine the area of some balloon signs, such as animal shapes. The proposed ordinance defines balloon signs. Dropping the size requirement solves the problem of balloon sizes. 39 We have not enforced the ordinance for small temporary signs, flags or banners, unless there is a complaint. Small signs are under 16 square feet. They are usually not offensive because of their small size. We have not had any complaints on them. Streamers are what the ordinance defines as flags, Most of the Council members were not interested in regulating flags or banners when the Council discussed them In 1.987. We have recently had a complaint from the Council on banners at the Plaza 3000. The City should regulate banners since they are usually as large as other temporary signs and serve the same purpose. Flags are not typical signs. They do not have a message and are more of an eye - catching device for decoration than a typical sign. The proposed ordinance excludes flags and temporary signs under 16 square feet. The ordinance does include banners, I have attached a survey of other cities that are closest to Maplewood in population. . RECOMMENDATION Approve the attached ordinance. go /memo29.mem (5.4) Attachments: 1.. Ordinance 2. Survey 2 ORDINANCE NO • AN ORDINANCE REVISING THE TEMPORARY SIGN REGULATIONS The Maplewood City Council hereby ordains as follows additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): Section 1. Section 36 -230, Definitions, is changed by revising the definition of 'temporary sign under the heading "Sign Types: By Function" as follows: Temporary Sign: Any banner, portable sign, advertising balloon , searchl icht ,, manual or electronic noise amplification systen or others allowed for a limited t ime . Section 2. Section 36 -230. Definitions, is changed by adding or revising the following definitions under the heading "Types: By Structure" Advertisincr balloon_, An inflatable temporary sign. Banners: A temporary sign 4L 3 anne . that i s made of flexible material ContainsL a message and is not inflatable. Section 3. Section 36-2.56 is changed as follows: Sec. 36 -256• Required; exceptions• raav u..M. Vraw.v- .. ++vV vim.+. %0 %-0.16 .J6A& vi LLLV V i.AAV — LZZl Se Every iDerson must. get a sign permit before erecting, placing, .. reconstructing, altering or moving a sign, exce t the following' Incidental. construction., political or, real ,estate J' Maintenance, repair or the change of _sign copy. 3 3) Temporary signs in commercial districts that are sixteen (16) sauare less, Flags. Section 4. Sections 36 -278 and 36 - 279 are amended as follows: Sec. 36 -278. Temporary signs. 4 Mma The total time of all permits for temporary signs at any one business location shall.not exceed thirty _(30I days each Each tenan_tspace at opp na center shall count as a separate business location There shall be no more than one temporary_ sign a_; a business location r , shopp ieg center at any onetime. The City shall consider a sign. displayed forepart o f a day as having been up for an entire day_ Fe-}- No . person shall place a temporary sign on or over ublic or obstruct. the visibility of drivers at intersections or when enterin or _leavincf public streets. e Off -site tems ions are prohibited. The operator of a searchli must turn it off , when the business where the searchlight is_ope_ rating, closes or by 1.0:0 0 pe whichever . comes _ first, The City Council ma approve exceptions to this section if the applicant can show there are unusual circumstances with the request. The Council _may attach 4 condit to -. .their approval to , assume that the signrrrrrrr...r will be comp tible with surrounding.. properties. ZI1 iK ViaV.V i vi • eeuneaA a4a 0 1= • n are • VI-0 -16 .. • • •, Sec. 36 -279 28 -0 -36 -290. Reserved. Section 5. This ordinance shall take effect upon its passage and publication. Passed by the Maplewood City Council on , 19910 5 TEMPORARY SIGN SURVEY TYPE OF SIGNS ALLOWED N Max. Size Time of signs scityBalloonsFlagBannersPortablesin . sq. ft.)days)Permit Blaine Yes Yes Yes Yes 50 56 No Limit Q Maple Grove Yes Ye Yes No 40 10 No Limit Eden Prairie Yes Yes Yes No 32 10 No Lim Apple Val Yes Yes Yes No 32 30 No Limit Fridley Yes Yes Yes Yes No Limit 28 One Brooklyn Ctr.Yes Yes Yes Yes No Limit 20 One Shoreview No No No Yes 32 20 One Wh Bear Lake Yes Yes Yes No No Limit 90 No Lim Crystal Yes Yes Yes Yes No Limit 21 No Limit New Brighton Yes Yes Yes No 32 60 No Limit Lakeville.Yes Yes Yes Yes No Limit 30 One New Hope Yes Yes Yes Yes 42 No Limit Cottage Grove Yes Yes Yes Yes No Limit 32 One Inv. Grove Hts.,Yes Yes Yes Yes No Limit 60 No Limit Golden Vall Yes*Yes Yes No No Limit No Limit No Limit Median Yes Yes Yes Yes No Limit 30 No Limit Council permission for balloons Dependent on zoning district @For ground openings only with Council permission Max. Size T ime # of Signs/ City Balloons Flags Banners Portables sq_) (inn Permitin`days) _ So. St. Paul Yes.Yes Yes Yes No Limit 90 No Limit Columbia Hts .Yes @ Yes @ Yes @ Yes @ 5 - - - Woodbury Yes Yes Yes No No Limit 30 One Median Yes Yes Yes Yes No Limit 30 No Limit Council permission for balloons Dependent on zoning district @For ground openings only with Council permission Community Design Review Board Minutes 2-26-91 b. Code Change Temporary Sign Code Secretary Ekstrand discussed with the Board the proposed code changes for the temporary. sign code.. Boardmember Holder moved the Community Design Review Board recommend approval of the ordinance revising the regulations for temporary signs. Boardmember Thompson seconded Ayes- -Moe, Erickson, Holder, Robinson, Thompson, Wasiluk t - AGENDA ITEM / AGENDA REPORT Action by ®un0 : TO: city Endorsec"tY Modif ie FROM: Assistant City Engineer Rej oct Date a ti ;.•, SUBJECT: Beam Avenue —T.H. 61 to County Road D, Project 88 - 12 Approve Plans DATE: April 8 1991 troduct,on The plans for the subject project are resented fora pp royal. Authorization to advertise for bids is requested. Background During the survey at T. H. 61, it was found that existing Beamma Avenue on the east side of T..H. 61 is severely offset within the right of way. This precluded design of an adequate intersection. It was judged appropriate to review the recommendations of the Maplewood Mall Area Traffic Study prepared by gStr ar- Roscoe- Fau Inc dated.February 20,. 1990 to evaluate proposed future revisions to the intersection. The Maplewood Mall Area Traff Stud recommends improvement - .Y_ p to the T.H. 61 and Beam intersection as medium range improvements : as follows. At T.H. 61 Widen the westbound and southbound approaches at the intersection of T.H. 61 and: Avenue to provide for two left turn lanes and a separate right turn lane with a free right onto northbound T, H, 61. The additional left turn lane Will. increase the capacity of the intersection and reduce the length of the queue of. vehicles. These improvements would also allow more g reen time to be,given to T.H. 61, thereby improving coordination on that roadway A meeting was held with representatives of Mn DOT and Ramse County, to obtain their input as to the app`opriateness of makingrecommendedmediumrangeimprovementsaspartofProject88 -12. The outcome of that meeting'is summar in the attached Stud for TH61/Beam Avenue Intersection prepared by TKDA dated October 8 , 1991Project88--12 -2 April 17, 1990. The review comments and concurre-nce:of Ramsey County and Mn /DOT are attached for reference The design of the project RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS, ADVERTISING FOR,-BIDS WHEREAS, plans and .spec-if ications for Beam Avenue T ..H . 61 to. County. Road D , Project 8 8 -12., have been prepared. by (or under the direction of) the city engineer, who has presented such. plans and specifications t.o the council for approval, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE l CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA 1.: Such plans and specifications, a copy of which are attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby approved and ordered placed on file in the of the city, clerk. 2. The city clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the offic*al paper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall. be published twice, at least ten days.before the date set for bid opening, shall . specify the work to be done , shall. state. that bids will be - publicly opened . and considered by the council at 1.0 am. on . the 17th day. of May, 1.9 91, at the city hall' that . no bids shall be considered unless sealed and filed with ' the clerk and accompanied by a certified check or bid. :bond payable to the City of Maplewood, Minnesota for five percent of the amount of such bid. 3. The city clerk and city engineer are. hereby authorized and instructed to receive, open, and read aloud bids received at the.tme and place herein noted, and to tabulate the bids received. The council will consider the bids, and the award of a contract, at the regular city council meeting of May 34, 199140 9291 -003 TH 61 /BEAM AVENUE INTERSECTION. STUDY MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA INTRODUCTION Toltz, King, Duvall, Anderson and Associates (TKDA) has conducted a study of the. intersection of TH 61 and Beare Avenue. in Maplewood, Minnesota.,, The study has. included developing alternative concepts. and assessing the feasibility of each. A meeting was held on October 4, 1.990, with representatives of the Minnesota. Department of Trans ortation (MnDOT), Ramsey . County, City of Maplewood, Strgar-p p Roscoe- Fausch, and TKDA. This meeting. was held to review possible intersection concepts and to gain input from the agencies involved. TH .61, at this intersection, presently has two through lanes, a right turn lane and a left turn lane on each approach. Fast of TH. 61 Beam Avenue has two eastbound lanes and ..two westbound lanes. The outside westbound lane is designated for right turns only, and the left lane. accommodates both left and through movements. Free right turn roadways are provided in the northeast and. southeast quadrants. West of TH 61 Beam Avenue is presently a two lane road with parking on both sides. Major revisions of the. existing traffic actuated traffic control system are presently being completed. The signal operates in six phases with protected left turn phases on TH 61. Strg ar- Roscoe- Fausch has conducted a traffic study for the Maplewood Maly area. Their report, dated February 20, 1990, includes forecasts of PM peak hour traffic volumes that would be generated after development of each of the undeveloped areas between TH 61 and Maplewood Mall.. Their study analyzed various alternatives to provide for the future growth in traffic and recommended some short- range, medium- range and long -range improvements to the roadway system. One of the medium -range improvements dealt with the TH 61 /B.eam Avenue intersection. It was recommended that two left turn lanes be provided on both the westbound and southbound approaches. INTERSECTION LAYOUT ALTERNATIVES Two conceptual layouts were prepared by TKDA and discussed at the meeting on October 4, 1990. Both of these layouts included construction of a second left turn lane on southbound TH 61 and widening of Beam Avenue to provide two westbound left turn lanes. This widening would require further revision of the traffic signal, filling of the ditch on the. north side of Beam Avenue, and extension of the 68 "x106" elliptical pipe culvert that crosses Beam Avenue east of the intersection. TKDA was requested to prepare aqpp third alternative that would provide one left turn lane and one... through lane on westbound Beam Avenue, with minimal revisions required for the signal system. 1- i 9291 -003 R Attached is a conceptual layout for Alternative 3. The significant elements of. thisPY alternative are as follows: 1. beam Avenge. _East of TH 61 On the. north side, the roadway would. be widened between the intersection and the golf course entrance to provide a right turn lane. One westbound through lane and. one left turn lan would be provided without disturbing theI existing signal pole with mast. arm in. the northeast. quadrant. East of the intersection at aproriate locations,. signs should be provided to advise motorists that the left lane is for left turns only. This should minimize the chances of a driver desiring a through path being "trapped" the left turn lane. Because the westbound through traffic volume is relatively light, Storage for four cars at the intersection is expected to be adequate. These vehi could be stored without blocking the access to the right turn lane. No fillin g of the ditch east of the intersection, or extension of the large culvert, would be required) 24 Beam Avenue,. West offTH 61 It is proposed to construct Beam Avenue to the west with a .width of 36 feet, face to face of curb. This would provide one traffic lane -in each direction and Parking on the south side. Near the TH 61 intersection, the street would be boundwidenedto40feettoprovideonelanewes and two lanes eastbound. r One eastbound .lane would be designated left tums only. The south edge of th proposed street would be at roxi mate.l the same ' location as the r P P aPP Y present edge of street. As shown on the layout, the lanes east and west of the intersection are offset three feet. This would permit construction of the proposed roadway without disturbing the signal poles. This offset is not 4 expected to resent a problem for drivers.P 30 JH 61, North of Beam Avenue The layout shows a double .left turn lane for the southbound approach. ThisjyPP could be . included as part of the initial work or could. , be constructed later as z' traffic volumes require. The median is wide enough to accommodate the EI additional left turn lane, but the signal pedestal in the median may need to be relocated to provide adequate clearance for the new Lane. 2 40 Tai 61, South of Beam Avenue This layout does not include any changes for this approach. 2 9291 -003 . f TRAFFIC CAPACITY ANALYSIS Usin the methods described in..the Hhwa Capacity Manuag l , (HCM) , the- critical lane Volumes during the PM peak hour were calculated for various combinations of the intersection geometrics and traffic assignments. These are shown below: Intersection Geometric Condition Description 1 Existing roadways. 2 Existing roadways on TH 61. g Beam Avenue constructed as shown on Alternative 3 see attached layout, 3 Two lane left turn on TH 61 southbound. Beam Avenue constructed as shown on Alternative 3. 4 Two lane left turn on TH 61 southbound. Two lane Left turn on Beam Avenue westbound. T ff i A i nmenra ,G ss a t .De cri ispt no 1 Existing traffic (May 9, 1990). 2 Existing traffic. t Future CSAH 19 traffic. Traffic generated by proposed residential development west of TH 61 (100 sites). E 3 All r ffic listed for Assignment 2..t o t Traffic assigned from future developments i n Maplewood West. This traffic is from Zones 1, 2 4- 9, and 16, as shown in SRF's report. This assignment is based on the assumption that the undevelop areas would be 33% developed, andPep that 30% of the generated traffic would us the Beam Avenue intersection at TH 61. 1) • w Qagapit I i I 2 Transportation Research Board, 1985. 3 9291 -003 l ' TRAFFIC ANALYSIS SUMMARY _ Intersection Sum of Case _Geometric Condition F Traffic Ass_i Critical Capacity D i n i V v Existing 1 Existing Traffic 131 Near Capacity 1 - 2 1 - Existing 2 Existing Traffic 1329 Near Capacity Future CSAH 19 Traffic Traffic from developments west of TH 61 2 -2 2 - Existing TH 61 2 See above 1329 Near Capacity Beam Ave. as shown on Alt. .3 2 -3 2 - See above. 3 All traffic In 1560 Over Capacity assignment. 2, see above Traff ic from future developments east of TH 61 3 -3 3 - 2 left turn 3 See above 1.353 Near Capacity lanes on TH 61 SB Beam Ave. as shown on Alt. 3 4 -3 4 - 2 left turn 3 See above 1052 Under Capacity lanes on TH 61 S8 2 left turn lanes on Beam Ave. WB iii. -u - .i hum of Critical Volumes 0 to 1,200 C Level Under 1,201 to 1,400 Near 1,400 Over CONCLUSIONS The HCM lannin application methods,p 9 as used in this report, are primarily used for planning purposes for new intersections.The much more detailed operational analysis is usually pp 9moreappropriateforevaluating alternatives at existing intersections. However, in the case of the Beam Avenue intersection, the planning analysis provides a good comparison of the relative benefits of the various actions considered. 4- '9291 -003 r P Based., on this analysis, the following conclusions are reached regarding traffic operations during the PM peak hour: 19 With existing traffic volumes and existing intersection conditions, traffic operations in the critical lanes are near. Capacity. The critical lanes are the westbound shared left turn lane and through lane on Beam Avenue, and the. l southbound left turn lane and the northbound through lanes on TH 61. 2. With the expected increased traff ic on Beam. Avenue, west of .TH 61, and Beam Avenue improvements west Hof TH 61, the intersection would operate much the same as it does presently. The total critical lane volumes would increase only slightly because the increased traffic from the west would add little traffic to the critical lanes. 3. Although the ' intersection will have adequate capacity for present traffic, plus additional trips on Beam Avenue from the west, further developments east. of TH 61 will raise traffic volumes to the capacity level. When this occurs will depend upon the timing of the developments,. and whether another access to TH 61 is constructed. The most feasible means of increasing the intersection capacity is to add a second left turn lane on southbound TH 61 This left turn movement is critical because it is competing with the heavy northbound through movement. With two southbound left turn lanes, it is estimated that adequate intersection capacity would be achieved until the undeveloped areas east of TH 61 are approximately 33% developed. At that time, two left turn lanes on Beam 1 Avenue westbound would be required. RECOMMENDATIONS To maintain an acceptable level of service at the TH 61 /Beam Avenue intersection, the following is recommended: 1. construct Beam Avenue, west of TH 61, as shown on the attached layout for Alternative 3. Beam Avenue would have one lane westbou -nd, one eastbound left turn lane, and one eastbound through/ri ht turn lane. A free ri ht turn ingdght southwest quadrant is not recommended because the construction would likely disturb the inplace signal pole, would require right -of -way acquisition, and the through movement plus right turn volume is relatively low. lab 10.5- 9291 -003 6- ` 9291 -003 Minnesota Department of Tr a ortationq o ya - ct 0 r. M Districtitbs a r 'r. Transportation Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 O akdale 4f 5 O PFT Y 34 Hadley Avenue North Oakdale Minnesota 55128Office, i e, 85 Y Golden Valle Office, .2055 North Lilac Drive, Golden. Valle f Minnesota 55422Y Oakdale Of ice1RepYto Telephone .No. 779 -1121 9Fe111991 CPROt !lid fOLM N(3. Mr Bruce Irish EN171ALS 41QAssistantCityEngineer City of Maplewood 1830 E County Road B Maplewood Minnesota 55109 Dear. Irish: SCIBRCT: C.S. 6222 T.H. 61 at.Beam Ave. Proposed . Intersection. Revisions Thank you for the opportuni to review the City' p revisions to Beam Avenue at T.H. 61. The conceptual. layout .for Alternative 3, as prepared by TKDA is acceptable with the following comments 1. ( The southbound T.H. 61 dual left will not be constructed as part of this project. Construction of this dual left would require. major intersection reconstruction and signalal revisions due to the grade differences between T.H. 61 and Beam Avenue 2. The westbound thru lane, west of T.H. 61, should be 14 feet wide. 3. Further d is-necessar between the State and Counter, regarding. lane assig'nment and signal phasing on Beano Avenue This sue will affect the signal modifications that may be necessary at the intersect however, this should not affect the prepa of the preliminary geometric plans. Greg Coughlin, Signal Op E will be addressing'this-issue 4. Preliminary geometric plans should be sent to Robert Brown, Preliminary Design Engineer in our Oakdale Office for a more thorough review of design details, hydraulics, etc. Cost participation issues will be addressed at that time_ If you have further questions on this pro feel to contact Bob Brown at 779 -1204. Sincerely, f f , ary B. LaPlante, P.E District Traffic Engineer An Equal Opportunity Employer Ramsey Coun DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 3377 North Rice Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55 126 612) 484 -9104 Divisions of: Engineering Maintenance RAMSEY COUNTY PROJECT NICE. -, .., Mobile Equipment Environmental Services FOLDER NCB. November 21 1990 INITIALS Mr. Bruce A. Irish assistant Ct En inee.rYg City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 T.H. 61 and Seam Avenue The Ramsey County Public Works Department has reviewed the Stud Reportyp for geometric revisions to . the intersection of T. H. 61 and Beam Avenue The County has the follow concerns regarding the construction of alternate three without the southbound dual left turn lane. 1 The widening to the north for a west to north right* torn lane and two westbound approach lanes as proposed is acceptable. 2. The two east bound lanes east of T.H. 61 should remain stripe as one lane until the southbound dual left is built. This will help reduce conflict.with the northbound right turning vehicles. 3. The west bound lane west at .T.H. 61 needs to be widened or have a larger radius to accommodate southbound right turnin 9 ,trucks. A C-50-truck extends half way into the eastbound left turn lane. 4. The signal should operate as a six phase with psplit hases.on Beamp Avenue. This.would allow the right westbound approach lane to operate as a left /thru lane It .appears that the addition of a second southbound left turn lane in the future will require major reconstruction of the intersection due to the existing intersection grades The Count y would like to see a median on the east leg of Beam Avenue separating opposing directions if a dual southbound left turn lane is built. The construction of the west leg of.Seam.should address any possible future rade change causedgg by the addition of the second southbound left turn lane. If you have.any questions, please give me a call at 482 -52090Jb i Daniel E. Soler, P.E. Traffic Engineer MEMORANDUM TO: Cit Mana FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Parkin Authorization and Fence Desi LOCATION: 3035 White Bear Avenue APPLICANT: Rick Zachau for T-Birds Sportsbar PROJECT TITLE: T-Birds Patio Seatin DATE: April 15, 1991 INTRODUCTION IC0= 01-141 ected--- Rick Zachau is proposin to add 800 s feet of outdoor seatin on the north side of T-Birds Sportsbar at the Maplewood S shoppin center. Code re 16 more parkin stalls for this new seatin area. code re a total of 332 parkin stalls for the shoppin center. There are 245 stalls on site. The Cit Council previousl approved the use of 71 fewer parkin spaces than the Code re Mr. Zachau is re that the Cit Council approve an additional reduction of 16 spaces in the re number of parkin spaces. Mr. Zachau plans to enclose the patio area with a 6,5-foot-tall cedar or treated-wood fence. Refer to pa 5. The applicant would remove the fence each winter. He would set the fence posts into holes cut into the sidewalk and would cover the holes durin the winter. BACKGROUND The cit council granted a parkin authorization for 71 fewer spaces on December 11, 1989, for T-Birds and the Sapphire Dra Restaurant at this center. Council authorized fewer spaces because: 1. The bar and restaurant's peak customer time is in the evenin when man of the shops are closed. 20 There have not been an - ser parkin problems at Maplewood S 3, There is a reciprocal parkin a between this shoppin center and the.Maplewood Mall. DISCUSSION The findin for the previous parkin authorization appl here. Parkin should not be a problem, especiall because this would be a seasonal use. There is also an a that allows this shoppin center to use the Mall parkin spaces. The fence desi is acceptable, but the applicant should paint or stain it to match the brick or the buildin fascia. The applicant must meet all building code requirements for wind loading, exiting and door /gate hardware. The applicant should see the Building Official pp g ial and Fire.Marshal about these issues. The applicant cannot allow liquor on the patio. Section 5 -112 ofCityCodestatesthatnoon -sale or off -sale license issued underthisdivisioniseffectivebeyondthecompactandcontiguousspacenamedthereforwhicht g he license was granted. Licensedpremisesarethepremisesdescribedintheapprovedlicense application. RECOMMENDATION 10 Approve an additional reduction of 16 spaces in the requirednumberofparkingspacesfor p g p r T - Birds Sportsbar at 3035 WhiteBearAvenue,.on the basis that: a. T- Births peak customer time is in the evenin g when man yoftheshopsareclosed. b. There have not been any serious parkin g problems at Maplewood Square. C• There is a reciprocal parking agreement between this shopping center and the Maplewood Mall. d. The outdoor seating would be a seasonal use dependa on the weather. 2. Approval of the fence design for the patio seatin g area atT - Birds Sportsbar. T -Birds shall do the followin •g• a. Paint or stain the fence to match the brick or the building fascia. b. Keep the fence properly painted or stained and in goodrepairalways, test- birds.mem (section 2 north 1/2) Attachments 1. Location Map 2» Site Plan 3, Proposed Fence Design 4. Patio- Seating Plan 5, Applicant's Letter dated March 20, 1991 2 r V' 4 V H N Q' Z N Q cc GR Co RF w I ACo a .LA d SAND z Ir R WHITE BEAR LAKE 68 (1 ) BRENW000 CLAY o GALL AV . Cr AV a G-M 68 1 (21 PRIVATE STREET AMSSABI AV) NORTH SA IN T PA UL AV SEMIS ERVAIS /h/ CT Q C4srLE AV . Av a H x W _ RIE RD V " w RD con F- N sl Z AID LOCATION MAP f' j F t 3 Attachment 1 t" 7 f! 4 N ago - PROPOSED PATIO SEATIN low, mammommo rte • • TRASH AREA r 4M 441b T 6 ddob j 0 24 25 1 T BIRD • t t 1 23 _ t ;., • ; • . 20 21 MAPLEWOOD SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER SITE PLAN 4 Attachment 2 19 4 t 16 18 7 15 13 dp bo so 10 bill, 8,9 6 j 7 C l 'Erie 43 t r 2 Aso ._ 1% pas WiftMEMMUMMMso SITE PLAN 4 Attachment 2 light green or brown treated and cedar 41 PROPOSED FENCE DESIGN 5 — Attachment 3 J PATIO SEATING PLAN'4 N 6 Attachment 4 r Sportsbar Maplewood 3035 White Bear Avenue, Maplewood, MN 55109 •779 -2266 March 20, 1991 Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner City of Maplewood 1830 E. County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Dear Mr. Ekstrand: Because of alternate peak use of restaurant parking and general shopping uses the parking required for - T -BI rds use will not over_ load the available parking. The bar and restaurants peak customer time is in the evening when many . of the adJacent shops are closed. There has not . been any serious parking problems at Maplewood Square and there is, a reciprocal parking agreement between Maplewood Square and Maplewood Mall, Thank you.. Very trul yours, LA. Za ,CEO T -Birds Maplewood cc: Thomas Schuette 7 Attachment 5 3 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manage FROM: Ken Roberts, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Land Use Plan Change LOCATION: County Road B and White Bear Avenue DATE: March 27, 1991 S U14MARY INTRODUCTION C ouno i l- :J BnAorse : difie - Rejected - - Date - -I The City Council requested a change to the City s land usey plan.This is for the undeveloped lot on the southwest corner of CountyRoadBandWhiteBearAvenue. The land use plan ' 'p is the City'sguidetohowpropertyshoulddevelopnthefuture. 'p The CouncilproposedthattheCitychangethelanduseplanfromSCservicecommercialtoR SC (service , n L (residential low density) . The map on page 7showstheexistinglandusela p ggplanThemaponpage8showsthelanduseplanasproposedbytheCityCouncil. The ma on in the are p wage 9showsthezoninga. The City has zoned this lot R -1single-family residential) . This area is one of several the Council is studying as part Of anupdatetotheCity's Comprehensive Plan. BACKGROUND November 16, 1989 The City Council asked staff to study thepropertiesthathavezoningandlandusedesignationsthatallowwdifferenttypesoflanduses. The Council wanted to stud.. theseeseareasaspartofanupdateoftheCity's Comprehensive Plan, August 20, 1990: The City Council reviewed the staff's stud an es to se y dproposedchangesseveralareas, including this one. ALTERNATIVES (from the least to the most restrictive) 1. Keep the land use plan as SC (service commercial) and changethezoningtoBC (business commercial). This is the way heCityhas. planned and zoned the y properties across County RoadBandWhiteBearAvenue, 2. Change the land use plan to LSC (limited service commercial)and the zoning to LBC (limited business . TheLBCzonecommercial)*would limit the use of the lot to an office building, day care center or medical clinic* linic. These uses would be more compatible with the adjacent residential land uses than those allowed in the BC zone. 3. Change the land use plan to RL (residential low density) andkeepthezoningR -1 (single dwelling residential DISCUSSION This case creates a dilemma for the City,, The Council woulduld likethepropertyownertodeveloptheselotswithsingledwellings,g g .The property owner would also like iblrthis. The problem s that tCtmanotbeableresidential he y. y e to issue residential building permits ontheselotsbecauseoftheState's noise regulations. The no levels from White Bear Avenue 'are .too high forresidentialuseofthesetwolots. The ro ert et a variance ,p p Y owner would havetogcefromtheStateordesignthebuildingandlottomeet.the State's regulations. A representative from the P CAtoldmethatitwouldbedifficulttoetavariance. Designingsigningthebuildingandlottomeetthenoiseregulationsmayalsobedifficult. I talked to an acoustical engineer wh 'g o thought it maybepossible. The property owner would have to consider b erming,fencing, putting the garage on the White 'g Bear Avenue side orlimitingwindowsonthestreetside. The property wner shouldprovidetheCityitha y y written statement from an statementengineerbeforetheCityissuesapermit* Thisp shouldgiveareasonableassurancethatthebuildingndsited 'g esignwouldmeettheState's noise regulations. If the property owner cannot meet the State's noise standards orget . variance, the City should change the landg use plan andzoningmapforthesetwolotstocommercial., The LBC zone wouldbethemostcompatiblewiththesurroundinghomes. These lots are large enough for a one-story, 320 square-footYqutbuldi.ng.with 16 parking spaces. A site plan done b staff is pageshownonae 11. Y RECOMMENDATIONS Approve the resolution on page 12. This resolution changes t plan for g helanduseptheundevelopedlotatthesouthwestcornerofWhBearAvenueandCount. Road Be This chan 'Y nge z s from SCServicecommercial) to RL (re low density). A ro is on the y) pp valbasisthat: a. Single dwellings would be more compatiblepe with the surrounding homes than commercial uses. b. The SC (service commercial) designation allows uses that maynotbecompatiblewithsingledwellings, c. The City may consider a more restrictive commercial designation if the State's noise regulations prohibitpt residential development on this lot. 2 REFERENCE . INFORMATION CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed 18 property owners within 350 feet of the study area. Five people returned their surveys. Three were for the RL designation, one was against, and one had no comment. The one response against the proposed change suggested developing the lot commercially.. This is because they felt there is too much traffic on White Bear Avenue for residential use. Pat Goff owns the two lots on White Bear Avenue, between County Road B and Burke Avenue. He plans to build two homes on these. lots. He is for the RL land use designation. SITE INFORMATION Northerly lot size: 90.5' x 117.45.' = 10,629 feet Southerly lot size: 100.5' x 117.5' = 11,809 square feet Ramsey County's Major Street Plan calls for White Bear Avenue to have a 120 -foot right -of -way. The current right -of -way is 99.5 feet. Therefore, Ramsey County expects'to get an additional 10.5 feet of right -of -way from this lot. This would make it 80' x 117.45' or 9,396 square feet. Existing land use: undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Group Health, Inc. across County Road B. East.: White Bear Avenue, Bakery Shop and a single - family home South Property.planned and zoned for single - family dwellings West: Single - family homes PLANNING Land Use Definitions Low - Density Residential (RL). This classification allows a variety of single - dwelling homes and an occasional double dwelling. The density ranges from 3.5 - 6.3 units per acre. Limited Service Commercial Centers (LSC): The Comprehensive Plan defines Limited Service Centers as those rovidin specializedPgp commercial services on a neighborhood scale. These are to be limited as to quantity, location or function, and planned in a quality environment. The community must restrict these centers because of the effect on surrounding properties, yet provide convenience to the citizens with high standards of safety, amenities and aesthetics (p. 18 -17)0 Service Commercial Centers (SC). The City orients this commercial classification to facilities which are local or community-wide scale. The City intends this district to provide. for a variety of commercial uses. The City expects that the location of such uses will be compatible with the character and development of the respective neighborhoods. Zoning Definitions R -1 (Single Dwelling Residential) allows single dwellings. LBC (limited business commercial) allows offices, medical and health clinics and day care centers. BC (business commercial) allows a Wide variety of uses including hotels and motels, retail stores, restaurants, offices, banks, automobile sales lots and theaters. The City may permit places of amusement or recreation, storage yards, used car lots and metal storage buildings with a conditional use permit. NOISE REGULATIONS The State Pollution Control Agency's (PCA) Noise Pollution Control Rules state that no person may violate the State's noise standards. It also states that a'city shall take all reasonable measures within its jurisdiction to prevent the establishment of land use activities in any location where the noise standards will be violated immediately upon establishment of the land use. The regulations also allow the PCA to approve a variance to the rules where they would cause undue hardship, would be unreasonable, impractical, or not feasible under the circumstances. Staff did a noise study on the lot in question in January, 1991. This study showed that the noise levels on this lot P eaked at 72 decibels at 3 P.M. The. study also showed that for daytime hours 7 A.M. - 9 P.M.), the noise level on this lot was between 69 and 71 decibels. The maximum allowed noise level- for daytime hours by State standards for residential land uses is 65 decibels. The study also showed that traffic noise would exceed the allowed night time noise levels for residential land uses. PUBLIC WORKS Sanitary sewer is not directly available northwest corner of Burke and White Bear stops about 40 feet to the west. There problems in extending it. The property some type of pump for a home on this lot to the lot on the Avenues. The sewer are some elevation owner may have to use 4 go memo 14 mem Attachments 1. Location Map 0. 2, Existing Land Use Plan 3. Council Proposed Land Use Plan 4 Property Line /Zoning Map 5. Enlarged Property Line /Zoning Map 6. Staff Site Plan 7. Land Use Plan Change Resolution 5 f z 19 wow Hn g RAT; Z I W// :ate c f' a ----- KOHLMAN I ' AV Z F- North Y KOHLMAN AV a v Hazelwood o F- Pk N WW `rte c o CO > R0 := "C N T29NZ W a 3 2EC15 W F- Ix 3' 10111TCCW }- J EDG HILL RO k v N J W = .= W DEMDNT aV F =1) CONNOR AV m o BR AV N x ELE EXTANT y FourAliXTANAVAseasom AV Q © d GERVAIS GERWS ERVAIS NOW GRANOVIEW AV Z m VIKING. Obi sc f E Aft R R i-- OPE CT COPE A /Knuckle Head Lake AV . -. COPE AY LARK AV W LARK a Im- N N N Q O: N R0 9 c3 7 LAURIE RD Y W _ R!S/kr- v RD o SANO HURST a raodAt A W W iTtONSToyc0 > RD ,8 o AV Pki P ,Q o ¢ BURK o Niob+iwood ELDRIOG A/ SIP9 Q N BE A N OfyHo // AKt Ay !KlLLM! AV = Q` RECRf4r, r KRIS pV AV u Q4 N ROSEWOOD: WAN RY a g av .,. OR Gav2800 o cr.E- Gplf ' O W ME R AV b SUM W Q I SBt E AV + Pk o o a 121 c PAchZa rr W 4k Z W WQICFF /ELD W J J K H AV Z to AV y "'LAK / ' U. j - PRICEa A 2 J PRICE m 2g _ ~ LOCATION MAP 6,Attachment 1 fn an e a iL r . sue NOW am 0 -no NAM AA MM! amp quo OWNING, gamma s t t e C Lit 0 N 4 0 V-OA? RL= RESIDENTIAL LOWER DENSITY SC= SERVICE COMMERCIAL CENTEE BW= BUSINESS WAREHOUSING EXISTING LAND USE PLAN 7 Attachment 2 a .. ism jjth XwNCO, RD. B C R J z sc FROST j O 1 4 N 4c r C W I O N O Q O i v t 3 RL= RESIDENTIAL LOWER DENSITY SC= SERVICE COMMERCIAL CENTER CITY COUNC. 8W= BUSINESS WAREHOUSING PROPOSES -- LAND USE PLAN s boo' /02.87 H t n CIA 68) (G? Cl ZD20 22' Q Q 1 7W '74-15' 160 1? C L 1 0 Ozz 7S - X53.65 i 46 4( in S t JRE r 1074.3 r 10 too VAC Z7 19 t ?p tt.67' Do l4o4s= , Doc i 89t*12. 3 Z 4 14 2I Doll O Z O 92- cat 4 05 r 294 42 (ter 45 VACATED *r. I_'72l0•5 t Q b to LLJ 0 J w in c ,92 a.c . 603.36 ; S ' .6 f 9d) ek -A495,2 2c. Lu tA e . 3 P zo 19 1 29 + i l c !o -' - ,'71 ,r - - - -mominlede tj GIRO P HEALTH lFINA Cz 371 - f$. .—e G O r7) Xi go t ... + 111 F 25 Straw r- a1 I CITY HALL . 4 N Cn a' N NONERlDw140's 5 5 7 0 r w r ro.f 3ff i" AML 14 I s 12 t to 9 8 5y a Cn a' N N PROPERTY LINE / MAP AREA OF PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT R.O.W. TO BE ACQUIRED BY RAMSEY CO. Q N 10 Attachment 5 V1 4 00 loom sum' w AWMMr A: • •:. ` - its STAFF CONCEPT SITE PLAN Q N 11 Attachment 6 LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the City Council requested a change to the City'slanduseplanfromSC (service commercial) to RL (residential low density) WHEREAS, this change applies to the southwest corner of White Bear Averse and County Road B. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April i 19910 City staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent. notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The Planning Commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that the change be , 2. The City Council discussed the plan amendment on 1991. They considered reports and recommendations from the Planning Commission and City staff NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approvetheabove - described change for.the following reasons: a. Single dwellings would be more compatible with the surrounding homes than commercial uses. b. The SC (service commercial) designation allows uses. that may not be compatible with single dwellings. c. The City may consider a more restrictive commercial designation if the State's noise regulations prohibitgp - . residential development on this lot. Approved on 1991. Attachment 7 12 Maplewood Planning Commission -2- Minutes 4-1-91 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. 7 p.m. - Plan Amendment: Co. Rd. B and White Bear Ave Ken Roberts,. Associate. Planner, read'the hearing notice and the staff report. The Commission discussed with staff the state regulationg s regarding noise levels. It was suggested by Commissioner Rossbach that the noise regulation may not apply inPYthiscase, since the residential land use designationn was existing prior-to the development of the road which created the high- level. Staff `g _ f informed the. Commission that the noise regulations would apply inthiscase, since this.re ulation pertainsgpns to the building rather than the lot Staff explained that in this instance, since the noise level is only slightly above state standards there Y are some possible remedies. the developer could tr to lower the noise level to an acceptable level The Commissiondiscussed-the possible City liability if t 'Y y his land is designated residential and a future homeowner finds the noise level unacceptable. In response to a question from a commissioner, the director of public works explained the problems with extending sanitary I sewer to the lot on the corner of Burke.and White Bear Avenues. He also explained that' if a house were to.be built with the ag ,rage fronting on White Bear Avenue, it could require a variance or some other remedy in order meet City code. Commissioner Rossbach moved the Planning Commission recommend not changing the land use plan from SC to RL' for the undeveloped lot at the southwest corner of White Bear Avenue and Count Road B ony the basis that: 1. Minnesota Pollution Control laws may ro 'Y p hlbit theconstructofaresidentialstructureonthis property. 20 The landowner can initiate a variance or alternative sound abatement techniques without a land use change. 30 If the lot is not to* be developed for residential use, an SC land use design#tion would be more appropriate for this property. Commissioner Rossbach commented that it is the zoning that dictates what g can be done on property and Maplewood Planning Commission -3- Minutee 4 -1 -91 since the current zoning is R -1, it doesn't make sense to change the zoning until development is pro Deed.p Commissioner Frost seconded After some discussion on what future zonin g would be- appropriate for this property, Commissioner Rossbach amended his.motion changing number three to read: an LSC land use designation would be more appropriate f or this property. The commissioners.discussed whether it is necessary to make this motion, since the current zoning is R -1 and no change in the zoning is proposed. The Commission voted as follows: Ayes. Sinn Nays-- Anitzberger, Axdahl,.Card -inal, Frost, Gerke- Martin, Pearson, Rossbach Abstentions -- Fischer The motion failed. Commissioner Fischer moved the Planning Commission recommend tabling any action until it is known whether or not the PCA will grant a variance for construction of single dwellings on this site. Commissioner. Cardinal seconded Ayes -- Anitzber erg , Axdahl , Card nall, Fischer, Frost, Martin, Pearson, Rossbach, Sinn Nays- -Gerke The motion passed. b. 7 :15 p - ebe Ro , north of Larpenteur Avenue Autumnwood V llas . Land Use Plan Change, Conditional Use Permit for a D, Preliminary Plat Secretary Ols ead the public hearing notice. Mr. Olson remind d t e public that the developers were unable to a tend this meeting and they asked that this item be co sidered at the next meeting.' Ik NORTH ST. PAUL - MAPLEWOOD- OAKDALE SCHOOLS .MA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 622 QPJ 20 h55EastLarpenteurAvenue , SCHG,)Maplewood, MN 55109 AFFAi Z s+ W Office of the Superintendent f y ° °t a0poSchoolsvosT Telephone Number: (612) 770 -4601 e April 4, 1991 Mayor Gary Bastian and City Council City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B North St. Paul, Minnesota 55109 Dear Mayor Bastian and Council Members: Action by . C,®uncil Endorse Modif ie Ilejecte d.------ Date The School Board of District 622 currentlyy is involved m afive -year strategicPlanningprocess. One of the owls of • Possible, k g this process s to involve, as early aspkeystakeholderswithintheDistrict, On May 4, a retreat will be held at thee Dlstrct Center, 2005 East LarpenteurAvenue, to conduct a SWOT analysis (strengths, -threats of Y ( • gths, weaknesses, opportunities, andtheDistrictasseenbyitsprimarystakeholders. •p Y akeholders. Included will berepresentativesoflocalandcountygovernment, general public arents teachers,other District employees, students and se p ac ers, Maplewood service clubs. We are inviting the CityofMaptosendarepresentativetothisretreat. The roduct ofp thisretreatisexpectedtobeastakeholderanalysisthattheSchoolBoardwilluseinitsownretreattobeheldinJune. The May 4 retreat will be conducted b JoUniversityofMinYn Bryson and Chuck Finn of theYMinnesotaHumphreyInstitute. It will begin at 8:00 a. m, andshouldconcludeby4 :30 p.m. Lunch and snacksacks will be served. This is an exciting venture f ' you + g or Distri 622, and we would very much apur .nvo_ve._ en ,. After you have identified an ire p •interested participant, willsendaipersonalletterofinvitationthatwillprovideallnecessarybackgroundinformation,y details and Thanks in advance for your help,p ver ly yours, Y- P. lliam L. Gaslin uperintendent of Schools WLG :sjg