The URL can be used to link to this page

273634 WMITE - GITV CLERK �� PINK - F�NANCE COUTICII 4C,iANARV -'DEPARTMENT GITY� OF SAINT PAUL File NO• UE �tY.AAVOR �� Resolution . Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date WHEREAS, This matter was heard by the City Council upon the appeal made by Midwest Plastics, Inc. and Myron A. Roth, Jr. from the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals which 1) upheld the administrative decision of the Zoning Administrator directing that the use of the property at 1422 Ames Avenue as an industrial drive- way to serve the contiguous industrial property at 956 Prosperity Avenue be discontinued, 2) determined that the existing driveway was constructed without the necessary permit from the Public Works Department, and 3) determined that the driveway was constructed without the necessary site review and approval by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, By letter dated October 20, 1978, the Zoning Admini- strator issued an order to Midwest Plastics, Inc. and Myron A. Roth, Jr. to discontinue the use of the driveway located at 1422 Ames Avenue, Saint Paul, Minnesota, as a truck entrance to the industrial property located adjacent to said driveway because the driveway use for industrial purposes constituted a violation of the zoning ordinances of the City, and further because the drive- way was constructed without the necessary permission of the Depart- ment of Public Works and without the site plan review and approval of the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, Midwest Plastics, Inc. and Myron A. Roth, Jr. , acting pursuant to Section 64.203 of the Zoning Ordinances, filed an appeal of this decision of the Zoning Administrator to the Board of Zoning Appeals alleging that there was an error in the decision and interpretation of the zoning code provisions� by the Zoning Admini- strator; and WHEREAS, The Board of Zoning Appeals considered the appeal, and after hearing all the evidence, concluded that the Zoning COUNCILMEN � Yeas Nays Requested by Department of: Butler [n Favor Hozza Hunt Levine _ __ Against BY — Maddox Showalter Tedesco Form Approved by ity Attorney Adopted by Council: Date Certified Yassed by Council Secretary By sy, ° t�p roved by 1Aavor: Date Approved by Mayor�fj�r Submission to Council P By - — BY — � � Administrator did not err in his interpretation and enforcement of the Zoning Ordinances and denied the appeal of Midwest Plastics, Inc. and Myron A. Roth, Jr. ; and WHEREAS, Acting pursuant to Section 64.204, Midwest Plastics, Inc. and Myron A. Roth, Jr. appealed the Zoning Board's decision to the City Council, and the Council conducted public hearings on said appeal, at which the appellant was represented by counsel, and having considered all of the testimony, exhibits and arguments, the Council does hereby make the following findings of facts: 1. Midwest Plastics, Inc. acquired its industrial property located at 956 Prosperity Avenue in 1959 and constructed its building on the site in 1963. The property was zoned for in- dustrial use at that time, and continues to be zoned for industri- al use. The business at this address involved light industrial manufacturing and access to the building and loading docks was from Prosperity Avenue. 2. The property at 1422 Ames Avenue, Lot 3, Block 4, Ames Out Lots, located to the north and east of the industrial plant of Midwest Plastics, Inc. , was acquired by Myron A. Roth, Sr. and Adeline G. Roth in 1967. At that time the property was developed with a single family home and a dirt driveway existed along the westerly edge of the property. This driveway served the home and garage at 1422 Ames Avenue. When the property was acquired it was zoned for residential purposes. The boundary between the adjoining industrial district and the residential district was the quarter-quarter section line or the centerline of Birmingham Street extended northerly past Lot 3. This centerline of Birming- ham Street, extended, is the westerly boundary line of Lot 3, Block 4, Ames Out Lots. The present zoning for Lot 3, adopted in 1975, is residential also. Therefore Lot 3, Block 4, Ames Out lots has always been, and continues to be, zoned for residential purposes only, and no portion of Lot 3 was ever zoned for industri- al usage. 3. Title to the property at 1422 Ames Avenue was trans- ferred to Myron A. Roth, Jr. and Geraldine Ann Roth in 1967, and the grantors retained an easement for driveway purposes over the westerly 20 feet of this property "for roadway and access -2- . �� purposes from Ames Avenue to the premises adjoining and immedi- ately westerly of the premises hereby conveyed" . There is no evidence that this westerly driveway was used for access or as a driveway to the industriaT property of Midwest Plastics, Inc. at 956 Prosperity Avenue in 1967. 4. The westerly driveway on Lot 3, together with the exist- ing garage on the property, was moved to the easterly side of the 1422 Ames Avenue property sometime in 1967 or 1968. The easterly driveway was then used to serve the property at 1422 Ames Avenue and its garage, and there is evidence that refuse trucks used the driveway to remove refuse from the rear of the Midwest Plastics, Inc. plant. The westerly driveway was discontinued and was overgrown with grass until October of 1978, at which time Midwest Plastics, Inc. graded and installed a new westerly driveway along the westerly property line of Lot 3, Block 4, Ames Out lots. 5. In 1969 Midwest Plastics, Inc. constructed an addition onto its existing building at 956 Prosperity Avenue, the addition being located to the east or rear of its existing building. A loading dock was constructed as a part of this addition. Testi- mony submitted on behalf of Midwest Plastics, Inc. is that it contemplated using the existing driveway at 1422 Ames Avenue as access to this loading dock as a part of the 1969 building addition, but that the plans submitted by it as a part of its application for building permit did not show this accessory driveway use or location. Testimony submitted by and on behalf of the residents is that the easterly driveway was used for the home at 1422 Ames Avenue only, or at the most some refuse removal vehicles used it to service the Midwest Plastics, Inc. property by removing refuse from the rear of the property at 956 Prosperity Avenue. 6. Midwest Plastics, Inc. constructed a second addition to its building at 956 Prosperity Avenue, construction beginning in the fall of 1976 and being completed sometime in 1977. Testimony is conflicting as to the use being made of the easterly driveway during this construction period. The testimony of Midwest Plastics, Inc. is to the effect that truck deliveries and pickups from the -3- , - �t, �, ��i��a�� loading docks were going on during this period, and the testimony by and on behalf of the residents is that the only truck traffic on the easterly driveway was for the building construction. 7 . In 1978 Midwest Plastics, Inc. submitted a petition to rezone its property at 1422 Ames Avenue from residential to industrial (I-1 light industrial) . Following a public hearing on the rezoning petition at which residents objected to the rezoning on the grounds that the adjacent properties were residential and the industrial use would generate truck traffic on Ames Avenue, the Current Planning and Zoning Committee recommended denial of the rezoning petition on Jul.y 6, 1978. On July 14, 1978 the Planning Commission also recommended denial of the rezoning petition, and on September 21, 1978 the City Council denied the petition. 8. As a result of complaints, the Zoning Administrator notified Midwest Plastics, Inc. that it could not use the easter- ly driveway at 1422 Ames Avenue for a truck entrance for its industrial plant at 956 Prosperity Avenue, because the zoning ordinances prohibited such industrial use of residential property. Midwest Plastics, Inc. appealed this determination to the Board of Zoning Appeals, and the Board on October 17, 1978, following an extensive public hearing and receipt of testimony from Midwest Plastics, Inc. and interested parties, upheld the Zoning Admini- strator' s determination. Midwest Plastics, Inc. did not appeal this decision to the City Council, and therefore the decision is final. 9 . On October 13, 1978 Midwest Plastics, Inc. , while awaiting the Zoning Board' s decision on the easterly driveway, constructed a new driveway from Ames Avenue along the westerly property line of Lot 3, Block 4, Ames Outlots. This driveway was constructed without the necessary permission and authority from the Department of Public Works, and was performed without the necessary site review and approval of the Planning Commission, and therefore was in violation of the ordinance of the City o� Saint Paul. Midwest Plastics, Inc. does not dispute this fact of the lack of the necessary permits. -4- ' . ' �� 10. Commencing on October 13, 1978, and continuing there- after, Midwest Plastics, Inc. directed truck deliveries and pickups for its industrial plant to use the new westerly driveway at 1422 Ames Avenue. Trucks of different sizes, including large semitrailer trucks, were driving on Ames Avenue and onto the westerly driveway to the rear of the Midwest Plastic's plant. 11. The Zoning Administrator received numerous complaints from residents concerning the truck traffic on Ames Avenue and the use of a residential lot for driveway access to an industrial lot. 12. That following the construction of the westerly drive- way, Midwest Plastics, Inc. removed a large tree located on its property at 1422 Ames Avenue, and adjacent to the westerly drive- way, to allow trucks access along this driveway. 13. That on October 20, 1978, the Zoning Administrator notified Midwest Plastics, Inc. and Myron A. Roth, Jr. that it must stop using the westerly driveway as a truck access for its adjacent industry, and Midwest Plastics, Inc. has refused to obey this order. An appeal of this order was filed with the Board of Zoning Appeals. 14. That Midwest Plastics, Inc. has obtained a driveway easement along the southerly side of its industrial building, which easement is sufficiently wide enough for truck traffic to gain access to the loading docks in the rear of its building, but the company has not used the easement areas as a driveway. There was evidence that this easement area was used as a driveway access to the rear of the Midwest property prior to the acquisition of the easement from the Chicago and Northwestern Transportation Company. Midwest claims that using the driveway easement for truck access will cause it to lose employee off-street parking. 15. That during the hearings before the City Council on this appeal, the residents adjoining 1422 Ames Avenue had indi- cated a willingness to join with Midwest Plastics, Inc. in a petition to rezone a portion of Lot 3, Block 4, Ames Out Lots for use as a parking lot (P-1 zone) to serve the employees of Midwest Plastics on condition that Midwest Plastics discontinue -5- . : �� using the westerly driveway for truck access, but Midwest Plastics, Inc. refused to accept the offer of compromise. BASED ON THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY MAKE THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSIONS: l. The Board of Zoning Appeals did not commit any error when it determined that the westerly driveway over Lot 3, Block 4, Ames Out Lots was a violation of the zoning ordinances, that there was no basis for a determination of legal nonconforming use of the driveway, that the site plan may not be approved in violation of the zoning ordinance, and that the Zoning Administrator did not err in his interpretation of the zoning ordinance. 2 . That the Zoning Administrator did not commit an error in his determination that Lot 3, Block 4, Ames Out Lots (1422 Ames Avenue) is zoned for residential use and that the use of the westerly portion thereof as a driveway access to the industry located at 956 Prosperity Avenue constituted an industrial use of residentially zoned property and therefore was in violation of the Saint Paul Zoning Ordinances. 3. That the Zoning Administrator did not commit an error in his determination that the westerly driveway was constructed with- out a permit from the Public Works Department and therefore was in violation of Chapter 207 of the Legislative Code. 4. That the Zoning Administrator did not commit an error in his determination that the westerly driveway was constructed with- out the review and approval of the site plan for the driveway as is required by the Zoning Ordinances. NOW, THEREFORE, based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions, the Council does hereby make the following order: RESOLVED, That the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby wholly affirm and ratify the decision and determination of the Board of Zoning Appeals in this matter and the Appellant, Midwest Plastics, Inc. , and Myron A. Roth, Jr. are hereby ordered to immediately discontinue the use of the westerly driveway as an access to its industrial property at 956 Prosperity Avenue; and, be it -6- WHITE - CITV CLERK COUI1C11 ��`��;�� C NAF�V'-�EP RCMENT CITY OF SAINT PALTL File NO. BLU� .� -MAYOR � � � � �o�ncil Resolution Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City Clerk is hereby directed to mail a copy of this resolution to the Appellants, the Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals. -7- COUNCILMEN Yeas Nays � Requested by Department of: Ho�� [n Favor Hunt Q� Levine __ Against BY — Maddo alter edesco p�G 3 019�9 Form Approved by ity Attorney A pted by Coun ' . Date . - Certified Y ssed by .� Se retary By B � /�lpproved by :Vlavor: Date _ Approved by Ma or for Submission to Council By _ — BY �� S�� c7 �� a��'o�+ �1 CITY OF SAlNT PAUL �'; '�"' a'� DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVEL�PMENT M iiii1iilii �; .� ^° DIVISION OF PLANNING '��,,, .� '�'� 25 West Fourth Street,Saint Paul,Minnesota,55102 GEORGE LATIMER 612-298-4151 MAYOR July 24, 1979 Rose Mix, City Clerk 386 City Hall St. Paul . Minn. 55102 Dear Madam: Re: Plyron A. Roth (Midwest Plastics) - Z.F. #8384 This is written in response to the appeal of Myron A. Roth (.Midwest Plastics) to a Board of Zoning Appeals deczsion upholding the Zoning Administrator's interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance. This appeal directly concerns the use of the westerly driveway on the subject property located at 1422 Ames Avenue which is used as access to the industrially zoned property of Midwest Plastics. This matter was last heard by the City Council at a special hearing on May 26, 1979 at 7:30 P.M. in City Council Chambers. Following public testimony, the City Council , directed the applicant and a representative of the adjacent neighborhood to negotiate a compromise which would limit access to Prosperity and which would rezone a port�on of Lot 3 (1422 Ames) to P-1 . Two meetings were held; on P-1ay 14 and July 5. At the first meeting it was decided that the applicant would have a survey done of the property and preliminary site plans of the P-1 completed. At the second meeting the applicant indi- cated that before the expenditure of additional money, the appeal pending before the City Cauncil should be resolved. This matter is scheduled for public hearing before the City Council on July 31 , 1979. Sincerely, ��`�� a � Donna F. McNeally City Planner DFM/gf ' Encs. �O ___ _.._. . _ _ ��_ . _ f _��7� �1 CITY OF SAlNT PAUL ';~a '"'' '�a� DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVEL�pMENT . �� wwam �� : nn 1u�� e %' ^- DIVISION OF PLANNING ,'''t�•�� 25 West Fourth Street,Saint Paul,Minnesota,55102 GEORGE LATIMER 612-298-4151 MAYOR July 24, 1979 Rose Mix, City Clerk 386 City Hall St. Paul . Minn. 55102 Dear Madam: Re: Myron A. Roth �Midwest Plastics) - Z.F. #8384 This is written in response to the appea] of Myron A. Roth (.Midwest Plastics) to a Board of Zoning Appeals decision upholding the Zoning Administrator's interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance. This appeal directly concerns the use of the westerly driveway on the subject property located at 1422 Ames Avenue which is used as access to the industrially zoned property of Midwest Plastics. This matter was last heard bv the City Council at a special hearing on h1ay 26, 1979 at � 7:30 P.M. in City Council Chambers. Following public testimony, the City Council directed the applicant and a representative of the adjacent neighborhood to negotiate a compromise which would limit access to Prosperity and which would rezone a portion of Lot 3 (1422 Ames) to P-1 . Two meetings were held; on P1ay 14 and July 5. At the first meeting it was decided that the applicant would have a survey done of the property and preliminary site plans of the P-1 completed. At the second meeting the applicant indi- cated that before the expenditure of additional money, the appeal pending before the City Council should be resolved. This matter is scheduled for public hearing before the City Council on July 31 , 1979. Sincerely, �� . V��a � Donna F. McNeally City Planner DFM/gf � Encs. �� •� ��;"~--:,.. CITY OF SAINT PAUL �� G 1 T 0� .. __r4 0��' ~ " DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOM{C DEVEUOPMENT �4 �, _�. f�� a��.. �5 % � �a �p17idT;111; �; �� i111111011: c_ ',• ^_ DIVlS10N OF PLANNING � �,,.. 4 •+��' ,��• 25 West Fourtfi Street,Saint Paul,Minnesota,55102 �.,o.�.�'`� GEORGE LATI�v1ER 612-248-4151 MAYOR April 17, 1979 Rose Mix, City C1erk 386 City Hall St. Paul , Minn. 55102 Dear Madam: � Re: Zoning File No. 8384 This is written in response to the appeal of Myron A. P.oth (htidwest Plastics, Inc.� to a Board of Zoning Appeals decision upholding the Zoning Administrator's inter- - pretation of the Zoning Ordinance. This appeal directly concerns a westerly drive�vay on the subject property located at 1422 Ames Avenue which is used as access to the industrial property of Midwest Plastics. The Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on the appeal of P1idwest Plastics to the Zoning Administrator's letter of October 20, 1978, notifying the appellant that he was in violation of the Zoning Ordinance by constructing a driveHray without an approved site plan and by using that driveway crossing reside�tial property ta gain . access to industrially zoned property. The basis of the appeal was that the access drive is a legal nonconforming use ; the City issued building permits which contem- plated this access; the appellant sought to obtain a site plan but tivas denied; that the 1975 Zoning Ordinance was unconstitutional ; and that the present zoning map is in conf7ict with the intended location of the district boundary. The Board of Zoning Appeals upheld the Zoning Administrat�r's interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance on a 5 to 0 vote and thereby denied the appPal , based on findings that the subject driveway across residential property is used as access to P�1idwest Plastics, an industrially zoned property; this use is in violation of the Zoning Ordinance; there is no basis for determination of legal nonconforming use of the driveway, and site� plans may not be approved in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. There was considerable opposition present at the hearing. h1ajor concerns were in- creased truck traffic on Ames and encroachnent on adjacent residential development by industrial use. Contact with James W. Heidkamp, Regional hlanager for the Chicago, Northwestern Railroad, confirms the purchase by t•1id��vest Plastics of a portion of the railroad right-of-H�ay extending from the centerline of Prosperity Street approximately 6�5 ft. easterly thereof to be us�d for driveway purposes. The Dept. of Public 4Jorks indicates that constructian of such driveway could begin by the end of April 1969. This matter is scheduled to be heard before City Council Apri7 26, 1979. Sincerely, ��,�.�: w�=�,�.a Donna F. McNeally City Planner DFM/gf Encs. _ ._._ . _ _ . ��_ . . _ _ „ w � • � . . ' �1 � =�t°i • � t. �` , � - � . . ` � ci��y o� _sai r�� p��i �oa�d o� z��ing a��als r�s�9�uti�� zo��t� fil� ��r 838� : . �� Februarv 20, 1g79 _ WHEREqS, on October 20, 1978 the Zoning Administrator ordered Mr. Myron Roth, Jr, ,� (�li dwest P1 asti cs Inc, � to di sconti nue use of a dri ver�iay 1 ocated � at i422 Ames as access to 1ndustrlal property (.the Tetter is attached hereto as Exfiihit A�; and CJHEREAS, Myron Roth Jr. has applied for an Administrative Review of said cease and desist order in accordance with the pro�,�isions of S ection 64.203 (tfie application for Admin�istrative Review is attached hereto as Exhibit B) ; ahd 4JHEREAS, the St, Paul Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on Fe6ruary 6, 1979 pursuant to sa�d appeai in accordance with the requirements - � of Section 64.203a of the Legislative Code; and WNEREAS, the St, Paul Board of Zoning Appeals, based upon .evidence presented �t �he puolic heari.ng, as reflected in the minu�es attached hereto as Exhibit C, made the fol loHii ng fi ndi ngs of fact; ;-:;:- _ 1. The subject driveway across residential pr�aperty is used as access to Midwest Plastics, an industrially zoned property, 2. This use is in violation of the Zuning Ordinance (Section 62.1Q4(dj� . 3. Thare is no �asis �or a d�terminatio�� of legal nonconforming use of ttie dri.veway. 4. Site plans may not be approved in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. P10t�t, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by tbe S�. Paul Board of Zoning Appeals that the Zoning Administrator did not err in his interpretation and enforcement of the Zoning Ord1nance, The appeal of Myron Roth Jr. is hereby denied: � �� 1i, Summers Decisions of the Board of Zoning 3' �� b� LJoods Appeals are final subject to appeal to the City Council within 30 days ;� ��. 5 by anyone affected by the decisTOn. agair�st o � . . . ' ' . ' . . . . � � � .. � . . � . . . / • . _ . . • ` . . . . . . . � ' . . , ' . . � i _ . . . . . . ' . � , .. � • � . ` . . � . .. � . ... . . . . . . . . r � ` � _ 1 / , / +� �(f`�7�7 /� , �L'• �I'�1R3� r�PUIQH Direc�r, Finaaae b�Ilanagema�nt 9ervicee � Roow 123� City Hsll � . � . ' St. Pau3., :Minaesats ) , ' , J • Dear �Sir; � � On Miey 16,. 197'9, nfter pn�blic ha�ring, tbie Ci'ty Couaeil adnpted ' e motibn t�:c�atinae until Ju�r 26, 19�'9, tl�e appea2 of I�Qrz�on A.- , Roth (I+lidwest Plr�stice inc.� �n a 3ectsian of th�.Board o! ?•oat�ng ' , . App�e►lu atPeet.�.n�, Prope�Y►LY st 1b22 Ames Avenne. Tl�e t�un�sil .r�q�este that new notices of �earing be aent to proper� awr:era � aAd alao tf�at a heariug on a petftii�n to rtsone part o! Lot 3, _ . 'Biock �, Ames,-0utlo�, aleo bz sbt fo� haaring at the eeme ti�e. ' � 81ea�se be udviaed that the p�titfon to t-e�ne lu�� t►o� �ret be�n < ��+�! sabe�itttd ,i�nd I Would suggast you eonfer wit� the City Cltrk'8 - otYice and t�e Zoning office prior to senciing out notices of -�� bearing on the apQeai for July 26th. � . � Very truly ytossr`s, . � , Rose Mix � C3ty Clerk . . , _ , , , , A�0 i l,a -___ _ _ . , �aett Plannir� Staff., Zoning SeeL3on ` �� Supervisor o� Cod! Enforc�ment • : �. _ ; � � ; � . . ti , , ` . ' ' _ % . . i - . � , � . , , ;' i 1 , . . E � � � � ... � . � . � , . . . . . � - �. . . . .. . . ; �? ■ . .. . � � � �� . . � � , � � . � . . �•. . ,. ' . � . . � . . � . . . . . ' . . ,f . . . . . . ' ' � . � . . . i . � . - . . . . . ' . ;�. . . � . .� � . . . . . � . .. . .' '�� . . _ � . . . . . ' . . . . . • Aprili 2�, 19T9 � � Plaming StaPt� 2Qnin,� Section llth Floory City;Annex . ` S�. Psul! Dtian�sots � ,, r... � . �Jear Sirs i • Tl�e Citr Couaeil todyy contibued until A'f�Y 36, i9�'9i at 7t30 P.tQ. , it� t�ue Council �b�ra a publ�o b�pr3ag on t�e appea2 of l�yron 1�. Rot+� (Midyrsst P1affitic�� Inc.) to a deelaian of �thi Board of Zanin� , App�ea].� e►f'fiec'�irig Pr'oP�Y'tY. at 1422 Aass A�renua,, . Yesy tru�r �ro�u�a� . , . ,:.la. . � � � � . . . . � _ �. � . � � : .-=\---.{, � . . . � . . . . � . � . . � _ . . . .� ' .. , � . . ,�/t�' t'17.d► � . ' . � � . . �� # i ,' City q.erk � ; . , �:�. _ , � , aet r Finattce I��t.� �ts�a�. 2Q9 . . - , � . ;: . , � � , , � , � � � _ . , _ � _ r" f • , � , , , , . . , i � - , , . . . \` . � : _��4��TY'O��y''''! 1j:� ' CITY OF SA!NT PAU�L =4 � _: CITY PLANNING CIJMMISSION ;o �; _> ��n►t tnn s,v ��I(S ;IS!i, �_ ' _ �= � Martha Norton, Chairman �.°'�<.�''�\� 25 West Fourth Street,SainE Pau{,Minnesota 55102 GEORGE LATIMER 612-298-4151 MAYOR • N1EF90RANDUM - DATE: May 9, 1979 T0: Rose Mix, City Clerk � FROM: Donna McNeally�`''" Zoning Staff RE: Correction to Midwest Plastics Hearing Date The City Council Public Hearing to consider the appeal of P�lidwest Plastics is scheduled for May 16, 1979, not May 26, 1979, as stated in the packet cover letter. DM/cc cc: City Council Glenn Erickson Jerry Segal/ A1 Olson ✓ �n r • _ � �� . -�,, clayton 7'�bb� 8Q,6� 71 st. �. �.'O�t�.�'E,.' irTGYB� 1':..ri� m5�t�1 C �":iT COl1C:87."Ilf_^ii �12'c��)��2'G�( AtiiiE;2:i �Gr:�W;.L't1 1'T':5�3})C?T.'�`.� n'4'�'• c1i1'.2 �:.1TC1.1y �.�',�• , �:td �.].a� �C� �ri:�7:�; �t r;��t:y' c.::+cF,�-r<�,, 1$ :;�c'3.;�.C?i': `1 �,�;C;i� .'�:11.t:1� t�`ic �11'�:i'�2"�.� ^l,t �l�:it liTRE::., itV@. I'r'C�LT_��+/"""V"�'.L �•O _(�„��!(� _,,,��• �v�r.? "vCil){�}t t[iF�.t 7�1:':Tft Wi!u ilc� +L^1G'.�C ��":i��(�1C t'.I]��21"111�' OT v�'� _ lEaving fror: i,_i;.��ye:ii t';�a;_tic_, �'.u_il�.ir��; tt�rat��;'rA ouL �er�t��ci 1�rnperty. Alsc� wl�iile �e ��,er:.- ;,i.vi��x uhe.y°�., t:'r;e ar•i��.��.�ay uurd for reqin�:�tia1 purpoae9 was l�sc:�t.ed or; t�'ie rri;�t s:id�. c�f' ti;.£ p�cpF.rt,,y� Sincerely� _ _ r � .,��'�o r�?� i:la.yt or1 T�tJb3 \ . �M f . City Clerk CITY OF ST. PAUL DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND MAN'/�tGEMENT SERVICES ASSESSMEPiT DIVISION 113 CITY HA�4 ST.PAUL,MINNESOTA 55702 July 12, 1979 File X2118, Page Zoning File 8309 . The City Council, in session this date, rescheduled the public hearing on the: Appeal of Midwest Plastics and Myron A. Roth, Jr. to a decision of the Board of Zonin� ApQeals, relative to property located on the south side of Ames Ave. between ProsperiCy Ave. and Barclay St. being legally described as: except the east 60 feet of north 100 feet, Lot 3, Block 4, Ames Outlots. Also known as 1422 Ames Avenue, from 10:00 a.m. on July 26, 1979 in the Council Chambers of the City Aall and Court House to July 31, 1979. J. WILLIAM DONOVAN VALUATION AND ASSESSMENT ENGINEER . , �. � _ . . . � . . . . . . . . . ..i . . . � � � . . / , . ' . . ' ' , . . . � . � _ . �/. . � .. � �/ � .. ., . . . � ' ! .. . ' . ' ' . � . . . � * . _ . ` J . . . � . . � � .. 1. . . . �` . � . . .. � . � ' . � . .. '�� ' � � � . . . . . . . . . .. . \ . , . � . � � . . - � � _ � � . � - . . - � � . � . . . ' , � � � . � ' � �1 � . . .. . ' . . . . . .. . � � . , . . - '. . .t . �' . ' . " . . " � . . . � .. . . � . / . � . . . . . - � . . � . . . . . . ' . � �� . � � . . � . . / . � .. � . . . . � � . . ' . . . .. � - � .. ..I .. . . . . .. . � . . . . / . , / . , . . . . , .� . . . � . ;/ . . . . � . � . ' . .. � . . . � . . . . . � '� ' .x . ' . ` . . . . . . . ' . . . . . � . . , , � J�+ 1�. �9T9 � � . , 1tz�. 8rretsrd Ca�lson. � , ,� . Dir�ot�►r, l�.si�►ncf b li�tmsge�at Ssrvie��s' , ',,� �oc�'`113, C1t�► �a17. ' _ � . . �8�rr Ptti��. �1t'I�rOV�� . , . . � . . � . . � � .- . � � . �'F�. .l . . . . �. DNr 8ir t • , i . _ , � _ � _ i _ , , �Ls City I�unoil �ay granted tL� x�q�ert o�' R. Scott D�vieft, ; A��orniy• !'or Itidws� Plsstia#, Ia�. �►o r�set ft'oa �lu1�r ^f> to . ' • Jul,�r 31, s bearing on �C]� appeal ot 1LiQwst P1�E��, Inc. to � a,d�ci�ion ot t�rt Hoard cf Zflning Appetls affsatin8 DY'op�rtY :�n Hlc►ak. k, A�N 4dtic�ts. �Nill you p].�ss� s�nd _r�r noticts - . f . : 'to Pre�er'tY o�n�ra sdvi#�ng the� of thls action. %� � � . . ; `/�1"Y t!'!l� �pltZ•�� : ; ' , , • Ro�i'l�i�t � � . . , / Citj►' Clerl� °� , , � c AEOila - cc s Plsnning $t�aft, Saniag �ction : < • - { " , . / _ , , ; ( , �. ' . . - l , � . � . . � � . � . � . . � � � - i . . . . f: - .. � . .. ' . . - � . . . , . .. . � .: • � _ CITY CLERK CITY OF ST. PAUL D�PARTM�NT OF FINANCE AND MANAGEMEN7 S�RViCES ASSESSMfNT DIVISION 113�ITY HAII ST.PAUL,MINNf50TA SS102 � July 6, 1979 FileX2118 Page � Zoning File 8309 The Council of the City of St. Paul will hold a public hearing in the Council Chambers of the City Ha11 and Court House (third floor) at 10:00 a.m. on July 26, 1979 on the: Appeal of Midwest Plastics and Myron A. Roth, Jr. to a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals, relative -to t�e�- �:eques��-�eznn��r�..,� ° ' *�_L-1, property located on the south side of Ames Ave. between Prosperity Ave. and Barclay St. being legally described as: except the east 60 feet of north 100 feet, Lot 3, Block 4, . Ames OutZots. Also known as 1422 Ames Avenue. If you would like further in£ormation about this hearing, contact the G�rrent PZanning Section of the Planning Board, Room 1202 City Hall Annex 298-4I54. While the City Charter requires that we notify you of the hearing, we want to help you to learn fully about any improvement that could affect you or your community. Therefore, I sincerely hope you can attend this hearing, so Chat you can make your views about it known to the City Council, whether for or against�. . J. WILLIAM DONOVAN VALUATION AND ASSESSMENT ENGINEER CITY CLERK ' . � CITY OF ST. PAUL DEPARTMfNT OF FINANCE A�AID MANAGEMENT SERVICES ASSESSAAENT DIVI510N 113�lTY HALL ST.PAUI,MINNESOTA 55102 April 16, 1979 File X2118, Page Zoning File 8349 ' The notice of a pub].ic hearing, on the above indicated file, dated � April 13, 1979, is in error and is hereby amended to read: . T'he Councfl of the City of St. Paul wi.11 ho�d a public hearing �in the . Council Chambers of the City Hall and Court House (third floor) at 10:00 a.m. on April 26, 1979 on the: � Appeal of Midwest Plastics and Myron A. Roth, Jr. to a decision of the Board of Zonin� Appeals, relative to � the request to rezone from R-1 to I-1, property located � on the south side of Ames Ave. between Prosperity Ave. and Barclay St. being legally described as; except the east 60 feet of north 100 feet; Lot 3, Block 4, Ames Outlots. Also known as 1422 Ames Ave. . � If you would like further information about this heari.ng, contact the Current Planning Section of the Planning Board, Rm. 1202 City Hall Annex 298-4154. , While the City Charter requires that we notify you of the hearing, we :�snt to help you to learrc fc�lly about 3ny im�rovement that cuull af£act� you or your coccum►nity. � 1'h2refore, I since�ely hope yau'can attend this - hearing, so that you can make your views about it known to the City Council, whether for or against. J. WILLIAM DONOVAN ' VALUATION AND ASSESSMENT ENGINEER bY; PAUI, F. DESCH SUPERVISDR OF ASSESSMENTS �: '�+r �� a; ,; �` . '•� 10/J7!?� , �.��.-, s� . - , - . £- - _�" : . e�,a�ou '�i�?b� . . ,-. . . :_... . . �O�q� �1 St, S�: ~ � Ca�'��g� G�AY��, Mn. . , . . : ;` ` ,��5016 : �3ear conce�e,� a e�t �� y ow#�e�� tw�e� P�r�s�e�ty �v�, anc� �arcla� 8t� �.rid �l�o tQ w�torg �.t u�ay conce�. I� C�a3►�QA j�.�tas,ren��. t�e ��cne��Y a� 1�}22 �qes �iV�. #'rom��E�r.z-� � '�c� . `vre vouc:h th�t the�s was r�o txttck tr�,ffic� entering o� �.saYing �'xo�: piidwes� x'l�.stics r.l�ilc�i,n� t�xough our rent�d P�Qper�y, Also � t�l.le Ne ��rs� �iv�.n� t�}��e� tY�e c�r�.vew�Y u�e� �� e��der i�1 . , . �fi� . �'�4�� ra� � . � t.�:, . : , . �oaa.ted q� the ��a�� s:��r� 4�� e p�o�aerty,� ' , : . : . �-: . _ : Si�asre�� . � . . . �� '� ��a� � . e�.a. o� l.��b$ . � � . .. . . . . - . � - . 9 ; , , , , , .. . . '. . . ._. �. � .. .. . . ..:': � :. .. _ .� . : . .. ; . . ... . . . .. : ' ..�� . - . ' �. . . . . . .. .. . ;. _ .. . -' -..Y°.'. ' . . . ..�.� �..... . . . .. .� . . � .. � �. . .. . .. �. . :� .- , ,:.:. . . . . . . .. . . . . � , ..'. i � � � . .• . .. ...�. ..y , . . . . . . .. __- . _ . '. _. .�. '� . '�:., '" � i'. � . . . � . . . . . . . ).{ � . . . r . .. � - � • ,� - . . y , `y; 4 . 1 Constitutes aePrivation of industrial � property as a rneans of access to o�her industrial property; 4 . 2 Bears no relationship to public health, � ; , ; safety or welfare; 4 . 3 Renders Appellants ' industrial property � (located westerly of said Lot 3) �to be s subservient to the surroundin ronert on ; 9 P Y the north and the east and renders the same ' to be devoid of any reasonable access to a � public thoroughfare; and I . f4 .4 Renders Appellants ' said industrial proPerty ` to be practically valueless. i � 5. That, on in�ormation and belief, the westerly ; 62 . 5 feet (or a substantial portion thereof) of said Lot 3 is properly situate within an industrial zoning district in that ; the present Zoning Map of said area is in conflict with the intended location of the district boundary lines in that the . said portion of said Lot 3 was intended for access to Appellants ' industrial lancl westerly of said Lot 3. ' Dated: t�Zarch 22, 1979. PETERSOPJ, GRAY & SHEAH , Ltd. By - Milton Gray 307 r'iidwest Federal Building ' St. Paul, rlinnesota 55101 Attorneys for Appellants . -3- . . A ♦ �. , c�'=�� C[TY OF SAiNT PAUL ,��t. o,�•�.. - �4�� t�`. j�i: � �3 �;��+ ;, DEPAR7MENT OF COMMUNITY SERVtCES , �, :..f.�.: ;� . �,� �'=�,-�. . '.\�° w DiV1�lON OF HOUSlNG AND GUlLD1PdG CODE ENFORCElv1ENT t �-..b �� a�� :3]1:3� 445 City Hall,St. Paul,MinnesoEa 55102 Gecrge Latimer Mayor 612-2y8-4212 October 20 , 1978 , " � Mr . Myron R . Roth , Jr . Midwest Plastics � 956 Prosperity Avenue Saint Paul , _ Minnesota 55106 Dear Mr . Roth : This letter is to serve as notice to you that the use of Lot 3 , Block 4 , Ames Outlots , as a driveway to serve your industrial buildings must be immediately discontinued for the reasons ' stated be)ow , and if such use is allowed to continue, the City of Sai �t Paul will be compelled to _ commence iegal action to discontinue such use by you and the presons driving such trucks . This lot is presently zoned for residenti:al purposes , and the use of it far industrial purposes is forbidden by the Zoning Ordinances of the City of Saint Paul . ' Further , you have constructeci a driveway over fihe westerly - portion of this lot without the necessary permit from the • • Saint Paul Public Works Departrnent . Such a permit is required by Sec:ti�n 2�7 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code if a driveway is to be constructed on public propert� . - � Violations of this ordinance are a misdemeanor . Further , in constructing the driveway , you have violated � - � Section 62 . 108 , Par . 4 of the Zoning Ordinance because you have not obtained approval of the Planning Commission to the site plan for the driveway . t have notifieil you of tfiis ' by letter dated October 10 , 1978 • Your site pians have been . . . _ - � . , . , t•tyroti R . Roth , Jr . -2- October 2.0 , 1978 �w . subrnit �e� to the Planning Commission , but h��ve not received --- the necess� ry approvals . Therefore , the construction ancl use of the drive�•�ay without the proper appr�val of the Planning �onimission also violates the City ' s ordinances and must be discontinued . Further , the use of this property for industrial purposes is in violation of the Zoning Code �;hich permits .only single � family dwelling and customary accessor uses thereto , within • t�e zoned district . Sincerely , Glenn A . Erickson Zoning Administrator GAE/RA/eh � cc : �•1i 1 ton Gray , Attorney � Alice Flurphy , Mayor ' s Office .ferry Segal , City Attorney � - � . . � . � . current Zoning Code) the City issued its Building Permit for erection of a further 12, 000 square foot addition at, and adjoin- _ ing, the east of the then existing structure and with its dock openings at the east end thereof, further contemplating access thereto over and across the subject lot for ingress to and egress from the said loading dock. That by reason thereof Appellants relied on the validity and propriety of said Building Permits and in such reliance expended substantial sums of money in improvement of its property for industrial purposes; 3. Appellants sought to file and obtain approval of a site plan and to obtain any and all other permits and licenses required under the applicable ordinances of the City of Saint Paul, and that all of said efforts of Appellants were fruitless and unavailing in that Appellants were given notice by said City that no site plan would be approved and that no building permit would be issued on the ground that said Lot 3 is "presently zoned �or residential purposes, and the use of it for industrial purposes is forbidden . . . " and, as such, no site plan would be apprpved nor any permit issued for purposes of access to Appellants ' abutting industrial property; - 4. That said municipal Zoning Cade of 1975, as it applies to Appellants and to said Lot 3, is unconstitutional in that it is arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, and confiscatory in that, among other reasons, the same: -2- 4. 1 Constitutes de�rivation of industrial property as a means of access to other industrial property; 4. 2 Bears no relationship to public health, safety or welfare; 4. 3 Renders Appellants ' industrial property (located westerly of said Lot 3) to be subservient to the surrounding pronerty on the north and the east and renders the same to be devoid of any reasonable access to a public thoroughfare; and 4 .4 Renders Appellants' said industrial property to be practically valueless. 5. That, on information and belief, the westerly 62. 5 feet (ar a substantial portion thereof) of sai� Lot 3 is properly situate within an industrial zoning district in that the present Zoning Map of said area is in conflict with the intended location of the district boundary lines in that the said portion af said Lot 3 was intended for access to Appeilants ' industrial land westerly of said Lot 3. ` Dated: AZarch 22, 1979. PETERSOPd, GRAY & SHEAH , Ltd. / _ , �' By Mil on Gray 307 r4idwest Federal Building St. Paul, riinnesota 55101 Attorneys for Appellants -3- � , - " , . _ � f Cf� � S � � �!� D �f � � �i �� o��d o� zo��g �a��a�s re��1�t��o� zor��i�g ��i�� n��,r 8384 �� Februar.v 20, 197g _ 4tHEREAS, on Oetober 2o, 1g78 the Zoning Administrator ordered �4r. P4yron Roth, Jr„� �Midtrest Plastics Inc, )_ to discontinue use of a drivetvay located '' at 1422 Ames as access to industrlal property (the letier is attached here�o as Exhiblt A)_; and L�J�i�R�A�, ��1yron Roii� Jr. has applied for an �ldministrative Review of said cease and desist order in accordance with the provisions of S ection 64.?_03 �the applica�lon for Admin�strative Revieti�� is attached hereto as Exhibit B� ; and 4JHEREAS, the St, Paul Board of Zoning App`als conducted a public hearing on Fe6ruary 6, 1979 pursuant t� sai.d appea7 in accordance with the requirements of Section 64,203a of the Cegislative Code; and GJHEREAS, the St, paul Boar� of Zoning Appeals, based u�on evidence presented at the public hearing, as retlected in the minutes attached hereto as Exhibit C, made the following findings of fact: 1 . The subject drive�vay across residentiai property is used as access to h1idtivest Piastics, an industrially zoned propet,ty. 2. This use i� in violation of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 62.104(d)). 3. There is nc [,asis for a dEtermina�t�ion of legal nonconforming use of tfie dri.veu�ay. 4. Site plans may not be approyed in violation of the 7oning Ordinance. NOl�1, TH�P.EFO-P.E, BE IT RESOLUED, by the St. Paul Board of Zoning Appeals that the Zoning Administrator did not err in his interpreta�i:ion and enforcement of �he Zoning Ordinance. The appeal of P�yron Roth Jr, is hereby denied. ��,�� ,� Summers Decisions o€ th2 6oard of Zanir�g � 5�C��d�� b t�Joods �ppeals are final subject to a�peal �.• � to the City Council within 30 days �� a�,��. 5 by anyone affected by the decision. aC�. �1�5� o . �4" J��U°`�"`�� CiTY OF SAINT PAUE. . `1TY O . �v,� 9 4� mrr� _w v ., ',�'` �',"t� _-� DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ►a° -i'�� ": � Iti1111111i� e` . �:J'��ilit�t�lt�l� ^: . <,; r= DIVIStON OF FLANNtNG ,.,. R�=�� 25 West Fourth Street,Saint Paul,Minnesota,55102 GEORGE LATIMER 612-298-415t MAYOR April 17, 1979 Rose ��1i x, Ci ty C1 erk 386 City Hall St. Paul , Minn. 55102 Dear Madam: Re: Zoning File No. 8384 This is written in response to the appeal of Myron A. P.oth (hiidwest Plastics, Inc.} to a Board of Zoning Appeals decision upholding the Zoning Administrator's inter- pretation of the Zoning Ordinance. This appeal directly concerns a westerly dr�iveway on the subject property located at 1422 Ames Avenue which is used as access to the industrial property of Midwest Plastics. The Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on the appeal af F1idwest Plastics to the Zoning Administrator's letter of October 20, 1978, notifying the appellant that he was in violation of the Zoning Ordinance by constructing a driveway without an approved site plan and by using that driveway crossing resident�al property to gain access to industrially zoned property. The basis of the appeal was that the access drive is a legal nonconforming use ; the City issued building permits which contem- plated this access; the appellant sought to obtain a site plan but was denied; that the 1975 Zoning Ordinance was unconstitutional ; and that the present zoning map is in conflict with the intended location of the district boundary. The Board of Zoning Appeals upheld the Zoning Administrator's interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance on a 5 to 0 vote and thereby denied the appeal , based on findings that the subject driveway across residential property is used as access to P�1id�vest Plastics, an industrially zoned property; this use is in violation of the Zoning Ordinanee; there is no basis for determination of legal nonconforming use of the driveway, and site plans may not be approved in violation of the Zoning Ordirance. There was considerable opposition present at the hearing. hlajor concerns were in- creased truck traffic on Ames and encroachment on adjacent residential development by industrial use. Contact with James W. Heidkamp, Regional P�1anager for the Chicago, Northwestern Railroad, confirms the purchase by f•lidwest Plastics of a portion of the railroad right-of-way extending from the centerline of Prosperity Street appraximately 605 f�. easterly thereof to be used for driveway purposes. The Dept. of Public tJorks indicates that construction of such driveway could begin by the end of April 1969. This matter is scheduled to be heard before City Council April 26, 1979. Sincerely, c�a� ��a . Donna F. McNeally City Planner DFM/gf � - Encs. _ � � •�O _ , � . 1',' ' • (;, j . � . i " r �f �%��, ` ci��r o� s�i�� p�� , �a��d o� ��i�� al� r�s��ti�� .�fl�� 9Q ��,. 8384 �ai� Februar_y 20, i g79 _ � [dHEREAS, on October 20, 19.78 the Zoning Administrator ordered Mr. P�fyron Roth, Jr, ,' (Mid�vest Plastics Inc. j, to discontinue use of a drive4�ay located � at 1422 Ames as access to industrial property (the letter is attached hereto as Exhi6it A�.; and GlHEP,EAS, P�lyron Roth Jr. has applied for an Administrative Review of said cease and des�st order in accordance �vith the provisions of S�tion 64.203 (the applicati.on for Administrative Revieti is� attached hereto as Exhibit B) ; and 41HERERS, the St, Paul Board of Zoning AppeaTs conducted a public hearing on February 6, 1979 pursuant to said appeal in accordance 6Vltfl the requirements of Section 64,203a of the Lec�islative Code; and IJNEREAS, tne St, Paul Board of Zoning Appeals, based upon evidence presente� at the puolic heari.ng, as reflected in the minutes attached 'nereto as Exhibit C, r�ade the follo�a�ing findings of fact; .. 1 . The subject driveway across residential property is used as access to Midtivest Plastics, an industrially zoned property, 2. This use is in v�olation of tne Zoning Ordinance (Section 62.104(d)) . 3. There is no �asis ��or a d�terminatio;� of legal nonconforming use of the dri.veti��ay_ 4. Site plans may not be approyed in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. P!0?�1, THEREFO,°.E, RE IT RESOLUED, by tbe St. Pau7 Board of Zoning Appeals that the Zoning Administrator did not err in his interpretation and enforcement o-F the Zoning Ordinance, The appeal of P�yron Roth Jr. is hereby denied: l�, Summers Decisions of the Board of 2onin �lr!��J°+� �J.� s LJoods A�p�als are final subject to appeal �'�'�d�� b� _ to the Ci ty .Counci 1 wz thi n 30 days �� r�v��. 5 by anyone a��fected by the decision. � _ c��al�;� o •' ' .. Ci � e.} . � � . � ;� P�Ii�dUTES Q�= 7HE �OARD 0� ZO��IP�G APPEALS P�IEETIPtG O�J FEaRUARY 6, �1979 � Iid CITY CUU�dCIL CHA�16ERS, ST. PAUL, P�Itdi��SOTA ; Pt',�SEidT: h�mes. Summ,�rs & Prtorton, P�lessrs. parrish, Pe�erson � 6�toods of thp 6oard of Zoninq A�peals; Mr. J�rome Sega7 , Assis-tant City Aitorn�y; l�9�ssrs. Stev� Roy and Richard Ar�ey of the Division of Housing & Building Code Enforcement; T�mzs. r��ra�ally and Fox ancl P�tr. Jung of the Planning Sta�=f. ABSE�JT: Zachary, Gr�i s The meeting ti,ras chaired by Gladys Mor�on, the Chairr�an. P�1YZON A. ROTH, JR. (�8384): A request for Administrative Review of the decision in the Zon�ng Adm�nistrator s le�tt�r of October 20, 1978 rotifying thz app�l7ant that � he �vas in vioiation of th� Zoning Ordinance by constructing a driveway �,�ithout an aoproved site plan and by using a driv�way crossing residen-�ia7 property t� gain access to industria7ly zon�c� property. Thz appellant 4��as present. Th�re aras oppos7tion pres�n� at th� hearing. i�is. h�cNeally sho��ed slides of the subject site and revieL�ted her staff report, with the reco�m�ndation that the subj�ct arivet��ay along the vresterly boundary of Lot 3 is not a izgal nonconfo;ming use, and that the. Zoning Administrator did not err -in issuing his ord�r to cease use of the subject drivev�ray at 1422 Ames as access to ��id�;r=st Plastics or in refusing to approve a site plan for th� drive. � . E ti1r. P�1i 1 ton Gray, A'ttorn�y at Law, 307 Mid4vast Federal 6ui 1 di r�g, represented the � a�a�llant a��d asked Tor a copy of P�s, h1cTdeally's staff. repoY•t. Ne al leged corrPusion about the previous zoning ofi 1422 Ames b� some members of the staff at the Octob�r hearing and said this tivas indicative o� the inzent that t�ias thought to have existed prior to the i975 Zoning Ordinance tivith reference� to ti�here th� line ti•las. He said there ►{ras no question about the land immediate7y to the north. He said P�lidwest Plastics had reason to believe when they bought Lot 3 in conjunction tivith th� ex�ans�io� contem�lated in 1969 that they were buying industrial pro�erty. He introctuced M�. Ho;,�ard Dahlgren, presid�nt of Haro7d DahTgren Associates of P�linneapolis, and listed his qualifications, and asked him to present his professional �indings and professional opinions and r2commendations for the assistance of the Soard. Mr. Hotvard Dahlgren said he had conducted studies with resvect to probiems brought out in the sta-Ff report. H� then proceeded to show slides and graphs to exp7ain these problems and a solution. He said elimination of the e.ast drive Hrould put �he company out of business, and he gave a complete history of Midwest Pias-tics' access problems. Ms. P�lorton interjected an opinion of irrelevancy reyarding � A1r. Dah]gren's presentation, saying that all the Board could considzr was tivheti�er the Zoning Administra�or erred, but Mr. Dahlgren insisted that �he building permits were wna� had pres�nted the prohlem and tt�er�fore they �ver� a part o-F the process and if it came to court, a judg� would look at the reasonableness of a11 these actions. Mr. Gray add�d that sometimes thzse probiems are solvAd 6y �ood common sense, and the problems h�re cou7d d�termine an appropriate solution. � • ��ls. P�orton reiterated that the only thing before the Board aras wnether the Zoning r � Administrator ei^red in �elling f�tidwest Plastics not to use that drive�tay. ' � {1 � . s� � � � f �i t�iYROiJ A. ROTN, JR. ��` h1Zf�lU7ES � PAGE T!•!Q � � P�r. Dahl gren sai d �hat P�1i d�,�r�st P1 asti cs •Fel t that becau�se permi ts Hrere i ssued and access 4��as off Ames Aver�ue all thos� yea;s, they have a right to establish that this tiAras a legal noncon-forming use and the City admitfied tha_t access, an�l therefore it is a le�ai nonconforming us�, l}lr�n reninded by T9s. �"arton that the driveti�lay in q�°stion ti�as put in in 1978, i•9r. Dah7gren said acc��s 4ras est�blish�d as a leyal nonconforming use. He said acouiring 15 additloral feet from the railroad would enabl e f4i dti��e�t P1 asti cs to bui 1 d a dri ve�ray fram the front to the rear of the property and continuz it through to Ames, either one tivay in or ou�. P�ir. Segal req�;ested copies of the exhibits for the Board, and t�ir. Gray �sai_d they evould bz glad �to r��ake copies of everything presenied. htr. Segal : You mentioned that driveway from Ames had a7ways t�zen used. L�tE��t facts do you have to back ti�i s ►�p? Mr, Dahl gren: l�lhen the second addi ti on u��as addecl i n 1909, the bui 1 di ng permi t p�ans shoti•r loading doeks were on the east side of thz structure and no other way of coming in other than coming in from A��nes. P�r. Segal : You said access �rras al��ays fron Ar�es. Upon tirha-t �o yau base that? Mr. Dah1gren �asked Mr, Roth if the�origina7 addition built in 1969 had a loading dock on the east side of th� build'ing. The reply ��aas in �the affirmative, and � P�lr. Dahlgren said one t��ould have to assume access came o-fT Anes. ( ' Pfr. S�gal : 6•Jould you asl th� otivner about the typ� ofi v°,�icles and hotr th� venicles got into tn� prop�rty bei►��2en 1969 and 1970? PQr. Dahlgren: Access �,�as via a road�,��ay on th� east side of the hous�. It can 6e v�rified by looking at 1969 building permit" plans. Those plar�s had loading docKS on the east side. Ames Avenue was used as acc�ss on the east side. Mr. Segal : The addition that �rtas put on in 1976 -- when was that com,�Ieted? Mr. Dahlgren: In Novemb�r, 1976. P9r. Segai : 6�lhen did tra-�fic begin using th4 loading dock? The ��iay 1977 photo shows traffic going doarn the easterly portion of the house. i�heth�r the tiaesterly driv�a��ay vras a legal nonconforming use -- what factors did you taRe into account regarding this? Mr. Dahlgren: According to the minutes of the 7ast m°eting, a distance of 30 plus feet �vas zoned industrial under the o7d 1�22 ordinance. There altivays �r�as � dri veavay on the tvest si de. Pri nci pal access 4vas the dri ve4�ray on the east side. P4r. Segal : l�lould your conclusion be the same prior to i978 that there was�no driv�tivay on tf�e west side and prior to 1978 th2 tvLs� side had not b�en used for v°hicles? � �. Mr. Dahlgren: Access to the easter7y part was provided through Lot 3 to Ames and `� building permits issued on that basis. The applicant had had no knowledge there tivas any prablem with the access. 7he city gave th�m ta�o building perm�ts and this says the city condoned tha� the cirive ��ras a legal nonconforming use. ...... . .,. ...,,,�, �,�.. ,,. .., �., t'HGL- ItiKit . iY1r. Segal : Assuming the city never issu�d a permit for a driveti��ay an� p�rsons used ' th� driveti�iay ��itiiout a permit by the city, are you saying that this gave rights through usage? Prior to 1976 they had b�en using the easterly drive�vay. Mr. Dahlgren said he had not seen th� building pzrmiis, and he t�las basing his opinion on arhat the Crdinanc� says. _ h1r. Segal : If thz Zoni ng ol an di d not di sc7 ose that �here �•�as a dri veuray, ho�r► coul d th� Zoning Administrator know there ti��as a drive,�ray? Mr, Dahlgren: Any reasonable p�rson could see it. � hir. Segal : Re the number of trucks going to the prop�rty, the ans��e�^ was 4 -- do � you sti71 fezl traffic is so heavy that a 15 ft. roadway could not be used for dQliveries? � f�r. Dahlgren: The concern is parking space for employees because 4ve lose tfiese spaces ��h�n are build a road. Parking a�ould not be adequa-te. f�r. Segal : There is an alternative though. You said the company ;�rould have ta clase . th�ir opzration, 4 trucks plus 35 emp7oy�es' vehicles -- t{�hy rrrould they have to . cl ose do4�n? { Mr. Gray: If you too�c an action today and the city c7osed �'�mes Avenuz tomorroti�t, w� ti�rould not have that access. If the o�ly access is 13 or 14 ft. driveway, this cannot be condoned by any city. T�vo-way traf�ic ��fOUICI b2 very inadequate and unsafe re fire. Thzse people have used Anies Av�nue all ihis time sinc° 7969, so a reasonab7e so7ution is for h1id4��est �Plastics to spend the r�on�y and build �che drive�vay. I-F they sold this building and someon� else moved in, they might need the 70 spaces they thzoretica7ly should have. If you took an actio;� today closing Ames, the� p1an�t t�rould be in jeopardy. f�r. Gray ti�en ask�d for a specific delay to build a drivzway. P�Is. Plorton said there was a discrepancy in th� �mount of space. htr. Gray said in . earl�;er testimory there 4��as 5-1/2 f-t. and f�tr. Il;a}�� said 1 ft. from the sou�hern most point of the building to th� railroad right of way. h1r. Gray: That i s uihat I t•�as advi si ng and what i bel i eved. Si nce then rtegoti ati ons have been emdloyed �rirh the railroad. The railroad right-of-way comes to within one foot of the building. The railroad company noti� is n�gotiating on 14 ft. so 14 plus 1 = 15 ft. Ne wanted to c7airfy a point ��1r. Segal had raised. If the � minu��es of the October meeting a�ere revieNled, �9r. Gray said, thzse minu�es seemed to be full of admissions by the starf from the Zoning Administrator`s office that some portion of Lot 3 was platted as light inctustry prior to 1975. The extent oT that area became a question -- whzther 60 ft. or 40 samething, The pr2sent staff report contains a totally inconsiste�t report that no part of it v�as then 1 i ght i ndustry. We don't kno�,i where the truth 1 i es no��t, but 4ve do knos,v that as much as 4 months ago this city deemed that portion of Lot 3 to be light . industr�. We deem2d it tivay back in 1969 as 7ight industry. 1�r. Sega7 `s questior� '- o-F to what extent had that portion been uti7ized for access to the rear of f��1idwest P7astics building -- the testimony of P7r. Roth was that prior to 1975 that portion of Lot 3 on the westerly side of Lo�c 3 ►vas utilized for access to the loading dock o-F the building and with time they moved it to the east side out of • „ . _��t . coii si d°rati on for the nei ghbors. Th� sp°Cl�1 C narrol�r i ssuz heard i n October t,�as � a��re tive validly using the east�rly sid�? The Board said no and 7eft o�en th� questi on of the ti��sterly dri ve�vay. He then re-i�rrzd to Fi n�ti ng #,=4 of th� sta-F�� report: "The Zoning A�ministrator documen��s that the subject access driveti��ay r�as ini-tiated on October 13, 1978, postdating the Ordinarce by 3 y�ars; a� such, th� driv� cannot b� cot�sic!ered a legal nonconforrnirg use. " He said the on3y thing since 1978 t;�as tne grading a»d their use on th� easterly side does not� indicate an intent to abandon access into the industrial portion which is serving th2 loading docks. . . iyir. Segal then addressed his re�narks to.Mr. Roth. and told him thai Mr. Gray indicated that i�tr. Ro�th had given testi�nony regard�ng -the use of tne V�esterly driveway, but tne minutes of the October me2ting do not refl�ct �his. P�lr. Roth: L�1e d;�d di.scuss tn� seq��e�ce of purcnase of the hame and garage_ In -front o� thegarage ti�er2 �ti•�� tracks us�d for access. 4te lived in the house in 1967-7968. At that time u�re did not ru� a grea�t deal of ove�-the-road v�hicl�s. As the volume picked up, in consid?ration o-� the neighbor to the Svest, �v� moved the drive�vay and garag� to thz east side in 1967 or 1968. lde used it minirnally for rubbish removal and ou•r oti�rn vehicles and this constituted access to riid«est Plastics. P�s. Su�mers asl%ed I�1r. Roth how many �rucks they could accommoda�e at their do�k, and h1r. Roth sa i d i t i s a 50' ti•1i de dock ti��hi ch �vi 11 accommodat2 5 truc�cs; 1 or 2 trucks ,� are there at a time. - . � t�ir. t�loods: Is your company planning extensive future ex�a:�sion? f�r. RoLh: At this poin'c, if ��Je �,r�re not in a situation as w� arz now ��ri�h no access from the rear, �•�� could not plan on a��y expansion -- parking would have to be in the back lot only. Ms. P�1cNzal ly: Ho+:� niany parki ng spaces avi 71 you be di sp7 acing i n �Front? Does that take into account. thos� which are d�rect7y in front of rlidwe�t P7astics? There ap�eared to be only 12 parked along the southern property lin� during my site inspection. P�ir. Roth: 24 - 4 facing Prosoeri�ty and 4 facing th� building. P�s. McPieal1y: Mr. Dahlgren said there had altivays been a 20' drive alon� the �vast side of the property line. How do you ex�lain the -�act that staff slid�s taken in the spring of 1978 show no �vidence of a drive? , hir. Ro�h: There is a d�-finite depression prior to the grading. P�r. Segal : Prior to 1976, before your i976 addition, did you have trucks de7ivering on the east side of your building? Ho�rr would �hey get in ta the loading dock? Mr. Roth: Using �he driveway on the east side. � � �..� t4r. Segal : Did you hav� 3 or 4 truck per day at that time? ,. ,, � ��1YROi� A. ROTH, JR. P-IINUTES P�`,GE FIIrE " f f � hir. Roth: That a•rould b? on the hlgh sid�. Using the back ha1T o� the building ti�;f�erz ' tiv� built our addition in 1975, th� map s,�o;ts access to Am�s, t�thy �•�ould we put a 50' dock i n ti��i th no ►�ray o i gz�ti ng a� i t? ��1r. Roth then expTain�d tha�t his father had oc�tn�d f�idt{iest Plastics and the hcus� and torrenced the 20' s�•ri p, and that P-1r. Roth and hi s brother now o4•m both. Ne sai c! th° d`ed conveying the tit7e from Senior to Junior r��ained an easement for a roadtivay. P�tr. Gray: h1r. Roth Sr. purchas�d Lot 3, then transferr�� _�- s- � easement for access into the hnau -r ° - _ , ' ; ; �, . ; . '� • , ; , � � , , , '� . . , � , 9'T9 � _ �e►,y 17, '� ; . .' Mr. Bernsrd csrlaon y�,t servicee � Diraator, Fina�ae 8�"id�anag� � , Aoo� 113, City Aall ' � � St. Puul, Mi�neso�a , � , , �� Sir t � , , _ . lic hearin�, � City Coune�ll adopted / pn M�ay 16, 19T9� atter p� , tly� appeal of �yron A. . n motibn to continue until Jt��r �� 1� g�rd o! ?•onin6 awest piastics Inc.� `_.� �► decision oi �� auneil Rotb t� , r �y at 1k22 Ame�t Avenue• �r� /►p'Pee►ls a�Pfectin� P � be sent to Pm4�r'� _ . reQueets tbat new notices of �et tinn to r�esonne pe� of Lot 3� ' and slao t�at e hearing on a � e�t the e� t�• . e�].so be ebt to� hearin6 been , r = '8iock 4, Ames O utloti, tition to res�one lus� aot �e't � Please be �►dvieed that the p� �� itted �►nd I r►ould sug�e�t you eonfer with out noticeseo�''g �� oi'fice prior to aendin� , ot'�ice and t�e ZoaiaB for Ju1Y 26th. hearing on the aApe � Very t�u7,Y �°�a' ( i ' Roae Mix , City C1erk . AB�O tla► � , . anning Staff., ?�on1n6 �ctSon , � cc t � �'orcement , gupervisor of t�� I . � - , , � . � � � .j� � � � � � � ` �� . �. � � - � � . . � . � � . , . . � � � � . . � . . . � � � � � ' �. . . . . . , � , i . . � ` � . � . . . � / - � . i . . ' . . � , . . , , . . , . i . . � , � � . � � . - . . It . . -. . . . � . . � . . ' � , , . . . ' . , '�. . . . '�. . . . . . . - , . . . ' . . � i . �.I . . , .. � . � � � - �. � . . � �I _ , ._ ----- �� , . 4 � at 1422 Am�s; she cl a im�d that i n ��i nter snow �•;oul d be pi l ed up and pl oa�ts ��roul d push snotiv behind her home.`�,,. -- P�s, t�ic�;eally read into the record a letter fror� Daniel 0"Connell of 1�t0i Ames Avenue, in opposition. `� t�fs. Gladys Peterson, 1392 Ames Avenue, spake in opposition, telling of a trash bin but no traffic other ti�an picking up trash on the east drive�•ray. She described thz - difficulty encountered by �the trucks in backi��g up and said ;tidwest Plastics has only 1422 Ames, but if the street is ruined, the neigh5ors c��iil have to pay the rest, and it ��lould ali be for the benefit of P�idwest Plastics, She said she has lived in the area 22 years and it ��as a neur area t�hen t�lidU�est Plastics came and built there. Sh� did not think they should have been there in the first place in a residential area, ' and she t•rondered tivhy they bui 1-t so close to the rai 1 road 4�hen there ��ras�z't even a fire lane. Mr. Peterson of the Board of Zoning Appea7s asked N9s, Peterson if there had been delivery trucks coming or going off A�nes prior to 1978, and Ms. Peterson said she had not sezn any, that perhaps f�lid��es�t Plastics' own trucks had been there, but not these large 18-��rheelers she sees no��, She said that if the Roth brothers lived on the street, th�y ��ould be f�ighting as hard as the ne�ighbors are rtow, and she ad�ed that the neighbors fear their properties are going to be devalued. t��ts. Julie Mudek, 1520 Ames Avenue, spoke in opposition, and sai� she lives at the end of a deadend street, and several times has had to get out of the house to help � truck drivers back down her street� � - t•9s. Gail Gillis, 1444 Ames Avenue, spoke in oppnsition, verifying the fact that trucks used the westerly and easterly drivetvays , or tlhichever they could get intot If. they could no't get in one driveway, they �rrould back up and tr,y an�ther one, she sai�d; so it makes no differer�ce �vhich drive��ray you are talking abou�. There being no further public testimony, Ms, ,t�1orton closed the public hearing. P�r, 1�loods sai d i t was hi s understandi ng tha�t there ��ere t��o poi nts to consi der: (1 ) The subject drive�vay along the t•resterly boundary of Lot 3 is not a legal nonconforming use, and (2) The Zoning Admini.strator did not err in issuing his order to cease use of the subject driveway located at 1422 Flmes as access to f�lidw�st Piastics. He ��aanted to confir.m the fact that these tti�ro items �riere the only ones in which the Board �vas interested, and P�s. Morton confirmed thisS Mr. Segal said that this raised the question of what the staff position i�ras regarding the zoning line; f�lr, Amey said the position of the Zonirig Admini�strator was that the • quarter section line was in fact the zoning boundary under the previous code also. Ms. P�1cNea17y reviewed the definition of legal nonconforming use and said the Board must determine whether the subject driveHiay occupied that land prior to 1975 and a�hether they occupied it legal7y. t�lr� Segal said Plidwest Plastics needs time to build a driveti��ay, and asked how much ' time, In respond to a question from P�r. Parrish, P��r. Segal said the decision of the � Soard could be appealed to City Council wi.thin 30 days, 4�. s �.1 ` � n ' � � rl b ' J 1� � h1YR0id A. �:OTN, JR. hiI,�UTES PAGE SEVEra t�r. Peterson asked if the previous 6o�rd o�F Zoning Appeals decision had b��n appeal�d and P�1�. hlcPdeaily said no. t�ir. Parri sh sai d that regardi ng establ i shi ng �egal noncon-Fo•rni ng use, P�ir. Rr�2ey had siated �he property at 1422 Ames previously had �een zon�d res�idenLial . If that drive:•�ay �•;as in use prior to 1976 �eor access to th� pro�erty to som� extent, woald that na�e it a legal noncon-Forming use, and P�1s. P�cNeally anstivered that it +�tould no�. ��r: S�gal referred to S�ction 62.102 t�rhich he said c�ave a definition of noncon�form-ing uses and also 62.102(c) for deTinition o-i nancon�Forming use of 1and. Mr. Peterson then moved to uphold the d�cision oF the Zon�ng Adminlstrator. His motion was seconded by f4r. Parrish. � F�s. hTor�on asked Mr. Gray holv much tine it 4�rould �ake to build a roac� on th� south sid�, afLer a decision from the railroad had been reacl:zd, and ��1r. Gray said it would take a fe��t mon�hs after r�ceiving a letter from th� rai7road_ He add�d �hat they �o not know how th� railroad svill respond. Ms. tlorton said the Board had no authority to do anything other than ti��hat they had done� at the presertt hearing. � � P�r. S�gal indicated that th� 30 days begZns �,,rith the approval of the resolutzon and l tha� the Qoard could decide to delay that ap�roval to gi��e P�lt�ti'l2St �1me to reso7ve � the qunstian of constructing a ne�� drivelvay. h1r. Gray said they had been in de�p discussion �tith neighbors and o��ered ta alievzate � the problems. The mo`ion to uphoid the Z�ni�g Administrator's decision then passed o� a 5 to 0 ro11 ca17 vote. Su�brnitted by: Approved by: .:• � _ � / ��+�1� �iV V�L� • �•/ f% '� ' `:i�l--'L�--L�'G"L"-.r� (r�Gl` L'� <� ��u-�� /�f Donna F. P cNeally � Gladys P�lor"ton, Chairc:u� - � , �� . - , .,:��,� � _ �� -� - � •. :�I`D�IG.��«.,��j��,� � � , � � _ � ('��C��.�1��,�iti � � .� - „�. � �'/�/ CG lc,G��z� � � � . .r::__ ,- �,��/� �.,:F� �'(,:_��i�i��'//��,��'�C�,l d , We the people w�o have our homes between yxosperity and �ia.rclay 5t: along 1�.^:es �ve., would like to raise several points related to the xezoning of the pxoperty known as 1422 Ames �1ve. frQm R1 to I1. We the property owners oppose rezoning for these reasons: 1. Rezoning will lead to truck traffic on Ames Ave. TYiis truck traffic will cause exce�sive noise and vibration on this residentia.7. street. 2. The truck traffic will increase hazards to the approximately 20 children who wait for the school bus daily on the cornor of Ames Ave, and Prosperity� and also the younger children that do not attend school. 3. T'nis truck traffic will increase the need for street repairs especia113* since Ames Ave. is a dead end atreet causing txucks to enter and leave by the sazae portion of Ames Ave. � 4� �Rflzoning from R'I ta I1 will advPrsely affect the property resale values on Ames hve, (Attached is a letter from Gary Williams st�ting his professionaZ experince in such matters.) - 5. We fee� that "spot �zoning" fs not in the best interest of our neighborhood, ' We are withdrawing our corr,►sent for approval of the rezoning of 1Q22 .Elmes kve. Tl:e petition that was cixculated and was signed by some residents was signed with a total misunderstanding of its intent. This happened � because a friend and neighbor of 20 years circulated the petition and stated it was only to black-top the driveway at 1422 Ames Ave. He said this . � ' � � , , � . was being done to keep the dust problem down which was beir.g created from the present truck traffic. �3ecause he was a friend and neigi�bor no one " questioned it. i7ie nei�bor was also a fxiend of William Roth, Vice- President of I•Lidwest Plastics, and like wise clid not question the reasons I�;r. Roth gave him for the circulati.ng o.£ the petition. We gave our approval for black-toppin� this dri.veway because at that time we were led to believe by� the St. Paul Police this present truck travel was le�a.l. w�en we called t�:e po?ice anc? ir.`or:-:ed tre^� +�a± t�?.cks �rere cir.ica.r.g c�n our residen-�ia? street� they -Eold us this was legal because it was the closest route to the industry. Z`his would be true pxoviding they did not cross residential zoned property to ga.in access to indu�trial zoned property as atated in the � city ordanance 62.104 (d). . As of a map da,ting all the way ba.ck to 'l922 it show� 1422 �es Ave. as being zoned residential. With this taken into account, at no time were the ot,rners of Tiidwest Plastics under the impxession, that this 1ot could ever be used legally as industrial proper�y when t�ey built i.n 1963: or after any further additions wha.ch were in 1g69 and 1976. As �e unde�stand this matter� I�lidwest Plastics has been violating city ordinance 62.104 (d) fer approximately two years and now they want ta make it le�al by rezonin� 1422 A*nes Ave. Our interpetatian of other city ordi- nances leads us to believe they axe in violation of these axdanances also. - Ordinance 62.104 (e) Our interp tation is that an obscuring wa.11 shall be provided on thoee sides abutting land zoned for residential use. This has not been provided. Orclinance 62,i0� (b) Our interp tation is that no off.street loading spa.ce shall be located in any yard ad�oining any residential use. Mi.dwest . , Y ' � ..�/' ' Plastics r.as a 2 ft. set back between their building and residential zoned property. � � Ordinance 6201�5 (�-4) Our interpr�ation is that it does not allow business si�s to be erected on residential property. I�idwest Plastics has a si� erected on 1422 l�mes Ave. that reads t�Iidwest Plastics Inc. G�rai:��nce 6�.10?. OLS ir.t��+��.tion is that � site plaaa dra�� to s��l� and specifications showing the acual shape, size, location� and the exsisting and i.ntended use of the zoning 1ot must be accompana.ed with an application for a building per:ni.t. At this time,T�idwest Plasties must have stated their intent was to keep shipping and receiving at 956 Prosperity because they had no other Iega,l access to their builcli.ng: Upon completion� �Ehe building pezmit office did a final inspection. If I•iidwest Flastics was usin� 1�22 �r►es t�ve, as an entrance at this ti.me� they would have been found in violatian. On July 14,1q78 the Planning Cammissian reco:nmened denial of xezoning bt�.t recognized that this denial created a problem for an existing industry in the city. Illegallity of T�iidwest Plastics aations a.n the past have now put them in a bind. We can not feel sorry for anyone such as this. The property owners propose an alternate route fox I�Iidwest Plastic'� trucks. We suggest they acquixe an easement from the railroad and use the la.nd bettiaeen their building and•the tracks to ga.in aecess to their ba.ck docks.�This 10 ft. strip of land between I�Iidwest Plastics and the tracks �U� ko/6 . ��iZ�l�Pr=�le rc►�m frrr fr�x. is at present being u�ed only as a Fire I,ane. > ��k ,�.�� . Pecause of the reasons we stated as not being infavor of rezoning; and also because of the fact that the petition was 3i�ned under a tota2 misunderstanding of its intent� and never should have come befare a heaxing. . ' ��/�v� 41e ask that the City Council vote NO for rezonin� of 1422 Ames Ave. `i'he following si�atures are of the Property:.Ehrners-that sibmed the - rezoning petition and,wisn to withdraw their consent of appxoval. ^ ♦ ,- ! �, � �-" 1��'�'��,T�j1��},L. � . �. fJ�-�«� � - �-��_,� C ;�-�. � .��-- „ �� , -A- L,��,.,:�� _ - ,� � � /�' : ' J� t`t-`-�`� . �-r�-`-z'Y�L� � . � � � � ` - . � > � �� . vd � ��-�� ? °�� r - �_�Ll.l-,��i:zc �/�-l-�'� . �= . ihe following si�atures are of Concerned Pxop�rty Ot,mers within 3�Q ft. of 1•".idwest Plastics tirho did not sign the xezoniu� peti�ion a.-�d also op��sa the xezoning of 9422 Ames Ave. � � � � ��2� �_ �r�ti-�`�..� � �,� � : ��c. , � ��,.�=-v � C�'�1 �,�, ��w�.�-' �,,1 � � �� _ 1 �' ,, . � . - a�n d W�� ,� r'L.�'IC,�� 1 � 4 G�i�- �n - � ti �� -; �, �-,�c.�C��-.�-�L�/ � �%� �--�` '"I , � �/ � i: ,' � � i""� /� E.�.�.2� � �i��-t' — `• �J '� � - ,;_,.� �,(�� _e�C�`',J �'�� . Ci�.�--P_� `� � ^ �; , - � �� '// r�/ "'�, / / /� !I /�� l�"��,/CCG�� iLC V _ � � � � � � f� ��L;�_ C� � .; �Z � i;�__. �7'(�j'!%t��i�� / � ; ��,. G, �.��.,�.�.��_ c. �.:� : f / �" .._ i L ' % . ��. i.. � / i j/ ,i -r a � , ./ ;��-Z.! L � / , �.G'- � �j �� i��,��.� . � �-�� yry ,' ' `z'��. . . i� . f , ' , . � %%,: � � The following signatures are of Concerned Property Owners within 350 ft. � of rlidwest Plastics who did not sign the rezoning petition and also oppose the rezoning of 1422 �lmes Ave. � �� C� � c�.`�' - ��(.� ; �— � � , � �� j �,.��=�:?/�� % •�/?GG1'`= t. � �,,,�_ . `l _ � � �7�� L . Y"l. �, /� � C//�) ' ' ��iC • � J.�i,G 1 . f�',��.G�G�=yC� �� • /il-�--y jli..� - V(.' a (.�Ll'� /� � ��t-t-�� '�� ; .., ��:yJ,�i��x=�.�. ; . • � '�� .... °.—++.«..,..n...a....�.. `i C ^`' l, �- ''—�r`�.,.�„w.....r.�� , CHICAGO AND � , TRANSPORTATION COMPANY -, , . REAL ESTATE AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT January 23, 1979 �"�"`�..�.�,,.,� ,..�._,., _y b fi'��t v�ti a."'rvs��s��a'^�wan�� C ' ... . � � V • ._• j'� �+� ! V��Board of Zo�ing Appeals �� City of St. Paul 1101 City Hal! Annex St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 Subject: 1700 - St. Paul, Minnesofia Midwest P astics Genfilemen: For your informafiion, the Chicago and North Wesfiern Transportatian Company has received an Offer fio Purchase from Midwest Plastics covering a portion of Qur right- of-way exfiending from the center line of Prosperifiy Street a;�proximately 605 feet easterly fiher�of to be used for driveway purposes in conjunction with the adjoining property. This offer has been forwarded fio our general office in Chicago for approval, which we believe could be forthcoming. Visual inspection by fihis evriter indicates fihat the Offeree is presenfily using the properi-y for said purposes. Very truly yours, �� mes W. Heidkamp Regional Manager JWH:gp '� � � � � � � � ' ' '� �'�'�� Sai»t#��#.1�4�ne� 275 EAST 4TH S7REET•ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 551Qt •6i2/221-9201 " ' ' "� �I / � i . r � � ��. • ...14�� . � �'I: NOTICE OF APPEAL , `� TO CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF SAINT PAUL � TO: CITY COUNCIL , CITY OF SAINT PAUL Notice is hereby given that Midwest Plastics, Inc. ,_ 3 and r:yron A. Roth, Jr. , Appellants, appeal to the City Council, i � City of Saint Paul, from that certain decision of ttie Zoning �} Board of Appeals in Zoning File rdumber 8384 bearing date of 3 i February 20, 1979, a copy of which is hereto attached, on the � � following grounds: i � 1. The access drive for commercial vehicles over and i ; across the westerly portion of said Lot 3, Block 4, Ames Outlots, � is a legal non-conforming use under the Zoning Code of 1975; I , . � 2. That the City of Saint Paul is estopped from � asserting any claim that would deny Appellants the right of ' access over the westerly portion of said Lot 3 as a means of � iingress to, and egress from, its industrial property situated ; � . westerly o� said Lot 3. In 1969 (prior to the adoption of the i current Zoniny Code) the City issued its Building Perznit for an , I ± addition of 7, 200 square feet to the then existing structure which necessarily contemplated cornnercial traf£ic over the subject lot to the dock openings at the east end of the contem- plated structure. Thereaf ter in 1976 (after the adoption of the � ' ! 1 � � � � � :�={��' , _ � .�• k ' � ..ti�yi'•�♦_ . ' . . ' ' '�,'��r . �^�`��'� -�'.,•. • curre�� Zoning Code) the City issued its Building Permit for erection of a further 12, 000 square foot addition at, and adjoin- _ ing, the east of the then existing structure and with its dock - openings at the east end thereof, further contemplating access thereto over and across the subject lot for ingress to and egress from the said loading dock. That by reason thereof Appellants relied on the validity and propriety of said Building Pernits and in such reliance expended substantial sums of money in . improvement of its property for industrial purposes; . 3. Appellants sought to file and obtain approval of . a site plan and to obtain any and all other permits and licenses required under the applicable ordinances of the City of Saint Paul, and that all of said efforts of Appellants were fruitless and unavailing in that Appellants were given notice by said City that no site plan would be approved and that no building permit would be issued on the ground that said Lot 3 is "presently • zoned f�r residential purposes, and the use of it for industrial purposes is forbidden . . . " and, as such, no site plan would be apprQVed nor any permit issued far purposes of access to Appellarits ' abutting industrial property; � 4. That said municipal Zoning Code of 1975, as it applies to Appellants and to said Lot 3, is unconstitutional in that it is arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, and confiscatory in that, among other reasons, the same: _ < � -2- � ' • _i,, - 4 . 1 Constitutes c�ePrivation of industrial � property as a means of access to other industrial property; � 4. 2 Bears no relationship to public health, safety or welfare; • � 4 . 3 Renders Appellants ' industrial property � (located westerly of said Lot 3) to be � subservient to the surrounding pror�erty on ! the north and the east and renders the same 1 � � � to be devoid of any reasonable access to a � public thoroughfare; and � , 4 . 4 Renders Appellants' said industrial proPerty � to be practically valueless. � 5. That, on information and belief, the westerly i 62. 5 feet (or a substantial portion thereof) of said Lot 3 is ; properly situate within an industrial zoning district in that the present Zoning Map of said area is in confliet with the intended location of the district boundary lines in that the � said portion of said Lot 3 was intended for access to Appellants ` industrial land westerly of said Lot 3. ' Dated: rZarch 22, 1979. PETERSOr1, GRAY & SHEAH _ � Ltd. • � By . Milton Gray 307 r7idwest Federal Building ' St. Paul, rlinnesota 55101 Attorneys for Appellants . -3- . � ' - -• , . � ' � �z�.�o;, . CITY OF SAiNT PAUL 65�4 ��'► �f'�: =� �� " DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNiTY SERVICES �. r, �,....�;..�- d� � ��p��:.:� ..'• - �?!,'- .�"'., :� DIVi510N OF HOUSING AND FUILDiNG CODE ENFORCEMENT �l:�J 445 City Hatl,St. Pau[,MinnesoEa 55702 � Georse Latimer Mayor 612-298-4212 October 20 , 1978 _ � Mr . Myron R , Roth , Jr . Midwest Plastics . 956 Prosperity Avenue Saint Paul , . Minnesota 55106 Dear Mr . Roth : This letter is to serve as notice to you tE�at the . use of Lot 3 , Block 4 , Ames Outlots , as a driveway to serve your industrial buildings must be immediateTy discontinued for the reasons � stated below , and if such use is aliowed to continue, the City of Saint Paul will be compelled to _ commence legal action to discontinue such use by you and the presons driving such trucks . This lot is presently zoned for residential purposes , and the use of it for industrial purposes is forbidden by the Zoning Ordinances of the City of Saint Paul . � Further , you have constructed a driveway over the westerly . portion of this lot without the necessary permit from the • • Saint Paul Public Wo.rks Department . Such a permit is required by Section 2C7 of the Saint Pau' Lec� islative Code if a driveway is to be constructed on public propert�y . � � � Violations of this ordinance are a misdemeanor . Further , in constructing the driveway , you have v 'rolated � - Section 62 . 108 , Par . 4 of the Zoning Ordinance because you have not obtained approval of the Planning Cammission to the site plan for the driveway . 1 have notifieil you of this ` by letter dated October 10 , 1978 . Your site plans have been . . . . - L , � . � t �� , , + ,.�Myroh R . Roth , Jr . -2- October 20 , 1978 . � � - submitted to the Planning Commission , but have not received the necessary approvals . Therefore , the construction and use of the driveway without the proper approval of the Planning � Commission also violates the City ' s ordinances and must be discontinued . Further , the use of this property for industrial purposes is in vialation of the Zoning Co�e which permits .only single � family dwelling and customary accessor uses thereto , within � the zoned district . Sincereiy , Glenn A . Erickson Zoning Administrator GAE/RA/eh . cc : Milton Gray , Attorney� Alice Murphy , Mayor ' s Office Jerry Segal , City Attorney ... . �;- .F: . . . , . . . _ . . . � f; , _ _ ___._ _ _ _ s __. _ .v...�.__.,_._.,.�,-.�.,.-..�,._.�.._.___,._...,_._..____ . ...�_. � _ �---.,.�.�..-. � __._� � � `� G� CQ., � ��Zt� C�, � �`� /� � � � o� ��- � �� ,��-__ ,�� u: � ^ /�a 7 �.a� �, ��, � ST � /a�s GcJ�L s o/1/,� �,,Q� � � � � G��2g�U••� ., -� .i c r �� U � p �� 1 , �` �i(JILL/�4�- • 09'l� x' /�"�4 � I�.�vv�s�N r �� - � � yz� ��,�s ��-� y , G � �, � o � � /3 � a��d� �'?2�;2�.-r.�i��rJ /��`�- � �� ' ' � v � �,�,�,,,, ��--� �,. ,�.� `�� .4✓� .� � . �� . :,_�.�-�,� i �� - �.�� -- ,� ., ,' ;9 �. �,/ � ,�-� � �"'� '�„--i.;�.-� �n-= � �'✓�'�-'•' '? �. " ..��:' ��-cai G�G--�-- �� '- �, t_-�,-�� 3/v ��--�'� �� ,��1� � . �!� � � i 4 �� " - _ y�� ' C�r ��, ��` �o �� '� „�. 7`� ' �' � S ` ��. � �� : � �J . � �_ �, �� ...� � �/ S-°�`�° � �.�� .5°s.� ��-� — ��,�.�/�,� � GG�� . .:.��`:� �-� �y?� -�.,.,�� = �.��.-� (��P_- a�� - ��- � �� Q____ ` �- ��`�°�� , � ; �K_,-�'� �,,. /� 9 � .� �� .�.`�, ��c�y �y o b Q�� a� � � l�'av� � /�?/ ��'�- �-. ,�-✓• ��w� ��. � � o-� �'�ir�r..�.-�,�J �y /�" C�.r� �- �- pca.c,�, 'h�,- �� /�/S �I-m� �-�-e- - �f�ez� `�..- �_ _- . . �AGk i �.. -{��t.,t. � ,/'�0�3 �/1?E S' �c , 7 c� /�3 3 ,Q/�J�S �� / /��/ ,��e�. � `��` ��i � � �� . �� y� y�y �'�� . ,. . - �` �`� � o%`--� � 1�� L�-�� ,l r°' �� ,� .�'.� yy y ,,,�... : ,:��i� � 3 8 3 Q�,�k,.,e,o � � o� l � � � Qih-�.e-a� J � g . ��'- ' �"�.�`'-rt� !�'' , '-, ��i �� ,? f ��.� / IJ�— �..�r c.,�,...�_=.. � ,'i �....m.�-" � ,/ ? 1/ /� � •-� � �� '�'�`n��"-.�, P��.�. k.�l,� -�Ir �3�y �►� �l � , a��-- ,,� i�� i .� 9� � .�v�iva �T�,�/.�'�'� -�9� D��q��'Y a�- �'f�R� � ��1�, //6� �� ' ��.�i� G��e� ��/ �. LU C� �2�� l�� c�� - � /�-�":�:�� 2- �1��-�-1'ca.yc� � � , / a � �,ir��,� /�'a.�_ f��y�r�r� �� 1� �.� C��- � , .,� /°�.�P •� �i�v � �� L-�+ �3d� d,oG��-•�..� � � ��ff�l''cD �4. I�'�tvE2 T� !`��y N1EC�lC d1�- . � � � � 7 �'�� '� - �., �� - L°� , 3 y3 �-c� � ��` � ��,�� . . � _,� J � � �� , � �,�� :� � � � � � / • • �� t�;��.""�� J .S w /� �yt J � �� Ga�-� �a-��w� /�O�_P��a �� h��}S � �!S T, �, p�o.vi..i rj �Oir��. ��9i� s � �`f�-/r�� .�� 4S v.c/ ��'� �'o,�,v.��,� �'�� '��.� � � ��il 1 '!��/��7�/`�6�"� �3�Z/ �/i2�i/vt�ti p'�vl, SJ'`s �id''�'1= Mr. �M�s, M�.r-�;� '�. I�i�SQh q ,� �. 3-�- ��. �-�-.��( Shah.e�c. x�u-�.�o� /��ti, d�� `,��., �'.�� , � � ✓�/�� - -�� . �'-c-�-� � , ,: � ,� ��,��. �i�� n ��u � �� , , ,- ../1�,� � .� .L l� ��" � ��.� �-� . �� \;'�O�s.rr� �� l�S� ��r'��.�.�v �.� , `�C.t..c,ti� � � � y� S �� .��.��,a, ,� �; a...,:P �� . � ,., �;� 1 � �� ' �a��/��`�,c.� ,��% ' ',,/ ��'' __. � //�s�� d�� - �7, �I yp S'7� ��G�'' �?� �;� � ;.,v��v�.�,�- o� ��C ,�� ~�� ^�-� .^'1 / yL �,r,_.�+./ 6--`�`i, �G3 + `�'� .�1�,�-a',!r 'r�`' �,{.. ,.��;(--�,t-�.'` "� � ;++Co �". � �� ; �'� �, � �� lc� C i-i i ` ' � f V � G.-"i �� /�� / �L/ � /! VC� ' �Qo a a�� ,.-�� , �� 1�.�!`�"�t�' . �( �6� ��'� �f�� , << , �o � �'� �-�. � � 6 � � �.��.� � � � o _� �;�j , ��` � � ��. „ �. �s��l�, �1�"y_ �J ' ,� ,, 1 . ✓ _ /�.�� 0�1 , � �� v�3 a aA�?��p�� ,�r' � 3 Z�, o C�� C��-e�e.Q� � ��;�/ C.�..d,u,� ��,� S1 �V � Oa� �Ut' �.�•l� /� �� p? c�✓l. �7 �" � �r-�-f�.. ! � � ��`- ��6 0 �� ,�:.� � f�� S .�r�� r ��,. � l ��? � ,� � T.� �/ , �--� ��,��e�(,j � �;,,� ,�,�� '"��.��- �� . ,� �� /(3 / � �� :�=��;�� '� (��.�.-� �'�2- ✓ - �' �� ' ..,��' � �� ,� �.��--�� `j� - � �'�`� �' �-L--� �� %g�� ..� � � ~ �. ,��o.,.�..� t�� a ��-�, �., ��...�.� �� ✓ � -w,�.,�.�„� s— � - ' \ . � � � � �' � 1 � 3 � � � ✓ ��,�s��.� , ,� C > //(1� ;t _� N � ��•YL14�� f t"C 7!.�....�i f.' 1�_ _ .. �° . .,.��I �,._�..n i • � � ��'� �� l6�t 7 z,J,�.�-,, - :� ��...,� C � ' � �_ �A/�r��V V 1. �1`�/��_ � �J,Q Y � ��C��^'�"C/-'�� L.r �� '., ,. J' ' GL� rt,.G � .a/� ��i� tf'�� 5 l �I�/Ij%�/,� r ��yc9t, .� � f�'��' ,r �` / , •y.... �' )' ��...��".�,.��?"L.�-�-R"�'�.�� Q�� "- � V�',iYt'.w.^.�� ` ��.� �!'r`�� Y C �� _ � �� , � , ' , � , ,... J , , . � , , �—r- ,�" .. - ,, , • `-t .,,J�?, ��.t..J.�: '.�1..8'. !`'C� , �_;��,� �_4�...1��=f., ,,.�` .�'%��;��•1�.. ,`��^�.. 1 , .., _, ,��, !' �' /�t� C'�-�, . � � _ �� Q G �'.��v �,�.��.� ��.��..: ��n. I�� ' � �'�_..�1�`/�'�c...� ��,�.��.��'�.,�� ,� ty�,� �i��t�a.,� �cZ�� , _ � � 1� ✓ �` _..�.. , + - n -��.t.a x'r�.` ,�'f. �� ='� , � ��;'e�...�.,e.. ` _ �..�. '�--.��i �' V , r ,'�/�' � r r,,. t ✓., �s'�'t#�'�,'.`I°*1.-�s,�'� ,� � l L�� .•Circ:.:!.�ia,�' J�� v � c7 , � � A � ��" ^ �'� � �d�/ �..-��:��s-��,r� %��-�� u'! Q''�L�a.� -�`_,�_-� �Y c..��r�.1%•�, �..--- � ,�,,.,,Q....�.�2.,� ..,�--��-�--�-� ��-� c�.��.� ,6'��,�.�. C��.d.� , a.�.,� ;� , /� G � �� y � �-�� ,�� J /36 3 � � �'�� s�o� ( /1� �� . ` � � � �a��t �.�: �1�� -� � �� j �� ' � d��' �.,Q,u,r 2�C �t�� b—��o S ��R M�� 2VC � � � � 3 3 �� '`��Q� � , �1� � ._ , /�S`l� � �¢ �� .�J"'l d �" - /►'� /0 � � �, 7..33 ..�'-� ,� .�5� 0 6 �/�1�'_,.-� �,��'��.,�f . �� ,�,�.�� .��o,� ��, �/. � , .. � ._ '�, '� r" d�"_ �'"�%`�,r� � , � ,�� s�"ir� �✓ � � - , � .�� '�� I 9 ��2 � � �a� J � � �Yt'�� r� "�` � �S / ��L, .r/�� °� � � � ��•� � 3"� .So � 5.��lD� 1I�P, .��z�� , � � '� c..�'' �'3s k�,,,,r,,,,..SZ„ ssro� -�Z.�- �.�a„-�. ��-.�t.;�. � � G��,�- ct.,,� ks`s'/�� ,�� . ✓� � /S' �j�.��..s� �S-s-�a 6 `� /�rf +/° ✓' �L .� Q ��-� �� s � � � �� ' f' ✓ .�'. � � �6 ��.�t- ss�o6 For M, P. ✓` IC� 1/� � yk� a.a.48 �s�bf ssr�q t�ov IH� � _ , �_ - - tt-? . • � . +��/ � -/ • •` � r ' . � . �,5� . � � NOTICE OF APPEAL � TO CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF SAINT PAUL � TO: CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SAINT PAUL Notice is hereby given that Midwest Plastics, Inc. ,. and blyron A. Roth, Jr. , Appellants, appeal to the City Council, City of Saint Paul, from that certain decision of the Zoning � Baard of Appeals in Zoning File rdumber 8384 bearing date of � February 20, 1979, a copy of which is hereto attached, on the � following grounds: - , 1. The access drive for commercial vehicles over and i . � across the westerly portion of said Lot 3, Block 4, Ames Outlots, � is a legal non-conforming use under the Zoning Code of I975; � I � , 2. That the City of Saint Paul is estopped from = asserting any claim that would deny Appellants the right of � � access� over the wester].y portion of said Lot 3 as a means of � ingress to, and egress from, i.ts industrial property situated , westerly o� said Lot 3. In 1969 (prior to the adoption of the current Zoning Code) the City issued its Building Permit for an , addition of 7, 200 square feet to the then existing structure which necessarily contemplated comnercial traffic over the , subject lot to the dock openings at the east end of the contem- plated structure. Thereaf ter in 1976 (after the adoption of the , I �m,. .�.,��_. .....�.._, . .�.v_ ....�._ . _ , .,.._ _.._ ..._... . �_.� .._ _ ,�:Rr�as��k�1�� . . - ' ' �� f'� .. , i" ,;R7 v:�• � . . curre�� Zoning Code) the City issued its Buil.ding Permit for erection of a further 12,000 square foot addition at, and adjoin- . ing, the east of the then existing structure and with its dock � - openings at the east end thereof, further contemplating access � thereto over and across the subject lot for ingress to and egress from the said loading dock. That by reason thereof Appellants relied on the validity and propriety of said Building Pernits and in such reliance expended substantial sums of money in improvement of its property for industrial purposes; • 3. Appellants sought to file and obtain approval of _ a site plan and to obtain any and all other permits and licenses required under the applicable ordinances of the City of Saint Paul, and that all of said efforts of Appellants were fruitless and unavailing in that Appellants were given notice by said City that no site plan would be approved and that no building permit would be issued on the ground that said Lot 3 is "presently • zoned for residential purposes, and the use of it for industrial purposes is forbidden . . . " and, as such, no site plan would be approved nor any permit issued for purposes of access to Appellants ' abutti:ng industrial property; � 4. That said municipal Zoning Code of 1975, as it applies to Appellants and to said Lot 3, is unconstitutional in � � ' that it is arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, and confiscatory in that, among other reasons, the same: ; ` -2- .�f!. ' - - � .. ' . _ j „� 4 . 1 Constitutes c3eprivation of industrial property as a means of access to other indus�rial property; _ 4. 2 Bears no relationship to public health, safety or welfare; - 4' . 3 Renders Appellants' industrial property (located westerly of said Lot 3) to be subservient to the surrounding pronerty on the north and the east and renders the same to be devoid of any reasonable access to a public thoroughfare; and : 4 .4 Renders Appellants' said industrial pro�erty � . � to be practically valueless. � , � 5. That, on information and belief, the westerly ; � � 62. 5 feet (or a substantial portion thereof) of said Lot 3 is 1 - - properly situate within an industrial zoning district in that ; the present Zoning Map of said area is in conflict with the intended location of the district boundary lines in that the , said portion of said Lot 3 was intended for access to Appellant�' industrial land westerly of said Lot 3. ' Dated: DZarch 22, 1979 . PETERSON, GRAY & SHEAH , Ltd. By Milton Gray 307 r4idwest Federal Bvilding ' St. Paul, riinnesota 55101 Attorneys for Appellants -3- . � � , � � , , , ��.'� � . CITY OF SAINT PAUL 8 a"9 •�� . �� o� DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNiTY SERVICES �,;�:-,.�, _ ��.�.�:� DIV1SiON OF HOUSING AND BUILDiNG CODE ENFORCEMENT 445 City Hali,St.Paul,Minnewta 55102 George Latimer Mayor 612-Z98-4212 October 20 , 1978 _ ' � Mr . Myron R . Roth, Jr . Midwest Plastics . 956 Prosperity Avenue Saint Pau1 , . Minnesota 55106 Dear Mr . Roth : This letter is to serve as notice to you that the . use of Lot 3 , Block 4 , Ames Outlots , as a driveway to serve your industrial buildings must be immediately discontinued for the reasons ' stated below, and if such use is allowed to continue, the City of Saint Paul will be compelled to . _ commence legal action to discontinue such use by you and the presons driving such trucks . This lot is presently zoned for residentiat purposes , and Che use of it for indust� ial purposes is `orbidden by the Zoning Ordinances of the City of Saint Paul . ' Further , you have constructed a driveway over the westerly - portion of this lot without the necessary permit from the • • Saint Paul Public Works Department .� Such a permit is required by Section 207 of the Saint Paul Legisiative Code if a driveway is to be constructed on public property . - • Violations of this ordinance are a misdemeanor . Further , in constructing the driveway , you have vioiated � • - Section 62 . 108 , Par . 4 of the Zoning Ordinance because you have not obtained approvai of the Planning Commission to the site plan for the driveway . I have notified you of tfiis ` by letter dated October 10 , 1978 . Your site plans have been ,. ` _ � . � . � tlyrot� R . Roth , Jr . -2- Octobcr 20 , 1978 submitted to the Planning Commission , but have not received , the necessary approvals . Therefore , the construction and use of the driveway Hrithout the proper approvai of the Planning Coron: ission also violates the City ' s ordinances and must be discontinued . Further , the use of this p;operty for industrial purposes is in violation of the Zoni ►�g Code which permits .only single family dwelling and customary accessor uses thereto , within � tlie zoned district . Sincerely , Glenn A. Erickson Zoning Administrator GAE/RA/eh cc : Milton Gray , AttorneyV Atice �iurphy , Mayor ' s Office Jerry Segat , City Attorney � , , , _ i ` � � �'•. � ' �`` T ► _� � E� . � � . , �%�;: � Cl��y O� Sc�� :�� oa�t� ai ��n�� r�s�� Z�� 7�� - 8384 (�� __FebruarY 20, 1g79 _ � [�1HEREAS, or� October 20, 19.78 the Zoni ng Admi ni strator ordered Mr. P-lyron Roth, Jr, ,� (Mid�vest Plastics Inc, � to discontinue use of a drive�•ray located � at 1422 Ames as access to �ndustrial property (the letter is attached hereto as Exhi6�t A�.; and GJHEREAS, P�yron Roth Jr. has applied for an Administrative Review of said cease and desist order in accordance �vith the provisions of SECtion 64.203 (tFie appl i cati on for Admi ni strati ve Revi ect� i s� attach?d hereto as Exhi bi t B} ; and 4JNER�S, the St� Paul Board of Zoning �ippeals conducted a public h�aring on Febt°u�ry 6, 1979 pursuant to said appeal in accordance tvith the requir�ements of Section 64,203a of the Leg%slative Code; and LJHEREAS, the St, Paul Soard of Zoning Appeals, based upon evidence presente� at the puolic heari.ng, as r�flec�ted in the minu�es attached 'nereto as Exhibit C, r�ad� tne following findings of fact: 1 . The subject driveway across residential prop�rty is used as access • to Mid�vest plastics, an industrially zoned pro�erty. 2. Thi; use is in violation of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 62.104(d)} . 3. There is no �asis -�or a determinatio�� of iegal r�onconforming use of ttie dri:veti�ray_ 4. Site p)ans may not be approyed in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. P�10!•;, THEREFORE, RE IT RESOLVED, by the St. Paul Board o� Zoning Appeals that �he Zoning Administr�tor did not err in his interpretat�on and enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance, The appeal of P�yron Roth Jr. is hereby denied. �.�,.��,�� y1� Summers Decisions of the Board of Zoning 6�1 ��,�0�� b Woods Appea�s are final subject to appzal ... y _ to the City •Counci� within 30 days �� 5 by anyone a�Pfected by �he decisian. �C�' ai�iS� o • ,. ' ., fi � e � x _ 3 . _ i j� . . ' P4IPdUTES OF 7HE BOARD OF ZO��IPaG APPEALS i��EETI��G ON FE6P,UARY 6, 1979 � Ii�� CITY CUUPdCIL CHA�iacRS, ST. PAUL, r�iid;lESOTA ; PRFSE�aT: hlmes. Sumn�ars & P�orton, P�essrs. parrish, Pei.erson E� L�Joods af thQ Board o� Zoninq Appeals; P�r. Jerome Segal , Assistant City f��torn�y; h1essrs. Stev� Roy and Rici�ard Amey of the Division of Hausing & Building Code Enforcement; t�mes. h1cN�ally and Fox and P•1r. Jung o�F the Planning Staff. ABSE�dT: Zachary, Grai s 7he meeting tiras chaired by G7adys t�lor�on, the Chairman. h1'(�ON A. ROTH, JR. (n8384): A request for Administrative Review of the decision in the Zo�ing Admin7strator s le�tt�r of Octo6er 20, 7978 notifying the appellant that � he «as in vioiation of tha Zoning O�dinance by constructing a driveway without an aaprov�� site plan and by using a driveway crossing residen�ial property to gain access to industria7ly zon�d property. The a�pellant ti�aas present. There ��ras oppos?�tion presen� at th� hearing. � i�ls. f-lciVeall;� sho��i?d slides of the subject site and revie��a�d her s�aff report, Ftith the reco��mendation that th� subject clrivetvay along the ti•resterly boundary of Lat 3 is not a legal nonconforming use, and that the. Zoning Administrator did not err in issuing his ord�r to cease use of the subject driveway at 1422 Ames as access to tQid,��_st Plastics or in refusing to approve a site plan for th� dr�ive. _ � �1r. h1i 1 ton Gray, Attorney at Law, 307 P�1i davest Federai Sui 1 di ng, represented the � aop�llant a��d asked for a copy of P�1s. McPJeally's staff: ren��:,z. He a1l�ged coniusion abou� ti�e previous zoning o� 1422 Ames by some m�mbers of the staffi a-� the Octobzr h�aring and said this ti�ras indicative of the inien�t that a�as thought to have existed prior to the i975 Zoning Ordinance with reference� to where th� line �•,as. He said there �{�as no question about the land immzdiately to the north. He said hlidtAlest Plastics had reason to b�iieve when they bouyht Lot 3 in conjunction �,�ith the expa►isio� conte�nplated in 1969 that they tivere buying industrial pro�erty. He introducec# Mr. No�riard Cahlgren, president of Naro7d Dahlgren Associates of P�linneapolis, and iisted his qualifications, and aslced him to presen-t his professional findings and , professional opinions and recommendations -�or the assistance o�f the 8oard. ��ir. Noti�ard Dah7gren said he had conducted studies ��rith respect to probiems brought out in the staff report. H� then proceeded to show slides and graphs to explain these problems and a so7ution. He said elimination of the e-ast drive ��aould put the company out of business, and he gave a complete history of Midwest Plastics' access problems. his. P�lorton interjected an opinion of irrelevancy reyarding � P-1r. Dahlgren's presentation, saying that all the Board could consid2r was wheti�er the Zoning Administrator erred, but Mr. Dahlgren insis-ted tna� the building permits were what had presented the prob7em a�d tM�rAfore they tiverz a part o-f the process and if it cam� to court, a judg� would loolc at the reasonableness of all these actions. Mr. Gray add�d that sometimes thzse problems are solvQd by good common sense, and the problems h�re could d�termine an appropria�t� solutian. " � • Ms. Morton reiterated that the only thing before the Board �vas ti�nether the Zoning -, Administrator erred in �elling P�idwest Plastics not to use that driveway. ( , � �, . • st � , f .1 1 ' ` P�tY�?C+i� A. ROTH, JP.. +��' h1ZTlUTES ' PAGE T!�Ifl - '� P�ir. Dahl gren sai d tnat f�i d��t�st Pl asti cs -�ei t th�t becat�sP permi ts ��ere i ssued and access 4vas of; Ame, Avenu� a17 trZOSe years, they have a right to estab7ish zhat this was a legal noncor��orming use Znd the City admitted that access, and therefore it is a legal noncon�orming us�, t-lren reninded by f�1s. ��?orton that the drivel�ay in qu�stion was put in in 1978, Mr. Dah�gren said acc�ss svas establish�ci as a leya7 nonconforming use. He said acquiring 15 additional feet from the railroad tvou7d enabl° htidwest Plastics to build a driveway from ��12 front to the rear of the proper�y and continu2 it through to Ames, either one <<ray in or ou�. i��tr. Segal requested copies of the ex��ibits for the Board, and P4r. Gray sai_d they Nrould b� glad to make copies of everything presenied. htr. Sega1 : You men-tioned that drive�vay from Ames had a7�vays E��en used. tdh�t -Facts do you have to back t{�is up? Mr, Dahlgren. When the second addition ti,las added in 19b9, the building pzrmit plans show loading docks �vere on th� east side or the struc�ure and no other �lay of coming in other than coming in from a�nes. P-1r. Segal : You said access was altidays from Ames. Upon ��hat do you base that? P�r. Dahlgren asked h1r, Roth if ihe�original addition built in 7969 had a loading dock on the east side o; th� build'ing. Thz reply was in the affirmative, and � f�ir. Dahlgren said one �rouid have to assume access came o�Ff P�nes. � ' �7r. S�gal : l�lould you ask the ol��ner about the typ� o-� i,�enic7es and hot,r th� ve`rrcies got into th� prop�rty bzt�leen 1969 and 197&? P�r. Dahlgren: Access ��ras via a road��ay on th� east side of the hous�. It can be veri-Fied by looking at 19b9 bui7ding permi-t' plans. Those pians had �oading docks on the east side. Ames Avenue t�ras used as access on the east side. fir. S�gal : The addition i:hat ��as put on in 197& -- when was that completed? Mr. Dahlgren: In Novemb�r, i976. P�r. Segai : t�lhen did traffic begin using the loading dock? The PY1ay 1977 photo sho�� tra-Ffic going down the easterly portion of the house. Wheth�r the �vesterly drive4��ay v��as a legal nonconforming use -- ��rhat factors did you take into account regarding this? P�lr. Da�tlgr�n: According to the minutes of the last meeting, a distance of 30 plus feet �,�as zoned industria7 under the o7d T�22 ordinance. There always �rras � driveway on the t��est side. Principal access was the drivealay on the eas-� side. P4r. Segal : L�IouTd your conclusion be the same prior to 1978 that there was �no drivetvay on the west side and prior to 1978 the �vest side had not b�en used fior v°hicles? � �. Mr. Dahlgren: Access to the easterly part was provid2d throi�gh Lot 3 to Ames and �� buiiding perm�ts issued on that basis. The applicant had had na knowledg� there was any prab7em with the access. 7he city gave them two building permits and this says the city condoned �ha� the drive tiaas a legal nonconforming use. ••"�v�� /�. ��vlll lrl\• 11111VJLJ � ' ' PNGL- tFiit�t . i�1r. Sega1 : Assuming the city never issu°d a permit for a drive;��ay and persons used th� drive,�ray ��ithout a permi-c by the city, are you saying that this gav° rights through usage? Prior to 197G they had been using thz easterly drivzway. f�r. Dahlgren said he had n�t seen the building p�r�iis, and he ��as basing his opinion on a��hat the Crdinar�c� says. _ Mr. Segal : If thz Zoning plan did not disclosz that there aras a drive�ray, ho��t could th� Zoning Administrator know there �,ias a drive��ay? P�r. Dahlgren; Any reasonable person could see it. P�tr. Segal : Re the number of trucks going to the property, the ans��er t�tas 4 --- do � you still fezl traffic is so heavy that a 15 ft. road4�iay could no� be used for d�liveries? i�r. Dahlgren: The cancern is parking space for em�7oyees because ti,�e lose ti�ese spaces ti�rhen we build a road. Parking would not b? adequate. t�r. Segal : There is an alternative though. You said the company ��ould have to c7ose th�ir operation. 4 trucks plus 35 em�loy�es' vehicles -- t�fhy �vould th�y have to . clase down? ; Mr. Gray: If you took an action today and the city closed Funes Avenuz tomarratit, 4A�e would not have that access. If the only access i s 13 or 14 ft. driveti,tay, thi s cannot b� condoned by any ci ty. T��io-way traf-i i c ��r;�+.�1 d b� very i nadequa.te and unsafe re fire. Th�s� p`ople have used amzs Av�nue �11 �chis -time since 1909, so a reasonable solution is for Mid��est �Plast:ics to spend the monzy and bui 1 d �che dri vetvay. I f they sal d thi s bu i 1 di ng and SOi11°OTl2 el se r�;o��ed i n, they might n�ed the 70 spac2s they thzoreticaliy should have. If you took an action today closing Ames, the� plan-t would be in jeoaardy. P�1r. Gray then asked for a spec-ific d�lay to build a driveway_ P�s. Ptorton said there was a discrepancy in the �mount o-F space. Mr. Gray said in earlier t�stimony there evas 5-1/2 ft. and P�r. �1��gr�n said 1 Ft. �'rom the southern most point of the building to th� rai7road right of way. � htr. Gray; Tha-t is what T v�as advising and what i believed, Since th�n negotiations have been ernployed with the rai7road. The rai7road right-of-tivay comes to within one foot of the building. The railroad company notiv is n�gotiating on 14 ft. so 14 plus 1 = 15 ft. He wan�ed to c7airfy a point htr. Segal had raised. If the � minu�res of the October meeting were revieNred, t�r. Gray said, thzse minu�es seemed �o b� full of admissions by the staff from the Zoning Administrator's office that some portion oT Lot 3 was platted as light indus�ry prior to 7975. The ex�ent of that area b�came a question -- Hrhether 60 ft. or 4Q something. The pr2sent staff report contains a total7y inconsistent report that no part of it ��as then l i ght i ndustry. We don't know where the truth l i es no��v, but tive do Icnow that as much as 4 months ago this city deemed that portion of Lot 3 to be light . industry. We deem2d it way back in ]969 as iignt industry. P9r. Segal `s questio� ` of to t�rhat extent had that portion been utilized for access to the rear of ��tidwe'st Plastics building -- the testimony of P�1r. Roti� 4�as that prior to 1975 that por�ion of Lot 3 on the �vesterly side of Lot 3 �ras utilized far access to the loading dock of the building and with time they moved it to the east sid� out af .. ..�.. ... ..�. ..� �.... --- �. • � / , �i, . consideration for the neighbors. 7h` sp°C1�1C narro�•r issuz heard in Oc�ober ti,�as 4��re ti�re validly using the eas�t�rly sid�? The Boa�,d said no and left apen th� question of the ti�lesterly driv��ray. He then re-F�rred to Fin�ling r4 of the stafY report: "The Zoning Administrator documen�s that the subject access drivetiatay :�as initiated on Octobe•r 13, 1978, postdating the Ordinance by 3 years; as such, ih� driv� cannot b� cot�siclered a legal nonconforrnir,g use." H� said the oniy ihing since 1978 tivas th� grading and thzir use on the east°r1y side does no� indicate an intent to abandon access into the industrial portion 4r�ich is serving the loading docks. . . i�ir. Segal then addressed his remarks to_1�r. Roth_ and told him thai P�lr. Gray indicated tnat ��lr. Roth had given testiinony regarding the us2 of the wester7y driveti��ay, but tne ninutes of the October mzeting do not ref]°ct this. P�lr. Roth: 41e d�ad di.scuss tn� sequ��ce of purchase o� the hame and garage. In -Front or th° garage ti�re.r2 t�� tracks us?d for access. 4!e 1 i ved i n the house i n 1967-7 968. Ar that time a,�e did not run a great deal of over-the-road vehicles. As the volume picked up, in consid�ration Of tI12 neighbor to the �vest, are moved the drive�vay and garag� to th� east sid� in 1967 or 1968. 6�e used it minirnally -For rubbish removal and our ov�rn vehicies and this constituted access to htidt��est Plastics. Ms. Summers asked t9r. Roth how many trucks they could acco�nmodate at their dock, and htr. Roth said it is a 50' ti�ride dock ��hich �v�i11 accorrmodat2 5 truc':s; 1 or 2 trucks � are ther� at a time. � . . htr. 4�loods: Is your com�any planning extensive future ex;�a.�s�'ion? fftr. Roth: At this poin�, if tive tivere not in a situation as ti�,� are now ��ri�h no access from the rear, ti�r� could not p7an on any expansion -- parking tivould have to be in the back lot only. hls. P�1cNea1ly: No.�r many parki ng spaces �,ri 71 you be di splaci ng i n firont? Does tf�at take into account. thos� which are d�rectly in front o-f T1id�,�est P7astics? There ap�eared to be only 12 parked along tne southern property line during my site inspection. h1r. Roth: 24 - 4 facing Prosoerity and 4 facing the bui7ding. �1s. hlc�leally: P+Ir. Dahlgrer� said there had al�vays been a 20' drive along the west side ofi ti�e property line. How do you exp7ain tn� �act ti�at staff slzd�s taken in the spring of 7978 show no �vidence of a drive? . f�lr. Ro�h: There is a d�finite de�•ression prior to the grading. P�Ir. Segal : Prior to 1976, before your i976 addition, did you have trucks de7ivering on the east side of your building? How t•�ould �hey get in to �the loading dock? ' ��1r. Roth: Using the driveway or► the east side. � { t�lr. Segal : Did you hav� 3 or 4 truck per ciay at that time? , � a , t�lYf?OiJ �1. ROT��, JR.� . . P-IINUTES P�'GE FI��E t h1r. Roih: That �r�ould b? on the high sicl�. Using the back half o� the buildin� ti•ihere ti��e bui 1 t our addi ti on i n 1975, th� map sho;�s access to Ames. t41hy �•�ou1d we put a 50' dock i n ��i th no tvay o-f ge�ti ng a� i�t? f,ir. Roth then expTain�d that nis fath�r had o1•med P�lidt�rest Plastics and the hcusA and torrenced the 20' strip, and that P-1r. Roth and his bro�ther now o1,rn both. Ete said tne deed conveying the title from Senior to Junior retained an easement for a roadtvay. h1r. Gray: �y1r. Roth Sr. purchas�d Lot 3, then transferred it to Jr. , retaining 20' easement for access in�o the body of land �vhich is no��t industrial . h9r. Sega1: If the i n Lent �r�as to k2ep the dri veway on the ►��st si de wnen the proper�y �vas convey�d b�fore 1976, why did you continue to use the easterly driveway? P�r. Roth: �Je did not 4vant to come too c7ose� to the neighbor's house on the �,�est. . P�1r. Segal : ?he easer�ent vlas on tne ti��ester7y sid� and yet the drivet�iay con�inu2d to be us�d or► the east side. ��r. Ro-th: t{!e d�cided to put it on the east side kno�.ving t�r� �rouTu be less of a bo�her . to the n�ighbor, because there �vould b2 a 100' bu;f�r on either sida. t�e dict no�� giv� up the rigt�t of acc�ss. � hlr. Pat Kolb, 1384 Ames Avenu�, spo�ce in opposition, a;,� re;`�rred ta statements made i n previ ous h�ari rgs. He sai d P�li c��;�st P1 asti cs n�ve, us�d -chi s 1 ot for i ndus�ri al use until 1 year� after the entire neigi�borhood a�as rezon�d: H� said you cannot change th� use of 1422 Fimes except by ac�ti on of the Boa•rd of Zuni ng Appeal s. Mi d�,�est Plastics did not knov� what th� prop�rty was zoned anu did not care, he said. The neighborhood thinks Mid�v2st Plastics has not abided by the city o•rdinance b�cause th°y did not build a tivall , and constructed an off-street loading space that ab�ts residen�ial use, witf� no b.facrtopnir�g. Neigt-,bors c�aim P�1idti,:�st P]astics is using rezoned land for industrial usn, r�lr. Ko7b said. Three boards have denied industria7 use of this property. Ms. P�taxine La�lasa, 1389 Ames Avenue, spok� in opposition. She said she has lived in th� area 32 years and she complained about the 1arg� trucks going back and forth. She ciaim�d that P�1r. Dahlgren c.ould not lcno�� about ti�e trucks as he does. not live in th� area. P�s. E7izabe�h M. 0'Connel7 , 140i Ames AvQnue, spoke in opposition. She said she is co;�c�rned about the truck trarfic, and toid of congestion with thL 18-��theelers noLv us4d. She said the 20' strip is inadequate -For these large �rucks. She tald of various truck situations where th� Roth brothers have tivaved trucks through, and sometimes 3 and 4 cars are lined up H�aiting to se2 ti��hat the trucks are going tQ do. She said thz trucks are turning around on priva�te property. Mr. Segal asked her when �he trucks b�gan using the easterly drive�,�ay, and P4s. 0'Connell replied that it started last spring in April . l ' Ms. Lynn Kolb, 1384 Ames Av�nue, spoke in apposi�ion, and transmitted letters -from . son� of the renters of 1�22 Ames and residents in the irr:mediate area, stat�ng there � �•ras no access to Ames through the subjec� pro�erty nor heavy truck traffic until the spring of 1978. She mentioned one person who had an ice rink in back of the house : 'at 1422 P.mes; shz claim�d that in winter snoti�� ti•;ould be piled up and plows s�rould push ,sno�•1 behi nd her home.�f,�, t��s. ��1cr;eally read into the record a letter fro� Daniel 0'Connell of 1�01 Ames Rverue, i�� opposition. . � ��ls, uladys Peterson, 1392 Ames Avenue, spake in opposition, telling of a trash bin but no traffic other t}�an picking up trash on the east driveway. Si�e described th2 - di;ficulty encountered by the trucks in backing up and said Mid;vest Plastics has only 1422 P,mes, but if the street is ruined, the neighbors t�uill have to pay the rest, and it �•�ould all be for the 6eneFit of Midwest Plastics, She saici she has lived in the area 22 years and it was a new area when t�{id��est Plastics came and built there. � Sh� did not think they should have 6een there in the first place in a residential area, ' an� s�e ti•rondered �vhy they bui 1 t so cl ose to the rai 1 road ��hen there wasn't even a firz lane. P�ir. Peterson of the E3oard of Zoning Appeals asked T1s. Peterson if there had been delivery trucE:s coming or going off A�nes prior to 7978� and P�is. Peterson said she had not seen any, that perhaps ��lid�iest Plastics ' own trucks had been there, but not these �arge 18-��ineelers she se�s nor�, She said that if the Roth brothers lived on tf�e street, they ��rould be f�ighting as hard as the ne�ighbors are now, and she added that the neighbors fear their properties are going to be devalued. t�s. �ulie Mudek, 1520 Ames Avenue, spoke in opposition, and said she lives at the end of a deadend street, and several times has had to get out of the house to F�elp � truck drivers back do�m her str2et, � � � f�is. Gail Gillis, 144� Ames Avenue, spoke in opposition, v�rifying the fact that trucks used the westerly and easterly driveways, or tF�hichever th�y could get intot If-they could no�t get in one driveway, they ��ould back up and try another one, she sai�d; so it r�akes no di fference 4vhi ch dri ve��ay you are tal ki.ng abou�. There being no further public testimony, Ms, ,t�1orton closed the pu�lic hearing. P�r, l�loods sai d i t was hi s unders�andi ng that there were tu�lo poi nts to consi der t (1 ) The subject driveti�ray along the t•resterly boundary of Lot 3 is not a 1ega1 _ - norconforming use, and (2) The Zoning Administratar did not err in issuing his order to cease use of the sub;;ec-t driveway located at 1422 Ames as access to Midwest Piastics. He ��anted to confir.m the fact that these t��o i.tems �rere the only ones in which the Board �vas interested, and Ms.- Moi^ton confirmed thist f�1r. Sega1 said that this raised the question of what the staff position 1��as regarding the zoning line; f1r* Am2y said the position of the Zoning Admini�strator �vas that the • quarter section line t��as in fact the zoning boundary under the previous code also, Ms. P�tc�leally reviewed the definition of legal nonconforming use and said the Board must determine �A�hether the subject driveway occupied that land prior to 1975 and t•thether they occupied it legal7y. P•4rt Segal said P•9idwest Plastics needs ti.me to build a driveway, and asked how much time, In respond to a question from P1r, Par.rish, f�r. Segal said the decision of the � Board could be appealed to City Council ��i.thin 30 days. �_ _ . � ` � h� � . . � r � � �� y' �� . .. h1YR0`J �. ROTN, JR. h1IiaUTES PAGE SEVEPI P�tr. Peterson asked i-f the previous �oard o-f Zonin� Appeals decision had b��n appeal�d and f�ls. ��1cPJeally said no. - h1r. Parrish said that regard�ng establishing legal nonconfo•rming use, P�r. Am�y had stated �h� prop�rty at 1422 Ames previously had been zoi��d res�idential . If that drive:�ray �•;as in use prior to 1976 �or access to th� pro�erty to so�n�. extent, wo;�ld that make it a legal noncon��orming use, and P�1s. i�1cNea1ly ans�,vered that it v�rau�d not, �4r. S�gai re�ferred to S�ction 62.102 s�thich h� said gave a de�=inition of nonconforming uses and also 62.102(c) ior definition o-� nonconforming use of 7and. h1r. Feterson then moved to upnold the decision o� the Zonir�g Admin�s�rator. H1s motion was seconded by P�ir. Parrish. t4s. P�9or�on ask�d P�r. Gray hoav much tine it tivould �ake to builci a road on th� south sid�, afzer a decisio� from the railroad had been reacl:ed, and ��1r. Gray said it wou7d ta�:e a few mon��hs after rzceiving a letter from th�� rallroad. He add�d �hat they do not kno�,v hotiv the rai 1 road svi 11 respond. f�fs. Morton said the Board had no author�ty to do anything oth�r than t{�hat they had done� a� the prese�rt hearinr�. � " P�r. S�gal indicated that the 30 days begins �r�ith the approval ofi the resolui�on and tha� the Board could decide �o delay that ap�rova] to gi�l� t�"icltirest tlme to resolve � the question of constructing a netia drive�vay. t•1r. Gray said they had been in dezp discussion L�rith neighbors and o-ffered to al)eviate � the problems. The mo�ion to uphoid the Zon�ing Administrator's decision then passed on a 5 to 0 rol] ca11 vote. Submitted by: Approved by/•- /� ; ,�f�7-J `� �� - _ . � � , / ,!/ �.--��fy�--� ��,��— - & -�,�ucL ,L_ ��_�.!- �� , � Donna F. PcNeai7y � Gladys Mar'ton, Chairman - � r � ��.�:w��.+ ; :�� /�� 7� � F%, - , �j��°��j��z��-� . f�' ��/J��,�iic� i ,� .- �~/�Z/ C�/c.l��.�� .. � �� . . -.�`��2J��r��z��(�.��,��—,� � � , We the people w::o have our homes between Yrosperity and �ia.rclay St: along Eimes r';ve., would like to raise several points related to the rezoning of the property known as 1422 Ames Ave. from R1 to I1. We the propexty owners appose rezoning for these reasons: - i. Rezoning will lead to truck traffic on Ames Ave. 3'riis truck traffie will cause excessive noise and vibration on this residential street. 2. The truck traffic will increase hazards to the approximateZy 24 children wha wait for the school bus daily on the cornor of Ames Ave. and Prosperity� and also the young�er childxen that do not attend schaol. 3. �nis truck traffic will increase the need for street repairs especia113* since Ames Ave, is a dead end street causing trucks to enter and leave by the sarne portion of Aznes Ave. � 4. �P.ezoning fxom R1 to I1 will adversely affect the property resale values on Ames Ave. (Attached is a letter from Gary Williams stating his pxofessional experince in such matters.) - 5. We feel that "spot 'zoning" is not in the best interest of our neig.hborhood, � ' We are withdrawing our cor�sent for approval of the rezanfn� of 1422 .�es Ave. TY:e petition that was circulated and was signed by same resident3 was signed with a total misunderstanding of its intent. This happened because a friend and nei�bor of 20 years circulated the petition and atated it was only to black-top the dsiveway at 1422 Ames Ave. He said this ` .. .�� `, g ... . , w , . � ' was bein� done to keep the dust problem down which w�s being cxeated from � the present truck traffic. I3ecause he was a friend and nei�bor no one " questior.ed it, The nei�hbor was also a friend of William Roth, Vice- Yresident of I•lidwest Plastic�, and like wise did not question the reasons rlr. Roth ga.ve him fox the circulating of the petition. We gave our approval for black-topping this driveway bec�.use at that time we were led to believe by the St. Paul Police this present truck travel was lega.l. When we called the police a:!d ir.fos~^Ad t�^e^! #.�a+ t�.?cks �rere c�r.ivir.� on eur re�id�ntia? street, they told us this was legal because it was the closes� route ta the industry. This would be true pxoviding they did not cross residential zoned property ta gain access to indu.s�ria� zoned property as �tated in the � city orciinance 62.104 (d). . As of a map da,ting all the way back to '1922 it shows 1422 �imes Ave. as being zoned xesidential. With this taken into a,ccount, at na t�me were the owners of iriidwest Plas-tics under the impxession, that this lot could ever be used legaily as industrial propzrty when t�ey built in 1963y or after a.ny further additions which were in 1g69 and 1976. gs we understand this matter9 Iylidwest Plastics has been violating city oxdinance 62�104 (d� for approximately two years and now they want -Lo make it legal by rezo:�ing 1422 �Smes Are. Our interpetation of other city ordi- nances leads us to believe they axe in violation of these orda.nances also. Oxdinance 62.104 (e) Our interp tation is that an obscvring wall sha12 be pxovided on those sides abutting land zoned for residentiai use. This has not been provided. Ordinance 62.i0� (b) Our interp tation is that no off.street laa.ding spa.ce shall be located in any yard adjoining� any residential use. Midwest Y e • ��: Plastics r.as a 2 ft, set back between their building and xesidential zoned property. � Ordinance 62.115 ('�-4) Qur inter�cc�ation is that it does not allow business signs ta be erected on residential property. I�idwest Plastics has . a si� erected on 1422 lur,es Ave, that reads P�iidwest Plastics Ine. C��i:.�^ce E�.102 O�:.r ir�e��-�;atio:� i� that r site p].ar_ dra;ra to sc�.le and sp�cifications showing the acual shape, size� location� and the exsisting and intended use of the zoning 1ot must be accompan�ed with an application for a building permit. At tMis time,;;idtJest Plastics must have stated their intent was to keep shipping and receiving at 956 Prosperity because they had no otY:er le�.1 access to their buildang: Upon completion, the bui.lding permit office clid z final inspection. Zf I�iidwest Flastics was using 1�22 ��rnes Ave, as an entrance at this time� they would have been found in vio�.ation. On July 14�'f978 the Planning Commission reconunened denial of rezoning but recognized that this denial created a problem for an existing industry in the city. Illegallity of l�iidwest Plastics actions :in the past have now put them in a bind. iJe can not feel sorxy for anyone such as this. `ihe property ownexs propose an alternate route for I�'Ixdwest Plastic'� trucks. We guggsst they acquire an easement from the railroad and use the land betcaeen their building and•the txacks to ga.in access to their back docks.t ri'his 10 ft. strip of land between I•Iidwest Plastics and the tracks �� ko/6 � . �l�EI�PT'=�te roe-m f��^ f�,e.. is at present being used only as a Fire I,ane. � ,��k ,�,.�� _ Eecause of the reasons we stated as not being infavor of rezoning; and also because of the fact that the petition was signed w�.der a total misunderstanding of its intent, and nevex should have come before a heaxing. . . � , ' • �� ' ble ask that the City Council vote NO fox rezonin� of 1/�22 Ames Ave. `i'he followin� si�atures axe of�the Property�E?kners �that sigied the - xezoning petition and.wa.sn to withdraw their consent of approva2. _ � ; ,. ! � � � �/�2��,��, . ;/'�1 L�-(T� L� �f �: V: . �,� l ---- '� , f ;�ti,�-��=-.� . ��.C,� C , , C,�. �� ' ��,?�. (;�-- . iL Cti � � ��i�.-�� '. �1�-��! � � . �u.��.o.�� . . �� J�� ''v " _r!� �°�� . ��-Gt.��G�-z� �•%�2�;1-.�C ihe fol.lowing si�atures are of Cor,cerned Pxoperty Otsners wi.thin 3�0 ft. of 2•a.dwest Plastics who clid not si�n the rezoning pe-ti�ion and also oppos� the rezonang of 1422 Ames Ave. � . " ± �/2� `_ C��.�-' �� : ��. � � i /� ' � J'�G��/ /, ��1s.,�- �',� .�� {' . ��'6� ` / � 0 � 1 �_ ,, , � l,t�rr d�.•�� ( � `x"a; y�,`�'/t-_--�� 1 �-- Q !�'n . ,� . � ` � �,:.ti � +� -,; �G . `T-,�c.�-� ' -,�--1 , �/. 1.Lj� �.� i �.-/ � j • ' � �, . �� E��.�..�.�L,� � �.i ��'t' � �- '�f '� i � �t` _�,��-"J �,�1 ' C.�.�._� � .0 �; �j � . . / / r� ' �..�7 �� , - � / � ��' /ICC�� '� �i� � � _ -, /� — �; ' `��-__�C'=�- �.' ��(�1 . �.-� � �� Z�i��.... -/=,. �f :�`�f �� . C- � - ; , � � �/ , .�� .�-�Z � ,,� y,,�.�j�✓, . .�. � ` �zu�� z-��- . • ;� � • . . �r; � Tne following signatures are of Concernf`u yroperty Owners within 350 ft. � of 1�iidwest Plastics who did not sign the rezoning petition and also oppose the xezoning of �422 �'�nes Ave. �� a� C� � � ��f � 2-�_ � /! � ./'1 c1% ��%:�`-,�.�'� �.G .G�.P.: C /- t. L�,,,�_ . . �` _ . c �.c.,�-}...�,2 Y"1.�. �,� f�'�''n , �� . � �,�j:G I • �O�:�GC�=�'f �• /iLC.Fi.s.' i.,. � � � �s,�r�Z� ��GL� .i��z c.:—r-�../ 1��.�� i • i!:�J��ji!��JL''�. � < . _ ' 1�� • `� 'i t""^-.-r.•�.r....sv.w ,i { C `�O�.s�� ,aT 4'.:�`,�/ Y� � _.. . .. F , t . � riICAGO AND I , TRANSPORTATION COMPANY � � > . i;, . REAL ESTATE AND WDUSTRIAL UEVELOPMENT DEPARTF.�ENT January 23, 1979 �"a..7` y.`"�.. --,, w. _i � ;�.�...�..�._-�-----....___.,_ � , g�� Board of Zo�ing Appeals City of St. Paul 1101 Cifiy Hall Annex St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 Subject: 1700 - St. Paul, Minnesofia Midwest P astics Gentlemen: For your information, the Chicago and North Western Transportation Company has received an Offer to Purchase from Midwesfi Plastics covering a portion of our right- of-way extending from the cenfier line of Prosperity Street a�proximately 605 feefi easterly fihereof to be used for driveway purposes in conjunction with the adjoining p rope rty. This offer has been forvvarded to our general office in Chicago for approval, which we believe could be forthcoming. Visuai inspecfiion by this writer indicates tnafi the Offeree is presenfily using fihe properfiy for said purposes. Very truly yours, �� mes W. Heidkamp Regionpl Manager JWH:gp � � � � � � � ;.ti . , �� :�`� C� �� . S�Irt��ut,E+�'� 275 EAST 4TH STREET•ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 •612/221-9201 � ' + - ' - - . r��^�/ / � r [--�� sO � � �4.:� NOTICE OF APPEAL � TO CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF SAINT PAUL T0: CITY COUNCIL , CITY OF SAINT PAUL � ' � Notice is hereby given that Midwest Plastics, Inc. ,. � and r:yron A. Roth, Jr. , Appellants, appeal to the City Council, � City of Saint Paul, from that certain decision of the Zaning � � Board of Appeals in Zoning File PJumber 8384 bearing date of j February 20, 1979, a copy of which is hereto attached, on the � following grounds: i � l. The access drive for commercial vehicles over and i across the westerly portion of said Lot 3, Block 4, Ames Outlots, ? is a legal non-conforming use under the Zoning Code of 1975; ; ! � ' 2. That the City of Saint Paul is estopped from � asserting any claim that would deny �ppellants the right af � jaccess over the westerly portion of said Lot 3 as a means of � . i ingress to, and egress from, its industrial property situated { westerly o� said Lot 3. In 1969 (prior to the adoption of the current Zoniny Code) the City issued its Building Permit for an i } , addition of 7, 200 square feet to the then existing structure � � which necessarily contemplated comnercial traffic over the subject lot to the dock openings at the east end of the contem- � plated structure_ Thereaf ter in 1976 (after the adoption of the � i � . . 1 ! � . � � ..`1�:i��:_S?:.J:t� ; . .�. .,� �;�;}5,'`�,c''�a':�'� . ' ti��g. ' - '. , - � ,N�r , curre�� Zoning Code) the City issued its Building Permit for erection of a further 12, 000 square foot addition at, and adjoin- . ing, the east of the then existing structure and with its dock - openings at the east end thereof, further contemplating access thereto over and across the subject lot for ingress to and egress from the said loading dock. That by reason thereof Appellants relied on the validity and propriety of said Suilding Pernits and in such reliance expended substantial sums of money in improvement of its property for industrial purposes; . 3. Appellants sought to file and obtain approval of _ a site plan and to obtain any and all other permits and licenses required under the applicable ordinances of the City of Saint Paul, and that all of said efforts of Appellants were fruitless and unavailing in that Appellants were given notice by said City that no site plan would be approved and that no building permit would be issued on the ground that said Lot 3 is "presently • zoned for residential �urposes, and the use of it for industrial purposes is forbidden . . . " and, as such, no site plan would be approved nor any permit issued for purposes of access to Appellants ' abutting industrial property; � 4. That said municipal Zoning Code of 1975, as it , applies to Appellants and to said Lot 3, is unconstitutional in that it is arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, and confiscatory in that, among other reasons, the same: - � � -2- -� ;_.y��;T,o�:.,�` CITY OF SAINT PAUL =�r !., ;.�-. �'; �-' _ ;f DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELQPMENT �� ,��ui:t:m. ,� j ;s�nfl lilll ^c ,,. = DIVIS(ON OF PLANN(NG -rh, ,.,. e' "�-.-:.c:.,�.� 25 West Fourth Street,Saint Paul,Minnesota,55'IQ2 GErJRGE LAT6titER 6'12-298-4151 MAYOR April 17, 1979 Rose Mix, City Clerk , 386 City Hall : St. Paul , Minn. 55102 Dear P4adam: ` Re: Zoning File �10. 8384 This is written in response to the appeal of Myron A. Roth (htidwest Plas�ics, Inc.) to a B�ard of Zoning Appeals decision upholding the Zoning Administrator's inter- pretation of the Zoning Ordinance. This appeal directly concerns a westerly driveway on the subject property located at 1422 Ames Avenue which is used as access to the industrial property of Midwest Plastics. The Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on the appeal of P1idwest Plastics to the Zoning Administrator's letter of October 20, 1978, notifying th2 appellant that he was in violation of the Zoning Ordinance by constructing a drive►�iay withaut an approved site plan and by using that driveway crossing reside�tial property to gain . access to industrially zoned property. The basis of the appeal �ras that the access , drive is a legal nonconforming use ; the City issued building permits which contem- piated this access; the appellant sought to obtain a site plan but ti�ras denied; that the 1975 Zoning Ordinanee was unconstitutional ; and that the present zaning map is in conflict with the intended location of the district baundary. The Board of Zoning Appeals upheld the Zoning Administrat�r's interpretation of tfte Zoning Ordinance on a 5 to Q vote and thereby denied the appPal , based on findings that the subject driveway across residential property is used as access to �1idwest Plastics, an industrially zoned property; this use is in violation of the Zoning Ordinance; there is no basis for determination of legal nonconforming use of the driveway, and site� plans may not be approved in violation of the Zoning Orctinanee. There was considerable opposition present at the hearing. Ftajor concerns were zn- creased truck traffic on Ames and encroachnent on adjacent residential development by industrial use. Contact with James L�. Heidkamp, Regional htanager for the Chicago, Northwesterr� Rai7road, confirms the purchase by t•1id��rest Plastics of a portion of the railroad right-of-way extending from the centerline of Prosperity Street approximately 605 ft. easterly thereof to be used for driveway purposes. The Dept. of Public 4Jorks indicates that construction of such driveway could begin by the end of April 1969. This matter is scheduled to be heard before City Council Apri1 26, 1979. Sincerely, ��,�.� I�ul=�-a � : Donna F. McNeally City Planner DFM/gf Encs. ��_ ____ _. ___:._ __ _. ._ _ - ' w • ' �� i. • t. t 1 , � �. . � ' � �. 4 ci��y of .sa�� p��I . � �oa�d of zQ�ing a��a�s r�so9�uti�� z�� J�� 8384 (�� Februarv 20, 1 g79 _ WHEREAS, on October 20, 1�78 the Zoning Administrator ordered Mr. Myron �_ Roth, Jr* ,� (�Nidwest Plastics Inc, � to discontinue use of a driveNia,y locat.ed � at 1422 Ames as access to industrlal property (.the letter is attached hereto as Exfi.i6it AZ; and :7HEREAS, P�lyron Roth Jr. has applied for an Administrative Review of said cease and desist order in accordance with the provisions of Section 64.203 (the application for Adminlstrative Review is� attached hereto as Exhibit B� ; and WHEREAS, the St, Paul Board of Zoninq Appeals conducted a public h�aring orr Fe6ruary 6, 19.79 pursuarrt to sd�d appeal in accordance with the requirements � of Section 64.203a of the Legislative Code; and WHEREAS, tne St, Paul Board of Zoning Appeals, based upon .evidence presented at the puolic heari.ng, as reflected in the minu�es att�c�ed 'nereto as Exhibit C, made the fol l oali ng f i nd�ngs of fact; -. _ ._ 1 . Tf�e subject driveway across residential praperty is used as access to Midu�est plastics, an industrially zoned property, 2. This use is in violation of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 62_104(d)�: 3. There is no tasis �or a determinatia�� of legal nonconforming use of ttie driveway. 4. Site plans may not be approyed in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. P�0[�J, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the St. Paul Board of Zoning Appeats that the Zoning Administrator did not err in his interpretation and enforcement of the Zoning Ord�nance. The appeal of Myron Roth Jr. is hereby denied: ��v�� Summers Decisions of the 8aard of Zoning Woods ApPeals are final subject to appeal ��'�0�� b�/ to the City Gouncil within 30 days �� . 5 by anyone affected by the decisian. against o ' �"1[ �-', • ��I � ' ` V/ ,+° � r , . �X;t . �5Q . C� NOTICE OF APPE�IL � _ , TO CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF SAINT PAUL . TO: CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SAINT PAUL Notice is hereby given that Midwest Plastic5, Inc_ ,_ and r:yron A. Roth, Jr. , Appellants, appeal to the City Council, City of Saint Paul, from that certain decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals in Zoning File rdumber 8384 bearing date of � February 20, 1979, a copy of which is hereto attached, on the following grounds: � � 1. The access drive for commercial vehicles over and ' across the westerly portion of said Lot 3, Block 4, Ames Outlots, ; � �is a legal non-conforming use under the Zoning Code of 1975; � 2. That the City of Saint Paul is estopped from � asserting any claim that would deny Appellants the right af 3 . � access� over the westerly portion of said Lot 3 as a means of � ingress to, and egress from, its industrial property situated I , westerly o� said Lot 3. In 1969 (prior to the adoption of the current Zoniny Code) the City issued its Building Permi.t for an , addition of 7, 200 square feet to the then existing structure which necessarily contemplated co�ercial traffic over the subject lot to the dock openings at the east end of the contem- plated structure_ Thereafter in 1976 (after the adoption of the � . ,��a;}�3=�:':' ' �� '� , - a�� C . .• • , ;�� ;�� ;�y curre�� Zoning Code) the City issued its Building Permit for � erection of a further 12,000 square foot addition at, and adjoin- . ing, the east of the then existing structure and with its dock � • openings at the east end thereof, further contemplating access thereto over and across the subject lot for ingress to and egress from the said loading dock. That by reason therevf Appellants relied on the validity and propriety of said Building Permits � and in such reliance e�ended substantial sums of money in improvement of its property for industrial purposes; - 3. Appellants sought to f iZe and obtain approval af . a site plan and to obtain any and all other permits and licenses required under the applicable ordinances of the City of Saint Paul, and that all of said efforts of Appellants were fruitless and unavailing in that Appellants were given notice by said City that no site plan would be approved and that no building permit would be issued on the ground that said Lot 3 is "presently - zoned for residential purposes, and the use of it for industrial purposes is forbidden . . . " and, as such, no site plan would be approved nor any permit issued for purposes of access to Appellants ' abutti:ng industrial property; � 4. That said municipal Zoning Code of 1975, as it applies to Appellants and to� said Lot 3, is unconstitutional in that it is arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, and confiscatory in that, among other reasons, the same: ; ; j -2- : I _..��_�.._�.� _...__ �_..�_..r _._,. ...___�. �' . _ � .. . - , _ ; ..� 4 . 1 Constitutes deprivation of industrial property as a means of access to other industrial property; 4. 2 Bears no relationship to public health, safety or welfare; • � 4 . 3 Renders Appellants' industrial property (located westerly of said Lot 3) to be subservient to the surrounding property on the north and the east and renders the same � �o be devoid. of any reasonable access to a public thoroughfare; and 4. 4 Renders Appellants ' said industriaZ property i . � to be practically valueless. � � 5. That, on information and .belief, the westerly �I 62. 5 feet (or a substantial gortion thereof} of said Lot 3 is 1 � properly situate within an industrial zoning district in that � ! � the present Zoning Map of said area is in conflict with the ; intended locatiQn of the district boundary lines in that the ; said portion of said Lot 3 was intended for access ta Appell.ants' industrial land westerly of said Lot 3. ' Dated: rsarch 22, 1979 . PETERSOP7, GRAY & SHEAH , Ltd. .- � By . Milton Gray 307 llidwest Federal Building " St. Paul, rlinnesota 55101 Attorneys for Appellants -3- , . , � �� ,. � � , , ,�� . CITY OF SAiNT PAUL .�,�y� �'� �� .�.,.� ;� DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVtCF� �'' '"�� °� � - -�� .;.. :.� DIVISION OF HOUSING AND BUILDiNG CODE ENF�RCEMENT 445 Ciry Hall,St.Paul,Minnesota 557fl2 George Latimer Mayor 612-298-4212 October 20 , 1978 � Mr . Myron R . Roth , Jr . Midwest Plastics _ 956 Prosperity Avenue Saint Paul , . Minnesota 55106 : Dear Mr . Roth : This letter is to serve as notice to you that the . use of �ot 3 , Block 4 , Ames Outlots , as a d� iveway to serve your industrial buiidings must be immediatety discontinued far the reasons ' stated below, and if such use is aliowed to continue, the City of Saint Paul will be compelled to _ commence legal actian to discontinue such use by you and the presons drivi �g such trucks . This lot is presently zoned for residenti„a1 purposes , and the use oF it for industrial purposes is forbidden by the Zoning Ordinances of the City of` Saint Paul . � . Further , you have constructed a driveway over the westerly _ portion of this lot without the necessary permit from the • - Saint Paul Public Werks Department .� Such a permit is required by Section 207 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code if a driveway is to be constructed on public property . • - Violations of this ordinance are a misdemeanor . Further , in constructing the driveway , you have- violated � - - Section 62 . 108 , Par . 4 of the Zoning Ordinance becausa you have not obtained approval of the Pla�ning Commission to the site plan for the driveway . I have notified you of this ` by letter dated October 10 , 1978 . Your site plans have been . . . . _ ,.,• _.___.. _. . . _ _ . ._.__ _ _ _ _. ._ __.. . _.. __._.. ._._ . . � ��Y �P CITY OF SAINT PAUL _ m ��o . �� DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ��a uw��im , r m� t� n ; •,,;m � DIVISION OF PLANNING ��-�� 25 West Fourth Street,Saint Paul,Minnesota,55102 GEORGE LATIMER 612-298-4151 MAYOR May 9, 1979 Rose P1i x, Ci ty C1 erk 386 City Hall St. Paul , hlinn. 55102 Dear P�1adam: Re: P1yron A. P,oth (Mi dv►est P1 asti cs) - Zoni ng Fi 1 e #8384 This is written in response to the appeal of Myron A. P,oth (P-1idwest Plastics, Inc. ) to a Board of Zoning Appeals decision upholding the Zoning Administrator's interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance. This appeal directly concerns the westerly driveway on the subject property located at 1422 Ames A�enue, which is used as access to the industrially zoned property of h1idwest Plastics. This matter was originally scheduled for public hearing before the City Council on April 26, 1979, but was continued until ftlay 26th at 7:30 P.P1. in City Council Chambers at the request of the applicant, ��yron A. Roth. Sincerely, ��-°` �. ��. Donna F. McNeally City Planner DFP�1/gf Attachments �n .}' s , _��TT��=;.,,, CITY OF SAINT PAUL =�s :�'�,, '' '; _�,� �: OFFIC�E OF THE CITY CLERK 's., ,uii�innn ,, ;`v in��ii►��; ��L; `-• = BUREAU OF RECORDS ,�J"'=��:�s�°��```_ 386 City Hell,Saint Paul,Minnesota 55102 GEORGE LATIMER 612-298-4231 MAYOR April 26, 1979 Planning Staff, Zoning Section llth Floor, City Annex St. Paul, Minnesota Deas Sirs; The City Council today continued until May 16, 1979, at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers a public hearing on the appeal of N�yron A. Roth (Midwest Plastics, Inc.� to a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals affecting property at 1�+22 Ames Avenue. V y truly yours, Rose Mix City Clerk � ABO:?a cc: Finance Dept., Room 109 �O r • _ - . ` • . ��. !! '`��, . Cla.ytran Tibbs 8(��,� 71 at. S. . Gatt�.� Gz�ove� I�:n, �f5507� �Ri::7' (;.7I:C;?1"Tlt'_•i� i�'C)�1F?I'�`y" 0;��, %�y� i r . F t .�.'Iii G'rc� E)F:1 t a t' r. r �p.�.•t; :�t.. an� .ii,�rc;1��y St. . t�r�? al.sf� �tc� ti:��:t7;� '.t i��.y cci�c.��:��. � � �; �,;�%��;-�:, � 1�;b St r".'G tl L ti l� T'I7 k.' �11':��)E.'T't.� 3'f. 1 l�?c�, ATTIE'..°� .l'tY@� ��x0?R".,(;��"`.�.:."7f�..L. r �o _.��.�._�.,�y_. 'h-� vc.�zr.'r, t+��.�t t'r,�ar� w�� iro t;.r�ack tr<..f;ic �ni:aring or lca.van�; irc�r,: i�.L��,�F:3L !�7<t;�t.iC;;; Il.l.11'.�171�; Lcl:t'011v'tl o�ar. 2'Ei'{E;Q �x�pei~ty• �.SO wliile we �.vFS�-�� i».v;�;C�z thP�c�e, tiat: �iri•r;�:�ay use�� for r�;i:idcr�tial purpoaeg �ra� 1�?catr�d. �:i -i:lie ��x�;�t, ;;ic�� nf ti�e propert,�� incerel�� . / �,� �'�v rP?�' \I�a.y'f.OTi 1�.p�1,� � . '« � S , ' . , �� l�C.CUI�t,r1 ��.��C'.(Z/212P_. C�f!':2 . ;, �/ �y7 � i . : ' � )/ /2CG'lLP_ ��IV2. SV. , .,. � /' ,�• . �,v:f,�u.f�e ynU ue, r�✓2. , �j�f� �'ecz�z cvnceane� r�2v,�ea�� r✓;z12�� a•r.� Zv ;�lce ��u�!eiztis v� �'m�� :it�e-�u:e, befi��ert %rcv�n�i�%� ��ve. a:'2:� �XCnc�a�� .�1teC�. �-�i3vt zv tt.�cv:n � Lf :rr.:zzu Gv2c.PJtn.. , Yn� �>L.C(Q�i.1.�+i� Q/L:� rCQ2'Z�? i�fr["C�II 2P/'L�E't�.� •�t�' I?'I��'2��! C.[.-f �4�� :'1-liE'i1 UVE'RUe Ficvrn Se.�f. ��.`� . �U ,:t?C�_':'!ic'_/�� j�7r. �e VUllC`Z :�;2rC•� .��1.E?2�' ('-t'L.� 12!) :ffillC2 .t/:U f�C.0 GILc�G�t.LI'1� U2 ��fXV.lJil� L2U?t i'},U'�'!�t?7%� f'+iQ4l%C :�;lLL:��.G'2/) .'..!2RUllrI/i UU�2 /LE.'/L4"E?i.T� �2V'X'R.�'!• :��U� !!f�u,�e i��e u�tae -C�GV,[.l1..^y �222L'.� .�ee ��.�.��c.:�; cL�e�' T�,z ae�,ir�'��,�.i.�C �wc,.��s ux.v� .�vc�z:fe� vrc �lzc eo�s! �s-irz�e v� �h.e �vl?�r�z.�. S.uzceneC�, ,; :`�1.C�2r�r.1.�. , ��cG;� � Je�r:.e .�i,. _�',�::-; /i Q;%-�' / �" � .-� �. � `�� f --1!- lc` ,�:�r� . ��•��( �� '' ✓ •' /;` !_ ..v. -_i�l., ��-s..7---'y. �. / �� %f!�!�r,/s-, � • � c✓- � �.�, � , �- C� i�:.� uz��i_ �� .�Ca/2ILn -c/t��:`t .l � � r . • ' ��; :f�cejze �(ve. .Sv. , � . �v:C,tu-;e �rtv ut y ��;2. f5�f� �'ea�c cvnce�ne� r�2v,�ea�f ��r✓ri�.�� cc�.1 .�v �It� 2�ule��.� v;� frr« :iv�nr,ce, 6eli�»e�t %aa�;.•�z�� ;4`ve. u.�� xc2c�ar� .�t`ncef. ,�I,�itv, zv tr.�LV.n : .�t ra-zu c,�;tce_rn.. 'r:'.j '��.c.�Zr,�.;,�� a�c.' �e�rr��e �;��c�� 2PlL�e��' .1/ze �zo�;.�� a.t /-�2? :-i-r:� aven.ue �'icvm Se:�'. �;;; �� ,�c�cem_�en, !�71. �e vvuc i �:irc�f �ze•2e !�}�a rw :lr,uc2 .�.0 f j.cc �t�ire f v,z �ea�.iy.nn �2vn[ ,}.. /� � � n� � . r. � r. T� I l �--� r � -� � � i�� / � / r, � I�,U�,J�,6:. �tiCl.'1�/_C :,1L(.•..2C.'F.-2 ::�2/'iULLrI.'2 Ui[2 /Lf'2i E�.� .A2v,'r-��,. :i-�iJV� L/LGLC� icle u�ae -CLV.[1Ly �'Z�2E'� �ce c'r�i.uc.:�� cLSe�� ,z 2e1u��,�.�� r��J�� cva� .�vc�x:Le� vn �_fie ea�� a-irz'e v,p �ce �2v��. ,�.112C'E1LF�!�f , :�I.GiC.'�'� L. ��•2CG'1Z L1 J e:!!r J� �� _J"C.%.�2�; � / r. �f%, r f�.-// i �-- f�,� _��. 1;�� JIi-!.�{,r. � ^/��.r�✓�^�/' � V '� ,J � . //� � /` �-' ._ '`.%`.-` .� r��J_T...,'... \ ' �/ /�� j' /� ��Y �. CITY OF SAINT PAUL +� aR~ �� DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT �� uii 1 i��i �� '?,,m �c DIVISION OF PLANNING ��ri� �a e♦ �- 25 West Fourth Street,Saint Paul,Minnesota,55102 GEORGE LATIMER 612-298-4151 MAYOR July 24, 1979 Rose Mix, City Clerk 386 City Hall St. Paul . Minn. 55102 Dear Madam: Re: Myron A. Roth (.Midwest Plastics) - Z.F. #8384 This is written in response to the appeal of Myron A. Roth (Midwest Plastics) to a Board of Zoning Appeals decision upholding the Zt�ning Administrator's interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance. This appeal directly concerns the use of the westerly driveway on the subject property located at 1422 Ames Avenue which is used as access to the industrially zoned property of Midwest Plastics. This matter was last heard bv the City Council at a special hearing on May 26, 1979 at 7:30 P.M. in City Council Chambers. Following public testimony, the City Council directed the applicant and a representative of the adjacent neighborhood to negotiate a compromise which would limit access to Prosperity and which would rezone a portion of Lot 3 (1422 Ames) to P-1 . Two meetings were held; nn 1�1ay 14 and July 5. At the first meeting it was decided that the applicant would h�v� a survey done of the property and preliminary site plans of the P-1 completed. At the secdnd meeting the applicant indi- cated that before the expenditure of additional money, the appeal pending before the City Council should be resolved. This matter is scheduled for public hearing before the City Council on July 31 , 1979. Sincerely, ��`�� a Donna F. McNeally City Planner DFM/gf � Encs. �� ' , . � -��Y��. CITY OF SAINT PAUL � oRO� '� �a DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT �� iiii�iii�i � �`�rm ^v �,� DIVISION OF PLANNING ��1� +s6• 25 West Fourth Street,Saint Paul,Minnesota,55102 GEORGE LATIMER 612-298-4151 MAYOR April 17, 1979 Rose Mix, City Clerk 386 City Hall St. Paul , Minn. 55102 Dear Madam: Re: Zoning File No. 8384 This is written in response to the appeal of Myron A. Roth (htidwest Plastics, Inc. ) to a Board of Zoning Appeals decision upholding the Zoning Administrator's inter- pretation of the Zoning Ordinance. This appeal directly concerns a westerly driveway on the subject property located at 1422 Ames Avenue which is used as access to the industrial property of Midwest Plastics. The Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on the appeal of P1idwest Plastics to the Zoning Administrator's letter of October 20, 1978, notifying the appellant that he was in violation of the Zoning Ordinance by constructing a driveway without an approved site plan and by using that driveway crossing residential property to gain access to industrially zoned property. The basis of the appeal was that the access drive is a legal nonconforming use ; the City issued building permits which contem- plated this access; the appellant sought to obtain a site plan but was denied; that the 1975 Zoning Ordinance was unconstitutional ; and that the present zoning map is in conflict with the intended location of the district boundary. The Board of Zoning Appeals upheld the Zoning Administrator's interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance on a 5 to 0 vote and thereby denied the appeal , based on findings that the subject driveway across residential property is used as access to P�1idwest Plastics, an industrially zoned property; this use is in violation of the Zoning Ordinance; there is no basis for determination of legal nonconforming use of the driveway, and site plans may not be approved in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. There was considerable opposition present at the hearing. Major concerns were in- creased truck traffic on Ames and encroachment on adjacent residential development by industrial use. Contact with James W. Heidkamp, Regional Manager for the Chicago, Northwestern Railroad, confirms the purchase by f�lidwest Plastics of a portion of the railroad right-of-way extending from the centerline of Prosperity Street approximately 605 ft. easterly thereof to be used for driveway purposes. The Dept. of Public 4Jorks indicates that construction of such driveway could begin by the end of April 1969, This matter is scheduled to be heard before City Council April 26, 1979. Sincerely, �� '�'`-V1X-(L Donna F. McNeally City Planner DFM/gf Encs. �� 'i_ �� , ,_ „ CHICAGO AND � � ' TRANSPORTATION COMPANY � � � A ,\ �� REAL ESTATE AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELO?MEIVT DEPARTMENT � qIRECT DIAL NUMBER �'��T�. �''��' �� 312/454-6092 �;�� ' ?f�., �� ,�d��,y�� ,�; ,y�! !�' May 3, 1979 . ��s8�� REF: RAM-1700-110 h1s. Donna F. McNeally, City Planner City of St. Paul Dept. of Planning and Economic Development Division of Planning 25 West Fourth Street St. Paul , Minnesota 55102 Dear i'�ts. McNeally: This is in reference to your letter of April 27, 1979 concerning our sale to Midwest Plastics. An executed quitclaim deed dated April 11, 1979 was forwarded to Midwest Plastics on April 27, 1979. Very truly yours, � �✓/, �� Robert A. Meye Examiner RAM/pam 400 WEST MADISON STREET•CFiICAGO, II.LINOIS 60606 �� `.."��:�Y�p�'�:,: �� ` V� �/�'`� � ��VL 'y.�, O�,; -` '" '`� � DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT �4 � 't:: �0 � �'� � �� ,, }; `.� ��>>,1��1�� `` DIVtSiON OF PLAt�iNtNG ,,m = .� �ep• �4 ° =�,.,.c.��'° 25 West fourth Street,Saint Pau(,Minnesota,55102 G'EORGE LATI,titER ` 612-248-4152 MAYOR April 17, 1979 Rose t�li x, Ci ty Cl erk � 386 City Nall St. Paul , Minn. 55102 Dear P�adam: ' Re: Zoning Fi1e P�o. 8384 This is written in response to the appeal of Myron A. Roth (htid�A�est Plastics, Inc.) to a Board of Zoning Appeals decision upholding the Zoning Administrator's inter- � pretation of the Zoning Ordinance. This appeal directly concerns a westerly drive►vay on the subject property located at 1422 Ames Avenue which is used as access to the industrial property of Midwest Plas�tics. The Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on the appeal of P1idwest PTastics to the Zoning Administrator's letter of October 20, 1978,. notifying the appellant that he was in violation of the Zoning Ordinance by constructing a driveHiay without an approved site plan and by using that driveway crossing residential property to gain . access to industrially zoned property. The basis of the appeal a�as that the access drive is a legal nonconforming use ; the City issued building permits which contem- plated this access; the appellant sought to obtain a s'ite plan but �•�as denied; that the 1975 Zoning Ordinance was unconstitutional ; and that the present zoning map is in conflict with the intended location of the district boundary. The Board of Zoning Appeals upheld the Zoning Administrator's interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance on a 5 to 0 vote and thereby denied the appeal , based on findings that the subject drivea�ay across residential p}°operty is used as access to �1idwest Plastics, an �ndustrially zoned property; this use is in violation af the Zoning Ordinance; there is no basis for determination of legal nonconforming use af the driveway, and site� plans may not be approved in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. There �vas considerable opposition present at the hearing. h1ajor concerns were in- creased truck traffic on Ames and encroachnent on adjacent residential development by industrial use. Contact with James 6J. Heidkamp, Regional htanager for the Chicago, Northwestern ftai7road, confi rms the purchase by t•�i d�r�est P1 asti cs of a porti on of the rai 1 road ri qht-o-F-Nray extending from the centerline of Prosperity Street approximately 605 ft. easterly thereof to be used for driveway purposes. The Dept. of Public 4lorks indicates that constructian of such driveway could begin by the end of April 1969. This matter is scheduled to be heard before City Council April 26, 1979. Sincerely, ��,�� w�=�-�,, - Donna F. McNeally City Planner DFM/gf Encs. � �� _ _ _ . , � , � _, , � � ��, � . � ci�r� o� sa��i �a�i � � �oa�d c� ��g a��a�� r�s�� ' Z�� 1�Q ��u�r 8384 ��L� Februar_Y 20, 1g79 _ [�1HER�'AS, on October 20, 1378 the Zoning Administrator ordered Mr. Myron Roth, Jr, ,� (Niidwest Plastics Inc, � to discontinue use of a driver��ay located � . at 1422 Ames as access to industrial property (the ietter is attachec: hereto as Ex�iibit A�.; and GJHEREAS, P�lyron Roth Jr. has applied for an Administrative Review of said cease and desist order in accordance witb the provisions of Soction 64.203 �the application for Admin�strative Review is� attached hereto as Exhibit B� ; and 41HEREFiS, the St, Pau7 Board of Zoning Appeals canducted a public h�aring on February 6, 1979 pursuant to said appeal in accordance tvith the requirements of Section 64,203a of the Leg%slative Code; and IJNEREAS, tne St. Paul Boarc! of Zoning Appeals, based upon evidence presented at the puQlic hearing, as reflected in the minu�es attached 'ner�to as Exhibit C, r�ade the fo1loH�ing findings of fact: _ 1 . ThP su6ject driveway across residential pr�operty is used as access to Mid�rest Plastics, an �ndustrially zoned property. 2. This use is in violat-ion of the Zoning Ordinance {Section 62.104(d)1 - 3, There is no Easis �or a d�terminatio�� of legal nonconforming use of tfie dri:veti�ay. 4. Site plans may not be approved in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. P10��1, THEREFO°E, BE IT RESOLVED, by the St. Paul Board of Zoning Appeals that the Zoning Administrator did not err in his interpretation and enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance, The appeal of P�yron Roth Jr. is hereby denied: , �� ,�� Summers g i � Decisions of the Board o-f Zonin t�loods Appeals are final subject to appeal ��o�� by _ to the City Council within 30 days �� 0�. 5 by anyone affected by the decision. aC�ai�S� o � ^ . � , , 'f s . � ��IIfvUTES OF �fHE B0,4P.D OF ZOiJIPdG APPFALS i�iEETIPiG OP� FE6RUARY 6, 1979 - � Ii�< CITY CUUi�CIL C�iA�1B�RS, ST. PRUL, P�IIiJ.dESOTA � � � � PP.ESEPaT: himes. Summ?rs & P�1orton, P�iessrs. Parrish, Peterson E� 4loods of th� Board or Zonir�q A�peals; Mr. Jerome Segal , Assistant City A�torn�y; ��7essrs. Stev� Roy and Richard Amey of the Division of Housing & Building Code Enforcement; Mmes. t4cPd�ally and Fox and P•1r. Jung of the Planning Stafif. ABSE�dT: Zachary, Grais " , The meeting t�ras chaired by Gladys �Ylorton, the Chairman. P4Y�JN A. ROT�1, JR. (�8384): A request for Administrati►�e Review of the decisian in the Zon�ng Adminlstrato•r s lett�r of October 20, 1978 notifying the appel7ant tha� � he ��vas in vioiation of the Zoning Ordinance by constructing a driveway without an approved site plan and by using a drivaway crossing residen�ial property to gain access to industrially zoned property. Tha appellant t��as pres�nt. There ��ras o�position present at th� hearing. i�ls. Mcf�eally shos�ted slides of the su�ject site and revietir�d her staff report, �rtith the recommendation that the subject drive4vay alang the �resterly boundary of Lot 3 is not a lzgal nonconfo�ming use, and that the. Zoning Administrator did not err in fssuing his order to czase use of the subject drivel4ay at 1422 Ames as access to �-1idti�r.=sz Plastics or in refusing to approve a site plan for th� drive. � � h1r. P�ti l ton Gray, Attorney at Laa�, 307 htidavest Federal Sui l di ng, re�resented the • a�p�llant and asked -For a copy of P�1s. f�tc�d�ally's staff. report, kfe alleged corrFusion abou� the previous zoning of 1422 Ames by some mer�bers of the staff a�: th� Octobzr h�aring and said this aras indicative of the intent that aras thought to have existed prior to the 1975 Zonirtg Ordinance with reference� to where th� line �ras. H� said there ti,las no question about thQ land irunediately to the north. Ne said Midwest Plastics had reason to b�lieve when they bought Lot 3 in conjunction ti��ith th� expansio� contem�lated in 1969 that they were 6uying industrial pro�erty. He introduced Mr. Ho��ard Dahlgren, president �f N�ro7d Dahlgren Associate� of �Ainneapolis, and list°d his qualifications, and asked him to present his prQfessional findings and professional opinions and recommendations for the assistance of the 8oard. �9r. Hoa�ard Dahlgren said he had conducted studies with resnect to probiems brought out in the staff report. N� then proceeded to show slides and graphs to explain these problems and a solution. N� s�id elimination of the e.ast drive Hrould put the company out of businpss, and hz gave a compl�te history of Midwest Plastics' _ access problems. Ms. P�lorton interjected an opinion of irrelevancy regarding P�r. Dahlgren's presentation, saying that all the Board could consider was �Arheti?�r the Zoning Administrator erred, but trtr. Dahlgren insisted that the building permits were what had pres�nted tha probiem and therefo•re they wer� a part of the process and if it came to court, a judg� would look at the reasonableness of all thzse actions. Mr. Gray add�d that sometimes thzse problems are solvpd by good corr�non sense, and the problems h�re could d�termine an appropriate solutian. ` � • Ms. Pqorton reiterated that the only thing before the Board was wnether the Zoning -- Administrator erred in telling htidwest Plastics not to use that driveway. t ', s, , l. . tt � . , �f i•iY'?Oid A. ROTH, JR. P�1Zf•lU7ES � PAGE T!10 f" _ � L C�ir. Dahl gr2n sai d that t�1i d�,��est P1 asti cs Fel t that because permi ts ��fere i ssued and access ��as off Ames Avenuz all tnose years, they have a right to establish that this Hras a legal nonconfor�ning use and the City admitted tnat access, and therefore it is a legal nonconforming use. I�tnen reninded by P�Is. t".orton that the driveway in q��stion aaas put in in 1978, Mr. Dahlgren said acc�ss vras establish�d as a leg�l nonconforming use. He said acquiring 15 additiona7 feet from the rai7road wou�d ena�l� Midwest Plastics to build a drive�ray from the front to the rear of the pro�erty and continue it through to Am2s, either one tvay in or ou�. P�tr. Segal requested co�ies of the exnihits for the Board, and P9r. Gray sai:d they �•;ould be glad to make copi�s of everything presented. P•tr. S�gal : You mentioned that driveway from Ames had alti�rays been used. What �acts do you have to back tili s Ci}?? i!!r, Dai�lgren: When the second addition was added in 1909, the bui7ding permit plans show loading docks were on th� east side of thz structure and no other way of coming in o�ther�than coming in from Fanes. P�1r. Segal : You said access was altivays from Amzs. Upon what do you base that? P�1r. Dah7gren �asked h1r. Roth if the�orlgina7 addition built in 7959 had a loadinc� dock on the east side of tt�e build'ing. Thz reply was in the affirmative, and ' P�lr. Dahlgren said one u��ould hav� to assume access came off F.mes. ( t�ir. Segal : �Jould you asl: the own�r about th� typ� ofi vehicles and how th� v�hic7es got into tne prop�rty bet�r2en 1969 and 197�? P�1r. Dahlgren: Access was via a roadUray on the east side of the house. It can be v°rified by looking at 1969 building permi�' plans. Those plans had loading docks on the east side. Ames Avenue was used as access on the east side. fqr. Segal : The acidition that alas put on in 1976 -- when was that completed? Mr. Dahlgren: In November, 1976. Mr. Segai : ��fhen did traffic begin using the loading dock? The ��1ay 1977 photo shows traffic going down the easterly portion of the house. WhethQr the westerly driveway a�as a legal nonconforming use -- what factors did you take into account rzgarding this? _ t�r. Dah7gren: According to the minutes of th� last meeting, a distance of 30 p7us feet was zoned industrial under the o7d 'I�22 ordinance. There always v�ias � driveway on the west 5ide. Principal access was the driveway on the eas�t side. t�r. Segal : t�aould your conclusion be the same prior to 1978 that there was �no driveway on the tivest side and pr.ior to 1978 the t�est side had not been used for v°hicles? � � Mr. Dahlgren: Access to the easterly part was provided through Lot 3 to Arrres and � building permits issued on that basis. The applicant had had no knowledg� there was any prablem with the access. The city gave them two building permTts and this says the city condoned tha� the drive- ��as a 1ega1 nonconforming use. ' � � • � . ,� �. ". t�iY�Oil A. f:0►H, c1�R, �-1IfdUTcS PAGE THREE ' r�; �� _ � , i�1r. Segal : Assuming the city never issu°d a permit for a driv�es��ay an� persons used th� drive��ray �Ylt'r10Ut a p°1"It11L by the city, are you saying that this gave rights through usage? Prior to 197G th�y had been using the easterly driveti,ray. P1r. Dahlgren said he had n�t se�n th� building p4rmi�cs, and he ��tas basing his , opinion on �ahat the Ordinance says. _ t�ir. Segal : If thz Zoning olan did not disclose that there aras a drive��ay, ho+�r couid th� Zoning Administrator know there was a drivel�lay? hir. Dahlgren; Any reasonable person could see it. f�tr. Sega7 : Re the number of trucks going to the property, the ans��r was 4 -- do - you still fezl traffic is s� heavy that a 15 ft. roadway could not be used for deliveries? � t�r. Dahlgren: The concern is parking space for emp7oyees because we lose tt�ese spaces ��h�n w�` build a road. Parking ��rould not be adequa-te. ��Ir. Seg� There is an alternative though. You said the company ti��ould have ta close _ th�i� .op�ration. 4 trucks plus 35 ?mployees' vehicles -- ti{rhy would they have to . cl os�.�do4vn? � i�ir. Gray: If you took an action today and the city clos�d �m�s Avenu� tomorrow, `� v�r� would not have that access. If the only access is 13 or 14 ft. driveway, this cannot b� condoned by any city. Two-way traffic ��ould be very inadequate and unsafe re fire. These people have used A,�es Av�nue all �his �ime since i9o9, so a reasonable soiution is for Mid��est �Plastics to spend the monzy and build tihe drivetivay. If they sald this building and som�onA else n;o��ed in, they might n�ed the 70 spaces they theoretically should have. If you took an action today closing Ames, the� plant would be in jeapardy. Mr. Gray then asked for a specific d�lay to build a driveway. i�s. Ptorton said th�re was a discrepancy in the �mount of spacP. P�tr. Gray said in . earlier t�stimony there �vas 5-1/2 ft. and Mr. �h�gr�n said 1 ft. from the sau�hern most point of the building ta thz railroad right of way. hlr. Gray: That is what I u��as advising and what i believed. Since thzn negotiations have been eraployed with the railroad. The railroad right-of-way comes to �rithin � one fioot of the building. The railroad company no�v is n�gotiating on 14 ft. so 14 plus 1 = 15 ft. He wanted to c7airfy a point h1r. Segal had raised. If the � minu-tes of the October meeting were revieti�ed, P�r. Gray said, thzse minutes se�med to b� full of admissions by the starf from the Zoning Administrator's office that some portion of Lot 3 was platted as light industry prior to 1975. The extent of that area became a question -- whether 60 ft. or 40 something. The present staff report contains a totally inconsistent report that no part of it vras then light industry. We don't know where the truth lies no�r, but we do [cnow that as much as 4 months ago this city deemed that portion of Lot 3 to be light . industry. We deemzd it tivay back in 1969 as 7ignt industry. h1r. Sega1 `s questior� '. of to what extent had that portion been utilized for access to the rear of t�tidwest Plastics bui7ding -- the testimony of P7r. Rott� was that prior to 1975 that por�ion of Lot 3 on the �vesteriy side of Lot 3 was utilized for access to the loading dock of the building and with time they moved it to thQ east sid� out of � tiYP.O;d A. ;;01 H, ,l't?. ' MINUTES �s PAGE FOUP. , �}; t . , , consideration for the neighbors. Th� sp�cific narroti�� issu�� heard ir� October ��ras ��ere tve validly using the easterly side? The Board said no and left open the qu�stion of the w�sterly driv��ay. He then refzrred to Finding r4 of the staff report: "Ih� Zoning Ad�inis�rator documen�s that the subject access drive��ay ��as initiated on October 13, 1978, postdating the Ordinance 6y 3 years; as such, tize driv� cannot b� considered a legal nonconformirg use. " He said th� only thing since 1978 was the grading and their use on the easterly side does not� indicate an in�ent to abandon access into the industrial portion t�ihich is serving the loading docks. . i��r. Segal then addressed his remarks to..Mr: Roth. and to7d him tha-t Nir. Gray -indicated that i�lr. Roth had given testimony regarding the use of the N�este.rly driveway, but th� minutes of the October meeting do not re-Flect this. f�1r. Roth: lrle d-�d di.scuss t�� sequ��ce of p�:rchase of the home and garage. In front o� the garage ��erz t�•�o tracks used for access. 4!e 1 i ved i n the t�ouse i n 1967-19fi8. Af that time �re did not run a great deal of over-the-road v�hicles. As the volume picked up, in consid?ration of the neighbor to the �vest, we moved the driveway and garage to the east side in 1967 or 1968. We used it minimally for rubbish removal and our own vehic7es and this constituted access to h�id:�zst Plastics. �•1s. Summers asl%ed 1�1r. Roth how many trucks they coul d acco�nmoda�e at thei r dock, and f�9r. Roth said it is a 50' a�lde dock which 4vi11 accorrmodatz 5 truc�cs; 1 or 2 trucks � are there at a time. " . . r•tr. l�loods: Is your company planning extensive fuiure ex;ar�sion? P�ir. Roth: At this point, if �ve ti�tere not in a situatian as ��r° are notiv �vitf� no access from the rear, �•J° could not plan on any expansion -- parking �•rould hav� to be in the back lot only. h1s, i�icNeally: Ho�;r many parking spaces will you be displacing in front? Does that take into acco�nt thos� which are d�rectly in front of P9id�vest Plastics? There appeared to bc only 12 parked a7ong the s�uthern pro�erty line during my site ins�ection. P�1r. Rotn: 24 - 4 facing Prosperity and 4 facing the building. t1s. McPdeally: Mr. Dahlgren said there had always been a 20' drive along the wzst sid� of the property line. How do you explain the fact that staff slid�s taken in the spring of 1978 show no evidence of a drive? _ - t�ir. Roth: There is a d�finite denression prior to the grading. P9r. Segal : Prior to 1976, before your 1976 addition, did you have trucks delivering on the east side of your building? How v�ould they get in to the loading dock? ��Ir. Roth: Using the driveway on the east side. � �, � t�r. Segal : Did you have 3 or 4 truck per day at that time? . ' ' , , -, , f•lYROid �1. ROT�I, J�. �-; P-lIN1JTES PRGE FItiE � ' ' � hir. Roth: That ��rould b� on the high side. Using the back ha7f of the building v�nere �� bui l t our add�i ti on i n 1975, the map sho,�ts access to Amzs. Why t•�ou1 d we put a 50' dock i n ti•ai th no t��ay o� g°�ti ng at i t? t�tr. Roth then explain�d that ris father had ownzd P�idtaest Plastics and the house and ' torrenced the 20' st•rip, and that P-1r. Roth and his brother noti,r at•rn both. Fle said the deed conveying the title from Senior to Junior retained an easement for a roadti�ray. f�lr. Gray: hir. Roth Sr. purchas�d Lot 3, then transferred it to Jr. , retaining 20' easemer�t for access into the body of land which is now industrial . htr. Sega7i If the intent v�ras to keep the driveway on the W25t s�de when the prop�r�y tivas convey�d bzfore 1976, tidhy did you continue to use the easterly driveway? P�r. Roth: L�Je did nat 4�rant to cor�e too close to the neighbor's house on the �vest. h1r. Segal : The easenent v�as on the tivesterly side and yet the driveti��ay con�inued to be us�d on the east sid�. Pftr. �Roth: W�� d�cided to put it on the east side knowing tive ��ould be less of a bother to the n�ighbor, because there ��rould be a 100' bu-Ffer on either side. w'e did no� J�IV2 up the right of access. 1 hlr. Pat Kolb, 1384 Ames Avenu2, spake in opposition, �,d re;`er•red to statements madz i n previ ous h�ari r,gs. Fie sai d P{1i dy��st P1 asti cs n�ver used thi s 1 ot for i ndus-�ri al use unti1 l year: after the entire neighborhood �•!as rezoned. H� said you cannot chang� �ch� use of 1422 Ames except by action of the Board o-r Zuning Appeals. Midw�st P7astics did nat know wnat the property was zoned and did nat care, he said. The neighbornood thinks Midwzst Plastics has not abid�d by the city ordinance because they did not build a ti�rall , and constructed an off-street loading space that abuts residentiai us�, witk no b�ac�toppir�g. Neigt-�bors c�aim P�lid��st Plastics is using rezoned land for industrial usn, Mr. Kolb said. Three boards have denied industria7 use of this prope�ty. Ms. P4axine LaNasa, 1389 Ames Avenue, spoke in opposition. She said she has lived in the area 32 years and she complained about th� 7arge trucks going back and forth. She claimed that P�ir. Dahlgren could not know about the trucks as he does not live in th� area. f4s. Elizab�th M. 0'Connell , 140i Ames Avenue, spoke in opposition. She said she is concerned about the truck traffic, and to7d of congzstion with th2 18-w�hee7ers noti+t used. She said the 20' strip is inadequate for these 1arg2 trucEcs. She told of various truck situations where th� Roth brothers have waved trucks through, and sometimes 3 and 4 cars are lined up waiting to see �vhat the trucks are going to do. Sh� said th� trucks are turning around on private property. Mr. Sega7 asked her when �he trucks beqan using thz easter7y drive�Nay, and Ms. 0'Connell replied that �it started last spring in Apri] . � �� ' Ms. Lynn Kolb, 1384 Ames Avenue, spoke in opposi�ion, and transmftted letters =from ' . son� of the renters of 1�22 Ames and residents in the immediate area, stating there " t•�as no access to Ames through the subject property nor heavy truck traffic until the . s�ring of 1978. She mentioned one person who had ar� ice rin�c in back of the house � ' i�iYnJ?! A. ROTH, JR�. � P9I�JUTES " par,� SIX . � .j ,,, �t 1422 P.mes; she claimed that in win�er sr�o�� ti•;ould be piTed up and ploUls t,lauld . pu�F sno�v behi nd her ho�}e. ; P�1s, t•1c�ieally read into the record a letter from Daniel 0'Connell of 1401 Ames Avenue, i�� opposition. P�is, uladys Peterson, 1392 Ames Avenue, spoke in opposition, telling of a trash bin but no traffic other than picking up trash on the east drive��ay. She described_ thz � difficulty encountered by the trucks in backing up and said ��idwest Plastics has only 1422 Ames, but if the street is ruined, the neighbors �vill have to pay the rest, � and it ��ould all be for the benefit of Mid�vest Plastics, She said she has lived �n the area 22 years and it was a new area when I�IiCI4�iest Plastics came and built there. Sh� did not think they should have been there in the first place in a residenti.al area, and she t��ondered �vhy they built so close to the railroad ti•�hen there Hrasn't even a fire lane. Mr, Peterson of the Board of Zoning Appeals asked T�1s. Pe�erson if there had been delivery . trucks coming or going off Ames prior to 1978, and Ms. Peterson said she had not seen any, that perhaps t�lidt�iest Plastics' own trucks had been there, but not these large 18-v�heelers she sees notiv, She said that if the Roth brothers lived an tt�e street, they ��o�ld be f�ighting as hard as the ne�ighbors are now, and she added that the neighbars fear their properties are going to be deva7ued. t��ts. Julie Mudek, 1520 Ames Avenue, spoke in opposition, and said she lives at the end of a deadend street, and several times has had to get out of the house to help t truck drivers back down her street, t�is. Gail Gillis, 1444 Ames Avenue, spoke in ooposition, _v��ifying the fact that trucks used th� westerly and eas�terly drivetvays, or ti�ahicnever they could get into, If _they could no�t get in �ne driveway, they �rlould back up and try another one, she sai�d; so it r�akes no di fference �vhi ch dri��euray you are tal ki.ng abou�. There being no further public testimony, Ms, t�1orton closed the public hearing. Mr� l�Joods said it ati�as his under�{anding tha-t there ��ere tu�ro �oints to �onsider; (1 ) The subject drivetvay along the ��esterly boundary of Lot 3 is not a legal � nonconforming use, and (2) The Zoning Admini:strator did not err in issuing his order to cease use of the subject driveway located at 7422 Ames as access to Midwest Plastics. Ne t�ranted to confirm the fact that these tt�ap items were the only ones in which the Board was interested, and Ms. Morton confirmed this� P�Ir. Segal said that this raised the question of what the staff position �ras regarding tne zoning line; Mr, Amey said the position of the Zoning Admini�strator was that the • quarter section 7ine U�as in fact the zoning boundary Under the previous code also� r�s. r�9cNea1ly reviewed the definition of legal nonconforming use and said the Board must determine whether the subject drivet�ay occupied that land prior to 1975 and v�rhether they occupied it lec�ally. P�r� Segal said P•1idwest Plastics needs time to build a drive��ay, and asked how much time, In respand to a question from P�r. Parrish, P•9r. Sega1 said the decision of the i Board could be appealed to City Council wi.thin 30 days. � . • ' • . , , . � P•1YP.O:d F�. R01 H, JR. -f, h1I��UTES PAGE SEVEf�! l ��Ir. Pet2rson asked if the previous Board of Zoning Appeals decisiori had b��n appeal:.d and Ms. t�IcPdeally said no. t�1r. Parri sh sai d that regardin� establ i shi ng 1 egal nonconfo•rr�i ng use, P�fr. Rr�ey had stated �he prop�•rty at 1422 Ames previously had been zoned residential . If that ' drive:��ay �•;as in use prior to 1976 ;or access to th� property to som� extent, would that make it a leyal noncon�orming use, and P�s. P�cNeally ansti�lered that it wauld not. � ��tr, S�gal referred to S�ction 62.102 v�hich hz said gave a definition of noneonforming uses and also 62.102(c) for definition o-f nonconforming use of land. htr. Peterson then moved to upnold the d�cision of the Zaning Administrator. H1s motion was seconded by P�r. Parrish. f4s. florto� asked Mr. Gray ho4v much tine it Lvou7d take to build a road on �h? south sid�, afier a decision from the railroad had been reach�d, and t4r. Gray said it would ta�:e a few mon�hs after r2ceiving a letter frorn the railroad_ He added �hat they do not know hotiv th� railroad �vill respond. Ms. f�lorton said the Board had no authority to do anything other than ��ha� they had done� at the preserrt hearing. � � f�r. S�ga7 indicated that the 30 days begins ;lith th� ap�rovai of the resolu-c-ion and ;� tha� the Qoard could decide to delay that appro��al to gi+�� P�idlv�st time to r�solve � the quastion of constructing a new driveway. t�1r. Gray said they had been i� deep discussion ti�ith neighhors and offered �o alleviate ' the problems. The motion to uphoid the Zoning Administrator's decision then passed orr a 5 to 0 ro11 ca17 vote. Subi�itted by: Approved by: ! � � . �' � i �' ��"2'" �� ,i,��l�- • � - ��l�G�- ` ' � � �� u-�� Donna F. � cNeal1y � Glad s P�ort° on Chairman - � Y � � Y . - ��e.�r� . : _ '�N' i.�; 7� � � .il _ ` � . �1��G�c-nE.��y�%��1,,-, , � - � � �� .C�U�r��2�Z�,C'/L/ � � �� - ��i � � `'j��% `�/l�l�t'L,o/2�J _„3`..� - `�;�: ' ��.��.� � �,�, .� � `" ��E>.�;z��,..�� , We the people w::o have our homes between Yrosperity and �iarclay St: along A.�nes dve., would like to raise several points related to the rezoning of the property known as 1422 Ames Ave. from R1 to I1. We the propexty owners oppoee rezoning for these reasons: � 1. Rezoning will lead to truck traffic on Amea Ave. TPiis truck tra.ffic will cause exce9sive noise and vibration on this residential street. 2. Th� truck traffic will increase hazaxds to the appraximately 20 children who wait for the school bus daily on the cornor of Ames Ave. and ProsperitS�� and also the young�er childsen that do not attend school. 3. �is truck traffic will increase the need for street repairs especia113 since Ames Ave. is a dead end strzet causing trucks to enter and leave by the same partion of Araes Ave. _ ' 4. �Rezoning from R1 to I1 will adverse�.y affect the �roperty re�ale valuss on Ames Ave. (Attached is a letter from Gary Williams stating his professional experince in such matters.) 5. We feel that "spot �zoning" is not in the best interest of our neigh'borhood, , ' We are withdrawing our comsent for approval of the rezoning of 1422 - �lmes kve. Tt�.e petition that was circulated and was signed by some residents was signed with a total misunderstanding of its intent. This happened because a friend and nei�bor of 20 years circulated the petition and stated it was only to black—top the dxiveway at 1422 Ames Ave. He said this 1 �. s . . . ' t � ., .� � ..�' - . � , was being done to keep the dust problem down which was bei.ng created from � the present truck traffic. Because he was a friend and nei�bor no one � questioned it. The nei�bor was also a friend of William Roth, Vi.ce- President of I•Iidwest Plastics, and like wise did not question the reasons p7r. Roth �a.ve him for the circulating of the petition. We gave our approval for black-top�ing this driveway because at that time we wexe led to believe by the St, Paul Police this pxesent truck travel was legal. 'w'hen F�e called the police a:±d. ir.for^:Ad t�.e^� #-rat +*�+.ic'�ce were c�rivir.� on our residentia3 street� they told us this was legal because it was the closest route to the industry. This would be true pxoviding they did not cross residential zoned property to gain access to industrial zoned property as stated in the � city orciinance 62.104 (d). As of a map da.ting all t�e way back to 1922 it sho�rs 1422 �,r,ies dve. as bein� zoned residential. With this taken into account, at no time were the ownexs of Yiidwest Plastics under the impression, that this lot could ever be used lega3ly as industrial propzrty when they built in 1963, or after any further adcl�.tions which were in 1969 and 1976. ...,�. _ __ .....,_. ..,��._� As we understand this matter� I�Iidwest Plastics has been violating city ordinance 62.104 (d) fer approximately two years and now they want to make it lega.l by rezoning 1422 �mes Ave. Our interpetation of other city ordi- nances leads us to belisve they are in violati.on of these ardanances also. . . Ordinance 62.104 (e) Oux interp tation is tha.t an obscuring wall sha11 be provided on those sides abutting land zoned for xesidential use. This has not been provided. Ordinance 62.i05 (b) Our interp tation is that r.o off street loadin� spa.ce shall be located in any ya.rd ad�oining any residential use. Midwest . • .i _ . , ��. ' Plasticg r.as a 2 ft. set back between their building and residential zoned pr.operty. \ Ordinance 62.115 (�-4) Our inter�ctation is that it does not allow business signs to be erected on xesidential property. I�idwest Plastics has ' a sign erected on 1422 lunes Ave. that reads i�idwest P].astics Inc. G�rdi:��.^ce 6�.102 0�,;_.r in v��.*��.-tio:� is that a site plan dra:�m to sc�le and specifications showing the acual shape� size, location� and the exsisting and intended use of the zoning lot must be accompanied with an application for a building permit. At this time,PTidwes� Plastics must have stated their intent was to keep shipping and receiving at 956 Prosperity because they had no other le�:al access to their buildang: Upon campletion� the building permit offiae did z final inspection. If I•iidwest Flastics was usin� 1�22 �nes tive. as an entrance at this tine, they would have been found in violation. On July 14,1978 the Planni.ng Commission recommened denial of xezoning but recognized that this denial created a problem for a.n existing industry i.n the city. Illegallity of Ntidwest Plastics actions i.n the past have now put them in a bind. We can nat feel sorry for anyone such as this. `.Che property owners propose an alternate route far rIidwest Plastic's trucks. We suggest they acquire an eassmen� from the railroad and use the land between their building and�the tracks to ga.in access to their back docks.LThis 10 ft. strip of land between I•Iidwest Plastics and the tra.cks �ko/6 . �A�Z�l�7°T'=r9rr�o,te roio�m for fvs,e,. is at present being u�ed only as a Fire La�e. � ��k .�,r.�f�7l.� . Eecause of the reasons we stated as not being infavor of rezoning; and also b�cause of the fact that the petition was �igned under a total misunderstanding of its intent� and never should have come before a hearing. . � . . , .f' . -�--�-� 1� �_--- ` 41e ask that the City Council vote NO fox rezonin� of '1422 �Ames Ave. The fo}.lowing si�atL:xes are of-the Property;Qwners �that si�ed the - , . - - re2oning petition and.wisn to withdraw their consent of approval. ^ , r ; � � < '�•,, %/'�)L�.(T}'�' , � � _�t��rZ' �'• !f- _„I �_ � � - ,/ ' , ;� /'�� _'��,,� C ;�, �' , � �:. ,��I` �� -'-�-�� . iL�C^- . � �'. ��L-�L-��/ . � ��,z�-�� . _ � . � c . � - 4� � - - � � ��",�i�C�� ,��%'v ��.Z� �`��`-,�C ihe following si�atuxes are of Cor,cerned Property Qwners within 3�0 ft. of 2"idwest Plastics who did not sign the rezoning pe�i�ion and also o��os� the xezoning of 1422 Ames Ave. - ^ . �,:��,2;� �_ C�-�--�� . - � �,��,��-r'"'`-" ° � �CI L�.�'��/ p L�� i �r�1 . � y l� �^ 1 �y ,�y� /� � Ct�-t d C.J c �"�°� �'`• � . /7 � \.� � a''�' - � � �, � ��j,�. �-,��f�-�C.r� � � ' � . ,' � �...- �`�'' . �� .�L�-- ,� .�/ '' c � ✓ � �� `�� '�,C�.�.� C�� C=,� , � . - / , • ` / ��, �t�,� i" —" '�� l��Y�CCG'- ' ��' v � /—f /; •l 'tr7,��L!� �(/� ��r�� / . ,f `u/, !'_" '- ,✓: �L ;F ��4 �� C L 3. % � . . � `'� i ,�� ' �/ ' � .lL��.��Z � �,-�� - � , _ . ct�u�.�� -' � `�-j� - � !, ` . ' . .�/ � The following signatures are of Concerned Property Owners within 350 ft. of Niidwest Plastics who did not sign the rezoning petition and also oppose the rezoning of 1422 Ames Ave. a,,� �� .. t�. � ; �--- - � � y -�/'C�G��= `c�. r�'"`` �'`?�� L ; L�� . �l _ � �� fZ,�.0 � .�-c,,��„"n 1'"l. � `�>>it • }� J�.G 1 • �0��/.G G�� • �il�C�i.l=' n� � � . /�l�L''� . .:�� 1-�'-�r�u�l� t�.e..�� % �; :�:z��.�- � . ,� �.' ..�.`..,"""°"°".",e..�..,m-.,,.�...�,,,,w,�._„�„�.,�, •�� ., � .... _ f � R i�; , �,i - � �' n'._� '�,,a� �.:� , s � .._. . - CHICAGO AND I � TRANSPORTATION COMPANY � • . \ . REAL ESTATE AND INDUSTRIAL.DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT January 23, 1979 � �v.y �sJa � „,� � ' E� � �_ �� 8� � Board of Zo�ing Appeals � City af St. Paul 1101 Cifiy Hall Annex St. Paul, Minnesofia 55102 Subiect: 1700 - Sfi. Pauf, Minnesota Mi dwest P asti cs � Gentlemen: For your information, the Chicago and Norfih Western Tr�ansportation Company has received an Offer to Purchase from Midwest Plastics covering a portion of our righfi- of-way exfiending from the cenfier line of Prosperity Street a�proximately 605 feet easterly thereof to be used for driveway purposes in conjunction with fihe adjoining property. This offer has been forwarded to our general office in Chicago for approual, which we believe could be forthc�rning. Visual inspection by this writer indicafies that the Offeree is presenfily using the property for said purposes. Very truly yours, ��d ��-�'�� mes W. Heidkamp Regional Manager JWH:gp � � � � � � � � � � ' �'� 7+ �� c� ��r�� ,�D ��,�� . - 275 EAST 4TH STREET•ST.PAUL, MINNESOTA 55 f Ol •612/221-920f � . , , , • �,i, o� . CITY OF SAINT PAUL ` �''` � DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT � � :'_'��" ; DIVISION OF PLANNING �+' ^c 421 Wabasha Street,Saint Paul,Minnesota,55102 �•• 612-298-4151 George Latimer Mayor - August 1 , 1978 Mr. Myron A. Roth, Jr. 1066 Gordon Avenue St. Paul , Minn. 55109 Dear Mr. Roth: On July 14, 1978 the Planning Commission recommended denial of your petition to rezone from R-2 to I-1 . This denial was based primarily on the potential disruption of the residential character of the neighborhood. The Planning Commission recognized that this denial creates a problem for your company and, therefore, referred this matter to the Economic Development Division of the Department of `Flanning & Economic Development. The contact person at P.E.D. is Chuck McGuire. He may be reached at 298-4218. Enclosed is a copy of the correspondence with Mr. McGuire relative to your rezoning. If I may b� of any further service to you in this matter, please do not hesitate to call me at 298-4154. Sincerely, Donna McNeally City Planner DM/g ' Enc. cc: Chuck McGuire ,*�.,;.,� . ' , � ' r � � ' . � CITY Of SAINT PAUL INTER-DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM • August l , 1978 To: Chuck McGuire - Planning & Economic Development From: Donna P9c��eally - Zoning Staff Subject: Myron A. Roth Rezoning - File No. 8309 On July 6, 1978 the Current Planning and Zoninq Committee heard the petition of Myron A. Roth ta rezone property at 1422 Ames Avenue from R-2 to I-1 . The Committee recommended denial , based on some concerns raised by the neighbors relative to increased truck traffic and encroachment of industrial use in a residential neighborhood. On July 14, 1978 the Planning Comm:ssion recommended denial but, recognizing that this denial created a problem for an existirrg industry in the city, requested that Staff refer this matter to the Economic Development Division of P.E.D. for assistance to the app�icant. This matter has not yet been heard before City Council . I am attaching a copy of the packet for your use. Mr. Bill Roth or t�lr. h1yron Roth may be contacted at 771-8891 . Dh1/9 Enc. cc: Myron A. Roth, Jr. 1066 Gordon Ave. St Paul M(V 55109 ��-`�,. . _ r'�''-�_ _ • ~��' � ��' � � .� r (�� f ' t�.- . _.lys� , � ' NOTICE OF APPE�L TO CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF SAINT PAUL TO: CITY COUNCIL , CITY OF SAINT PAUL Notice is hereby given that Midwest Plastic5, Inc. ,. and r:yron A. Roth, Jr. , Appellants, appeal to the City Council, � City of Saint Paul, from that certain decision of the Zoning j Board of Appeals in Zoning File Plumber 8384 bearing date of � � February 20, 1979, a copy of which is hereto attaehed, on the � following grounds: � l. The access drive for commercial vehicles over and ; � � across the westerly portion of said Lot 3, Block 4, Ames Outlots, ' is a legal non-conforming use under the 2oning Code of 2975; I . . 2. That tY�e City of Saint Paul is estopped from ? asserting any claim that would deny AppelZants the right of , ! access over the westerly portion of said Lot 3 as a means of . ingress to, and egress from, its industrial property situated I � a i westerly o� said Lot 3. In 1969 (prior to the adoption of the 1 � current Zoniny Code) the City issued its Buzlding Perm�t for an i ± addition of 7, 200 square feet to the then existing structure � which necessarily contemplated comnerciaZ traffic over the subject lot to the dock openings at the east end of the contem- i � � plated structure. Thereafter in 1976 (after the adoption of the � f � a � . � - ; � � �, :, , , _�. i �:;d �>�,j�,,�` _ � _a , �b� �4^�,jt 'i. ii.a's^_ ;��v�� . � ' ' . . ;*�i9�o. +.. . .�,, ';t;. curre�� Zoning Code) the City issued its Building Permit for erection of a further 12, 000 square foot addition at, and adjoin- _ ing, the east of the then existing structure and with its dock � openings at the east end thereof, further contemplating acces"s thereto over and across the subject lot for ingress to and egress from the said loading dock. That by reason thereof Appellants relied on the validity and propriety of said Building Per•nits and in such reliance expended substantial sums of money in improvement of its property for industrial purposes; - 3. Appellants sought to file and obtain approval of . a site plan and to obtain any and all other permits and licenses required under the applicable ordinances of the City of Saint Paul, and that all of said efforts of Appellants were fruitless and unavailing in that ApPellants were given notice by said . City that no site plan would be approved and that no building permit would be issued on the ground that said Lot 3 is "presently • zoned for residential purposES, and the use of it far industrial purposes is forbidden . . . " and, as such, no site plan would be approved nor any permit issued for purposes of access to Appellants ' abutting industrial property; � 4. That said municipal Zoning Code of 1975, as it applies to Appellants and to said Lot 3, is unconstitutional in that it is arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, and confiscatory in that, among other reasons, the same: i "2- :a" . _ � 's" -f,� . ' . ► t ' 4 . 1 Constitutes dePriva�ion of industrial property as a means of access to other industrial property; 4. 2 Bears no relationship to public health, safety or welfare; • 4 . 3 Renders Apnellants ' industrial property (located westerly of said Lot 3} to be subservient to the surrounding property on the north and the east and renders the same i+ � to be devoid of any reasonable access to a 1 � ; public thoroughfare; and � . 1 � 4 . 4 Renders Appellants ' said industrial property ; to be practically valueless. � 5. That, on information and belief, the ��esterly ! 62. 5 feet (or a substantial portion thereof) of said Lot 3 is � � properly situate within an industrial zoning district in that . the present Zoning riap of said area is in conflict with the intended location of the district boundary lines in that the said portion of said Lot 3 was intended for access to Appellants' industrial land westerly of said Lot 3. ' Dated: P�larch 22, 1979_ PETERSON, GRAY & SHEAH , Ltd_ By - Mil on Gray 307 P�idwest Federal Building ' St. Paul, 2�linnesota 55101 Attorneys for Appellants -3- . . C � . , . , �F4�:�w'�y, y' CITY OF SAINT PAUL . • :� :._��,,�-;i�= �� DEP�IRTMENT OF CQMMUNITY SERVICES :� r., ..�.j,i a r� . !a \,_.._!'r �.: � ;. ,.,� n`; . _ �� ' zE DiV1510N OF HOUSING AND �UiLDING CODE ENF�RCEMENT 9 e�J> •�...� 44S Ciry Half,St.Paul,Minnesota 55102 George Latim�r Mayor 612-298-4212 October 20 , 197$ . ' Mr . Myron R . Roth , Jr . Midwest Plastics . g56 Prosperity Avenue Saint Paul , . Minnesota 55106 Dear Mr . Roth : This letter is to serve as notice to you tf�at the use of Lot 3 , Block 4 , Ames Outlots , as a driveway ta serve your industrial buildings must be immediately discontinued for the reasons ' stated below, and if such use is aliowed to continue, the City of Saint Paul wi11 be compelled to _ commence legal action to discontinue such use by you and the presons driving such trucks . . 7his lot is presently zoned for residential purposes , and the use of it for industrial purposes is forbidden by the Zoning Ordinances of the City of Saint Paul . • Further , you have constructed a driveway over the rresterty . portion of this lot �iithout the necessary permit from the � Saint Paul Public Works Departrnent . Such a permit is required by Section 207 of the Saint Pau1 Legisl � tive Code if a driveway is to be constructed on public property . - - Violations of this ordinance are a misdeme�nor . Further , in constructing the driveway , you have violated � - - Section 62 . 108 , Par . 4 of the Zoning Ordinance because you have not obtained approvai of the Planning Commission to the site plan for the driveway . I have notified you of this ' by letter dated October 10 , 1978 . Your site plans have been . . . . . - i . . < i . a t•tyrc>h R . P,oth , Jr . ._ -2- October 20 , 1978 . , j,r � • � subrnit �ed to the Planning Commission , but have not received the necess� ry approvals . Therefore , the constr-�ction and use of the driveway without the proper approval of the Planning Connzission also violates the City ' s ordinances and must be c! iscontinued . Further , the use of this property for industrial purposes is in violation of the 7_oning Code 4;hich perrnits .only single � family dwelling and customary accessor uses thereto , withi �z • the zoned district . Sincerely , Glenn A . Erickson Zoning Administrator GAE/RA/eh cc : Milton Gray , Attorney+� Alice hfurphy , Mayor ' s Office Jerry Segal , City Attorney - . . i . , . „ • � \ • , , ` � �.,�Myroh R . Roth , Jr . -2- October 20 , 1978 --� submitted to the Planning Commission , but have not received the necessary approvals . Therefore , the construction and use of the driveway without the proper approval of the Planning Commission also violates the City ' s ordinances and must be discontinued . Further , the use of this property for industrial purposes is in violation of the Zoning Code which permits .onty single � family dwelling and customary access�r uses thereto , within � ttie zoned district . Sincerely , � Glenn A . Erickson Zoning Administrator GAE/RA/eh - cc : Milton Gray , Rttorney � Alice Murphy , Mayor ' s Office Jerry Segal , City Attorney ,-:.:,: .. �. . :, ' . _.� �_� , . � , . , _ _ ..� _ _. _ __._ _ i , __ .....,�..,.T.,....,�.�_...�.__�_.�....,�.w_�,.�-,_...,�--. .._._.r._,-.,,.�,,�,r..,.�,�....,�,,�..,,:_..._;.,,.�.�._.........,�...,.-.�-,o._.-, ' � � .' � • - " ��o/��I�u , . . _ ��; ��- C�ayton �'ibba 8Q6� 7� St. :i. - Cot�ag�r Gxove� Mn. tf55o�5 De�r coricerne�i prog��-ty ownert� �ceiw�en 1'�aspe��y .�ve, and 3a.rc:lay St. and al�� t� titi;��;q it raa;,� ccnce-rr�, I, :;la,yto+: �.i�bs� r.�n�.ed the pranerLY 3�t 1�?2 ,�;rae� .cive. fron �° _ _.�/. �/ � ;�� vruch th.a.t iilere wr��i �io +.r�ack tx:zff'ic entering or . �q� � leaving I':r.c�m i�-1ukE:,t r�last.i.a� :uillin� tlzxou�� our rer;tuci p�opexty. Also while we :��r�- :i.i.�v5r;� the:ce� th�: dri��;�ay used for reai�antial �urpoae� was �.acated o:: the ix3st s:idF: ni' t:i.e proper-t,,y, �incerely� �� Clayton T.�t7b� . '. i . .___�.___ _.__ _ __. _ . _ __ _ .. __ __ _ __ ._ _. _ �__. __ __ ..___.. -- r i .i' / .o.��-,�� -�''��TT �-°��r CITY OF SAtNT PAUL '-�� Mw +,°'',,, '• *'� OFFIC�E OF THE CiTY CLERK :o , a: _� uu�rtuu ;i ;� m� �uu �'`-% ^` BUREAU OF RECORDS `'��, .... ` '"-�n,��..�c°'�` 386 City Nall,Saint Paul,Minnesota 55102 GEORCE LATIMER 612-298-423� MAYOR April 26, 197y Planning Staff, Zoning Section llth Floor, City Annex St. Paul, Minnesota Dear Sirs: The City Council today continued until Ma.y 16, 1979, a� 7:3o P.M. in the Council Chambers a public hearin� on the appeal of N�yron A. Roth (Midwes� Plastics, Inc.� to a decision of the $oard of Zoning Appeals affecting property at 1422 Ames Avenue. V y trulv yours, . Rose rdix City Clerk /� �� ABO:la cc: Finance Dept.� Room 109 �O . 1 } �, � CHICAGO AND � � TRANSPORTATION COMPANY � � � , � �l�/ REAL ESTATE AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT �� OIRECT DIAI.NUMB£R �'yA �'� � �/� 312/454-6092 �{' �,,��,(„�� f�� ' �,y��'�'�� May 3, 1979 eSO�,�� REF: RAM-1700-110 Ms. Donna F. McNeally, City Planner City of St. Paul Dept. of Planning and Economic Development Division of Planning 25 41est Fourth Street St. Paul , Minnesota 55102 Dear h1s. McNeally: This is in reference to your letter of April 27, 1979 concerning our sale to Midwest Plastics. An executed quitclaim deed dated April 11, 1979 was forwarded to h1idwest Plastics on April 27, 1979. � Very truly yours, r` �✓/ G�f�� Robert A. Mey Examiner RAM/pam 400 WEST MADISON STREET•CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606 > >:><��;T:o�:.. CITY OF 5AlN t PAUL '�r� ',., +-."'' ,>; ��,►� �.; Q�PARTMENT Of PL�NNING AND ECONOMtC D�VELOPMENT ,��:t�� ,, �,; :,; -r,�,,_�1,� ^� DIVISlON OF PLA�lNING v� .. �eo• .:.`.<�"� 25 4Mest fourth Street,Saint Paui,Minnesota,55102 GEORGE LATI�ti1ER � 612-298-415I MAYOR April 17, 1979 Rose f�lix, City Clerk � 386 City Hall St. Paul , Minn. 55102 Dear P�adam: � Re: Zoning File Mo. 8384 Thi s i s wri tten i n response to the appeal of �4yran A. P,oth (P•1i dvrest P1 asti cs, Inc.) to a Board of Zoning Appeals decision upholding the Zoning Administrator's jnter- pretation of the Zoning Ordinance. This appeal directly concerns a westerly drivetivay on the subject property located at 1422 Ames Avenue which is used as access to the industrial property of Midwest Plastics. The Board of Zoning f�ppeals conducted a public hearing on the appeal of P1idwest �lastics to the Zoning Administrator's letter of October 20, 1978, notifying the appellant that he was in violation of the Zoning Ordinance by constructing a driveway without an approved site plan and by using that driveway crossing residential property to gain . access to industrially zoned property. The basis of the appeal was that the access drive is a legal nonconforming use ; the City issued biailding permits which contem- plated this access; the appellant sought to obt�in a site plan but t•ras denied; that the 1975 Zoning Ordinance was unconstitutional ; and that the present zoning map is in conflict with the intended location of the district baundary. The Qoard of Zoning Appeals upheld the Zoning Administrator's interpretation vf the Zoning Ordinance on a 5 to Q vote and thereby denied the appPal , based on findings that the subject driveway across residential property is used as access to t9idwest Plastics, an industrially zoned property; this use is in violatior� of the Zoning Ordinance; there is no basis for determination of legal nonconforming use of the driveway, and site� plans may not be approved in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. There tvas considerable opposition present at the hearing. �1ajor concer�ns ��vere in- creased truck traffic on Ames and encroachnent on adjacent residential development by industrial use. Contact with James W. Heidkamp, Regional t�1anager for the Chicago, North��estern RaiIroad, confirms the purchase by t•1id�rrest Plastics of a portion of the railroad right-of-�ray extending from the centerline of Prospet°ity Street approximately bQ5 ft. easterly thereof to be used for driveway purposes. The Dept. of Public 4lorks indicates that construction of such driveway could begi►� by the end of April 1969. This matter is scheduled to be heard before City Council April 26, 1979. Sincerely, C��-a� �=titlLa�. - Donna F. McNeally City Planner DFM/gf Encs. � �J _ • - . , - � ; � , , /� ci�� o� sd�� p��l �O�i t.�,� G� ��'��1� ��al� i'�'S��t..l��i7 � Z��.. ��1� ��' 8384 (��!� Februarv 20, 1g79 _ , WHEREAS, on October 20, 19.78 the Zoning Administrator ordered Mr, P�tyron Roth, Jr, ,� (�iid�vest Plastics Inc. Z to discontinue use of a drive��ray Iocated � at 1422 Ames as access to 1ndustrial property (the letter is attached hereto as Exhi6lt A�; and GiHEP.EAS, P9yron Roth Jr. has applied for an Administrative Review of said cease and desist order in accordance with the provisions of S ection 64.203 (the applicati.on for Administrative Review is attached hereto as Exhibit B) ; and 4JHEREAS, the St, Paul Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public h�aring on February 6, i979 pursuant to sai:d appeal in accordance ��vith the requirements of Section 64,203a of the Legislative Code; and tJHEREAS, the St, paul Board of Zoning Appe�ls, based upon evidence presented at the puolic hear%ng, as reflected iti the minutes attached 'nereto as Exhibit C, r�ade the follot{iing findings of fact: . _ 1 . The subject driveway across residential pf�operty is used as access to Mida,rest Plast7cs, an �rrdustrial7y zoned proper�y, 2. This use is in v�olation of tbe Zuning Ordinance (Section 62.104(d)) . 3, The�-e is no Easis �or a determinatio�� of legal nonconforming use of ttie dri.vea�ay. 4. Site plans may not be approved �n violation of the Zoning Ordinance. rio��t, THEREFO°E, BE IT RESOLVED, by tbe St. Paul Board ot Zoning Appeals that the Zoning Administrator did not err in his interpretation end enforcemen� of the Zoning Ordinance� The appeal of P�yron Roth Jr. is hereby denied: `�, Summers Decisions of the Board o-f Zonin ��'�'t� �.,, 9 tJoods appeals are final subject to appeat �� / _ to the City Council within 30 days �� aVU� 5 by anyone affected by the decisiort. agai�� o . �, , � ' � `ti + r , �' f , P�INUTES OF �fiHE 60,4RD OF ZOialPJG APPEALS P%iEETIi��G O�a FEQRUARY 6, 1979 - Ii� CITY CUUi�CIL CHA�16ERS, ST. PAUL, P�Iid:dESOTA i , PR=SEPaT: h1m�s. Sumr�?rs & P�lorton, Plessrs. Parrish, Pe�erso� E� 4foods of the Board of Zonir�q Appeals; Mr. Jerome Segal , Assistant City A�torn�y; tY9essrs. Stev� Roy and Richard Ar�ey of the Division o� Nousing & Building Code Enforcement; Mmes. t�cPd�ally and Fox and P4r. Jung of the Planning Staff. ABSEidT: Zachary, Grai s � , Th� meeting �ias chaired by Gladys hlor�on, the Chairman. P�1`��ON A. ROTH, JR. (�8384): A request for Administrative Review of the decision in the Zon�ng A minzstrato•r s letter of October 20, 1978 notifying the appellant that � he was in violation of th� Zoning Ordinance by constructing a driveway without an approved site plan and by using a driv�way crossing residen�ial praperty to gain access to industrially zon�d prop�rty. Th� a�pellant ��as present. There �ras oppos?�tion present at the hearing. i�ls. h1cNeally showed slides of the subject site and revie►�ed her staff repart, with the recommendation that the subject drivetivay alang thz vresterly boundary of Lot 3 is not a 12ga1 non�onforming use, and that the. Zoning Administrator did not err in issuing his ord�r to cease use of the subject drivewa;� at 1422 Ames as access to t�id,v��st Plastics or in refusing to approve a site plan for th� drive. � h1r. P-tilton Gray, Attorney at Law, 307 htid4vest Fed�ral Suildi�g, represent�d the � a�p�llant and asked for a copy of h1s. I�1cPJeally's staff. rep�rt. He alleged canfusion about the previous zoning of 1422 Ames by some ner�bers of the staff at the October h�aring and said this �ras indicative or the intient that �;as thought to have existed prior to the i975 Zoning Ordinance with reierenee� to whzre th� line a�as. He said there ►�ras no question about the land im�nediately to the north. He said hlidwest Plastics had reason to b�lieve �vhen they bought Lot 3 in conjunction with th� expaiisio� contemplated in 1969 that they were buying industrial pro�erty. Ne introduced Mr. Howard Dahlgrerr, president of Haro7d DahTgren Associates of Minnea7vlis, 'and listed his qualifications, and asked him to present his professional -Findings and professional opinions and recommendations for the assistance of the Boa�^d. F1r. Hol,�ard Dahlgren said he had conducted studies with respect to problems brought out in the staff report. He then proceeded to show slides and graphs to explain - these problems and a solution. He said elimination of the e.ast driv� r�rould put the company out of business, and he gave a complete history of Midwest Plastics' , access problems. Ms. Mortor� interjected an apinion of irrelevancy reyarding �4r. Dahlgren's preser�tation, saying that all the Board could consider was t�hetner the Zoning Administrator erred, but P�r. Dahlgren insisted that the building permits were what had pres�nted the problem and th�refore they w�re. a part of the process and if it cam� to court, a judg� �vould look at the reasonabl�ness of all these actions. Mr. Gray add�d that sometimes thzse probiems are solvpd by good corr�non sense, and the problems here could d�termine an appropriate solution. � � • Ms. P-torton reiterated that the only thing before the Board �vas whether the Zoning r �. Administrator erred in telling Midwest Plastics not to use that driveway. '. �, . 1. �1 � t ' � i , . ��{y P�iY?Oid Fi. ROTH, JR. h1IP;U7ES � � PAGE T6�10 _ � . P�r. Dahlgren said that I�1id�<<�est Plasti�s felt that because permits were issued and access ti��as off Ame� Aver�ue a17 tr�ose years, they have a right to establ i sh that this H�as a legal nonconforming use and the City adm7tted that access, and therefore it is a legal nonconforming use. l-lnen reminded by T�9s. �"orton that the drive��ay in qu�stion was put in in 1978, N1r. Dah7gren said �ccess was established as a legal nonconforming use. He said acquiring 15 additional feet from t�e rai7road would enabl e h1i dvrest P1 asti cs to bui 1 d a dri�leu�ay from the front to the rear of the property and continue it through to Arnes, ei�ther one way in or ou�. P�ir. Segal requ�sted copi�s of the exnibits for the Board, and t�r. Gray �sai:d they �•�ould bz glad to make copi�s of everytning presented. rlr. SQgal : You mentioned that driveway from Ames had always been used. wh�t facts do you have to back this up? f9•r, Da�lgren: Wh2n the s�cond addition �rras added in 1969, the building permit plans _ show loading docks w�re on th� east side of the structure and no other way af coming in other than coming in from Ar�es. P�1r. Segal : You said access was al��rays fro� Arles. Upon what do you base that? Mr. Dahlgren�asked htr, Roth if the�origina7 addition built in 1959 had a loadii�g dock on th� east side of th� bu-ild'ing. The reply aras in the affirmative, and ' P�ir_ Dahlgrer� said one u�rould have to assume access came ofr F�nes. ( hir. Segal : 6dould you ask the o�vner about the typ° of �vehicles and ho�v th� ve'rizcles got into th� prop�rty bet�reen 1969 and 197b? Mr. Dahlgren: Access �,�as via a road�,•�ay on th� east side of the hous�. It can be verified by looking at 19b9 building permi�C plans. Those p7ans had loading doc�s on the east side. Ames Avenue r��as used as access on the east side. fqr. S�gal : The addition that �rras put on in 1976 -- when was that comp7eted? Mr. Dahlgren: In Novemb�r, 1976. � P9r. Segal : tJhen did tra-Ffic begin using thz 7oading dock? The f�1ay 7977 photo sho�,�s traffic going do�m the easterly portion of the house. Whether the westerly driveway ��as a 1ega1 nonconforming use -- what factors did you take into account regarding this? _ Mr. Dahlgren: According to the minutes of tha last meeting, a distance of 30 p7us feet �ras zoned industrial under the o7d 1�22 ordinance. There always +rras � driveway on the west side. Principal access was the driveway on the east side. t1r. Segal : t�lould your conclusion be the same prior to 1978 that there was'no driveway on the west side and p•rior to 1978 the tv�st sid� had not been used for v°hicles? � � Mr. Dahlgren: Access to the easterly part was provided through Lo� 3 to Ames and � building permits issued on that basis. The applicant had had no know7edg� there was any problem with the access. The city gave them two building permits and this says the city condoned tha� the drive ti�as a legal nonconforming use. ' � • �a Y ". t•�Y�U�; A. {;01 FI, �1R. t�IIPdUTES PAGE THREE , � �l� i�lr. Segai : Assuming the city n�ver issu�d a permit for a drives�ay and persons used th� drive��ray tivit+�out a p�rmii by the city, are you saying that this gave rights through usage? Prior to 197G thzy had been using the easterly drivzway. P�r. Dahlgren said he had not se�n the building p�r�its, and h� ��ras basing his opinion on ��hat the Ordinance says. _ t•ir. Segal : If thz Zoni ng nl an di d not di sci ose that there v�as a dri veu�ay, hov�� coul d th� Zoning Administrator know there ��ras a drive4��ay? hir. Dahlgren: Any reasonable person could see it. � P+ir. Segal : Re the number of trucks going to the property, th? ans��er �vas 4 -- do � you still fe21 trafTic is so heavy that a 15 ft. roadway could not be used far deliv�ries? i�r. Dan7gren: The concern is parking space for employe�s because �ve lose tt�ese spaces a•lh�n �•r� bui 1 d a road. Parki ng woul d not be adequate. t�r. Segt _ There is an aiternative though. You said the company would have to clos� . th�i� ;opzration. 4 trucks plus 35 employ�es' vehicles -- ��rhy would they have to . clos��down? ( i�r. Gray: If you too!c an action today and the city closed �lm�s Avenuz tomorro�v, w� ��rould not have that access. If the only access is 13 or 14 ft. driveway, this cannot be condoned by any city. Two-way traffic ��iouid be very inadequa.te and unsafe re fire. Thes� peop7e have used A,-nes A��enu� Gll ihis time since 1909, so a reasonabie solution is for Mid4rest �Plastics ta spend th� monzy and build the �riveway. If they sold this building and som�on� else r�ioved in, thzy might need the 70 spaces they theoretically should have. Tf you took an action today closing Ames, the� p7an� would be in jeopardy. Mr. Gray then asked for a specific deTay to build a driveway. Ms. Pl orton sai d tnere t,►as a c1i screpancy i n the �mount ofi� space. Mr°. Gray sai d i rt . earlier t�stimony there �vas 5-1/2 ft. and t�r. �}��g�-�r� said 1 ft. from the southern most point of the building to the railroad right of way. ��1r. Gray: That is what I was advising and what i believed. Since thzn negotiatlons have b�en employed u��ith the railroad. The railroad right-o-f-way comes to within one foot of the building. The railroad company no�v is n�gotiating on 14 ft, so 14 plus 1 = 15 ft. He wan�ted to clairfy a point h1r. Segal had raised. If the ' minutes of the October meeting were reviewed, t�r. Gray said, th2se minutes seemed �o be full of admiss�ons by the sta-Ff from the Zoning Administrator's office that sone portion of Lot 3 a�as platted as light industry prior to 1975. The extent of that area became a question -- whether 60 ft. or 40 something_ The present staff report contains a totally inconsistent report that no part oi it aras then 1 i ght i ndustry. We don't know where the truth 1 i es no��, but tive do [cnvw that as much as 4 months ago this city deemed that por�ion of Lot 3 to be light . industry. We deemed it tivay back in 19b9 as light industry. P�r. Segal `s queszi�n `_ of to ��hat extent had that portion b�en utilized for access to the rear of f�lidwe"st Plastics buiiding -- the testimony of t�r. Rotl� a�as that prior to 1975 that por�ion of Lot 3 on the westerly side of Lot 3 was utilized for access ta the 7oading dock of the building and with time they moved it to the east side out of � P1Y�:0�; A. ;;OI H, ,]'t?. ' MINUTES �� PAGE �OU? , ��. ,,. consideration for th� neighbors. The sp�cific narrovt issu�� heard in Oc�ober ti�as Lv�re tive validly using the eas��riy sid�? The Board said no and left open the qu�stion of the ��sterly driv��ay. He then rer�rred to Finding �4 of the staff report: "The Zoning Ad,,�inistrator docum�n�s that the subject access driveti�ray t•ras initiated on October 13, 1978, postdating the Ordinance by 3 years; as such, the drive cannot b� considered a legal nanco�-Formir,g use. " He said th� only thing since 1978 was th� grading a►�d thzir use on the easterly side does not� indicate an intent to abandon access into the industrial po•rtion which is serving the loading docks. . i�tr. Segai then addressed hi s remarks to.1�lr: Roth. and tol d him thaz r1r. Gray i ndi cated that ytr. Roth had given testitnony regard�ng the use of the westerly driveway, but the minutes of the October meeting do not ref]ec� this. P�ir. Roth: Irle clid di.scuss th� sequ��ce of p�;rchase o; the h�me and garage. In front o� thegarac�e tre.r2 t�•�� tracks used for acc2ss. 4!e lived in the house in 1967-1968. At that time u�re did not run a great deal of over-the-road vehicles. As the volume picked up, in cansid�ration o� the neighbor to the west, ti�e moved the drive��ay and garage to the east side in 1967 or 1968. We used it minimally for rubbish removal and our o��m vehicies and this constituted access to hlidwest Plastics. Ms. Summers asked t�1r. Roth how many trucks they could acco,�modate at their do��c, and P-9r. Roth said it is a 50' �ride dock ti��hich �vill accommodate 5 truelcs; 7 or 2 trucks � are there at a time. " . . Mr. t•�oods: Is your company planning extensive futiure ex�ar�sion? h1r. Roth: At this poin�, iT tive were not in a situation as ��e are no�v with no access from the rear, tire could not plan on any expansion -- parking �,rould have to be irt the back lot only. Ms. P�cNeally: Ho�rr many parking spaces avill you be displacing in firont? Does that take into acco�nt those which are d�rectly in front of P1id�ve�t P7astics? There ap�eai°ed to be only i2 �arked along the southern pr�perty 7ir�e during my site inspection. h1r. R�th: 24 - 4 facing Prosoerity and 4 facing the bui7ding. ��s. McNeal7y: Mr. Dahigren said there had always b�en a 20' drive along the wzst side of the property line. Now do you exp7ain �ne fact that staff slid�s taken � in th� spring of 7978 show no �vidence of a drive? . f�ir. Roth: There is a definite depression prior to the grading. Mr. Segal : Prior to 1976, b�fore your i976 addition, did you have trucks de7ivering on the east side of your building? How yrould they ge� in to the loading dock? Mr. Roth: Using the driveway on the east side. � � F�r. Segal : Did you have 3 or 4 truck per day at that time? , . • , , ., , ' i�1Y�;0i�� 1. ROTH, JR. �,i,, P-IINUTES � PAGE FI��E i � hir. Roth: That �•rould be on the high sid�. Using the back half o� the building wnere �ve bui 1 t our add-i ti on i n 1975, the map sno��fs access ta Ames. t�lny ��ioul d we put a 50' dock in �•�ith no tvay o�F ge�ting a-t it? . tir. Roth then expTain�d that his fath�r had o�rmed Midtivzst Plastics and the haus� and torrenced the 20' strip, and that P4r. Roth and his brother now o1�n both. He said tre c��d conveying the title from Senior to Junior retained an easement for a roadti��ay. P-1r. Gray: htr. Roth Sr. purchas�d Lot 3, then transferred it to Jr. , retaining 20' easement for access into the body of 7and which is now industrial . ��1r. Sega7: If the intent was to keep the driveway on the tivest sSde wh2n the property was convzyed b�-Fore 1976, why did you continue to use the easterly driveway? P�r. Roth: 6�e did not want to come too close to the neighbor's house on the west. h1r. Sega1 : The easement was an the ti�resterly sid2 and yet the drive��ay continued to be used on �he east side. Mr. P,oth: W�� d�ci ded to put i t on the east si de knotivi ng tive tivoul d be l ess of a bo�her . to the n�ighbor, because there tvould be a 100' buff�r on either sid?. I�e did not give up thz right of acc�ss. . ( Nlr. Pat Kolb, 1384 Ames Avenu�, spo�ce in opposition, a�� re�er•red to stater�ents made i n previ ous h�ari r,gs, Ele sai d P+li d1��st P1 asti cs n�ver used �thi s 1 ot -�or i ndus-�ri al use until 1 yQar: after the entire neighborhoo� �•�as rezon�d. He said you cannot change th� use of 1422 F►mes except by action of the Board or Zuning A�p�als. htid��est P7astics did not knov� what th? prop�rty was zoned an� did no� care, he said. The neighbornood thinics Midavzst Plastics has not abided by the city ordinan�e because th�y did not build a w�all , and constructed an off-street loading space that abuts resi denti al use, wi t}-� no b3 acntoppi r�g. Nei ghbors c i a im h1id�A��st Pl asti cs i s usi ng rezoned land for industr�ial us�, P9r. Kolb said. Thr�e boards have denied industrial use of this pro�erty. Ms. P-iaxine LaNasa, 7389 Ames Avenue, spok� in opposition. Sh2 said she has lived in the area 32 years and she complained about th� larg� trucks going back and forth. She claimed that P�r. Dahlgren c.ould not know about the trucks as hQ do�s not live in th� area. Ms. Elizabe�h M. 0'Connel7 , 7401 Ames Avenue, spoke in opposition. She said she is concerned about the truck traffic, and told of congestion with th� 18-��iheel�rs now us�d. She said the 20' strip is inad�quate for these large trucks. She to7d of various truck situations wh�re th� Roth brothers have �vav�d trucks through, and sometimes 3 and 4 cars are lined up u��aiting to se� ��rhat the trucks are going to do. She said th� trucks are turning around on private property. Mr. Segal asked h�r v�hen the trucks began using the easter]y drive��►ay, and Ms. 0'Connell replied that - it started last spring in April . �� ' M�. Lynn Kolb, 1384 Ames Avenue, spoke in opposit�on, and transmitted letters =from � . son� of the renters of 1�22 Ames and residents in the irrmediate area, statina there � ��as no access to Ames through the subject property nor heavy truck traffie until the s�ring of 1978. She mentioned one person who had an ice rink in back of the house � ' �iY?�}'�J A. ROTFi, JP,�. � C1IP�UTES `� PAGt SIX , , � -;. ,� . at 1422 Ames; she claim�d that in ��inter 51101r1 a;ould be piled up and plows «ould p�sr snotv behind her ho�ne. � P�1s, i°9cPleal ly read i nto the record a 1 etter fro�n Dani el 0'Connel 1 of i�O1 Ames Avenue, i�i opposition. P�is, uladys Peterson, 1392 Ames Avenue, spoke in opposition, telling of a trash bin but no traffic other than picking up trash on the east drive►vay. She described. th2 di;ficulty encountered by the trucks in backing up and said �qidwest Plastics has on;y 1422 Ames, but if the street is ruined, the neighbors t��ill have to pay the rest, � and it ��ould all be for the benefit of P�lidwest Plastics. She said she has lived in the area 22 years and it tivas a new area ��rhen i�lidUrest Plastics came and built there. Sh� did not think they should have been there in the first place in a residential area, and she ti��ondered ivhy they bui 1 t so cl ose to the rai 1 road when there Htasrr't even a firz iane. t�ir. Peterson of the Board of Zoning Appeals asked P9s. Peterson if there had b�en delivery . trucks coming or going off Ames prior to 19�8, and Ms. Peterson said she had not seen any, that perhaps t�lidN�est Plastics' own trucks had been there, but not these large 18-��heelers she sees no��. She said that if the Roth brothers lived on the s�treet, they ti•�ould be f�ighting as hard as the ne�ighbors are now, and she added that the neighbors fear their properties are going to be devalued. t�is. Julie Mudek, 1520 Ames Avenue, spoke in opposition, and sai� she lives at the end of a deadend street, and several times has had to get out of the house to help ; truck drivers back down her street, t�is. Gail Gillis, 1444 Ames Avenue, spoke in ooposition;: verifying the fact that trucks used the westerly and easterly drive�vays, or ��ahichever they could get into, If _they covld no�t get in one driveway, they ��rould back up and try another one, she sai-d; so it r�a(�es no difference which drive��ray you are talki.ng about. There being no further public testimony, t�s, t�1orton closed the public hearing. t•1r. Woods sai d i t was hi s ur,derstandi ng tha� t��ere were two poi nts to cor�si dEr: (1 � The subject drive►A�ay along the t�esterly boundary of Lot 3 is not a 1ega1 � nonconforming use, and (2) The Zoning Administrator did not err in issuing his order to cease use of the subject driveway located at 1422 Ames as access to Midwest PZastics. Ne ��ranted to confi r.m the fact that these tti•�q i tems were the only ones i n whi ch the Board was interested, and Ms. Morton confirmed thist h1r. Segal said that this ra7sed the question of what th� staff position i•1as regarding the zoning line; t�lr� Amzy said the position of the Zoning Admini�strator was that the • quarter section line was in fact the zoning boundary under the previous code also, Ms. P1cPaeally reviewed the definition of legal nonconforming use and said the Board must determine whether the subject driver��ay oecupied that land prior to 1975 and 4rnether they occupied it legally. P�r� Segal said Plidwest Plastics needs time to build a driveway, and asked how much time, In respand to a question from P1r. Parrish, f�1r. Segal said the decision of the '-` _ Board could be appealed to City Council tivithin 30 days. . ' • , , ' �•1Yf?UN F�. RJTH, JR. i,' h1IiaUTES PAGE SEVEfd P�1r. Pet2rson asked if the previous Board of Zoning Appeals decision had b��n appeal�d and f�s. h1cPJeally said no. � t�ir. Parrish sa�id that regardZn� establishing leqal nonconforming use, P�r. Amey had stated �he prop�rty at 1422 Ames previously had b2en zon�d residen�ial . If that drive:ray ti•�as in use prior to 1970 �or access to th� pro�erty to som� extent, wQ�tld that ma�e it a 7egal noncon-Forming use, and P�Is. P9cNeally anssvered that at would not. � t�lr: S�gal referred to Section 62.102 t•rhich hz said gave a definition of nonconforming uses and also 62.102(c) for definition of noncon-Farming use of land. h1r. Peterson then moved to upnold the d�cision of the Zoning Admin-istrator. His motion was seconded by P11r. Parrish. t4s. h1orton ask�d Mr. Gray how much time it �vould take to bui]d a road on thp south sid�, afier a decision from �ne railroad had been reached, and �4r. Gray said it wou7d take a fe4,r mon�hs after receiving a letter frorn th� railroad_ He add�d �hat they do not know how thz rai7road ►vill respond. � Ms. Morton said the Board had no authorlty to do anything o-ther than ��i�at they had done� at the presertt hearing. � P�r. S�gal indicatec� that the 30 days begins ��rith th� ap�roval of the resolut�on and tha� the �oard could decide to d�1ay that ap�roval to giv� t��d;�est time to resolve the question of constructing a new drive4vay. h1r. Gray said they had been in deep discussion t�ri�h neigf�bors and offered to a7Ieviate � the problems. The motion to uphold the Zoning Administrator's decision then passed on a 5 �0 0 roll call vote. �ubmitted by: Approved by: .<� �- ' � J�C-�lG-" �-"- � �� fi,��/ .��7'2.� ��,�,G��— . ¢��;�r�c� � /� Donna F. � cNeally / Glad s Pqort" on Chairr:lan - � y ' � . - � a�� . : ' �,.,.�;j i�� 7� . , _`, - . . �°��«-��-Q�t�� , r r , (`�C��1��2��,(�iti � , � : �'�/ CU�G��.�zT.� - r _� `� � �� , i,�,� �,c'�2/��.yJ"J��G��, . �� , We tt-�e people w.o have our homes between Yrosperity and �iarclay St: along Eunes rlve., would like to raise several points related to the rezoning of the property known as 1Q22 Ames Ave. from R1 to I1. We the property owners oppose rezoning for these reasons: � 1. Rezoning will lead to truck traffic on Ames Ave. 3'riis truck traffie will cause exce9sive noise and vibration on this residential street. 2. Th� truck traffic will increase hazaxds to the approxi.mately 20 children who wait for the school bus daily on the cornor of Ames Aye, and , Prosperitl•� and also the young�er children that do not attend school. 3. �nis truck traffic will inerease the need for street repairs especia113� since Araes Ave, is a dead end street causing trucks to enter and leave by the sarae portion of Ames Ave. : � 4. �Rezoning from R.1 to I1 will adversely aff�ct the property resale values on Ames Ave. (Attached is a letter from Gary Williams stating his professional experi.nce in such matters.) - 5. We feel that "spot �zoning" fs not in the best intexest of our nez�borhood. . - • We are withdrawing our cor�sent for appxoval of the rezoning of 1422 . tlmes AvE. TY:e petition that was cix�culated and was signed by so:ue residents was signed with a total misunderstandi.ng of its intent. This happened because a friend and neigi�bor of 20 yeaxs circulated the petit�on and atated it was only to black-top the driveway at 1422 .Ames Ave.'He said this . , � � ' •• . 1 i� _ � was being done to keep the dust pxoblem down which was being created from � the present truck traffic. Because he was a friend and neighbor no one � questioned it. The nei�bor was also a friend of William Roth, Vice- President of I•Iidwest Plastics, and like wise did not question the reasons PL. Roth �a.ve him for the circulating of the petition. We gave aur appro��al for black-topping this driveway because at that time we were led to believe by the St. Paul Police this present truck travel was legal. When we called the golice ��!d in£o�^nd t�.em +k�at +�+.zcks �rere dri�•in� o� our re�id�ntia? street� they told us this wa.s lega.l because it wa.s the closest route ta the industry. This would be true pxovicling they did not cross residential zoned property to gai.n access to industrial zoned property as �tated in the ' city orclinance 62.104 (d). As of a map da.ting all the way ba.ck to 1922 it shows 1422 �es Ave. as being zoned residential. With this taken inta account, at no time were the ovrners of Nudwest Plastics undex the impxession, that this lot could ever be used Iega�ly as industri�.l propzrty when t:�ey .built in 1963� or after any further additions which were �n �969 ana �976. bs we understand this matter' Itilidwest Plastics has been violating city ordinance 62.104 (d) fer appro�c3.mately two years and now they want to make it le�a.l by rezoning 1422 �mes A�e. Our interpetation of other city ordi- nances leads us to believe they axe i.n violation of these ard.a.nances also. � . Ordinance 62.104 (e) Our interp tation is that an obscvxing wall shall be pravided on those sfdes abutting land zoned for residential use. This has not been pxovided. Ordinance 62,10� (b) Our interp tation is that no off street loading spa.ce shall be located in any yard ad�oining any residential use. Midweat . � , . , , ' - i,. - . � Plastics r.as a 2 ft. set back between their building and xesidential zoned � property. Orclinance 62.115 (b--4) Our inter�Etation is that it does not allow business si�ns to be erected on residential property. I2idwest Plastics has ` a si� erected on 1422 l:mes Ave. tha.t reads t�idwest Plastics Inc. �rdi:�L_.ce E�.'102 d�s ir�t��.tio:� i� that � site plar: draz� to scale and specifications showing the acua.l shape, size, location� and the exsisting and intended use of the zoning lot must be accompanied with an application for a building permit. At this time,:�idwest Plastics must have stated their intent was to keep shipping and receiving at 956 Prasnerity because they had no otr.er le�.l access to -iheir building: LTpon completion� the building permit office did � final inspection. If I�,.idwest Flastics was using 1422 kmes Ave, as an entrance at this tine� they woul.d have been found in violation. On July 14,1978 the Planning Commission recomnened denial of xezoning but recognized that this denial created a problem for an existing i.ndustry in the city. Illegallity of P�`�i.dwest Plastics actions i,n tne past have now put them in a bind. We can no-t feel sorxy for anyone such as this. The property owners propose an alterna.te raute for r�I�.dwest Plastic's trucks. We suggest they acquire an easement from the railroad and use the land between their bui.lding and�the tra.cks -ta gain access to their ba.ek docks.t Thi3 10 ft. strip of la.nd between I•;idwest Plastics and the tracks �G� ko/6 � . �i�Z� �`�pT�'A71;plIC �'0�?7'�. �" �7/�2., is at present being used only as a Fire I,ane. � ��k �.�� . � Because of the reasons we stated as not being infavor of rezoning; and also because of the fact that the petition wa.s 3i�ned under a total misundexstand.ing of itg intent� and never should have come bsfore a h�aring. � , . , . � `� 7�rr� 1� . �.--- 1�le ask that the City Council vote I�0 for rezonin� of 1 q22�Ames Ave. `i'he following si�atures are of°the Pxopexty;Qwnexs -that sigied the xezoning petition and,wisn to withdraw their consent of approval. ;� ,- ! �, � { ��-;1...-��,�.��-L-� c�. . �_-�Z " ✓�'" �: �' E� j • �,'t � �1�-��C�� , �J�-�-'� �. � ! C%. ...�� '-�'�� . . �v C� , -� � `�,�_<<,�� . �1�.�L_L� � i � � r � � � � v "c� � �� r ' G'+� � � �-`��,,�=2� ,.��-1-1�..0 ihe fc�llowing signatuxes are of Cor�cerned Pro�er-ty O�anexs within 3�0 ft. of ?•`.idwest Plastics who did not sign the rezor..i.ng geti�ion and alsa op�osa the rezon3ng of 1422 Ames Ave. � � . .: c ' �u'+%s.'`�,,�`Z.� / � �,��Li,�2�- �- /� . - � � � 1 ^ p��1,5, .�,��-��'�-. �,,�`,� ��v � � , � o � � � �� . Q�n d C.v� ( �,�.; ,'�.�'i��n�� . // 7 � � � � " � ti � ��,��, �",�(..��-��L.�l �� , / � . • , � ;�. , . , , � - ,.�� -�-�--��- .� --L�'��' � �� , „J � . �' ��` _e,C��. ��1 Ci�� `� -� `�; � . - i , � ' , . .� i � /, ,�J .� / �� , / '�� ' // .,v� l� ��;l�c � ' �� y� I / -• , , � � .( /�. C•1- (.'�r1�?�:�;.�L'�-� \' �(�� C.� / , � `'�'? . �f > �Cf � . • � i',�, �/ �� ` �"��Z � �� , ��,� � �-�--' � ' -�� . � �ZLc�^�� '�- / CZ-�t-�r . • �� r � � � , . , � . , _}' The following signatures are of Concerned Property Owners within 35Q ft. of i�iidwest Plastics who did not sign the rezoning petition and also oppose the rezoning of 1422 t�mes Ave. .o m.d- �� ` ; ' �'--- � � > � � •L �1,GGp-= �� . .�''�-�{`� �� ; L�,.� . `!""l,�l, � f��it-c ' -�'�'��Y`-�' � _ , �, /� � -� � /� � `/��2 • � J,�j,G� . �li.'}/.G-G�=�{ �• /i�-�y=jli•� - � � 4 ��z'�"7 / `'"_�'� .,��r:�� t�.�� ' r�r."-�` �fL-'�" ' . � 4i-w�s�y�..�-u,�w,s..,.. .1 S '� i . � . t � � ' 7 i. _., a ` 4i°-�. ' :s . � ._ .� " CHICAGO AND I , TRANSPORTATION C�MPANY � � ,. ' � REAL ESTATE AND INDUSTRlAL DEVEI.OPMENT DEPARTMENT January 23, 1979 �'•7r� k.3 '��'� . �. �`` �r� 8� ; Board of Zo�ing Appeals � City of Sfi. Paul 1101 City Hall Annex St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 Subject: 1700 - Sfi. Paul, Minnesofia Midwesfi Plastics Genfilemen: For your information, the Chicago and North Western Transportafiion Company has received an Offer to Purchase from Midwest Plastics covering a portion of vur right- ofwvay extending from the center line of Prosperifiy Streefi a5proximafiely 605 feet easterly thereof to be used for driveway purposes in confunction with the adjoining p rope rfiy. This offer has been forwarded to our general office in Chicago for approval, which we believe could be forthcoming. Visual inspection by this wrifer indicates that the Offeree is presently using the property for said purposes. Very truly yours, �-�d ��C'�� mes W. He?dkamp Regional Manager JWH:gp � � � � � � � �! .� ' �1 �, '�� C�� 5ai�'rt paui.M3t�ess�t 275 EAST 4TH STREET•ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 •612/22f-9201 ; ., .`' • ' , �,TY �� _ CITY OF SAINT PAUL �''` �R DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT s a � �"_-�' ; DIVISION OF PLANNfNG �'r ^ 421 Wabasha Street,Saint Paul,Minnesota,55102 '•� 612-298-4151 George Latimer Mayor - August 1 , 1978 Mr. Myron A. Roth, Jr. 1066 Gordon Avenue St. Paul , Minn. 55109 Dear P�Ir. Roth: On July 14, 1978 the Planning Commission recommended denial of your petition to rezone from R-2 to I-1 . This denial was based primarily on the potential disruption of the residential character of the neighborhood. The Planning Commission recognized that this denial creates a problem for your company and, therefore, referred this matter to the Economic Development Division of the Department of `Planning & Economic Development. The contact person at P.E.D. is Chuck McGuire. He may be reached at 298-4218. Enclosed is a copy of the correspondence with Mr. McGuire relative to your rezoning. If I may be of any further service to you in this matter, please do not hesitate to call me at 298-4154. Sincerely, Donna McNeally City Planner DM/g ' Enc. cc: Chuck McGuire �•��> � . , � . ; ,� � , ` , CITY OF SAINT PAUL INTER-DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM ' August l , 1978 To: Chuck McGuire - Planning & Economic Development From: Donna h1cPaeally - Zoning Staff Subject: Myron A. Roth Rezoning - File Pdo. 8309 On July 6, 1978 the Current Planning and Zoninq Committee heard the petition of Myron A. Roth to rezone property at 1422 Ames Avenue from R-2 to I-l . The Committee recommended denial , based on some concerns raised by the neighbors relative to increased truck traffic and encroachment of industrial use in a residential neighborhood. On July 14, 1978 the Planning Comm:ssion recommended denial but, recognizing that this denial created a problem for an existing industry in the city, requested that Staff refer this matter to the Economic Development Division of P.E.D. for assistance to the applicant. This matter has not yet been heard before City Councii . I am attaching a copy of the packet for your use. Mr. Bill Roth or P�r. h1yron Roth may �be contacted at 771-8891 . DM/g Enc. cc: f�lyron A. Roth, Jr. 1066 Gordon Ave. St Paul Mt� 55109 .��.:.. , �'��'�� -�, ♦ -i�--+--�I I � � ' ' �'i. r ' �� . �Sa . � NOTICE OF APPE�L � TO CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF SAINT PAUL TO: CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SAINT PAUL Notice is hereby given that Midwest Plastic5, Inc. , _ and b:yron A. Roth, Jr. , Appellants, appeal to the City Council, City of Saint Paul, from that certain decision of the Zoning � Board of Appeals in Zoning File Plumber 8384 bearing date of � February 20, 1979, a copy of which is hereto attached, on the I ; following grounds: i i l. The access drive for commercial vehicles over and i , across the westerly portion of said Lot 3, Block 4 , Ames Outlots, ; is a legal non-conforming use under the Zoning Code ot 1975; i , � 2. That the City of Saint Paul is estopped from asserting any claim that would deny Appellants the rignt of � access over the westerly portion of said Lot 3 as a means of I ` ingress to� and egress from, its industrial property situated I � � westerly o� said Lot 3. In 1969 (prior to the adoption of the � current Zoniny Code) the City issued its Building Per.mit for an i ; addition of 7, 200 square feet to the then existing structure 1 i which necessarily contemplated comnercial traffic over the 1 . � subject lot to the dock openings at the east end of the contem- a � plated structure. Thereaf ter in 1976 (after the adoption of the i i � . . � � �r':,i'0.�w.i%;v. '� : r`} �, -�,. �� i�;,t c - . _ � -f'?�� '� � �F,- . • '�?, currei��= Zoning Code) the City issued its BuiTding Permit for erection of a further 12, 000 square foot addition at, and adjoin- _ ing, the east of the then existing structure and with its dock � openings at the east end thereof, further contemplating access . thereto over and across the subject lot for ingress to and egress from the said loading dock. That by reason thereaf Appe:llants relied on the validity and propriety of said Building Per,nits and in such reliance expended substantial sums of money in improvement of its property for industrial purposes, . 3. Appellants sought to file and obtain approval of _ a site plan and to obtain any and all other permits and licenses required under the applicable ordinances of the City of Saint Paul, and that all of said efforts of Appellants were fruitless and unavailing in that Appellants were given notice by said City that no site plan would be approved and that no building permit would be issued on the ground that said Lot 3 is "presently - zoned for residential pur�asES, and the use of it for • industrial purposes is forbidden . . . " and, as such, no site plan would be approved nor any permit issued for purposes of access to Appellarits ' abutti:ng industrial property; � 4. That said municipal Zoning Code of 1975, as it applies to Appellants and to � said Lot 3, is unconstitutional in that it is arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, and confiscatory in that, among other reasons, the same: � -2- :�% • _ , � 4 . 1 Constitutes �ei�rivation of industrial property as a means of access to other indus�rial property; 4. 2 Bears no relationship to public health, safety or welfare; - � . 3 Renders Appellants ' industrial property (located westerly of said Lot 3) to be subservient to the surrounding property on the north and the east and renders the same 1 � to be devoid of any reasanable access to a � public thoroughfare; and ! • � 4 . 4 Renders Appellants ' said industrial proPerty ' to be practically valueless. 1 � 5. That, on information and belief, the westerly ( 62. 5 feet (or a substanti�l portion thereof) of said Lot 3 is 1 properly situate within an industrial zoning district in that the present Zoning rlap o� said area is in conflic-r with the intended location of the district boundary lines in that the said portion of said Lot 3 was intended for access to Appellants' industrial land westerly of said Lot 3. ' Dated: Tiarch 22, 1979. PETERSOPJ, GRAY & SHEAH , Ltd. BY Milton Gray 307 l7idwest Federal Building ' St. Paul, rlinnesota 55101 Attorneys for Appellants -3- : � � . C �� . r • , � � � �"�� C1TY OF SAiNT PAUL �-r o,.i`r.� �4 ��'e' ' :� :��i�+ :� DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNiTY SERVICES ., b,..:.;.. s . . (}4 �.��L�A t� ' � �`�� :...�.: ,� '*•_��.��>�� DiViStON OF HOUSIIvG AND �UILDING CODE ENFORCEMENT 445 Ciry Hatl,S[. Paul,MinnesoEa 55102 Gearge latimer Mayor 612-298-4212 October 20 , 1978 _ � . Mr . �lyron R . Roth , Jr . Midwest Plastics 95b Prosperity Avenue Saint Pau1 , . Minnesota 55106 Dear Mr . Roth : This letter is to serve as notice to you that the use of Lot 3 , Block 4 , AmeS Outlots , as a driveway to serve your industrial buildings must be immediateiy discontinued for the reasons ' stated be]ow , and if such use is allowed to continue , the City of Saint Paul will be compelled to _ commence legal action to discontinue such use by you and the presons driving such trucks . . 7his lot is presentty zoned for residentiat purposes , and the use of it for industrial purposes is forbidden by the Zoning Ordinances of the City of Saint Paul . - Further , you have constructed a drive��ray over the westerly portion of this lot ��ithout the necessary permit from the � • Saint Paul Public Works Department . Such a permit is required by Section 207 of the Saint Pau1 Legislative Code if a driveway is to be constructed on public property . - - Violations of this ordinance are a misdemeanor . Further , in constructing the driveway , you h�ve violated � - - Section 62 . 108 , Par . 4 of the Zoning Ordinance 5ecause you have not obtained approval of the Pianning Commission to the site plan for the driveway . I have notified you of tfiis by letter dated October 10 , 1978 . Your site plans have been . . . . _ - � . l ( , � ' > Ftyroh F . F,oth , Jr . -2 - Oct�ber 20 , 1978 sub:nitted to the Planning Commission , but have not received the necessary approvals . Therefore , the constr��ction and use of the driveway without the proper approval of the Planning Comn�ission also violates the City ' s ordinances and must be cliscontinued . Further , the use of this property for industrial purposes is in violation of the Zoning Co�e �lhich permits .only single � fami ) y dwelling and customary accessor uses thereto , within � the zoned district . Sincerely , Glenn A. Erickson Zoning Administrator GAE/RA/eh � cc : Flilton Gray , Attorney � Alice Ffurphy , Mayor ' s Office Jerry Segal , City Attorney _ , , . � 8384 t T � ' ' � ., ZONING STAFF REPORT 835� , ___ 1 . APPLICANT: P�IYRON A. ROTH, JR. DAiE OF HEARING 2-6-�9 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CLASSIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CURRENT PLANNING & ZONING COMP�ITTEE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Rezoning ❑ Variance ❑ Special Condition Use ❑ Administrative Review � Determination of Similar Use ❑ Other Change of Nonconforming Use ❑ Other ❑ 3. LOCAT`^"'• 1422 Ames (South side of Ames Ave, between Prosperity and Barclay) 4. LEGA '''°° Fast 60' of the North 100' , Lot 3, Block 4, Ames Outlots 5. PRE` . . ,�4.205(a) 6. STA V - _.�,,,1�v A. PUI � no , . \' dr , p' B. F' � , , , , . � , , , , , , . � � �r� A�r, ,ge . �9s 1 D�'��o�r�"d Carl�aan � �� jx�� i�y�� 8e ��fs�eA • Psu,�� 32 t �S�ervf�� . • �$9�$ ' _ �ea� S�,� . , _ � C��y � ' " ,� �tsfd��'� to�aY � $ . , et 8�34 d�is�� o�,$p�� of 1�L{dw�� °'� he�r�n , . ,Al�� $P�°�ct3t�� Boart� o<�' at F'1$stics � �Or Apr�2 26 � st�d nottee�pr��r� �t�� Aplx�az$�$8, ��n� �,�� A 9'!9� �k sc to pro�x"�y oaner,�� '� °�t�,o �� '�� File ,�� Jr� '� I'�4u1r�d �y•I.aylll, Ya�- °• - " Very tr •� '� ( , i � ��, , Ros+� P.� . . � C�tY �'Zer�; �2�C � � , ca t P , ' , . :� g�� ta t�p� � ` or o� C°c�e EtiPo�� . � :; . � . , _ ( • ' �ing , , �, � � , ; ; � :" ,�i � CITY OF SAINT PAUL __..:s;-��::. -�. �� `�.' !�I. 'ti0� �r�;. '; _�+`" ar; DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMtC DEVELOPMENT '`a ';iii�i�Ittl��;� '? �;.� ��_ ` DlVISION OF PLANNtNG .;;: _ '��:�n.'��`'`�� 25 West Fourth Street,Saint Paul,Minnesota,55102 612-298-4151 GEORGE LATIMER MAYOR P1ay 9, 1979 . Rose P1i x, Ci ty C1 erk 386 City Hall St. Paul , �,1inn. 55102 Dear P�9adam: Re: P1yron A. Roth (Mi dvrest P1 asti cs) - Zoni ng Fi i e #8384 This is written in response to the appeal of Myron A. P,oth (P-1idwest Plastics, Inc. ) to a Board of Zoning Appeals decision upholding the Zoning Administrator's interpretation of th� Zoning Ordinance. This appeal directly concerns the westerly driveway on the subject property located at 1422 Ames A�nue, �vhi ch i s used as access to the i ndustri al ly zoned property of P1i d�vest Plastics. This matter was originally scheduled for public hearing before the City Council on April 2G, 1979, but was continued until ��1ay 26th at 7:30 P."1. in City Council Chambers at the request of the applicant, �7yron A. Roth. Sincerely, ,��-Q ��• 1�t�c��. ' ._. Donna F. McNeally City Planner DFP�/gf Attachments �-�O __ _ t . R , . MYRON A. ROTH, JR. STAFF REPORT PAGE T4J0 F. THE APPEAL: ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEI-J (cont'd) : The appellant alleges that the Zoning Administrator erred in P� " . � ��~� ;ions of Section 62.104(d) of the Ordinance which states that ingrc� 1 1 C..�`� ing lot on commercially or industrially zoned land shall � �� G"j� ' 'ential zoning district. The appellant bases his argumPr' � 1 . The access drive for commercia� --_._..�.� 2. The City issued builc�� i �� across the subje�� -� ��;a 3. The apnc' on �. �� 4 � G� �� AQ gp'�� 1s�2� 2� ,� gA�� ,Y O GS� ` O� �. C��G�� S�''�, f CZ2 �a�,�:ycs' coU,��-ti' 4 �� i�� C�� YA�� '� �ya�e �o �� c e ti��y�g �- GO p,'S �r.a -y �cY' °� GZ,��, �� qi.`�e� �� a�'�ea i51o1' �� rg 3a�e ,��e ct0• C ��e�D� ,�a,��C aeG ea.�y ori • �e y5 � � AQQe� �e�'�al� 83�� a�rea� a �o,�y �.� , �ra,� �e� e�o a e� a� �Y" � T1 e� o� o fi A, g° a��' �y�° y�� .�y�-e icn yg Y' �enlGyeS e5 0�� .. a�'a r>�z �a1r.'� 4 5 y.� ti�� o�s `�n e�°ya� 'u �� Y'� �9� o'� ati c°p � �,o� o'� Gy�c� o� AQ'Pe 9�9 � a e �o� �° o� 3, $ Coa�' 4• $o�.�a �`I 2� ' 1 �a�: e�5 d�yv � �aya 1' r.� tio�ti��e��o�Pea ,�v.a .�o`} a�G „� � .� '� y5 t .�eb ',o�y�g � �,re Q°��yo � �„�ae. � Y a,��, ��g ,�,�e e Octc. �� 1��5�e�1� o�fiy,i�� `�' ory Say� A44e�la � 3 cons�, �cY'e .c��'� Cy�� aeri� a v° �°�� i'°ri �Y''e o�,La '� �ay �. 5� I ne1976 ac a �,ega� 2. SY'a� � ,�,�,a'� � o�,�yo'� o��a��,�ya Apparentl, y� a�,� c�-ay e��e�l� 4 ofit yt5 14�yo� by the P1 a 5ye��ysl��te� �ne � e��e�5 �� Z�' 1969 �aed 6. astsuphanthe aacGeSy o �o� a�a Z,°� 3. e Gy�� y�o 7. Accordin to a yri��e�5 0'� 5 a y a ode� �n �ee� � fri cago & North �e�,�e�l� �o�y,�`� G o ��va�e ,�a,�e, om Prosperi ty � 20 e��' boundary to the r: �xe� � � ' c�ri� e 8. I n address i ng cona G�aay'cy�� o e5ya�y1� e a�c� 04��e� Commission on July a rie� o �n e,�ea R-2 to I-1 on the ba �ry°r �o'� � 2� uphel�dhthe PlanningeCc, 5��eG� ��G��e. 21 , 1978. (Attachment 1a�ea �P x � , a , , � . � . , � , � J ��1YFtON A. ROTH, JR. STAFF RE°ORT PAGE THREE G. FINDINGS: (cont'd) 9. hiidwest Plastics has access to a public thoroughfare through its Prosperity entrance; in fact, the Prosperity access substantially decreases use of residential streets by industrial traffic. ;� 1-0. Staff cannot address the question of decreased value of the appeTlant�s property. 11 . Under the 1922 Zoning Ordinance, Lot 3 ��vas zoned residential ; the middle line of Birmingham extended forming the western boundary of Lot 3. This line coincides with the ;4 section line. (Attachments G & H). - The present zoning boundary line is clear, indicating Lot 3 as R-2, The intent in the 1975 zoning was to recognize existing residential uses. H. STAFF RECOMP•1EfdDATION: Based on Finding 4, Staff finds that the subject driveway a7ong the westerly boundary of Lot 3 is not a legal nonconforming use. Based on Findings 1-3 and 6, Staff finds that the Zoning Administrator did not err in issuing his order to cease use of the subject driveway located at 1422 Ames as access to Midwest Plastics. 83$4 t � � ' ' � „ ZONING STAFF REPORT 835� l� APPLICANT: MYRON A. ROTH, JR. DATE OF HEARTNG 2-6-�g 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CLASSIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CURRENT PLANNING & ZONING COMP�ITTEE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Rezoning ❑ Variance � Special Condition Use ❑ Administrative Review � Determination of Similar Use ❑ Other Change of Nonconforming Use ❑ Other ❑ 3. LOCATION: 1422 Ames (South side of Ames Ave, between Prosperity and Barclay) 4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Except the East 60' of the North 100' , Lot 3, Block 4, Ames Outlots 5. PRESENT ZONING: R_2 � ZONING CODE REFERENCE: 64.205(a) 6. STAFF INVESTIGATION & REPORT: DATE 1-26-79 gY Donna F. McNeally -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A. PUR�O�E: This is an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's letter dated October 20, 1978, notifying the appellant that he was in violation of the Zoning Ordinance by constructing a driveway without an approved site-plan and by using a driveway crossing residential property to gain access to industrially zoned property. B. HISTORY: The Current Planning & Zoning Committee heard the petition of Myron A. Roth, Jr. to rezone the subject property from R-2 Single Family Residential to I�l Light Industrial to allow expansion of the existing Midwest Plastics building and to accommodate turnaround space for trucks. At this July 6, 1978 meeting there was considerable neighborhood opposition; major concerns were increased truck traffic on Ames and the method used to obtain the consent petition signatures. The Current Planning & Zoning Committee recommended denial of the request on a vote of 5 to 0, and the Planning Commission On July 14, 1978 recommended denial on a vote of 16 to 1 . The City Council denied the rezoning on a 5 to 1 vote on September 21 , 1978. As a result of testimony before the Current Planning & Zoning Committee, an�d in response to citizen complaints, the Zoning Administrator inv�stigated allegations that 1422 Ames was being used as access to Midwest Plastics, and an order to cease use of the drive along the easterly property line of 1422 Ames was issued. Midwest Plastics (Roth) appealed this order before the Board of Zoning Appeals on October 17, 1978; the Board unanimously upheld the Zoning Administrator's interpretation and enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance finding that the drive in question was not a legal nonconforming use and to use it as access to industrial property constituted violati�n of the Zoning Ordinance. (Attachments A and B). On October 13, 1978, the applicant constructed a new driveway across the westerly portion of 1422 Ames (Lot 3) without an approved site plan, The Zoning Administrator's letter of October 20, 1978, notifies Midwest Plastics of its violation. C. FRONTAGE AND AREA: This L-shaped l�ot has 90' frontage on Ames and 250' depth along the west property line; the site is approximately 28,050 sq. ft, in area. D. SITE CONDITIONS: A two-story single family house and garage occupy the �site. There are two unpaved driveways along the east & west property lines which cross the site from Ames to the Midwest Plastics property. Across Ames to the north are single family houses; adjacent to the west is a vacant lot and a single family house; adjacent to the south is the Midwest Plastics property and above grade railroad tracks; adjacent to the east �are single family houses. E. AREA CONDITIONS: The area is characterized by well maintained single family houses witFf Midwest Plastics, an industrial use, located along the railroad tracks to the south. Ames is a quiet residential street, deadending several blocks to the east,.with some heavy truck traffic generated by Midwest Plastics. F. THE APPEAL: ADRIINISTRATIVE REIiIEW - Section 64.205(a) states that the Board of Zoning Appeals has t e power to "hear and decide appeals where it is alleged by the appellant that there is an error in any order, requirement, permit, decision, or refusal made by the Zoning Administrator and any other administrative official in carrying out or enforcing any provisions of this Ordinance or that there is an error in any fact or procedure in any order� requirement, permi_t, decisi,on or refusal made by the Plann�ng Co�mission in carrying out or enforcing any provisions of this Or�inance.° (Attachments C & D) � \ � � t ' R , � ' • . MYRON A. ROTH, JR. STAFF REPORT PRGE T4J0 F. THE APPEAL: ADMINISTRATIUE REVIEI•J (cont'd) : The appellant alleges that the Zoning Administrator erred in enforcing the provisions of Section 62.104(d) of the Ordinance which states that ingress and egress to a parking lot on commercially or industrially zoned land shall not be across land in a residential zoning district. The appellant bases his argument on 5 premises : l . The access drive for commercial vehicles is a legal nonconforming use. 2. The City issued building permits in 1�69 and 1976 which contemplated access across the subject lot. 3. The appellants sought to obtain an approved site plan but were denied based on the residential zoning of Lot 3. 4. The 1975 Zoning Ordinance as it applies to the appellant's property is unconstitutional : (a) No means of access to industrial property; (b) No relationship to public health, safety or welfare; (c) No reasonable access to public thoroughfare; (d) Renders appellants ' property practically vaiueless, 5, The present zoning map is in conflict with the intended location of the district boundary; that the westerly 62.5' of Lot 3 is actually zoned industrial . G. FINDINGS: 1 . Lot 3 is zoned R-2 (Single Family Residential ) ; Midwest Plastics, adjacent to the south, is zoned I-1 (Light Industry) , � 2. Section 62.104(d) of the Zoning Ordinance states that ingress and egress to an industrially zoned property may not be across a residentially Zoned property, 3. There is an access drive to ��idwest Plastics along the westerly property line across the residential lot. - 4. Section 60.364 defines a Le�al Nonconformin Use as "A use which lawfully occupied a building or land at the effective date o� t is Ordinance and that does not conform to the use regulations of the distr�ct in which it is located." The Zoning Administrator documents that the subject access driveway was initiated on October 13, 1978, postdating the Ordinance by 3 years; as such, the drive cannot be considered a legal nonconforming use, 5. The City issued P�idwest Plastics building permits for expansion in 1969 and 1976. In 1976 the nea� Ordinance required certain safeguards to adjacent residential property, such as blacktopping the surface of the loading area and erecting an obscuring fence. Apparently, these requirements, as well as questions of access, were not addressed by the Planning Inspector. 6. Site plans may not be approved if the use is in violation of the Zoning Ordinance; as such, the site plan for the access across residential property was not approved. 7. According to a letter dated January 23, 1978 from James Heidkamp, Regionai Manager, Chicago & Northu�restern Transportation Company, Midwest Plast;cs does have access from Prosperity to the western boundary of its property and aecess along the southern boundary to the main dock area. �Attachment E� . 8. In addressing concerns of public health, safety, and general welfare, the Planning Commission on July 6, 1978 unanimously recommended denial of rezoning Lot 3 from � R-2 to I-1 on the basis that the industrial zoning was an inappropriate land use and would have a detrimental effect on adjacent residential property. The City Council upheld the Planning Commission recommendation and denied the rezoning on September 21 , 1978. (l�ttachment F) . a `� _ � , , � . • , . R � � � / t�1YRON A. ROTH, JR. STAFF RE°ORT PAGE THREE G. FINDINGS: (cont'd) 9, htidwest Plastics has access to a public thoroughfare through its Prosperity entrance; in fact, the Prosperity access substantially decreases use of residential streets by industrial traffic. ;- 10. Staff cannot address the question of decreased value of the appellantts property. 11 . Under the 1922 Zoning Ordinance, Lot 3 was zoned residential ; the middTe line of Birmingham extended forming the western boundary of Lot 3. This line coincides with the �4 section line. (Attachments G & H) . - The present zoning boundary line is clear, indicating Lot 3 as R-2, The intent in the 1975 zoning was to recognize existing residential uses. H. STAFF RECOMP•1EfJDATION: Based on Finding 4, Staff finds that the subject driveway along the westerly boundary of Lot 3 is not a legal nonconforming use. Based on Findings 1-3 and 6, Staff finds that the Zoning Administrator did not err in issuing his order to cease use of the subject driveway located at 1422 Ames as access to Midwest Plastics. � �....y.�-� . , ��'� ` ' 1 � I.�..�..J �l ; , �- , � , � ► ..�. �-�.A V E !� U o ; ' f � _ � � o O v � ,� .0 � " 'e O � ` ' _ _ �,�-• � v � O O � O � � � i � p O ip o � o � o ° � �-E G H A t�-�IC AV E. : � 0 0 0 o � o ; �o p � v v __._ O � - � n n O 1-= U i � � ----- o � .�' - v � � - � O __ Q O � O O�- Z � O J E-- � p p ►- � � 0 O W � � AV�• , o 1 � � � � =" , p v , O � `' � G � � � �' � cJ p0 � U � �-- .i,,, - ' � b �� .�:::.:.:: � r::•`.::::::::::::::: �� ; � p '�' t �. � %�..::_ ..:�. . � ,,.»-�' O ;,:.l;M►.. �:::�::::::::::>�;:�.::�-�: a .._:*� . , t1. �., ��,,.;: _,,.. :,� ` ..,.r! :.� � / / ` �� . ` � C � :� � :�� , � / ' .` •.; . �� . �'� -.�'• '✓ . � . 1/ \ � � ' i.:"•.? � .r . :-�% y . � �,.� ....� :X:: �. ��'�"� Q\ A Y � y V V � �42 � � � � � , s :.y \,� V O � � �- : �.�r<:,'x' •:;�;�:✓ �� . � _ � . • � ' !' :x Y;, �^ �.� � '� j� �. . �' \ _ � � � \ � � � - , �;�.�., \ ` ,\ �\ \ \` ,\ � � j o T1— �, � :. ��,,;,,:--� :; .:, �' i � � � � � � ::� � i � �\�`� � � v O : � .:,:':�:.�.�'.:: .� r O� I � � �� v v .. �j' ' :.. J �.,'.�.. � \ K� �� \ :1 ` � �— � ''`� \ \U � �� \` v � - � \ \� �, p � � � � � _ � v . � � �� ` , - � �.. ;p►c�� a ° °y \ � ; - � o , o � o O , �� Z p �� v v v ---- � O c� o O o 1.�1 Z ! °: � RK o�I--- AVE . ►� --- �oo �o� � � � _� _ --� aC o o � . o; , ;--- �. ' � ► v � -- �'v �I� v _ � ' � � � ' � I � O n � � i � L .__.�.1 AREA MAP APPLICANT MYron A. Roth, Jr. LEC.,END _ lMidwj tt p�atti��,c,,) r '""' ZONlNG �ISTRICT BOUNDA� PURPOSE Administrative Review ��'L111! SUBJECT PROPERTY Zoninq Administrator's Order a ONE FAMiLY P�ANNu � OISTRIS' FILE N0. 8384 TWO FAMILY � -. - DATE 2-6-79 - �"�" Q �U±TlPLE FAAiIiLY �� • ♦ n �OUIMERCtAL SCALE� l��= 200' , NORTH �' �' � ��OUSTRtAL MAP N0. SAINT �AUL PI.ANNING BOARp �/ �,��;;�p�';- ��'r' �. t ! ♦ ♦'': �. � � � �` t '"��' ♦ #��f� �� , S . ��•� � �� .„ � � ��:; " N � �`0�' � �. r�� ° - � ' `�`d , } Y�= M � ��F 7 �.1A� �'�' � y� ' �"('-. .,,', � �;�r'; ° .}�� a-€�.a�`: �`^ - t �'� t.� f.� �'' `�= ' �:-. � ��r-, s -. , ., �'r ri�♦ 1 S � ... kr�•,t . . `�;' �- .�� s;_•� 1/ .,"r i^ir y � ��-.y - s x}�: '�a-�„ �., � � �. � � :rt�T K _ �� '. , t... � �•a �i �1x,"�. �, �a�.�s �e^z � ��a �' � rh'r,. �{� �� . � � :� „�-.;,, .,�. �s,� ,��°��,�,_ " `�c _ �' � s��}�,�'�'��`�'�,^!: r—��"'' ,,.��: ��' �'o+t " �►''_ '3�` = �• t St �, :.�, {`��4 �'t-�.� � c'�,�"' -.,��;�s '�."� ��:��.K�Y.`.,4�i :,�{�'Y 9" �;� -:;: ..,��; ' ..� ; K x� 4 , (�3�� z. ,�,�,J�.� „ � Y:,.� �� a�- t c '� ,�S �� r�T j.��.�„,��"4 n M• � �=' �f��-``Y�`��, ��_ 4 -t � ! �� ,+� . •.. .� ��" �` ` r: :� +�p ��: .�.� ��•�*� ,�w` " ., ty� �Sf��+�!'iY.3F+y 4�-4-yY� ; �KF �.. .� � . � .'_ - .�,��.' � .�.. �� . ��';Y��rf'�� '�� d.? p. t}�J .. ti� k'� �� -j �k,,:.> �� K;. -� �,�.- x` a` ��.�� = � , � ` r 4 ♦ . ♦ �.�,�`' �`+� �y KS�il r,�c��.� 'sJrr�"��e s.s�-�' 1fsy_ - `�'h�'.� . :; � � � ! ` ` ' .� _ �`..� ''- �� , i "� . �a.''i+,y N'� ��`r` i; -p"��`"-b�,� . {1A- �.',�� :. :=�,�c ,��.�.-c.� `� ,i �El`;��-sw.t } �'�$�� ' � r ��'s�-eY"o-�.�. i•4�`.''♦`,- .- .FU u -- t ' a c � slv*. ��"' � '�? �y. a, Yni� �i�.�`�`'� r[. L�� ''�k :: ?��' ��n��"E �+;1,� �t.:. : � . � �� '� � + ^�S �`��`��.�`uY'�� -d. .js _ , `'� ` � ..�E'_ ; l.�t^ZR `1'�.-.FA3�.t`-„m' �."L _.��4Y,:;.�r+�!,��4 � I��I`��I��I�M�/��k ` ��x �� - .� �.- , � � �' ,. Y� �.,,�� 3.,,,., �' � � ,. y i �-� ♦ �� t �;�-.c, �� x �_ �� r ,�t��. ��n ,�,,��r _. s . � ! Ak�� , "�,s'�' "rr,y?��.<fr a" .. �' .� r'j��-�#�a�`'r'''�-'�r ��r:w S^"a.�-�"3�x�z-.. .,,,� �!,-4�•'*'+. � �F. ,+�.;x "i M +��s � � k,;a�` ' s�,,w��?y,y�4 .,� �'` 4��*'�� r � " "`*r S+s"� t.--v^�'z �� S-'�'l.��a.�°+,..3�-`'^��?2a�,� 'ekytcdrt '-' : �c•=.�►�t��F�'{��` '�i . � .y� � -� ti �'n Y . . il u' .2�dF 31-',�`s. s, x1'11� - ��' �6'1�.` �4�1':' y ` �' .-1 : ,�y, �.. m �,,.eilr�� „z,v.��Y.-t '�'�s . .,,;� �Z�.vY �n� ��* =�, � ;� � :. ��„ �r�C`''�',z.r;x.�,.� �7��'.sy�w3� r.'`�_w��'i.� '�: �?,�'k.�,��.a�,_. �;,. eF^��E-.. a; r �-�r <� �� _3" + L�c, a-�,a�s,. a:. 7 �+'u.�r'+.� -��. ` � A,ys;_,�.1;.:: 3. � ,. � .� u n � �' �-� �-'- „x�t �,*e�"fi��-�"�n �+��.-�� s�t�.' ,'�� .� -�.� `4.� n, Ya •1 [ Y i.�� t y`.�c •s",+� '"'1't�y te��:Y�i.n t''f:Y'i:��`'��< _ ' {�� `t� V i�� 3 J 'r d �A '�!a '�4K`�#�:.ai.n<ey..��'c�' S'`�' 1�,, - y�" t��. �b ¢� � « $ � *i,'��-�a '1 ��.hs�r.-�%..�y�,'��4-��!�ty;�y �� . ,� �:.* �{.s "� ��" ��i��;��`� R"s� �.� y.� a� .•. � �+*-�cs -� 2^"r t.,� �'� .�vi.l � ��y y� J [.3. �'Y � y�(✓.�}�' '�3° _y �Y �`0. � ^✓Yt� ;}f �� I.1'�t�{ � f4�� r .yK'�U*L i� � `r<Y �.Y �i�=i�. �GJ��i�� y�{.n �.:� ��; �' ^^e `a�.f i+ g� ` i yti'�' Y£.s.r,; wY1Ci,.'4e �� F'f �� '� �''�r. y�� -_ s s"'v v ! .Er''r" 9'�xtY�s'14'�.-r'��_, .tS� 4 �k"'S",.l�yj+-a'�,r'�'��7�'.�v.H': �} -yr,s�.� �%1" .� TM�Z �� N ty �<r"t'A� �c�.7v,��"#'` .��$^' � ""� >$ �i J�ti �:et ir: � 4�+r t .f "�.:- r e-r,� a�.� -e§ �+s-��.,��-�� ?:e� �=��T.. ` t � � .i'� s ! �(h � * �+� � s „ J.'�,,,ri r„a. ' -.. �}s[,zrt,.�`�� }�3..�%.�-r��.a��r ��, c �,,*'A'4"�, � � - � �+ ; s .X, � �` , _ Y�,-�,��: ' . +� r`�'�� 7„.�. �'� � �s �,-s � ��."s s t...:�* f�'� "1�,�,,1F,6°�"'�' r,,yt �: �' '�' ! � � �.`r,, ti: � e..'a � .:� k :�� Cc �.-" .,� ' tr.-.,,,u' ?_ „�..;� t .r� ^ Y'- �� ' � .t` �i at.�v. 4'.s �i f � �a.Z y .: r+� K'�'1'w-sT� ` n�� '. ♦ . �' ��Y 4`a �a A�':ri+ Y �'j�� .;� �rti . � 1�-.�C��A.��x `.�wh.�tc ,� ., t1 Y"� `.i'a,.,.��, r s_` .'+.�r :r:_ �t. ,"§. :,` ��'� r ..V�,' t �' � �,i +t �.� 3�. . . �, a.. ;�'�r �a.�<�" �!:`.f4'�.n��' � {y„ �Y - � �w �.` �A� i • �^ ; s�'� z �� i�`' � "`<. � x �,�� V '�� ..�� -a��. ``. ' �,1f; -,. a�': �� t-'.�� rh � . , ,.: :�,� ' � ,.. .: � ::c{i : t.� ��'� ,�=i .� 1 � T � :tw' "'��,�� ..r J _�..i _ e} � � � }� ` °�i �'"s.T'- �: f x. �� ...4 � �.. ;� �� }� �„��. ,�.3,, _- . 8:' 4Y:�� %. • 1 � Ki`� - � - �' 1 ' � �'..�q'•� � ' �'- • ` h" _ _ Y�. 1 _ �`✓.. �� •�. } - �:,: t-'• • �;: - Y�, - f; a � R � ,� �. � �.: � , � . ,�_ .«. a,r ' `� ' ��i�y"�' ' s_,: = �� r f�.i�. �7 P�• � (,� ,.y+, f�'.'� �� +�3: SS � f-. �� ^P��. /� �f 6 g r � ,l4- �x ^: ��j r��'..:� �� i' K r � 5+ � t'3cK," :t�c�' �,��. �i� �� *� `iS`. -„Zd �[ � :i- �;i� i,' �:� 4��'.1"�. �'! � �.�� * � �� . I � �;' `�a� • . �l�. � +ta� � �,lk�; r�� y � �� z � � � ��. ► kF s. �.." �� *� � ��'`��:.. f R' !r �! +/r' �- .-:-' �;; ' "t !. ♦ -. �,.�,, +, � a � =-` � 'Y �i' �,.!`l,1� ,a: �' +► � ! �.. . �� •�+ '' t�'�«�*j�*l►��► ��♦� '* � � t ;� ,.,�t��'�'-♦ � �`*+'�'�'�4�, ��+R��j+ �� -�,�«� xi:•'.� ...:.�k�.�, �♦ �.., . . �, i �-y` 1�,?^''��*��♦. ( � � _ �� - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - :� � ..v,� '�13,2?+.ui� E. � . /0S 4B6��6 1 , • � ,7r,>j w . . � f � � ,;1� �, �� ' 6� p'Z - 764f0� � os� . . � . � e �\ � V„ •, c ' ;. �p�� I D,Z . ; � . ' y . : �� 1 � � � � osP�RI'�'� �A1R1� � 5 �� ►1E �S P�t . . � , � � - � � ° ,s � �� 2 . ',;i� - i � - � �„ � '1 �^`_' _-- '.�- � � - - � \ '.� � '�: �r,��B � � '�\�� 2./3Ea. - ,.� � ` IoQj3_, - �� --- - - -- ( r �, . ,--` _ I� ' 0�p � �..� � '% � •'e '� ��',,�••ja8 63 ��, a'-�h(,�zo� p3 1" �� 5� . � '�� _ 75�� i� , � Sb• � �� , b �\ �,� o` � ' . � � ,�^� p' �� d � `. 6 � � �N ._ 9Z. Ci, � f\ �/ �9 .' 6 ,, - � � :a� � �'I°�-'r�- - �'� p � �� . �� `� .60"� \ � � � �ili .: �J A \_, � � �G i5° ° -- \\ � '' � ° � ��°o �,G \ � v ' � / �' -�'43 � � � \� °, \�Z � �� .� �' � ,+�� .,. t �\� 3 6 5 � ��\ ' �' CA � • ' SS,�! � � �, � � �\ 1� �A3�� 1�u , - �0 cx, ��`, �6 �,'^� �.{ .-� �. � � ^ �� 1�' ° /vs . � o 4 E � �� k g3 �� i `� :-_ \ � � � !4Z te:q•• � :� �� -i � � G�.� \ � � - �I ' � 6 � ` �� , - " W 6 _`��' � � � � �°° , �� . � � ��` :r � <,�� , - t) � � � _ � � �lcp �: w �lX�d � �� " � / � �.' �� i � � �` .� � ' � �; � � _ 00 0 �-ti- ��,-,`, i o � � � �S^^� � � /, .5" , � � i i \ ..�^ ,-" ��,� � `�'Z o ` •�"a0 � � gi � b �� .� 1 _�7 '� � \ ` `` � � �� '� � e"� f o . � � \ ° �` � . S_� .�i5 � S � ls 'i h1 � � � _ si.bs ¢ / �St� 9� � 56. � 1 �f° �I I . �, � !� ��5 6 � � - - - _ _ _� . X`' �s ,a3 , 03 � oq� - 2 A� o -f" � � -�- - - - ( � 1°' v, i � 03 � s`��— — — — — — — — — —, f N � I � I b•jf h : ¢ o �6 Q� O` � � ` 9� � � ,S�o 4 s� 6D I � � h � ` b�h _ ; . � 0 2 3 ° b�� z 6 �4zZ '�i � ° 3 � 2 � ��. � 5 ?s � /33 �� \ ►� � �{ l � �l-� � �. � 5 �"�_tb�y�-^ 2� a- t� I O Y I I ti I 2 �` I�r�,' \ \ E s ��.� � ` 4 /� � � �� 8 � � �' ' l�� ' _, L � . . �� I ;�e] �. �� t , ��. Q- � I ' C' . `O� OS� � . i i ;y. — �� p3 i o43 ' , � � � i , � ,03 .c� �', �� c 70 7� I I � � .h� T � `� /9.89 � w (9. 67 7� ��! �� ', � 8 � w'� - � � , � )2 0 � � °U I�,; �5 �` 6 ` � o�j ; � / �o / � /Sy. �6 � � O Q � \ \ /'� � /t0 S,4 � b o �� 14 � 13 � I�� y,�. 4e.S.�" �6 S�t ', ' , - , N 19 ,� � � `5 � i s¢ ,�B ,...�a � 9 �;Q� 49 �o � • 3B O i3� � � �°4 8° �' �6 ''.ab s � --- � o 1� 9� �8 0 '� �3.8� ✓` •I ' 8 z___ 3�. t� l��. i , P ,'� v ;S . 3 3 6� S3 bs.0 ��' `1 ,..j b' W f4 9 1�}! t - �o 8 � �° � � �, \a � S� ,�� ,'" �5 � 5 5 �u n,. Z p �� i` � `� go *'�'�S _ " 68 �'° 19p "�;g I� � � � � � ' k o � N xJ h � (_i � ,, �3 , �'•�� j3q ir9 N �� \e� 39 ^ I; �--- ,� � Q � �o� ��;,f;i 6� 09° i�� N - 39 � �ib, 3 �` 3 j , i /"'�o�7 po �y 39 o h �1r;,,� ' ._� 3 3 � ..% 5 6� .-. s'o• ., � o � �a.g >�c� C j �:_ � � • 1S � , o �, ^ `. \ 3 6 6 , !��,'t v . �. w , 90° .� � F � 3g �•E �� :�.�,os�� °��-'� ,� ' �380 " � } � SS• q° f `Vj _' � o/o � r O'O 5 f�g � b `' 0 .�9 � Z.2p � oao 39 b$. � - ' �o ! ',�ti O v � 39 39 Np.l 5 � .p �� s t� � 6� ��_,z�ioo °°� � �,o �' r "�3 �� . �3� ,.1 � � � �: b� 39 0 l ' • .� V pz p • en' _ '�:� � � ,� `� r � 39 �s , .1"'-�'`'- . , . _� � � `� ,s � — - p�. �-� ; � _ . � � ' � P- � 4� � � S"� ' -°'' '� t�� r� t � ��= ' �� .� ��:+ ^ , � � }� :. „ - � � 93 �0� ' , 6 S. i _ ��y°`• �; �� - . �+o � !4 f`� , o o� � �ti � i 3� _ o,p ,_, ,s _ �3 µ i h �, . �; � � = -�-=�:� - �� s ,o ��i � ;o f -i' (� _ t^�1 .S7onG'/Y�o/r� �O 0 . - �� '•I � . . � . ./'J . , . . .� � .� � � .R...1� . h � . .. . . ,.,R:, . - - ' ` �.�� .�a . 8384 . _ � ' � , . ZONING STAFF REPORT � 835� � • •� � � • - 1. APPLICANT: MYRON A. ROTH, JR. DATE OF HEARING 2-6-79 2• • • . . . . . . . . . . . . CLASSIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CURRENT PLANNING & ZONING COMMITTEE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Rezoning ❑ Variance ❑ Special Condition Use ❑ Administrative Review �i. Determination of Similar Use ❑ Other ❑ Change of Nonconforming Use ❑ Other ❑ 3. LOCATION: 1422 Ames (South side of Ames Ave. between Prosperity and Barclay) 4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Except the East 60' of the North 100' , Lot 3, Block 4, Ames Outlots 5. PRESENT ZONING: R_2 � ZONING CODE REFEREPJCE: 64.205(a) . 6. STAFF INVESTIGATION & REPORT: DATE �'26'79 gY Donna F. McNeally -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A. PUR�OSE: This is an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's letter dated October 20, i978, notify ng the appellant that he was in violation of the Zoning Ordinance by constructing a driveway without an approved site•plan and by using a driveway crossing residential property to gain access to industrially zoned property. B. HISTORY: The Current Planning & Zoning Committee heard the petition of Myron A. Roth, Jr. to rezone the subject property from R-2 Single Family Residential to I-1 Light Industrial to allow expansion of the existing Midwest Plastics building and to accommodate turnaround space for trucks, At this July 6, 1978 meeting there was considerable neighborhood opposition; major concerns were increased truck traffic on Ames and the method used ta obtain the consent petition signatures. The Current Planning & Zoning Committee recommended denial of the request on a vote of 5 to 0, and the Planning Commission On July 14, 1978 recommended denial on a vote of 16 to 1 . The City Council denied the rezoning on a 5 to 1 vote on September 21 , 1978. As a result of testimony before the Current Planning & Zoning Committee, and in response to citizen complaints, the Zoning Administrator investigated allegations that 1422 Ames was being used as access to Midwest Plastics, and an order to cease use of the drive along the easterly property line af 1422 Ames was issued. Midwest Plastics (Roth) appealed this order before the Board of Zoning Appeals on October 17, 1978; the Board unanimously upheld the Zoning Administrator's interpretation and enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance finding that the drive in question was not a legal nonconforming use and to use it as access to industrial property constituted violation of the Zoning Ordinance. (Attachments A and B). On October 13, 1978, the applicant constructed a new driveway across the westerly portion of 1422 Ames (Lot 3) without an approved site plan� The Zoning Administrator's letter of October 20, 1978, notifies Midwest Plastics of its violation, C. FRONTAGE AND AREA: This L-shaped lot has 90' frontage on Ames and 250' depth along the west property line; the site is approximately 28,050 sq, ft. in area. D. SITE CONDITIONS: A two-story single family house and garage occupythe:�site. There are two unpaved driveways along the east & west property lines which cross the site from Ames to the Midwest Plastics property. Across Ames to the north are single family houses; adjacent �o the west is a vacant lot and a single family house; adjacent to the south is the Midwest Plastics property and above grade railroad tracks; adjacent to the east �are singae family houses. E. AREA CONDITIONS: The area is characterized by well maintained single family houses with Midwest Plastics, an industrial use, located along the railroad tracks to the south. Ames is a quiet residential streets deadending several blocks to the east,.with some heavy truck traffic generated by Midwest Plastics. F. THE APPEAL: ADMINISTRA.TIVE REVIEW - Section 64.205(a) states that the Board of Zoning ppeals has the power to "hear and decide appeals where it is alleged by the appellant that there is an error in any order, requirement, permit, decision, or refusal made by the Zoning Administrator and any other administrative official in carrying out or enforcing any provisions of this Ordinance or that there is an error in any fact or procedure in any order� re�uirement, permit� deciSlon or r•efusal made by the Planning Co�unission in carrying out or enforcing any provisions� of this. Ordinance." �Attachments C & D�, ' , � • _ _ , . , � . . r 'i; � � MYRON A. ROTH, JR. STAFF REPORT PAGE 7W0 F. THE APPEAL: ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEtJ (cont'd) : The appellant alleges that the Zoning Administrator erred in enforcing the provisions of Section 62.104(d) of the Ordinance which states that ingress and egress to a parking lot on commercially or industrially zoned land shall not be across land in a residential zoning district. The appellant bases his argument orr 5 premises : 1 , The access drive for commercial vehicles is a legal nonconforming use. 2. The City issued building permits in 1969 and 1976 which contemplated access across the subject lot. � 3. The appellants sought to obtain an approved site plan but were denied based on the residential zoning of Lot 3. 4. The 1975 Zoning Ordinance as it applies to the appellant's property is unconstitutional : (a) No means of access to industrial property; (b) No relationship to public health, safety or welfare; (c) No reasonable access to public thoroughfare; (d) Renders appellants ' property practically valueless, 5. The present zoning map is in conflict with the intended location of the district boundary; that the westerly 62.5' of Lot 3 is actually zoned industrial . G. FINDINGS: 1 . Lot 3 is zoned R-2 (Single Family Residential ) ; Midwest Plastics, adjacent to the south, is zoned I-1 (Light Industry) . 2. Section 62.104(d) of the Zoning Ordinance states that ingress and egress to an industrially zoned property may not be across a residentially zoned property. 3. There is an access drive to P�tidwest Plastics along the westerly property line across the residential lot. � 4. Section 60.364 defines a Le�al Nonconformin Use as "A use which lawfully occupied a building or land at the effective date of t is Ordinance and that does not conform to the use regulations of the distr�ct in which it is located." The Zoning Administrator documents that the subject access driveway was initiated on October 13, 1978, postdating the Ordinance by 3 years; as such, the drive cannot be considered a legal nonconforming use. 5. The City issued Midwest Plastics building permits for expansion in 1969 and 1976. In 1976 the new Ordinance required certain safeguards to adjacent residential property, such as blacktopping the surface of the loading area and erecting an obscuring fence. Apparently, these requirements, as well as questions of access, were not addressed by the Planning .Inspector. 6. Site plans may not be approved if the use is in violation of the Zoning Ordinance; as such, the site plan for the access across residential property was not approved. 7. According to a letter dated January 23, 1978 from James Heidkamp, Regional Manager, Chicago & Northwestern Transportation Company, Midwest Plastics does have access from Prosperity to the western boundary of its property and access along the southern boundary to the main dock area. �Attachment E�. 8. In addressing concerns of public health, safety, and general welfare, the Planning Commission on July 6, 1978 unanimously recommended denial of rezoning Lo� 3 from R-2 to I-1 on the basis that the industrial zoning was an inappropriate land use and would have a detrimental effect on adjacent resfclential property. The City Council upheld the Planning Commission recommendation and denied the rezoning on September 21 , 1978. (Attachment F) . . , . � • ' ' � � . � , ' .d . � � M�'RON A.* ROTH, JR. STAFF REPORT PAGE TNREE G. FINDINGS: (cont'd) 9. Midwest Plastics has access to a public thoroughfare through its Prosperity entrance; in fact, the Prosperity access substantially decreases use of residential streets by industrial traffic. � 10. Staff cannot address the question of decreased value of the appellant�s property. �11 . Under the 1922 Zoning Ordinance, Lot 3 was zoned residential ; the middle line of Birmingham extended forming the western boundary of Lot 3. This line coincides with the �4 section line. (Attachments G & H�. The present zoning boundary line is clear, indicating Lot 3 as R-2, The intent in the 1975 zoning was to recognize existing residential uses. H. STAFF RECOMP�IEPJDATION: Based on Finding 4, Staff finds that the subject driveway along the westerly boundary of Lot 3 is not a legal nonconforming use. Based on Findings 1-3 and 6, Staff finds that the Zoning Administrator did not err in issuing his order to cease use of the subject driveway located at 1422 Ames as access to Midwest Plastics. , : ,; ;��,.� .� +, . _ ` , . �,�lo/t��7� , _ _�� _ . , . .,. �lay�ou `��bb� _ ::. ,- ' ' � $4b4 71 St� SR - >�. . - t _ Cott�6'B ��ov�� l+irt. .- ::. _ ��50�6 '�� : . ,; � Aear �oncert�e�� Pxo�t��ty owna�#� pe�ween P�osperty :�v�• �nc� &�.xc1�Y St. . ' : ay�d als� tQ w�ic�rn it r��y caricert�. .�, � . .. _ . . . � . � � . . - . . - ' . � . .. �:3, ' .. . . .. . . . . .:. �:` . '� .. . �� ' .. .. . . � I• ��a�4� �li�las, reni��d th� prcnextY at 14�� mes xve. from-�� , we vouch th�t ttc�r� wa� rxo txuck �x�.ftia ent�ring� or �.sa.v�ing �'r.qr�. i�:idwe�� x�1�.stics iuil�.in� through �ur rentec► proper�y, Also !�h-11� Xe w�re �.�.�ri.n�r thexe� the cirivew�� usec� fa� �e��.deu�ial .purpQ�es Kas , , .. _ _ � ,'. : �oaated. or� the ;i:as� Qide of �ne �roperty' � - : _ Sincsre��ri . _; �. �"� �`�',as� Clayton T�i�b� , ,n _ . . . , , � � . ' � - � �� . . . . .. _ j. . .. . �. � � .. . � .. � ... , . . .- . , . - . . . . . .. 'w . y. i ;. -. . : . , � . _. > , . �, ,.. _ . " . ,. i.j T . . _ . . . . . �. . � . . .. . � - .. . �. i � '�..�; `� ' � � t � l ► �M, � � I i I I A V E �`` � � � � � - i � � o � o o v � � � � - _ _a o '' ' i o �� • u O � � � � I O � � � O O I p � ° a o 0 0 0 ° N�-E C H A N-�IC AV E. p � G O ! _,,._ � I p I v _ v � _ � � O O E--� � v --_ . _ ; O Cn _. v � � O.� Z i � � O � }-' p O 0 � � � ° ooW ° � AVE. , o �n o � /j ' ' O � G v ; O v `' � � , � b ° ES o 0 0 ° ° � �-_ �� :. : ' PM o 0 �::.:::: :. � , o ..:: -"'�,''r '� k � . Q /.:.:.. .:.... ...: .rs"" .. _.�:.�:�'�, �:`i:•r:j::�;i:�r:�r�::ii.':;�:;t'.... / � N� � . A��..e" �"�' �,; . / ` / � � o _- �. . �,~=�-�,�.�- `; �,. , � _ � •;, ..,.:;. � : �' • ,/ � � � . .: � y . � 1\ � '.!w' ...t ; �� .. .r �r i V/ � �.I.:.. :.'�::.�....r . ' _.;.r.. � � ; v � / � �� O ' �. �' � � ..�� \,� v � .. O �_ l7 � Y�� .�. ! ;.r r'.`;, .h- • �;��"`� � -- — •y{ \ ` � ''\ `. ..f \ �\ �` � \\ �\ � � � � ,�v— � \ v j O T V .� ` , ,�-:'`�' . ...'. I i I' �,�,;•� � � �� \ � � � ✓ � + \ � � \ V � :;,:.�r;�:;�:::„+�' � � � \\Q ` � � �. ::.:�:�.,;;... � I \ v V _.r':'�,,. ��" \ �' �� \ \� � \ �.:- :.:::::�- � � � �, : , � \ � � � � 0 r� .., U � � \\ � }- O O � � ' O ` �� v Q � U `� - � -0- U � v �r � ' � A � � � O � , ��0�� `�� v - " � -- -- -- � Q � � � � ZO O G � O O � Q] � RK tr — AVE . --1� --- �o o �o; � " � _..� _ _� aC o o ► . o; ' � � � – � . , _ � ; '�--- �. � � I v;v v v - (� ; �..�.1 � �� ; ! � ' O � n i _ v I � � � ; AREA MAP APPLICANT MYron A. Roth, Jr. LEGEND -_ fMidwe�t Plast��? � —" ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARY PURPOSE Administrative Review �!1l..l.d SUBJECT PROPERTY � Zoninq Administrator's Order � ONE FAMiLY PLANNING � TWO FAMILY ��STR�ST FILE N0. 8384 \ 2 . DATE 2-6-79 ! - MULTlPLE FAMlLY -�- � . • • n co�n�ERC�a� SCA�E: �"= 200' NORTH � """' �'" 1�VDUSTRlAL MAP N0. SAINT PAU� P�ANNiNG �?nt1Qr� �i ,�, � . .�.,. ' � -T"�, � �1�� ♦ N � ' ,�'` ` �� , �+�.�.�� { .N'� � ��,�� : r. � t, '`�''�`� � � � 'i - ` �,`�� . • ,�� --- �- �``�,,,.� �� i`.• � �� ►:• � � <. .�- 4.: �...F: ', � ► - .:r .:- 5 � : � �`�s.a ,.:y _ r . �� F t y� � � ,, :_ .,. , Y`; � � ' r' '�' : s�� { ; ;r ¢ � �, '� .F-� '�� : � � °� r t�r�e` * `�' r>Y ��,�' i:� s� 4 ,�:; ;.� �•`' '"'�'v` - � ,� _ ; � �'� - �. � ,�+1 � j _ . . . - •• rt _:=' ��`~�� i '' < , ♦ � ��j ♦ :� ` � ��,� �' � � � ♦ �� ,t s3 ..F� . rf { �� ' � ` r��•t l ro = � � r *'`•*'�v� � .1 �? i Yc '.I .� 4f-� S � � � �� 1 e ♦ ♦ :� " .� � {_ • �`��.�**� 1 �' 1 s _ t . ?� £F � wt� � . ; , . '�� - � � �t ♦ y��► , _ r =Z � r .� a+�_�E , : , Y ,� ��. � �t � � `. ��► ;� ;w � � �t �, s ' ' � ,•,;; ti�'.�:�.�.k'+ _ '.`r £ '�,� °, ` , � '«- s, �`} �r . � r � ',�` . .,A . �;z :t • -' ,, k y ,�. t.� �,..YL��',�t _ _ r ;� �r ��..�i�4��dQ:. -- { � �`Z.- j fi :.• '�;��*�� (� � �T•.� 7 �� y �Y . t . �.� � ' . ., r Y �.�r '��* �y ^ � j '�� '� `r� * � � } �� K � � � �I •.. ., 'S 1'♦»�,'.. j �_ Mr i �4.�� _ ; � : :, '�w�w��♦� a � ;� � . . � - - ::Z�e t a a,��*t�f A�4i`�ti��. # �: � .. .; �� l.'Y .:� � �` � -, �� t� '� �' ' � . . . . -f . . . , .. �� • �:-•:"�' • r. , �� , ` � . ��,�, , �',�'` . � � . . . � 4� � � + 1 � t s • � � � ' ' � - r/� '� ��$ ! � � - - � ,�� -�r �`�,�'v� 7J ` °"' (* � �,�` .��y �.l�r►�«�� '�� ►� '- . . . � �,_,. . � �- i► � 4 '�' �� .► ♦ � * !� dr ♦ �' r_.": � .' � ♦ ! _ � � +� f * It , �� .1 f!F :*��+�� *�1 � � ♦ � R *� !*�� : ��`**♦�' � ♦ ♦ • t � ...� +j«� ♦ ♦ • � .,.,,��,,»:,��. � � �'�.«��*1► ��.;��*��. ► . � t 5��. �� '1 f. _" , ' i , . � 1 " . � i/ l �` _ . ^ � . "`� . a. � �� \�.; i j � � � � " 1 . . .� 1 ..`�^,�. . ' , • � J � /i 1?. { / � : � I' <� . •= ' ` / ' i ' ' �� (1�'� �- \ •� � � � "• �� . � • `1 ' ., O �. \, ,1.\ '� ��t/ � '�,;� `\\ ,` ,i�'r �r ��i � / '� �s �' `.1 � . � , 1\ , , �s � � �, �, ,' �� I i �42' :o�\ .,n,-' .- / � � �S ° � e � 1f ! i �'� � �1 � � �� ---�s-�-_� .��es ¢T'' , ' � �e l -f �b � °' _ - v a 1'r Q-`'� � \ %' ! " �� j �b .- `r-.---'-��rsa vl OO � �J"� � � � -/ - " - - - - - - - '� ��i .. �v,f./ t ��3 V . � 0� F � . lr�- n� — — _. _ � '_ _ _ _ � �f. � � � �y I j 'a' C� �� V � � . ` �c.� � � 3�� 's" 4 so 6� '6`r ' ; � '� �'I � �01 � 3 � ;c, \ i'' � � ? �!%'• � ( p fFj )e %¢ZZ ►' �� / '�r �4� 1 r_j3./7 �\ �1 � � r '�. ,� �� •3'z \ �'j � '�. I S o:i �, q.� Z 2 � �.�� 9 �� 10 �r I I �I 12`u ,� �"�•� �` �� ` �s �� j s '�_��y� , i \x �� -'� � � �' � 'Z b � `�/ ¢ :. �. .� � ` r ' �t �'�� . I ' � t � 1 2 � �, ' � � � ; Sl.b� �:1 OS! � � `� 7a ! � _.;_\� `�3� � r�� ,�t� /4B 9 � � G9. 67 7a 7D 7S� � , � �� `� � •�� h 1� � � / Q �a 'Y�i � '�c V c� �� a `1 � ._P �.� 6 �^ c� :m � �, '� �51� 6��, d � .'� '� �g'. ; i isd.� � � .-,�" � ;o ;� o ;�' \ � �j\ ''' ��09 -.�1^ � � �` `g 4,° ''�� 14-�� 13� � ,�' Q , �s� . ��-s,¢ �, � • � 1 c)_\� � � 1 g.�'� � tv � i .se�3 � r �6¢'3 g0 t�`+ \Q-%f� C1} i38 � z 49 s¢ O i�� 38 � � � �7�"6 � �0� _...�� ° �.o� i � � ��,1\)� b f J . • � 8 z f.��'^ �1��.'.'ro u,°''-g`�, .::� � f � � S 336 6 g � �� `S � f ° S�I � S49 j4�� ' �} '11 � � `\ � :•• .,c� _ -$ �8 �S . � �� , :�� v 31 � 8� ., : , � ZT"s - 08 , - a ti Lo' �o�, ;� � .i'•., q 4 �g o �9 39'�+�,. q,, k� i0� ; ' t,_ : I3 �!o � -� i +4`h 'n 3 '�' ' L, ` '� �` O O `c/J � �9 �\ 39 � \+ �� a� �^/arF � 3 'S 69�s� b° � 39 1O o �r �; ,— � s ��; :��'...re- � ' ,s �' ! o � ` 3 d � !.t,�,r �: �. _ '= r. t � e ° --� � ' ,� n� �/ .� y � G� yo'e f� /y��,.�`�;. � . - 1 ,- ,- � �0 �� ap t� �O � \ � � . 73•bb � y I}' ��.Y��/yJ .--: t �F �: � - '� v • / � a � � '�S s ,,s �5 ' �3$ � � � � D{ !�'� qi �1 �S ,,f�'E � t t{s t �=.�&,os�v�; �, j , o�o ^ ` � 8 5 �9. p ,� j /�.� 'C �- _ d� , � � n pqCL 39 � t '1�U E� S�'6 1 . � . �-$� Jr_., j[� � �� .+: �` ��, " �, 3� �A � � �• b�• � � � 's � _ -� a - � �, Y :;;� .. � , r � � yo.� j � � ,� � f ,;��r`�- "N' i �s � �� 6� o�fY:7i o.i� �,�, e� ,m�.,.:'"�' �i � • . �� b0 , 130 ' ( �= � ��y pzo � , , 39 ��. 1 + /:_ ,�/ �.- j9 yf , �l7 , -, � '�// ' i. � /: �./ /� � f ' 1�..�.-� /� ' / !/ ,r�/' Za �P�, . ;_. • _ , ,. _�' , � �,_ si__. -; � � 4� � _- - .. �=��- � � o�.. �}_, + - -- - / � r� T _��_.�y.� - ' yo , � n �a�'ti\ ;� }\ w y �.%�� '--� � ..�- I `�f Lfl7 �0 m �= i, ' ' � ��; - . 68.9� j°` �7 �� 3� � :. ; / ! " A°. �° 14/`� ` o° �� ' �"i �3 ^ _ � � //� ,j. � a � � Ni4_ � � l- � -!� o pO• ,j�/ 7 I O +I I� �'h STO�B/Y/unL` . �l/7 .� , ` \� �\\ `' ' ` � ! / �` + ; �` -; i 30 `�,''�5�_� �1 '9• \ Q� �`�' 3" :6` o^' :, �� `- , �`� i � � ' . \ , ��`r ''� 0 7 O 1�° ��- 6� ` � 6 �` ;, i ? , „E S � �, � i i I - � - � i ► 3' .v 3 � ��;.�" ,: �' _ !9 - �� L ,, � �. ` � �26 8=�� _ - g�,, , � �,,ar- �. . �� ,�r �`,� �` • ' ^7 � - - - r�7�� .a },�i . , `, �'� ,y.� �, \ • ^ � � �i ,, f� ; —-'— � \2 � • ' ' ` � :. �'� ;� \ ` ��``�"'K�� -s:� i � 8 •\ � '�• • 3 .. ` �,.' � ��„`- � .• � �� • ; ,\ „�;,; �. . � �, '�� ti,:a^`.--,'`; ', ` y, ' '�` Z: . ,.ti. � `� � .\ �\ �� . �` _��-'C �, - � ••� ^� � ? � ` . �G �``� �` -t \`g �\ , . . ` '1'��? � .� \ - ��_.. ��Y �� ,� �'` __ " .:. ry � r---- - --- .,,- �- � 5 �� ,�' � `� e °;". Y `i I , '�J,, °' i,�,�� Q' , \ � t -�j - -_-r% � ` . ! 6 . �;-� _,��i , `� �� ' - . � `I � ' _" � \ � �: � � _� � � ;- - - - -- - - - - � ' 'Z � ; - .( r----- ' \ � F, \ . \ � . s 0 C � _ � �� ,' , . , � �G}. b �\ . V.\' . � �\ .�+ .. �_ . 1 . .. ; j �L^ �� * \ � �' . �i• � � . 1 . , 2�� . � ' � � . � �^F. •� „ , l . �� ? { t ' _ �,� � �� , , . , 8384 • _ ' ' , , ZONIN6 STAFF REPORT : 835� - , ,� � � • . 1 : APPLICANT: MYRQN A. ROTH, JR. DATE OF HEARING 2-6-79 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CLASSIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CURRENT PLANNING & ZONING COMMITTEE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Rezoning ❑ Variance ❑ Special Condition Use ❑ Administrative Review � Determination of Similar Use ❑ Other Ghange of Nonconforming Use ❑ Other ❑ 3. LOCATION: 1422 Ames (South side of Ames Ave, between Prosperity and Barclay� 4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION• Except the East 60' of the North 100' , Lot 3, Block 4, Ames Outlots 5. PRESENT ZONING: R_2 � ZONING CODE REFERENCE: 64,205(a) _ 6. � STAFF INUESTIGATION & REPORT: DATE �'26'�9 gy Donna F. McNeally �====-=-=======-=-----=-=-=-====-====---==-==-=-===-===-=====-=--==--===-=--=-=-===-=====-=-= A. PUR�OSE: This is an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's letter dated October 20, 1978, noti y ng the appellant that he was in violation of the Zoning Ordinance by constructing a driveway without an approved site�plan and by using a driveway crossing residential property to gain access to industrially zoned property. 6. HISTORY: The Current Planning & Zoning Committee heard the petition of Myron A. Roth, Jr. to rezone the subject property from R-2 Single Family Residential to I-1 Light Industrial to allow expansion of the existing Midwest Plastics building and to accommodate turnaround space for trucks. At this July 6, 1978 meeting there was considerable neighborhood opposition; major concerns were increased truck traf�ic on Ames and the method used to obtain the consent petition signatures. The Current Planning & Zoning Committee recommended denial of the request on a v�te of 5 to 0, and the Planning Commission On July 14, 1978 recommended denial on a vote of 16 to 1 . The City Council denied the rezoning an a .�5 to l vote on September 21 , a978. As a result of testimony before the Current Planning & Zoning Committee, and in response to citizen complaints, the Zoning Administrator investigated allegations that 1422 Ames was 6eing used as access to Midwest Plastics, and an order to cease use of the drive along the easterly property line of 1422 Ames was issued. Midwest Plastics (Roth) appealed this order before the Board of Zoning Appeals on October 17, 1978; the Board unanimously upheld the Zoning Administrator's interpretation and enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance finding that the drive in question was not a legal nonconforming use and to use it as access to industrial property constituted violation of the Zoning Ordinance. (Attachments A and B�. On October 13, 1978, the applicant constructed a new driveway across the westerly portion of 1422 Ames (Lot 3) without an approved site plan. The Zoning Admi.nistrator's jetter of October 20, 1978, notifies Midwest Plastics of its violation, C. FRONTAGE AND AREA: This L-shaped lot has 90' frontage on Ames and 250' depth along the west property line; the site is approximately 28,050 sq. ft, in area. D. SITE CONDITIONS: A two-story single family house and garage occupy :the:�site, There are two unpaved driveways along the east & west property lines which cross the site from Ames to the Midwest Plastics property. Across Ames to the north are single family houses; adjacent to the west is a vacant lot and a single family house; adjacent to the south is the Midwest Plastics property and above grade railroad tracks; adjacent to the east �are singae family houses. E. AREA CONDITIONS: The area is characterized by well maintained single family houses with Midwest Plastics, an industrial use, located along the railroad tracks to the south. Ames is a quiet residential street, deadending several blocks to the east, .with some heavy truck traffic generated by Midwest Plastics. F. THE APPEAL: ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW - Section 64.205(a) states that the Board of Zoning Appeals has t e power to "hear and decide appeals where it is alleged by the appellant that there is an error in any order, requirement, permit, decision, or refusal made by the Zoning Administrator and any other administrative official in carrying out or enforcing any provisions of this Ordinance or that there is an error in any fact or procedure in any order� requirement, �ermit� decislon or �refusal �ade by the Pl�nning Commission in carryi.ng out or enforcing any provisions� of th.�s. Ordinance�" (AttacEiments C & D�. , . " � ,� i , ° �• _ s � . MYRON A.. ROTH, JR. STAFF REPORT PAGE TW0 F. THE APPEAL: ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEt•� (cont'd) : The appellant alleges that the Zoning Administrator erred in enforcing .the provisions of Section 62.104(d} of the Ordinance which states that ingress and egress to a parking lot on commercially or industrially zoned land shall not be across land in a residential zoning district. The appellant bases his argument on 5 premi.ses: 1 . The access drive for commercial vehicles is a legal nonconforming use. 2. The City issued building permits in 1969 and 1976 which contemplated access across the subject lot. 3. The appellants sought to obtain�an approved site plan but were denied based on the residential zoning of Lot 3. 4. The 1975 Zoning Ordinance as it applies to the appellant's property is unconstitutional : (a) No means of access to industrial property; (b) Na relationship to public health, safety or v�elfare; (c) No reasonable access to public thoroughfare; (d) Renders appellants' property practically valueless, 5: The present zoning map is in conflict with the intended location of the district boundary; that the westerly 62.5' of Lot 3 is actually zoned industrial . G. FINDINGS: 1. Lot 3 is zoned R-2 (Single Family Residential ) ; Midwest Plastics , adjacent to the south, is zoned I-1 (Light Industry� . 2. Section 62.104(d) of the Zoning Ordinance states that zngress and egress to an industrially zoned property may not be across a residentially zoned property. 3. There is an access drive to ��lidwest Plastics along the westeriy property line across the residential lot. � 4. Section 60.364 defines a Le�al Nor�canformin Use as "A use which lawfully occupied a building or land at the effective date o t is Ordinance and that does not conform to the use regulations of the distrzct in which it is located." The Zoning Administrator documents that the subject access driveway was initiated on October 13, 1978, postdating the Ordinance by 3 years; as such, the drive cannot be considered a legal nonconforming use. 5. The City issued Midwest Plastics building permits for expansion in 1969 and 1976. In 1976 the new Ordinance required certain safeguards to adjacent residential property, such as blacktopping the surface of the loading area and erecting an obscuring fence. Apparently, these requirements, as well as questions of access, were not addressed by the Planning Inspector. 6. Site plans may not be approved if the use is in violation of the Zoning Ordinance; as such, the site plan for the access across residential property was not approved, 7. According to a letter dated January 23, 1978 from James Heidkamp, Regional Manager, Chicago & Northwestern Transportation Company, Midwest Plastics does have access from Prosperity to the western boundary of its property and access along the southern boundary to the main dock area. �Attachment E� . 8. In addressing concerns of public health, safety, and general welfare, the Planning Commission on July 6, 1978 unanimously recommended denial of rezoning Lot 3 from R-2 to I-1 on the basis that the industrial zoning was an inappropriate land use and would have a detrimental effect on adjacent resTdential property. The City Council upheld the Planning Commission recommendation and denied the rezoning on September 21 , 1978. (Attachment F) . . _ , j __. ;. , . • � _ . . ti �' ., � ,1 MYRON A. ROTH, JR. STAFF REPORT PAGE THREE G. FINDINGS: (cont'd) 9. Midwest Plastics has access to a public thoroughfare through its Prosperity entrance; in fact, the Prosperity access substantially decreases use of residential streets by industrial traffic. � 10. Staff cannot address the question of decreased value of the appellantEs property. �11 . Under the 1922 Zoning Ordinance, Lot 3 was zoned residential ; the middle line of Birmingham extended forming the western boundary of Lot 3. This line coincides with th.e a4 section line. (Attachments G & H�. The ,present zoning boundary line is clear, indicating Lot 3 as R-2, The intent in the 1975 zoning was to recognize existing residential uses. H. •STAFF RECOMP•1E�JDATION: Based on Finding 4, Staff finds that the subject driveway along the westerly boundary of Lot 3 is not a legal nonconforming use. Based on Findings 1-3 and 6, Staff finds that the Zoning Administrator did not err in issuing his order to cease use of the subject driveway located at 1422 Ames as access to Midwest Plastics. ►_ ► � ��: . �---, �,,,,.�_� �-- .; , � , � 1 � .. . i , , i ► � : avE � �o ° � � - � T � o � o o � � -�• .c - _ � _e o � . �. � i o ° � o o .o i o " i 0 0 � o o io � ; ° o 0 0 0 0 ° N+�E C H A I�+IC AV E. p O G O I __,.._ p I v _ v O � � - � n O O H � _ Cn � � o -- � o� Z i o � o � o � — h- � p O �� ' 'C � p O w � � Q►�/�. , O tt1 O /j ' � � O � G � � O � `` I � � ' �rJ � O � a � �-- i,,, .,_; ..::: - 1 � .. �. . .. b p,M o o .�:::.::: �::::::::�:_:;:.:: : .. ►.�:�:::.;:>:::.:::::::.:..:::.. , o � ,..::::::::�::::::::�.::�..::::,.:: O A:::''. :.; ...:..•: . ,.:... ..-::.:..:.::..,::::�.:�:: ;:::::. -:.:.�`- .. �:;�; �: ''r:i�" ;' N. ; : a�,,,u.� . ' ": , \ � .,:::�:�;�,,,.+^' ''"'• � .�+. \ ..... •. � . ...:.......:. . � :..:..... . . _ � - � _ �:: :.:. . � -- •!:.;:::::.:..;.: .:.,,... .:::....:. - � �-�- P .� .� `� .. ......... ............:... .:.:......... / : . ,\ � � � � .::�. ..x'� :•• � �a: y. , � /.... .:1 �.:.. . �r�r.. . �� •,1/....;.:.:...�.:.:.*.... �..... :....'r>. n- 1 � : � v � -� Q � '� r �. V �V V � :�,..--�� '' � ';'y r'� � � � � � X Y-^ � .y{/� � ` � � �; \ � � 1 ,. .r'- !..�' � \ \ \ \ � a+..� � \ � • � � I� � ' ��,r:: (\ �` \\ \ �\ \ � v v .�� . ' + :,r... .,r i i �,�\\ \ ` \/ O �;�,..'�...•�- '' f � � V �..� ,�.::y� r pi \ V �: :;;:; :,- � �� ` � � � �� \o � p� ' �' � o G o `y ` tn ° }- o ° ° � � ��, ` -� _ v � � � � °y � ' �' � � , � iP � o o ° , �\�,� a �: �. � � � _ _ -- -- -- ° �t ! o � � z zo � c o0 oao J R K � — AV ---i _ I E . � �--- �o o �o� � � -" �C o o � . o, _ , - , � � �' � --�-- - � , , . � ;-c i--- �. � � � v;v v v � i_. .�.1 � � � � � O _ n { _ v � � � ' � � I AREA MA�' APPLICANT MYron A. Roth, Jr. LEGEND - (Midw st p1a�t�� —" ZONING DiSTRICT BOUNDARY PURPOSE Administrative Review C"LCl.l.d SUBJECT PROPERTY Zoninq Administrator's Order � ONE FAMiLY PLANNiNG ¢ TWO FAMILY ��STRIST FILE N0. 8384 �� . , �-¢- Q MULTIPLE FAMlLY DATE 2-6-79 I - �� : • �► n COMONIERCtAL SCQLE� t"� 200' NORTH � ""' � �NDUSTRIAL. MAP N0. , . SAINT PAUI. PI.AT�1N11VG BnARn \I +in r � ��.- } � •'��+" : � � �� ♦ � •� ♦ t • �t, � _+�� t .w-* � - • ♦ . ; r � ; '!�'��r�' � � �' .. � '� � + r�� . �: � , ----- . . . ,, ,.�,'� � / ! ?'+ M'! . � �� .� ! ! � ►.! e � , �i; 1, 4 � i-'it,:`-:!_.:�_..:. k+ �� $�.��_: i F � � ,1� `f�5 �,�, ;.. -;� `�.: ,. I y1, 4 f 3 1+;ryC �$ y.. '1.�e. + �,� � „Y f ' •'� r."i��k !`'. '�`••� .� �� `�� ` '' 'E��- ,f': i ;i >; �.. M�:.'�' . :, a/!�� . ,.. • ♦ - �;: �� ' .�,• ... .�: Y- . t �' _ • j��♦�f � • � � � � � � c � J�� .•�•�♦�•�+� _ - ` _ * :�+�:�`'� `1 F t T _ • •.,�' . j s � ��. ' `' . �' �v, � r � ♦ r + a .ti .r- ' * + .� y �� 1� L' .� ' . .�.�� _ � - `j� ��i*��w � /4 �R i � 4► ;: � � � � 5 , s � f� +� -+� - � ;�•. '�' 'IF;�� # k � � � - , o x. �1.�'� :. ,�,, � i r'.';� - - • �-�x 'E i ty�-.� 1t��4f�Y�4 4'„�e _ L�,��*�� ' '_� " ��►��I��r�r .� r '�:�� '�l' -}:��'��`* �'.T 1 �._ v .. , 1 �� ' 4 T ��`�� . - ��•��•. - ` .' i��•�� , .♦.`w*w.- . < � . ��f . ,4 +T . ��. ! � � � ��•A 1�i- - ��,. �. �� .�` � / : .� � � � :, _ .�� :� . � � .�. � � , . / ,;i.•'�� . r � . , � �� . > ; - , * . ,�' /�./ � ► ' . � �� .; �� ' � -�r�'t#�'�� ' I' ` :� . �� f41 �r # � r � " _�• `. � �f� � �! � 1 / •- � _, . . � ' I,� � 'S. ►� . � ,R'�"�,` ` �*'�`��vt��i�.: . r .. �: �, ��l�F b ♦ +t ♦ * � = : . ,� * 4 , `!«**`�+*�1. t1. ��►�'!`. t 4 ♦ ♦ ♦ �': � �`��♦d; f�++��l1 ,s'""� ♦ f '�.,�`�l�� ,,��,:��► � • � ♦.�. ��;�,► r ' ;``� a�, \ �.` .;` ^ � � Iv b ..c r� • � ,�.` _` � "1 � c'r�_- / �O ' a- �'�. ' � o . 'r� T. t i _ � r � ; , , . - � � ,. . • � � -. \.�\ '' „ O' ��\ •�' e. 'r 1I`,. � . �\ `_1,J^-_ ' � �� •. : ` .��`�� 1'� \ ''r-` .r ��:i � ' ��r��/"'�.tl ` . � � � ' +Z1 � -r i !S i iV7.J � � � �• ` .r ��'"� ' � 'o� .-f��• � � i � i . I t � � � y�e% � 1f i � �. .� � �! l� � �� --�s-� - � ..�res ¢T�S � � Se�� S6' • Q, G\a � ��r i ��w \ \ `o i �'��f",9� I :b ±r .�---i-.7fd_*� -- '�o � � �` � `� -�- - - - - - - - - --� -'x' - { ,}.3" � vl �. � - � �b!� ' '� 3 r � s�- - - - - - - - - - ,S-' � r � _ �`� $ o - � , J;y,, � `.. I l� . 4;1 `* '�� sO 4 so 6� ,6- � � � a. �j �� I 3 � �?6 Z � ; �b � � ��.`;�l �i i w � iy� � o , h , � j3.!7 0� l $ . ;� h t^'! 14Z �il � z � \ --F- _ � � �� ' � �o �3; \ � � '�. I 'rJ � 9�� v °� • a �� _ � 2 2 � 9 �� I 0 �r I i ,�.I Is'U` .��°: i � � '�� G� � .SZ.�s �-��v `� l s ' �/ � /4/. 4 ' �x � � � ' � � �� z 6 � � � � � S��'� i �1'� --�� ' :� ,,� �,�„6� e:l �S/ � Z , ��" � ' � �� °3� �� 2 t� � ,° � , -� ,t /49� � � G9. 67 �o �o , ;� 7s� � � � � � �r� h' ►+ '� �; G � ►�`� ,� h h x � � $ � ' � , � 2� `^ .,--. � � c`� � �`�S: a 5 � 6�� ". � �q.. - /S6.L Q. , � . 6 ., � .o ip ��' � ��! \ � � �4oq5 :�' i � .o o"`�`�1�`. h t t;� �3�i � � i � /�p S,4 �, 19 - = �' � - cy�� ,S�� 4�� -y � '�j -0 B-S�, q�s�t:' � � !6 4.3 go � \�J � i38 ° i ; 4B s¢ ¢�' ..�o i�'� 38 Q � � i7 "6 � � ��i � :I� ^ ,�\",� `° - .� .B~ • __ _' r �::'� ut+- �"-�, 8 � '� \ _ ff , 336•8z bs3�, �`�� _� , � �.� � , .. � � � f � fS .,� e S6' � s49 �4►0 ��y�,, -,� ,, '1-� i , N ° ? , _ �B �.. a � � e �•' -5 Ss �, �� . , _� � 1 ' � , � " �1.� 68 �' !9 `� Z�, �� '� �Q O � � � .��' � �394 �ro 8 0 :� � 7 39��1�€�� f3 ;- c �. '� � ' ° � 39 , M.�� ;i �_ico)h j 3 � � '" � v✓ �O o9� �o� ~' 9 �� , _ �' t, �E : : �"^=�. 5 69 S �.6� 39 � p h �f � -r "�� Y _ ; ��t � ` ` �� /` I � " � ci � �•t�� k Y � � e 7s � � ^ �� . V � 7� j\/� �f�-81. t� � � �'�i��. ,��c 3:: a_ qp O � �� m.r �o d � J 7 s 3 bb + �,� �,,�, . 15 • �3$ ��., p , - r p) �� ' . '� �' ° - #' =f � p'o ^ `/ r S� �n; � ^/S �is�' l� '� � . �� fs� ��tOi�� °. (.�/ _ •,! j `n ` o�o� � t� 5�,6 � � �,�1 J`:, � ,- �� n � � p 4 a 39 � 4) �,i> � � �� ... �� ° �'n 3�' - 39 : � Q•�' 68• � � '� � �� :Y- # � a ' �� + �, � �� t j/p � x �� ,.� s 1� �� y'.7 -i k C � ��,a, .,s s.*�. � f o �f � .N._� S� ` �� 6 . . ' OZ rJ2'1�o+1� �,_ e.� m f J-- ,/ � � � � p Z3� � ��/ � o.zo � b � 39 '��, \ *� _%/- _ ,_ �- ' ��j9 y f 4 �,1� , �,°,f -/�.--/'C./�/ �j� ��s � I: _ �,��-� _ �/��i� z� . iP�r%/'i /�-' . �_ . � . . ' � ,.r. . : '- S L' ''� . f � 4' b� " _S/_: � . . . . � �.�. . - . � p>� �". ��., -w : i ' i '� �1-' ; �° ' � � _ 1'�0`��'` , ,� � _ � _ t� y �i �fi'. .'r' O'L/1 ? m ,n . . . . . r' . 71! •o N �� . ,�%"' �.. s a 9s a°� Q� 3� � ;, „ -%` :�o �� 14!� O� . .. l�'l.� . � . . '/ ,A ^ . � // n � �13 a � ivi4- � r �� ,. . .%� !o �a � �� - '� 10 I I 12 �, sTO��e.,'t . � ` \` \y \ i `\ \ 1 1/� � � I . . �/'\ \ . t � . - � � . .. ��'r i � ' . � � 30 ,_,, / ' �y ` ` _ - r, � `� '��5 9. \ $ C� \ \ - :b o"' 3, o� � a P `- '! � �\ ' ; � ��`� � 24 � , 5 \ 6 ' � v 60 " � ,,�"� _ S \ � ;� ; ~i - � �' ,� '3 � �; � ,: �. f - ;9 � L � � �. �: �268c' ` � � _ ' , � .; � ,�, L \ , � � j��y\� ` y4. \ � � �f� .,J . �'�i � i . . ' � . �� i . I __'__.. ` ` � _� C ,� ��/,� \ j.i , j � 1 � �2 ��. V� \ � � � r�� ` � 1 8 ` ` , \,. -� ��l'' �� _ _ ,� � �, y� ,� .. ,� ,•�- 1 -j� \` ` \ �V � •� ` � I` � . . . . � • ...�`�"� � y . ',` i � � � l.t��'1,~r- ^ v�� `\`� ` i . .F. � � ,\ :if``? � � .. `aa.a..,..i+ ` � �y ��r \` � ,� /'. � .. iY 4 v• ' .y � i_ � ._� . . V L�,/ � ` ` \ � � `I f .. 22� o� ` � q. \ ;�=� ti .�=_ _ _ ., � ! � 6 `,� �t,,t A , -i� - ---�-' _ �_ � �`l'� � �j 1 � \ �r _ Y� � -- - - -� - - - - - \ "a � ` 2 \ ' -t � - r - Z , ' :S -� ` °I : I �— � �. � �� ,.\ :` �i. � ` . ' 1 . . � ' �,� ' . . J f \ I . �� b �j.. V�`` `� . .1 21 f � . 1 '_1 � � _�} �� \ y� � j r � �'� ,7 � � - . .J E 8384 . � ' " ' � � � ZONING STAFF REPORT 835� �; . l �. APPLICANT: MYRON A. ROTH, JR. , DATE OF HEARING 2-6-79 2• • . . . . . . . . . . . . . CLASSIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CURRENT PLANNING & ZONING COMMITTEE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Rezoning ❑ Variance ❑ Special Condition Use ❑ Administrative Review � Determination of Similar Us ❑ Other Change of Nonconforming Use�` ❑ Other ❑ 3. LOCATION: 1422 Ames (South side of Ames Ave. between Prosperity and Barclay) 4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Except the East 60' of the North 100' , Lot 3, Block 4, Ames Outlots 5. PRESENT ZONING: R_2 � ZONING CODE REFEREPdCE: 64,205(a) 6. STAFF INUESTIGATION & REPORT: DATE 1'26'�g gy Donna F. McNeally -----------------------------------------------------------------------=-------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A. PUR�OSE:_ This is an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's letter dated October 20, 1978, notifying the appellant that he was in violation of the Zoning Ordinance by constructing a driveway without an approved site•plan and by using a driveway crossing residential property to gain access to industrially zoned property, B. HISTORY: The Current Planning & Zoning Committee heard the petition of Myron A. Roth, Jr. to rezone the subject property from R-2 Single Family Residential to I�l Light Industrial to allow expansion of the existing Midwest Plastics building and to accommodate turnaround space for trucks, At this July 6, 1978 meeting there was considerable neighborhood opposition; major concerns were increased truck traffic on Ames and the method used to obtain the consent petition signatures. The Current Planning & Zoning Committee reeommended denial of the request on a vote of 5 to 0, and the Planning Commission On July 14, 1978 recommended denial on a vote of 16 to 1 . The City Council denied the rezoning on a 5 to 1 vote on September 21 , 1978. As a result of testimony before the Current Planning & Zoning Committee, and in response to citizen complaints, the Zoning Administrator investigated allegatians that 1422 Ames was being used as access to Midwest Plastics, and an order to cease use of the drive along the easterly property line of 1422 Ames was issued. Midwest Plastics (Roth} appealed this order before the Board of Zoning Appeals on October 17, 1978; the Boa�d unanimously upheld the Zoning Administrator's interpretation and enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance finding that the drive in question was not a legal nonconforming use and to use it as access to industrial property constituted violation of the Zoning Ordinance. (Attachments A and B} , On October 13, 1978, the applicant constructed a new driveway across the westerly portion of 1422 Ames (Lot 3) without an approved site plan� The Zoning Administrator's letter of October 20, 1978, notifies Midwest Plastics of its violation, . C. FRONTAGE AND AREA: This L-shaped lot has 90' frontage on Ames and 250' depth along the west property ine; the site is approximately 28,050 sq, ft, in area. D. SITE CONDITIONS: A two-story single family house and garage occupy .the �site. There are two unpaved driveways along the east & west property lines which cross the site from Ames to the Midwest Plastics property. Across Ames to the north are single family houses; adjacent to the west is a vacant lot and a single family house; adjacent to the south is the Mid��est Plastics property and above grade railroad tracks ; adjacent to the east �are single family houses. E. AREA CONDITIONS: The area is characterized by well maintained single family houses with Midwest Plastics, an industrial use, located along the railroad tracks to the south. Ames is a quiet residential street, deadending several blocks to the east, with some heavy truck traffic generated by Midwest Plastics, ' F. THE APPEAL: ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW - Section 64.205(a) states that the Board of Zoning Appeals has the power to "hear and decide appeals where it is alleged by the appellant that there is an error in any order, requirement, permit, decision, or refusal made by the Zonir�g Administrator and any �ther administrative official in carrying out or enforcing any provisions of this Ordinance or that there is an error in any fact or procedure in any order, requirement, permi,t� decisi.on or refusal made by the Planning Commission in car;^;�ing out or enforcing any provisions of this Ordinance. ° �Attachments C & D), . � r � • • . � • ' ., , {" + NIYRON A. ROTH, JR. STAFF REPORT PAGE TWO F. THE APPEAL: ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEId (cont'd) : The appellant alleges that the Zoning Administrator erred in enforcing the provisions of Section 62.104(d) of the Ordinance which states that ingress and egress to a parking lot on commercially or industrially zoned land shall not be across land in a residential zoning district. The appellant bases his argument on 5 premises : 1 . The access drive for commercial vehicles is a legal nonconforming use. 2. The City issued building permits in 1969 and 1976 which contemplated access across the subject lot. 3. The appellants sought to obtain an approved site plan but were denied based on the residential zoning of Lot 3. 4. The 1975 Zoning Ordinance as it applies to the appellant's property is unconstitutional : (a) No means of access to industrial property; (b) No relationship to public health, safety or welfare; (c) No reasonable access to public thoroughfare; . (d) Renders appellants ' property practically valueless, 5, The present zoning map is in conflict with the intended location of the district boundary; that the westerly 62.5' of Lot 3 is actually zoned industrial . G. FINDINGS: 1 . Lot 3 is zoned R-2 (Single Family Residential ) ; Midwest Plastics, adjacent to the south, is zoned I-1 (Light Industry). . 2. Section 62.104(d) of the Zoning Ordinance states that ingress and egress to an industrially zoned property may not be across a residentially zoned property. 3. There is an access drive to P�idwest Plastics along the westerly property line across the residential lot. 4. Section 60.364 defines a Leqal Noncon�formin� Use as "A use which 1at�ufully occupied a building or land at the effective date� o�' this O�dinance and that does not conform to the use regulat�ons of the distr�ct in which it is located.° The Zoning Administrator documents that the subject access driveway was initiated on October 13, 1978, postdating the Ordinance by 3 years; as such, the drive cannot 6e considered a legal nonconforming use. 5. The City issued P�idwest Plastics building permits for expansion in 1969 and 1976, In 1976 the new Ordinance required certain safeguards to adjacent residential property, such as blacktopping the surface of the loading area and erecting an obscuring fence. Apparently, these requirements, as H�ell as questions of access, were not addressed by the Planning Inspector. 6. Site plans may not be approved if the use is in violation of the Zoning Ordinance; as such, the site plan for the access across residential property was not approved. 7. According to a letter dated January 23, 1978 from James Heidkamp, Regional Nlanager, Chicago & North��estern Transportation Company, �1idwest Plastics does have access from Prosperity to the western boundary of its property and access along the southern boundary to the main dock area. (Attachment E) . 8. In addressing concerns of public health, safety, and general welfare, the Planning Commission on July 6, 1978 unanimously recommended denial of rez�ning Lot 3 from R-2 to I-1 on the basis that the industrial zoning was an inappropriate land use and would have a detrimental effect on adjacent residential praperty. The City Council upheld the Planning Commission recommendation and denied the rezoning on September 21 , 1978, (Attachment F) . � . - . ' • . � . . , � , , o . , f P1YkON A, ROTH, JR. STAFF REPORT PAGE THREE G. FINDINGS: (cont'd) 9. htidwest Plastics has acc,�ss to a public thoroughfare through its Prosperity entrance; in fact, the Prosperity access substantially decreases use of residential streets by industrial traffic. `r ;� 10. Staff cannot address the question of decreased value of the appellant°s property. 11 . Under the 1922 Zoning Ordinance, Lot 3 was zoned residential ; the middle line of Birmingham extended forming the western boundary of Lot 3, This line coincides with the ;4 section line. (Attachments G & H), The present zoning boundary line is clear, indicating Lot 3 as R-2. The intent in the 1975 zoning was to recognize existing residential uses, H. STAFF RECOMP•1EfJDATION: Based on Finding 4, Staff finds that the subject driveway along the westerly boundary of Lot 3 is not a legal nonconforming use. Based on Findings 1-3 and 6, Staff finds that the Zoning Administrator did not err in issuing his order to cease use of the subject driveway located at 1422 Ames as access to Plidwest Plastics. y,� 1 --•--►---", w.'� ' * � � � � � tt, � � S� e � , � 1 � , ! ^ • � • , � � � � � 7D � ' � ► � � � � � v �s �j -� - - � Jo O „° ' � . O �� p O 0 I v � � � O O � p � I ' O � C� � ° o o � o o f�-� C H A N�+I C A V E. O � I 0 - O Q G I V V ---' I V � _ v n O O � �� --- Cn � � � o - � o <t °�-- � i o ! o , � — a-' p O O f � `'; � � ooW ° ° A1lE. , o � � o � , � /T ' ' O � G � v � � v �' � � � b � � �=j n Q o ° � �..► ` � `: , � � O � �:::::::: . :: O .--�°��:_::;::.::::� � a �� :. . � , o � 1 O A. . .� �„N� k. . � / � / : - -•i�'* ��' i ._�4 . , N. ...►�,��'' ;I, �•: /, �' ;�� !_ ' �;:::: �... / � � C � � .�� ,..� � , :: ,� �� ,, � :>� � � :,�:.� r: � � .r`"� � ' ` .�_.X� �'''�'"' � � � Q\ ' * � y � '� : v .r � v �� 42 0 � � � 1 r� �� V � � � � � '.r-'�' ,�.r'. -- - r�' � �,:r � �' :�- �-�_.� �.y�;��\ �� —7��J� � 'r " '-r' f� �\ � � � \\ � � j .� � � O � -' `- . ,-�'.,,,X-;�;. i` �\ �` , �\ \ � v G � �: -�"'� . ��- � � �.. �IC ..r.y.�"'� � �✓ I � �\�\\ ` \ � O l" �;• � � � v � V �.�.. � �'� \ �. D I \ � � \ � � , �� y � ;,.�,''�, \U � G�G� C� �� U� v p }- ` � ` p � � `� _ v Q �� O� U O ,\ � � _ v �, CU �y \ � � -- -- � � .�,'CJ p O � Q f O i � � �\��\ � 0+� �,� � v v v -- � O G O O O �D � R � --- Z' � � O : K � � AVE . ►,� 1 � ;—-- ►� Q �(� �' v --V � O � � . O � , , : __ ;_ � I I v —� V;V V V v- � t i I �-C �' , � � � � � �--- ; — v -- � I � � �-- ---� ( I � . AREA MAP APPLICANT Myron A. Roth, Jr, • LEGEND �Midw St Plactirc) � � ZONIMG DlSTRICT BOUNDARY PURPOSE Administrative Review eC1Ll.d SUSJECT PROPERTY . Zoninq Administrator's Order Q ONE FAMILY PLANNING ¢ TN10 FAMILY D�STRl�T FILE N0. 838a �, � DATE ?_�6-79 . ��" O P�lU!TlP�E FAl1A1LY �� • � n CoM�9ERC�aL SCALE� t��= 200� NORTN + ""' "°'' ��USTRiQL MAP N0. SAIlVT PAUL PLANNlNG BOARD V VACAN�' $ �J � ,�� M � _ � . �� , �� 1 , . �� ti K ... ,,: ` ' , , � . j ��wt'. � � �?;:«'� 3,;" r�,*.� t ,�,,� �� ra #+�-. r4 b;�:t f , �� t �� 'imt r �`� . F � � R�'' �_ � ,„`", � -��F��_ �� i.E ,� „�.3� .. `� �� .�}'-. 1 �D-# ''%� � iM-"� � �. `Fi_ . r 1,� y y.Y�{ .'.,. _ ��- :.. �• 'Ar�i '_ `:Y_e " .�. ". �� .,� ',� �+�j�.�"`� - � ,� �,� .. � � �`�!�a�:�Ai'�.. i 'T' y.' t s� �y�� -v, . .a �`4' �- .�. ,r� �- . � �:�?'&`�*��.�_ °':. � �_ `4 � ;�' . w�. � �,: -.� �`� ��+��♦��+�� "? � �' � �a,. '.K ,�`, � ^'�T`�'�. ' �� —� =� :-:� �='.: :�� .} 4�'�lf.�� ..a „3, f �•� � '�. � Y � � ,��*«`'�~�� ....a . y . . , ,. '� z ` . - '. , ; ; �, �� : +�� -- -;„ . - � _ r � �� . � _ :t „ �� "�.!�� , . .��' � � �►°� • � � #b. �-� � � . F � _��`��,�}�,� �. .7�� : ' � � ♦ � „MIiG R"Kn'. � ,` �,r'R.. �. � �`�� ;'.P 4��Ya... _ aT *'. � �!'�� . , . , ?� �' i ��Y�+ �`, ' '�� i' * �. '- � ��t �4��: � .r,. }y�. (�� L� �� r �v -T� t��yT"1� 's'.�,+, r�-� ^ ��`L,/��,� � � �. �� r G, A. �^ES'ti � �� 4�� ,. � .. ` :. , `��-�� ' �,� �.��, ,. `' ��: �4. - "4;�T: F7 '�r34��h 3 � +sr �'��,r� �� R �� f �',",� � ��i� �, ° t��ri f r� � •Y`� L•. �, .,�rt.2 ��,.��.i. ��J -.g � - q�. .� �� '� :��,'�#��+��! �. �'� '� � �i:�..t ,;+.:� �..t�'a.-. q`a- ; �`��n„G y 3+'". '°� �c �` � 4 a�*7�+'s {�es � � � � Y� �� ,�+ �� }: � h �� ! i" �" ,l r � �,�� _ �4� � � � ��". ,p�� }� `i�^s� �� F«� c�,. {•-'�.- �y� +� �lt�"F�i ,w�. }'. ��'� � �. �. 'y`v'H _ ��Rj`��. rv- 1.��Ay,.� .fWi y�. n �� 9�4.. . .�'V+� ,.:Y ,� ��LY�f/��I :` ��.�✓��`` .. .#?„�4 ^ti-" • y�+�� - �?+ p� �• '^1�' 1�.:-. .�,�"- ^.�� '�Id'{��,� `7 /-5 .f ^K � �j� o'� �- N,i�4 � I'�`� ��. � �: Y,v�-l/' �a{I�.�� '�"y!" �'��;�� y�r^`��.. _ 3 '� .�'�"�`� "2s ��'� �� a ni�»cf i� < ., ��_,., �ri. ��" i�. �' � � .. .�'''�'A''� �'. ., t� �j� �' �}'�?r� �`�"t t '..�' � � � . � �i.. �,i�r'-�N. �� y,��L��`�., ��'`~�i� -� �� _ �k . ��,� 'y-�•r`�,+�• '�.. �t��F < �.,�. ,�y. ��.; .c, � �� n ,� ��• b .� �:: �' .M-� ♦ � ♦� t a,��7• � �'- ^�f�s7 e,� r"kc' .� � . ,� .� g+:: � at.�� f 4.�'{'.s �:�+° gS. •'�.'.�eab. • 'r.�� d.:'� � �7 �''� �'r s"' dY G� `�',.��.�?`` �* •/�*jti`� 8� �r } ?.�, 'k.�•� .,s�rq� � �'�''�'a' s; ,r.� �_$ ,a,yt rc;K.�,�. �: •'�"C _ g o :{L�-.�*�� r€�i '�:ti � x:. .. �'"� ^. . y , „ . � .: _� . � ,�aK � `s��i` �1F W�� . `�:� y�'' � � �... �� .� x� f�- � �:;� _ � o:;, r,j!�' '� � � �'I!. .L".. � '�.' VS� ��'��'f�64�� ..`��IIRI��.•. iA``�"�.� � � �•;�-:�:ee. °.ra�� K .�' � �.. � y�,;.-.. �: '�i�� .��. C^, 1 a�.. �..� � �' �;, �'" �- s ,� a �,: j � � .�1 1. .�t 1�:... _ !. �. �: . f ~ . • a �: . �. A'+�'�' � �� fs '�'�" ��^ `�.. �'NI s. _ ' , �. 4 ' : Y� �� :. ti' e`g:, �.� �� , .�: ��" r�+,_�� t . �� '� �' "y �. �a' - .�... �' -,� ,t � � � $ 5;:° ��..i� - - � r� ��`. �r �i �' ru � �:e- �, J* �`, } � e� ,r: g'�,', � lS�� .� .� ,s'i �'.. ��`! _t., �y� ,a. a' • ,� �A _ ; - �, �� y. � � �3'' + �t. r1. - .!.'^' a�"�'' ::��e T } :�. f� F � � ` , �'.. "..' : . � a'w � f ,'. 1:. �. �.. y,. �.. '.i i ,� .:�. F:♦ I S'e� y'i fi'; 'a"�t , .�..��, Y- ��XS�`�y •�� 5�,. w '•` 4 ` ��. ,� �" ., r�kt� .�{4'�'r?� . 'E.., �, ;1'H 6 r ' : �,�, ; ,��4'=�'� ��: 3,.��`��'�✓� .,... � '�1 � a�-4� �„ �' , �,�<x_,.,, t�._ y� � !��' lM �. .�� s� � �,�r►. �r i. � � �i� � '`- iz.w, . ;- . ,�,.�. � ��+4►, 4t«�-��: S► ► , �,;;°." "!�""'j�,', � ��,+�~"�� A!?-�`.� •�'` �► 4 � Mi � ��` �' ��`4� � �,�� ♦~ ! ♦ ��•- . -* ��*: �°� *�• �! � ��,� �*�,«��,•�,z w': � , .h` ♦ • • � .� ;t ,�}1*��j± ',�4«�+�j ' � , ,�,:r'�"'"'�.R1►♦�j: ��.,`.�r;�. � ; �. � � :: �,. ±�t�* �i ' ;�°'` ,�; r ;, ►� , . 8384 " � ' ° , , ZONING STAFF REPORT 835,F ,. , ♦ ' • , 1-. APPLICANT: MYRON A. ROTH, JR. DATE OF NEARIPJG 2-6-�9 2• • • . . . . . . . . . . . CLASSIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CURRENT PLANNING & ZONING COMMITTEE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Rezoning ❑ Variance ❑ SpeciaT Condition Use ❑ Administrative Review � Determination of Similar Us� ❑ Other Change of Nonconforming Use ' ❑ Other ❑ 3. LOCATION: 1422 Ames (_South side of Ames Ave. between Prosperity and Barclay) 4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Except the East 60' of the North 100' , Lot 3, Block 4, Ames Outlots 5. PRESENT ZONING: R_2 � ZONING CODE REFERENCE: 64,205(a) 6. STAFF INVESTIGATION & REPORT: DATE 1-26'�9 gy Donna F. McNeally -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A. PUR�OSE: This is an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's letter dated October 20, 1978, notifying the appellant that he was in violation of the Zoning Ordinance by constructing a driveway without an approved site�plan and by using a driveway crossing residential property to gain access to industrially zoned property. 6. HISTORY: The Current Planning & Zoning Committee heard the petition of Myron A. Roth, Jr. to rezone the subject property from R-2 Single Family Residential to I-1 Light Industrial to allow expansion of the existing Midwest Plastics building and to accommodate turnaround space for trucks. At this July 6, 1978 meeting there was considerable neighborhood opposition; major concerns were increased truck traffic on Rmes and the method used to obtain the consent petition signatures. The Current Planning & Zoning Committee recommended denial of the request on a vote of 5 to 0, and the Planning Commission On July 14, 1978 recommended denial on a vote of 16 to 1 . The City Council denied the rezoning on a 5 to 1 vote on September 21 , 1978. As a result of testimony before the Current Planning & Zoning Committee, and in response to citizen complaints, the Zoning Administrator investigated allegations that 1422 Ames was being used as access to Midwest Plastics, and an order to cease use of the drive along the easterly property line of 1422 Ames was issued. Midwest Plastics (Roth) appealed this order before the Board of Zoning Appeals on October 17, 1978; the Board unanimously upheld the Zoning Administrator`s interpretation and enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance finding that the drive in question was not a legal nonconforming use and to use it as access to industrial property constituted violation of the Zoning Ordinance. (Attachments A and B� . On October 13, 1978, the applicant constructed a new driveway across the westerly portion of 1422 Ames (Lot 3) without an approved site plan� The Zoning Administrator's letter of October 20, 1978, notifies Midwest Plastics of its violation. C. FRONTAGE AND AREA: This L-shaped lot has 90' frontage on Ames and 250' depth along the west property line; the site is approximately 28,050 sq, ft. in area. D. SITE CONDITIONS: A two-story single family house and garage occupy the:�site. There are two unpaved driveways along the east & west property lines which cross the site from Ames to the Midwest Plastics property. Across Ames to the north are single family houses; adjacent to the west is a vacant lot and a single family house; adjacent to the south is the Midwest Plastics property and above grade railroad tracks ; adjacent to the east are single family houses. E. AREA CONDITIONS: The area is characterized by well maintained single family houses with Midwest Plastics, an industrial use, located along the railroad tracks to the south, Ames is a quiet residential street, deadending several blocks to the east, .with some heavy truck traffic generatEd by Midwest Plastics , ` F. THE APPEAL: ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW - Section 64.205(a) states that the Board of Zoning Appeals has the power to "hear and decide appeals where it is alleged by the appellant that there is an error in any order, requirement, permit, decision, or refusal made by the Zoning Administrator and any other administrative official in carrying out or enforcing any provisions of this Ordinance or that there is an error in any fact or procedure in any order� requirement, permi,t� decisi.on or refusal made by the Planning Commission in carrying out or enforcing any provisions of thi.s. Ordi.nance." (Attachments C & D), , ' � . . . r � , � � . � s . 1 .,�1YRON A. ROTH, JR. STAFF REPORT PAGE T4J0 F. THE APPEAL_ ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEI�J (cont'd) : The appellant alleges that the Zoning Administrator erred in enforcing the provisions of Section 62.104(d) of the Ordinance which states that ingress and egress to a parking lot on commercially or industrially zoned land shall not be across land in a residential zoning district. The appellant bases his argument on 5 premises : l . The access drive for commercial vehicles is a legal nonconforming use. 2. The City issued building permits in 1969 and 1976 which contemplated access across the subject lot. 3. The appellants sought to obtain an approved site plan but were denied based on the residential zoning of Lot 3. 4. The 1975 Zoning Ordinance as it applies to the appellant's property is unconstitutional : (a) No means of access to industrial property; (b) No relationship to public health, safety or welfare; (c) No reasonable access to public thoroughfare; (d) Renders appellants ' property practically valueless, 5, The present zoning map is in conflict with the intended location of the district boundary; that the westerly 62.5' of Lot 3 is actually zoned industrial . G. FINDINGS: 1 . Lot 3 is zoned R-2 (Single Family Residential ) ; Midwest Plastics, adjacent to the south, is zoned I-1 (Light Industry� . 2. Section 62.104(d) of the Zoning Ordinance states that ingress and egress to an industrially zoned property may not be across a residentially zoned property. 3. There is an access drive to P�idwest Plastics along the westerly property line across the residential lot. 4. Section 60.364 defines a Le�al Noncdnformin Use as "A use which lawfully occupied a building or land at the effective date o�'t�is Ordinance and that does not conform to the use regul�t�ons of the distr�ct in which it is located.° The Zoning Administrator documents that the subject access driveway was initiated on October 13, 1978, postdating the Ordinance by 3 years; as such, the drive cannot be considered a legal nonconforming use, 5. The City issued Midwest Plastics building permits for expansion in 1969 and 1976. In 1976 the new Ordinance required certain safeguards to adjacent residential property, such as blacktopping the surface of the loading area and erecting an obscuring fence. Apparently, these requirements, as well as questions of access , were not address ed by the Planning Inspector. 6. Site plans may not be approved if the use is in violation of the Zoning Ordinance; as such, the site plan for the access across residential property was not approved, 7. According to a letter dated January 23, 1978 from James Heidkamp, Regional Manager, Chicago & Northwestern Transportation Company, Midwest Plastics does have access from Prosperity to the western boundary of its property and access along the sauthern boundary to the main dock area. (Attachment E� , 8. In addressing concerns of public health, safety, and general welfare, the Planning Commission on July 6, 1978 unanimously recommended denial of rezoning Lot 3 from R-2 to I-1 on the basis that the industrial zoning was an inappropriate land use and would have a detrimental effect on adjacent residential property. The City Council upheld the Planning Commission recommendatiorr and denied the rezoning on September • 21 , 1978. (Attachment F). . ' ^ ` ' , . .: . . + . � . h1'r�l:ON A. ROTH, JR. STAFF REPORT PAGE THREE G. FINDINGS: (cont'd) 9. Midwest Plastics has acc,�ss to a public thoroughfare through its Prosperity entrance; in fact, the Prosperity access substantially decreases use of residential streets by industrial traffic. e -:> 10. Staff cannot address the question of decreased value of the appellant's praperty. 11 . Under the 1922 Zoning Ordinance, Lot 3 was zoned residential ; the middle line of Birmingham extended forming the western boundary of Lot 3. This line coincides with the ;4 section line. (Attachments G & H), The present zoning boundary line is clear, indicating Lot 3 as R-2, The intent in the 1975 zoning was to recognize existing residential uses. H. STAFF RECOMP•1EPJDATION: Based on Finding 4, Staff finds that the subject driveway along the westerly boundary of Lot 3 is not a legal nonconforming use. Based on Findings 1-3 and 6, Staff finds that the Zoning Administrator did not err in issuing his order to cease use of the subject driveway located at 1422 Ames as access to Midwest Plastics. �j � ' i � a"'__1. � �� i t �1 { { 1 , •� � V � � � � � , f � '� o 0 o v � '�. .c - ,o o � , �. � i o" o v 0 O � ! O v � � � � O O ( d � ° o 0 0 0 0 ° f�ECHAN�-NC AVE. p o , G O � O I v v _�-._ � I O v n O ` � � -- n fl i--= --- � o � ��v � _ v ( a[ . � I . o ' o�... Z � o � � l T' � � a-„ o op0 O �- , L O w � , o o Av�. , o 1 `" ° . ° � o `� I ��'�' ° ° o ° c v �-- v " � b ��S � o o � _ `�. . ::: . 1 , .,-:::::::::: :�. � p► o O 1..�:�-':.;7::::•::>;.::::.:�,:-''''`� , � � _� �r. O � ! '�:` .�,':` � .. ... .....,..::: , -� �- �r �.�-�'' N' . iK' -�-'" .M.: �^"' � � � :�� y: R.. � :,�,,-� :.- /' � \ Q .� �, ''� , ..; � � � �� . � ~ .� --•�" �.,,• �/ ,� .\ � �� . t 4 l.1�'��. s�.•v�.. � � (/� v/ � ,:. . � ,i t � J✓ i " ` O / � � �� , � � V v v � 42 ' � Q � � . :.� ..-�'�':.,�,'� t ��y.�� . � . h!}� � . '� �� a- Y�:.�.i,A� . � i.f --- — — ' � :y� ',.,,��.,y \ � �r�� . �.� ' y� '�'" . . .�,\ �\ � � � \\ � \ T ! ,� �" . � . • .--�'a�-�'� r; I'` �\ \ \ �\ �` \ V r � �J �^'`-�� _ \ i: : � ✓'. .� � i \\1 \\ \\ � \ v � �:��:�`�:x:,:::;.:,.;�-" I � Q � v V � w .�� .. Y� \ � O� \ � �\ �� ,-� � \ ��y� �U � � � �` �� V 0 � � � �� o ° G , � _ � Q ap � v � �� ` i J � -O- U �CJ� � O �y � � �^ f � - � Q � i U. O � � \��\ � p � �,: �. � � � - - - C�J O G O O O O m � R� („�� --- � f � AVE . �� o o ��, � � � ; ;--- � , , � � _� _ --� � o o , : o � � � �-� ;--- ;- ; � ; � � �---- �,� v v -- � lY� I E � 4------�-� i I AREA MAP APPLICANT Myron A. Roth, Jr. - LEGEND (Midwe . P�a '�"' ""' ZONIh�G DISTRtCT BQUNDARY tri�.� PURPOSE Administrative Review e�1'L!1! SUSJEC7 PROPERTY Zoninq Administrator'� Order � ONE FAMILY PLANNING C�S 7 W 0 FA M!LY D1STRIST F1LE N0. 8384 � r� DATE 2�6-79 ' - ��' � �ULTlPL� FAMiLY ' �� • �► n CQMMERCtAI. SCALE: 1�� 200' NORTH � """ �"� iNDUSTRtAL MAP N0. SAINT PAUL PI.ANNING BOARD V VACANT � 1� . '� ;�� «^; �id�� ,� � ..� S M � �� '`�-C� � • �� 'a;,� , ��'. �: -- 4 - ��`��: " �R '��"'�� ,-�,. ��. �� ,; �c«�4' � ,� ..�.,,' �� -. ?� y r � ;�c5 w - �i*?.y:. �; t r:•:=r� ' �_ ��.� �� ';Y�:. a3.+;%+�v �.'- `- �. ., �'j�� 1 }�. : � �".f �rt" ��{t � � �� " �� n y. � :� ,��'�'��c�ll;�� S.' � - .... �. z �� ,�. - � �'w. r � �. < ,, ` . �,f• ,`=� ,;�; '�. <. �`S,r _��,�,«�,.,� s.. ` 1``. � � ,� ,�_ .��, A � ♦ I *�' �' ;�-�-�►.• �� .� 3 r { : �-'�� 'z:4 a �_ ►'� �'+ '�' - � x.. _� '_ ,`�,. { � r� f ♦ !-♦ � ..�� , � _�� t��4 � �� < y �� `�+�t�+�4� .. . �7 . **� 4�- + ♦s � ,� f F �` ��'��' - _ - - �. '� �; ��.�rt �'F. _ `, ,*:. � �- �,� s-�- - � ,� � �`�+� +� ;�� ` � �' �� ±�r��l�l. > , _ . . � � �" K x �j � ��'�y� � ✓� � ' ,� n ?. ' A � . './yk�� F+:. e ' +��r �'`� �.Y a .��+� l. 1 "(A� �� 'T.�' .. f �t r (! , r" •1R' �'". �4 � � - �^ +� ' . {ay t� - �*,:.:� _ ��y��'�y/". - � ,�,� `� •+u. �cM�L��a �• f z. �7 X�,"y� $.. � _ a:• '�` � , ��y�,��.�pTyC`•�� . �� g.�+ � ' Effi�. . '� �* '� � :6 � � .'Es`y' 5,�,?': �"� `�^,€' y, '" �a• R `�,;;�. ' . }� '�4° �LS�,�} � .Pr� • ��.. _ zxa �,:. � � �'�'"��' �X .q' s?.� �,��..C�i�!' a � -� �� f� .� ��+ ��.,,�y � L. �: �"4��rr ��x�� _ ,r,y � ,,�, �� ,�i� . ,�s"'_ �` ,x s _ �m, ' �. 1� �''f,�e # y fi��.a�"�� '�.f�� -� . �_'�r }�''�..' �.,� ��..��,�„� '`'�,�'�� - *` � w �: '�'�� ..-��,.�s�-s" '�t�, ,��',�,� T s*� �:*.. " ^ '� '�'� �; .r�:ee�� .2' ��.,,�.?'�`� aSr, �ra^-.,G � x'`",5{d �. +�r. �,.5� `� � �` �`�. [- ��Y � ✓�� '. �� h �, � 5Qy _ � �� V xr +w. a� '�`�'�?i t. K�' -i� :` �� `�ae� �°.F" �� '-�� .i�� £ .�+�'�*'G',-� - �y�, L,�'� �a.,'�,^a.`��,t . K� t'�� T@°•��.p� .. ♦� � ��.. $ ... p9�4 � �� 'f� !� ' � �F.��v n �8 e 4 -e+ :�+ p°'�..�.., r 4 L:w, �iJ",�yr.� +_�." �}� 1��-� :$�t, �'�� '. �� n�.(.'... ��lt�� "�e .�.��i � ,��,t� Y;� �'-{" � � �O�� k �; ��'�f�� ',*�Y ,_ �y ��. �� . .t'� � s��,' 't,� �" A`'♦ `:. � �'�sly'"��.��_��'�,,.�. �'�i `� ��w.w '�c� ��* 4` �� k�.'��`• ��"� ��",�� 44�,�'�r€�. .'} ��cvw,� , � ^I:� .::. ti � ��i�.�..•�''. ' �g' ..t. 3 . � � rf,�� a,'Y ,m�`�Sy. �`.: . � . � �F � � �s� l,c; '�v'��'�'R i r `��&.'r aca"+�"`�'rc�-:i x..^m'�g. n�` � �. I..�� ♦ ""` s� 3 -�� d�-�,. X F4 � � �� m.� � w, . . #. . �+ . ,�.�, > a , . .. � � >: �+ � x' � � �, a.;��C� - � .� �Y�� ,y°��• Lq ;�� 5 - �4 :�r�''�C�� ' ..�` �� :-^s�_i �� S � .rrY.. -(� �� r� ; � �� r u�� t�� '�`i� ST ?��i �1� '� � SSi eY �. � t, ,s„� N-�-. �'- �' :�. �;: °�� . � ^;� ��.a '^ � ""�" }. .� „�-' - ,n,�-',-', .� _ `� , � � �;[t�� ♦ �, �., h - ��':'i�" � E' : ;� :�r, �i - .� �Y: ,�"�►/`�' b �� " 1�=:: �S i:� �f X ` � 1 �. t-'s-- iX'� _�� S'- � �,_ �� ,F,2 1��:, ��'i - �':� �9 �;:� ('Y Y - � ' �• ... .> }�v _ ; . _ � �.- " ��' �� : f � '� £ 4• �� p� ' �� .♦ - � �.; �� '� : > _ t� � ,. �:. :- ,r.. ... .. : . �. ,. „ r . . .�. ;` _ _ - ..,. . '�_ . � #` � u�' �. � �: , �' i:.. ; �� '�` . G ,�;- � R, s ' � • r t �, � �, k� p'r 3: � j�''N, �� s � . , �: t �,�t��, +" � � t t%; 3,` � .�.,y, �� '�t: ',��,,',��. ". `� [<C"'sf`�"7,�'�,a'Y��g'$��.;. r .�'ii��,'.y� *' �, • ' ��'Ar'�'-t'� �,� $�;f: mq�,��`q�`�':T��:'.. r � `� �av `.�� ,�,�.. � R,a- � '" `=�� s:;�,�,i:�: � { ;yN�!►��4�,�M,�+lr�,'�,� -,,..y �� ' .�r ► `*.:� �.. +.�� . "�`� � �*+I�'�'* '��'�'�'��.`= � �►' br �R°�''�'�, � �, �' y� !►., t*�`�� *s � ., �� ;: ��` ��'«I�'�' ��'��* ♦ �► � � }�►.� • .1��♦ ♦ ��!°�'': IE: 4 /G Y4► � M � •�� _. �,.� • �� + * A' � r, � ��,� ��,�jr�j.�i ,:�,,r"�!'' a _ .,,,, �� ,��. ��_�_�.�� 4:� /M 4�. . �,,�. � `�K'� � �t 1 ��` �� t li a . . 8384 � ' ' , . ZONING STAFF REPORT 835� r T • 1 • flPPLICANT: MYRON A. ROTH, JR. DATE OF HEARING 2'6-�9 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CLASSIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CURRENT PLANNING & ZONING COMMITTEE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Rezoning ❑ Variance ❑ Special Condition Use ❑ Administrative Review � Determination of Similar Us� ❑ Other Change of Nonconforming Use ' ` ❑ Other ❑ 3. LOCATION: 1422 Ames (.South side of Ames Ave. between Prasperity and Barclay) 4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Except the East 60' of the North 100' , Lot 3, Block 4, Ames Outlots 5. PRESENT ZONING: R_2 � ZONING CODE REFEREPJCE: 64.205(a) 6. STAFF INVESTIGATION & REPORT: DATE �-26-79 gY Donna F. McNeally -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A. PUR�OSE: This is an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's letter dated October 20, 1978, notifying the appellant that he was in violation of the Zoning Ordinance by constructing a driveway without an approved site•plan and by using a driveway crossing residential property to gain access to industrially zoned proqerty, B. HISTORY: The Current Planning & Zoning Committee heard the petition of Myron A. Roth, Jr. to rezone the subject property from R-2 Single Family Residential ta I-1 Light Industrial to allow expansion of the existing Midwest Plastics building and to accammodate turnaround space for trucks. At this July 6, 1978 meeting there was considerable neighborhood opposition; major concerns were increased truck traffic on Ames and the method used to obtain the consent petition signatures. The Current Planning & Zoning Committee recommended denial of the request on a vote of 5 to 0, and the Planning Commission On July 14, 1978 recommended denial on a vote of 16 to 1 . The City Council denied the rezoning on a 5 to 1 vote on September 21 , 1978. As a result of testimony before the Current Planning & Zoning Committee, and in response to citizen complaints, the Zoning Administrator investigated allegations that 1422 Ames was being used as access to Midwest Plastics, and an order to cease use of the drive along the easterly property line of 1422 Ames was issued. Midwest Plastics (Roth) appealed this order before the Board of Zoning Appeals on October 17, 1978; the Board unanimously upheld the Zoning Administrator's interpretation and enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance finding that the drive in question was not a legal nonconforming use and to use it as access to industrial property constituted violation of the Zoning Ordinance. (Attachments A and B) . On October 13, 1978, the applicant constructed a new driveway across the westerly portion of 1422 Ames (Lot 3) without an approved site plan, The Zoning Administrator's letter of October 20, 1978, notifies Midwest Plastics of its violation. C. FRONTAGE AND AREA: This L-shaped lot has 90' frontage on Ames and 250' depth along the west property line; the site is approximately 28,050 sq. ft. in area. D. SITE CONDITIONS: A two-story single family house and garage occupy the •site, There are two unpaved driveways along the east & west property lines which cross the site from Ames to the Midwest Plastics property. Across Ames to the north are single family houses; adjacent to the west is a vacant lot and a single family house; adjacent to the south is the Midwest Plastics property and above grade railroad tracks; adjaeent to the east are single family houses. E. AREA CONDITIONS: The area is characterized by well maintained single family houses with Midwest Plastics, an industrial use, located along the railroad tracks to the south. Ames is a quiet residential street, deadending several blocks to the east, .with some heavy truck traffic generated by Midwest Plastics. F. THE APPEAL: ADN1INISTRA.TIVE REVIE41 - Section 64.205(a) states that the Board of Zoning Appeals has the power to "hear and decide appeals where it is alleged by the appellant that there is an error in any order, requirement, permit, decision, or refusal made by the Zoning Administrator and any other administrative official in carrying out or enforcing any provisions of this Ordinance or that there is an error in any fact or procedure in any order; reQuirement, permi,t� decisi,on or r�efusal made by the Pl�nn-ing Commission in carryi ng out ar enfol�ci ng any provi si ons� of thi s O��di nar�ce.° (Attachments C & D) � . � h1YR0�1 A. ROTH, JR. STAFF REPORT PAGE T4J0 � F. THE APPEAL: ADMINISTRATIVE REVIE!�! (cont'd) : The appellant alleges that t�e Zoning Administrator erred in enforcing the provisions of Section 62.104(d) of the Ordinance which states that ingress and egress to a parking lot on commercially or industrially zoned land shall not be across land in a residential zoning district. The appellant bases his argument on 5 premises � 1 . The access drive for commercial vehicles is a legal nonconforming use. 2. The City issued building permits in 1969 and 1976 which contemplated access across the subject lot. 3. The appellants sought to obtain an approved site plan but were denied based on the residential zoning of Lot 3. 4. The 1975 Zoning Ordinance as it applies to the appellant's property is unconstitutional : (a) No means of access to industrial property; (b) No relationship to public health, safety or welfare; (c) No reasonable access to public thoroughfare; (d) Renders appellants' property practically valueless. 5. The present zoning map is in conflict with the intended location of the district boundary; that the westerly 62.5' of Lot 3 is actually zoned industrial . G. FINDINGS: 1 . Lot 3 is zoned R-2 (Single Family Residential ) ; Midwest Plastics , adjacent to the south, is zoned I-1 (Light Industry� . 2. Section 62.104(d) of the Zoning Ordinance states that ingress and egress to an industrially zoned property may not be across a residentially zoned property. 3. There is an access drive to P�id�vest Plastics along the westerly property line aeross the residential lot: � • 4. Section 60.364 defines a Le�al Nonco�n� form�in Use as "A use which lawfully occupied a building or land at the effective date-- of this Ordinance and that does not conform to the use reguiGt�ons of the distr�ct in which it is located." The Zoning Administrator documents that the subject access driveway was initiated on October 13, 1978, postdating the Ordinance by 3 years; as such, the drive cannot be considered a legal nonconforming use. 5. The City issued P�idwest Plastics building permits for expansion in 1969 and 1976. In 1976 the neNi Ordinance required certain safeguards to adjacent residential property, such as blacktopping the surface of the loading area and erecting an obscuring fence. Apparently, these requirements, as well as questions of access, were not addressed by the Planning Inspector. 6. Site plans may not be approved if the use is in violation of the Zoning Ordinance; as such, the site plan for the access across residential property was not approved. � 7. According to a letter dated January 23, 1978 from James Heidkamp, Regional Manager, Chicago & Northwestern Transportation Company, Midwest Plastics does have access from Prosperity to the western boundary of its property and access along the southern boundary to the main dock area. (Attachment E) , 8. In addressing concerns of public health, safety, and general welfare, the Planning Commission on July 6, 1978 unanimously recommended denial of rezoning Lot 3 from R-2 to I-1 on the basis that the industria] zoning was an inappropriate land use and would have a detrimental effect on adjacent residential property. The City Council upMeld the Planning Commission recommendation and denied the rezoning on September 21 , 1978. (Attachment F) . �, � , . � _ ! � . �1YF�01� A. ROTH, JR. STAFF REPORT PAGE THREE G. FINDINGS: (cont'd) 9. hlidwest Plastics has access to a public thoroughfare through its Prosperity entrance; in fact, the Prosperity access substantially decreases use of residential streets by industrial traffic. , � 10. Staff cannot address the question of decreased value of the appellant`s property. 11 . Under the 1922 Zoning Ordinance, Lot 3 was zoned residential ; the middle line of Birmingham extended forming the western boundary of Lot 3, This line coincides with the ;; section line. (Attachments G & H) . - The present zoning boundary line is clear, indicating Lot 3 as R-2, The intent in � the 1975 zoning was to recognize existing residential uses. H. STAFF RECOMP•1EfdDATION: Based on Finding 4, Staff finds that the subject driveway along the westerly boundary of Lot 3 is not a legal nonconforming use. Based on Findings 1-3 and 6, Staff finds that the Zoning Administrator did not err in issuing his order to cease use of the subject driveway located at 1422 Ames as access to Midwest Plastics. � t ; �- -�---,� �--� -; � � � � A�! � � � C� � � ° ' - � i � o _o o v � � - � -�c - - - o o � ' , . o °�' " o ` . o o � o " � 0 0 � � o o � o . � o o ° f�-E C H A f�-�I� AV E. . 0 0 0 , o � d � __._ � ' p G i v v � - u n n fl 1-= U� � j � v ---- O � � � v I Q . , p O�_- Z � � � � ,,, � 0 , �.,., o o � p p �. ' � ° o o w AV E . , o tn o � �—� o ° o `� f � � �' 0 �'J O � U G v � �-- v A - 1 , b P�� ° o �`:�::: �.::::.:::::::>::.: ,� o o .�::::::::;:�:�:.-: .-r � � � �' c k O .../::.... ;. ` �.�'� � - .;!!::•: , � ...�. ,�,,:��,�,-� - ... � ,/ %. N' � .�,,,,� �:. / ` : �� /! �: � \ � �l l: ; .�-r"� . ��; �� . . � �'.�� ! : �':. . . ✓ .. � / " �/ - \ \ � � �'�'� 5 ��. ��.�� .� y � � . \ ' /.�� : � . .�. ::r-' . 1 v � � V .�_ �. �� .�:. � Q .�. . .,. � � � 2 O '� " ' � f r �J V O � � ,r^.'�=:'-�!": .. ; '.�'r r � _ �. �. ` � .',.r r'.' ,.r '.\ \ � '\ }.� .,..y{� • � � � /"\ �\ � � � \� � 1` T T � �.. : ' -� � � � \ � V t � � � � . � ''j�t' �\ � \ � .: r„�+r � � l � � \ � � I � � v O : r '. � I ( \\Q � \ �.� x r � � �\ v v �. � � '�, � �i � � � `"� '�� , � \ � � � �,I \ �:. ::: :.,- _- �'��. � \ U `� �5 � �\ � �j v � _ �, � O � \ � u _ � � O U O �� \ �- - v i CJ� O C� �y � � t -- � �► _ � ; � � O � �\��\ � � v �� v v v ._ (� -- -- -- � � 4 i � � �i - zO G G � O O 0 � R K ' �I---- AV E . —►� ; � � o �a � , -- �o -- o o � : o� � _ -- �. � i i � -� v,v v v v- (Y� ; �-- �l �- � i � i � � ri-- � V I � i i . � AREA MAP APPLICANT MYron A. Roth, Jr. LEGEND ___ (Midwe�t "" —" ZONIf�lG DISTRICT BOUNOt� P1,a.it.i�s.J � PURPOSE Administrative Review ��lll.d Sll9JECT PROPERTY Zoninq Administrator's Order � ONE FQMiLY P�ANN�i r ¢ TWO Ft#MlLY ��STRtSi . FILE . N0. 8384 \ r� � - DATE � 2-6-79 - ��' O �U�TlPLE FAMILY �� • � n COMMERCtAL SCALE� t��= 200� � NORTH � �"' � I�tDUSTRiAL MAP N0. SAINT PAU� PLANNING 84ARD V '�/�,�t'a�1T 1� � .,r.: f�f-�,� : '� �", � �� r��'��`� .°��; �� ' � t � + • • . � !" , . t ! t 4 � �:;:� �- ,�+��.i.�'r+'� r i � v� �, ��•': � �{si . .r•?�� _ Y'.. ��-��.• 'f � � �:i ',,r ��"�'"' �'� 1 � :� t,, $ � � � �; t ,,,� � ::r,., � �.� ,r�� «� ��' s #>:� * �',� � a,f��t � �.� ,'. � �: �'1 �,`.{. , k,p _t`.r u�,�. 1 s�i: z.(c-v, 3�",��-�'�s� �-'� : � `��+ "`" � �;� �d�=��; ��: �;� ��.� : "�i�'F�/�.Fe� ,�''�� ' ,�..�` �`' � i� ��`'�r� � .�.. ��: .� ., �„,�r.: ,;� _rY��` ,: - +�`�� ,y� r 'I�" �.�;,,.- sr ��✓ :� ` �ry'�M4+'V'ir!��> � T:^ ....�, ...� .� �'.�; �` 3 .�� . M1`_` X - '�'Ri -. �• � af'�Sre.�p;, � � ar .' '�r- ..! . .( . ..� f y. �K J ��.�'.� 3 Z."��' 4 4 ..� 1 4� j� �. y. ,�`�,q �+":� �;', r ;�`,�- a,� �, _�'�+.♦ �``�♦ + �^� � �,��,_.k_ �"� :��'r��►�i - '•1 ' -.lti` ^.*..�+u 4� r r�...'1.+�y 9�C+-r,-'�' ; y,nP-�'+•n.'� �`va.,: �` Yi- ;�� •��-. ♦� ��w. y�,yt �-:a i f L: ,�'s�;��K � �'r� r. ., �a;�� :� .,� . ►`� ''"S r"�3-. �`�w.p�A ��F i'�„��+v ��`-t'3-�� .��,' ° ��y,44 ' f,�� .�.�`�'��. < t�*,w i��.r�-r. u�.�a�e;� �'�`r`i��_ � _+�'�J��• !�, � � � � �. - .�a- .��d .�'c+... ..n��r'�4 �. . �ik,_..?�s'� ,�-�:.. �„'L'!�„+t�.. - �,�� '- '� Fw„Y�. .'�� `y-Y +^ ',-`"�' rs.4 <_�-yc .�� : �y" s � +, �-. � � a. .t'=+� ,a,�,. � sz `y- �; �� y� n 4y �� :'. - �. ' ��'i�.� �'Y� ` �- .� ��:� T_ �`�• 3 � ��+'��*,� ♦ �,s > 'YS r r ��4�il o��,�4 a!G-�,;S��-s.`�.�`�°, � a-_� dk .fi�'t T��i�� .: ��_-`�'� ;"' � '. � yFN,ti' ,s- > .`.i.i r R. �'Z*�Y'":`�„£3'£s'" � ''... a Y `� � .'� � « q_.+- "v `t rr, i .a`d} :y x"Y„#"'�T 'e�i`f6��""Y��'F . . �.� �. � i ��`�� '. � � �,�.1`t � � � � � �� T�� f�s 4 y i� �-.c. +:�a"t � ��s:<�1��a a.`}� '�' - .s`'X +�.r i :. * .,`' ...ss"F -'t,f x z� r'k"�',�`�?r' -�,z e_��s�.,.�g � ��l r�,v._ ,,� z: �''�„`�y*iy*'��,� ...,�e .a �.:.. w r �w y ra d- ��'��s xr*rhi -'v^� 5 i `ab'c3`c't�t �'✓-✓2�'1X4": �� ;? t(7�y"��^pcM..'�. ��, >a� �� 4 �F`- M 3aA 341tro�..7=�"��'-4,.�� . > "7'� r,. '� r„� '' r � a s'" ,� g{ti S--,t✓,,,�i'^�'"t-`. � .�`' a��ri�..��,y� �s,-r� 3,�Z 1�r'�'� .. . 1�tA � �F ��`"�F X 4 3 _ �rf' L't��,�,, Y �S"� �i � ri T'�wi .µ� ��i � �: . $ � ' ��"*�aiJZ rx � s �i#'"�,,-'"��'rw..�z,f.� '�. .,� �kn"� a�'�" �� :�`w .p�,�',.-� '�. ;� -` �:��E..� i.a.� -� ?s"�"r�y'�. �. ryj-.�7�3".��:�"'a�4g x` -i,�.. �� '; ��t: �.. +�� t 1�.�_; _ �� -!k' �'t _,S y l e.t �3K'�, rt »x�'.'�:'�x�g ''�:¢'Y a-c "�k Y''" .'" +� �; a` ._ ".�'' -S -e�t „ i,. '�`�' �'� .�.,.!�i^.'.�%_ • � }y},'��,,�.€�ni'7`,�, k ' �"'�',3 P yz .kr `��c . �,. „' t` -r "`�..J2 .YS}y�` � _'s� .nSS.� �€`h��s*�.i- y.,� 1 y�"��s+'`�)��y�'.�C � . f�-� (}p�'K �t��y �t: �Y - � f+ ti,TX'rc�rk,. .}�`��. �§�c.w�'`fit J ��,'4" �+h .�`• _� �, `�- A` `* ; � ��'r ssN'� F h .'- N b �`�` se y � �' � L st�., r �� t � .��._..;Y �7, z'S"`..�'� "`' "'- ��'r R.SC,- �� '4 `!" � �"` x a*� �'-c'�' � ��- �' � � "d;��x�� ,,� . '�' � �_�� i. � �,:_ �•�+� z �'� �'- •> �� i -t�ax� +��x ^v�-�v �a� _� �� ' .A�, r-r ��s w �,-�e'` d a�. �,� � �-�s vk � Swo^�w�r'� §�, r �"'»�a� -��a�1� .yt- f�`'�' �_ .4 �e r , y� p. a r s � "�s �.. ��F 7 y�-�". .i •'�-' ,S,s' � : 4 ,-t; ". c !F . •.�r`yMtis^�Y.��r.x' C �p '„�', �u«.�'�3 �.� '�.�- . sg'�e ��T�.�4.�. �`w- - '' t--r..cy .C: s«i�s.,#� �-. a i` . �' „i•< 7k''`t S.x '!j' - P�"E � 4'� "c�z�?f't`'r �ff Y +t'{i„„ �v,�r..v� F .�' �y'S"�y� E'.%�,r��'�.S .t - 4. �4 + 3 xi `o '�:,h r.r-. 'G �� T* x`r ��`` ..�.e. k ��v�,�X�3�-��.k r.� x^i �artig ti� �r- � �:` :_�.dp,..# � "- ? � ;'-S 'T }�•L� �..- �i--_iA,cr t � •s hd �4-� t'-�`... �� K�.Y�'��'�� ' * ��'� c.; �:i� � ..s �,,�,j � z . a t �,'"1 a�.t.�""' "r�#�,x-.. - . �- �, � '� �� . �a � ��. '�'� a,�� '�: ��a, }'�,."°�✓-`q^..'a.� �+i� t �.iM,'i`"{-f-��"t.r+'4r�,ti�,"*t��r'�4y"., S �,�,� �`�•�.�+� ,T, �..-,- .J.} f �Ry.� -..Z s. ,�+C �.,�•s��4 1 y.,?�, . � y�p�"��."� ,:. `i �'��.'��.�' � . Y .s_�� ^,G-. '`'. r a . kj r _: � .p'sY ti+"`^��.'€ 5.�� i �� 3 � ,` � 9. '�� -cf�a ; r n �., { r.._ +�F-_ "T' k+,� S a.1.. � � 't � . y S� Jr.: .'F.,� .lif' ^P ..4 :F ..: _ . ;: .. � ��:. ��r }Ne- .��,�f`�r�y,��' �� . y,�..y. ��. �yL.. � 4r � 5{� �' � � .R� �`� .�:fi,� , � �W.- _�_ ei.. :�� F� � �� t��, ��+. � • � a!2i � � �� x f- � �'? � �;.'.� - � � �y , - 4 yf' p V ',R-i("i '\� ._�.. _4.�r_ �-� - — ��, �� -� I��' �,,/�" , ,. . � � �.. �r.. ;�� t' }� �� J �,,,y '�� v -:� �i ' ' �i,�',� `'. • C ; ,,....,_,._:. .T'' '[- ��: ♦ f-' �� _ � � -'; �::. JE�.�: �' �.�. ' L: F" �,". • .. M1�, I' , .� �. C1J ► ' �� ` .�t"---�: � � _" .`F�: i, /�� Y k�4 ��i' V ��: r � ��, ,..c a` , . , 1' . ^� �`� " •� �'i'� �� K-��lc�` �i � I '��.� •• �� y� ��. .... �� *��. /,� Y .7^'ri . � ... 4^� � t� A' 7 � '�-� . �S ►:� ;� ,.-...'- ♦:.��,,� ' �*-�-�I► �" ��%�• �-.� 4� ! f � ° ��.�', f=� .��-�c. � ./' **�♦�;. #�w*�*,��+�� .t��► � � l. -� t � �► 4 f**+f��.�►. s� �*'� i � ♦ r1 -1� .:��4►�♦� ,* �, ♦ �� ,� � �! � • ♦ � .' �,�'""` � }�.`:!.�' Y ��,;��I, � ,�. : _� ,* ': , r. . � _ �-)'� ^ - - - - - - - - - - - - - _, _ - - - n.�� - � � � (l3�Z.e8� � . /OS -486��6 1 ' - ' ''�j ��. / ' �- ---_-- --- f � _ '` �.�,• r �, �' '� 6. p Z - 764�0 M ` oSZ . ' � _ . � � e �. . ♦ > ,�� " �o�� '�7" i - p� � ` , �' � � ' , o¢, � , - � - -- y, PA� � �- � �� tos��' S . , � . - � , - � ° �� 'S � �. �o � � � � sz� � � - � ... � ._ � � - � .�� _._ . � , r� � s _ - -- - -- -- - �� y i �, �t,� /� � / lw� �2�/330.) • . ,_°` oy33�� ( r I�� . J � � i � �'h �` . } a'�� N � � � �p ? . '1�_ '� .'�.��348" � 3--� .�zo� � �3 �` i Sb•5 � ' 6-+ ' `� � �f ' ti I . \ � � 1 , \ � � � . � O` � / � �' ' O"� \ I VI 2. b � �� , . . �� `'�b � ► la 9 �, � t , � �9 .' 6 ,, - � � -- � '^E�a� "' � � "' _.60�� \ \ a� � � ��r i � ("o- '�� -+�� G �SB'� `^• o � \ \ � \ o ► ( " . � � \� o . �' ,}.3 � -- � \ o \ t p p . _ W�o � \\ � � �.'� '`� ,� � , \ � � \7, I I�L_ 5 _ a3-� t�"' ,�� i � CQ 4,�1 � � � � \ � � . � '�� p3�b a, \��`\ �o .�`�� / �.� .-� �,\� �� t � �� o " ivs - o E . �� q,9j � � i `. % \ � � � �4Z• e �, ` B=�•. _ \ �� o .t < ' � �y � � ' � - 6 ` ` '� - ' �, 6 _`•� ' � � � �b°� -' �o - - � � ,� ��` �� -' � <'": r., " 5 � � � _ •" � � � � ,r0 4i oo �ra_8 � �3�\ °',' � , e�, �� v � �\ .(o � ,- �:� � - - o �..�`, 1 0 � ` i S�i { / S . � i � ° �\ � .� •" � •� i ►4Z\ 1O-� '�� ',✓e� � S6•�f ;� . .-� � -� � � g • . �7 � . , � � \�\ ° �_'� ' /. S-'_ 3ces a-��s �9 �� 56 .js i J�� !n �- �.I �,' °� ��,5' �. U, \ , � _ _ _J �x;s! � �5 �43� � o j � � 2 � o :� �- ' � -5 - - - - - - - ' ' f°� �., �� °� � ''� �. � _ _ � � i _ _ , �4. 9�' so - - ` — ' � � J�� Tf a bF ' �� i � g 3,� so � so �� I6 �i � �' � , \�h � .. i . ! N 2 � � 2 3 � �o ?e ,gz2 �� o � 3 � ��t ' � 5 _� � o ► I � q e 1 � y� 2r _ j33./7 N� � E � 'h a' �}- 5 �-� �' � g � I O 'V �' ,v I 2 a ��I \ \ e 1 ��,� ( ` 0 \ ,�; `� .SZ- t '� 2 �o y \ ' � 1 � .�,`� �� .J1� i > \ � h. 1 .. ¢ I i �5 ,�� U5� /4/• / i ;L• � � 043 � , �� 03 � , � p3 `` 2` �"-��" `� 70 >0 7s � �� + .- 70 0 •t h� � /4B9 � G9. 67 Iq! \o � � � � $ t �'( h ` �'L� � o� '�, ��J � 6 \ \ 1 ; � �� , 66 � � o �� °y � ��54 - � � � �S° �° o, �° � �, � � 9 S�} � � o . �. �4 h 13 � �� g s��.s�- `� � - . � g �, � �j � � .0�S � - + � %�t• 38 O oi 6 � \ i384 ��` 4BS� . . � � � 8 � ��.gn t - S �` 9� 38 0 �3.Bz � •I � 8z- . 3�"_ �t /�f�� `� \� o J f i 3� 6' S3 bf� �I� �-\ ` °' \ f + ' �" �R� i . �� r . --� g 5b 54-9 • 1 � u` �8 � J! K� �a:"' �5 � 5 5 W m ti Z p �'^ 1: ►1 \ go �i�s - e8 �� 190 h 39 �� j � 3� � � ' t39'� iro �, t8 ° � 39 �'� h. �(_�• / � � � ,1 `` /4� ,•��+�j;,� b' 090 loo � �9 � 39 � .`i� . 3 . 1 �,�;j 39 0 `^ �`'is+,'�t - 3j , �°�7, bo �9 � . - oez> Gj/� 3 3 � " 5 ; m 90' � n � b �' E�2 � - � 1 • S o 'j b �'• � m o � �' � 1 �, w � 9D° .o w �' r g •� i ..,.,OS 9 lo s y� �3go ;, � }— � � �N59, f1 Aj� �...� ' � 8 b � :s o�o ^ or0 SS '�`� � o -�s � 220 � o�0 39 g, � • ^ o '� 39 39 b 5�� ! •;� v � Np.l � � �s � 1 (U� O�,-17/00 m�� i� �� j3�� ,�e: b O 39 0! ,' "� � V o,2 0 `�'� '. ,�(%�� a- .c� 39 �S � Ji��'�,A�' � - 7 � � ` � , � , a ' 1S Pp'��L i . . 1 � t . � �� s , o,� y-- - �' � � �"_ � rP � � • � r'� '^ ;, . � }� � N _ be 93' i� . - �iL°`o o� � �= _ �+o '� 14�`� 37 N v� = . ,s 13 � 1 .. 1._ ` o° , , =;' � '�,. � � � A� ` _�i�" • , -:.::-' . . . 9 10 /I{ (2 �� Sro�c�lont �� os . • -- — . , �, ' � � • , a, ` . _ --, , � _. _ ..r�. �' ` `� ' � ' * - � � .� � . . � ��i�,ft717� : � � � ��- Clayton �.'ibbs 8064 71 s�, s. Cot-�ag�r Grove, ��, �550�6 �P.3T COI1C8Z71£"1 pxoper��' �*�rr:ert� �Getw�en 1',�as:P�j'�� •�Vt• a.CIC� i'3.,'tIY:�.�.y .St• al't� a.�.80 '�G W�t0�7 1't t,1a,}� C:�.'1C83"Ct. I, Cla,yt��cx ':.i��s, ran�.e:d the pr.��erty �.t 14�2 �nes 1�ve. from �� _ ...��, v�e ��izc,?� tha1, tt.�.r� w��n no t.ruck tx_Lffic entaring or . �q� leavir.g frot� i�'_i��;e:�t :'?ast.ic;� �:uild�n� ttirougn o�ar rer..ted �nroperty„ Also while we ��var:: :Ei.�vi.�g tr,e:ce, ttae �irivG�,�ay usea far reqider�tial purpoaes wa� lucated o:� tY�e �3st s:idN nf tt.e propert,y. Sincerely� . , • ; � _ �i. '�`�`'� �p�b' Claytan �iobs � � •. '3