The URL can be used to link to this page

98-394ORIGINAL Presented By Referred To Council File � $- y Green Sheet # � O `� � ` RESOLUT ON SAINT,F' L, MINNESOTA Committee: Date WHEREAS, Mendota Homes, in Zoning File No. 97-207, made application to the Saint Paul Plauniug Commission for a special condition use permit under the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code Section 60.413(13) and 64300(d) for the purpose of constnxcting a 10 unit cluster development on undeveloped property located on Lexington Pazkway south of St. Clair, and legally described as and; WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Plamiing Commission on October 30, 1997, and on November 13, 1997, after having provided nofice to afFected property owners, held public hearings at which all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard and submitted it recommendafion to the commission. The commission, by its Resolution No.97-78, adopted on November 21, 1997, decided to grant the applica6on based upon the following findings and conclusions: 1. The applicant has a purchase agreement for the property proposed for development. Ten dwelling units are proposed: 3 buildings of two units, 1 building of three units, and 1 building of one unit. Access to the homes and gazages is proposed to be entirely from Lexington Parkway via a private street. There is no alley access. 2. Chapter 60.413(13) of the Zoning Code permits cluster developments subject to the following conditions: � � There shall be a minimum of two (2) units. This condition is met. Ten units are planned. The units shall be attached, common wall, single family, with no unit intruding on the vertical airspace of any other unit. This condition is partially met. Nine of the units are attached, common wall, single-family, with no unit intruding on the vertical air space of any other unit. One unit is a single-family home and this condition (b) is modified for that home in finding 4, below. c. The parcel shall meet the lot area required per unit in the zoning dish-ict. This condition can be met. The lot azea, including half of the alley is 107,380.5 square feet. This allows 10,738.05 square feet per unit, exceeding the 5,000 squaze feet per unit requirement. 11 qg -39"�! z a. 3 4 5 6 7 8 e. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 f � The parcel shall have a minimum frontage of eighty (80) feet on an improved street. This condition is met. The parcel has 183.93 feet of frontage on Le�ngton pazkway. The structure shall conform to the schedule of regulations for height, lot coverage, setbacks and parking. This condifion is met. As proposed, the development meets the requirements for height, lot coverage and pazking prescribed by the zoning district. Eight visitor parldng spaces will be provided in addition to a double garage for each unit. Zoning enforcement has deternuned the front yazd to be on Lexington, and the rear yazd to be the farthest northwest corner of the pazcel. The plan appears to meet all setback requirements. The design shall be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Overall the proposed design is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood which consists of a mixture of 1, 1-1/2, and 2 story shuctures with gabled and hipped roofs. Materials used in the surrounding neighborhood include stucco, clapboazd, metal siding, and composite shingles. Windows are a mixture of double hung and fixed "picture" windows. The proposed units are 1 and 2 stories in height with intersecting gable roofs. (See drawings attached.) The applicant has not specified which units will be one or two stories, but rather proposes that decision be made with the potential buyer. Exterior material is proposed to be vinyl siding. The overall massing, while larger than the typical home in the neighborhood due to the paired unit design, is broken up by a central gabled bay. Porches and double hung windows provide other design elements similar to houses in the azea. Individual lots, buildings, sireet and parking areas shall be designed and situated to minimize alteration of the natural features and topography. The project would require some grading to provide proper drainage for the site. The grading plan also includes construction of a storm water pond near Le�ngton. However, the overall topography of the site, including the slope into the railroad corridor, would not be disturbed. Some of the existing trees in the slope azea of the site would remain. h. Applications for cluster deveZopment shall include site plans, including landscaping and elevations and other fnformation the planning commission may request. This condition is met. The applicant submitted a site plan, landscape plan, and building elevations along with a written descripfion detailing the specifics of the development. 2 q$•3�y 2 3. Section 64300(d) of the zoning code requires that before the plauning coxnxnission may 3 grant approval of a principal use subject to special conditions, the commission shall find 4 that: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 � � c. � The extent, Zocation and intensity of the use wi11 be in substantial compliance with the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan and any applicable subarea pZans which were approved by the city council. The District 16 Plan does not include any proposals relevant to flus matter. There aze no applicable small area plans for this azea. The Saint Paul Housing Policy for the 1990's recotnmends "expansion of housing opportunities for middle and higher income households where this mazket is or can be addressed in Saint Paul." The units in this proposal will be priced at $139,900 - $200,000, addressing middle income populations. The use will provide adequate ingress and egress to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. A private street will provide access to the units and a11ow emergency vehicle traffic and visitor pazking. The Fire Deparhnent has determined this access to be sufficient for emergency access. Initially the applicant proposed extending the alley through to Lexington raising concerns about traffic cutting through the alley to avoid the intersection at St. Clair and Lexington. The current proposal does not ea�tend the existing alley and does not connect the alley to the private street, eluninating the ability far traffic to cut through. The use will not be detrimental to the existing character of development in the immediate neighborhood or endanger the public health, safety and general welfare. This condition is met. The nuxnber of new dwelling units can be accommodated by exisring facilities and services provided by the city. The private street will accommodate emergency vehicles and all requirements for water, sewer and storm water have been met. The use will note impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. This condition is met. The surrounding property is fully developed. The new housing will serve as a buffer between the single family homes on St. Clair and Lexington and the raikoad - Ayd Mill Road corridor. q�-�°t�l � � The use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is Zocated. � This condition is met. 6 7 4. Section 64300( fl of the zoning code states: "The planning commission, after public 8 hearing, may modify any or all special conditions, when strict application of such speeial 9 conditions would unreasonably limit or prevent otherwise lawful use of a piece of 10 property or an e�sting structure and would result in exceptional undue hardship to the 11 owner of such property or structure; provided, that such modificafion will not impair the 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 intent and purpose of such special condifion and is consistent with health, morals and general welfaze of the community and is consistent with reasonable enjoyment of adjacent property." The building fronting on Lexington Pazkway is a stand alone single-family home that does not meet the common wall condition of (c) above and is hereby modified. Siting a single-fanuly home rather than a two-fanvly home is more in keeping with the single- family homes adjoining and to the north along Lexington Parkway. Including the single family home in the cluster development adds the hazdship of sepazate description and easements for a single-family lot. WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislarive Code § 64.206, Pat Byrne, duly filed with the City Clerk an appeal from the determination made by the plauning commission, requesting that a hearing be held before the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the said commission; and WHEREAS, acting pursuant to § 64.206 through § 64.208, and upon norice to affected parties a public heazing was duly conducted by the City Council on January�; 1998, where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and �Y WIIEREAS, the Council, hauing heazd the statements made, and having considered the application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the zoning committee and of the planning commission, does hereby; RESOLVE, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby reverse the decision of the planning commission in this matter, based on the following findings of the Council: The Council finds that the planning commission erred with respect to fmding 2( fl and 2(b) in that: (1) the proposed design is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood as the exterior design characteristics of the units aze out of character with the neighborhood; and (2) the overall design of the proposal is more like a suburban Woodbury styled development which is not in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. The Council fiu•ther finds with respect to finding 3(b) that the ingress and egress to Lexington Avenue does not minimize traffic congestion in the public street and, in fact, adds to traffic congestion; and n °1$ "3�`t � 2 BE IT FURTAER RESOLVED, that the appeal of Pat Byrne be and is hereby granted; 3 and 4 5 BE TT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolufion 6 to Pat Byrne, the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission. 7 Reguested by Department of: By: 1 \ — Approved by By: Form Appro d by City Attorney sy: � �C✓aiYY�' �� l7- �,7 Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: By: Adopted by Conncil: Date �\V\�� \�� Adoptio� Certified by Council Se r ary 1 Citv Council Offices DATE 4/2� GREEN SHEET �$-3q� No 608$1 Mike Harris, 266-8630 � �� — dUST eE ON COUNCIL AGk7JDA BY (Q4TEa AsslGx NUYBERFOR ❑tlIV�iTOR1ET tlIVGiRK ROIRING � ❑HYUICMLiFRYKFSOW. NMIKMLiERVIICCT¢ ❑wrwe(aewsm,urtl ❑ TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CL1P ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Finalizing the decision of the Saint Paul City Council in granting the appeal oE Pat Byrne for property located at Lexington Parkway and St. Clair. PLANNING COMMISSION CIB COMMITTEE CIVIL SERVICE CAMMISSION Has tnis P��n everworketl under a conhact far this dePaNnenl? VES NO Fias thie P�Nfirm ever been a citY emWuYee9 YES NO Does this P��m P�s a sltlti not �wrmallYP�� M ar�Y cuneM citY �W�'ee? YES NO !s 1Ma pe�soMfifm a fatgeted vendcYt YES NO arM atqch to areen sheet IF AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION S 'k��tti��;��5, �,?vnni:•!-d �`',��,eh�p � APR 2 4 199� COST/REVRlUE BUDf3ETED (GRCLE ONE) ACTNIN NUMBER YES NO INFORMAiION(EXPWM OFFICE OF TE� CITY ATTORNEY �� PegBir75 CiryAnomey CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Co7emme, Mayar Civi[ Division 400 City H¢!L IS West KelZogg Blvd Saint Paul, Mi�n+esota 55702 Telephone: 612 266-87Z0 Facsimile: 612 298-5619 Apri121, 1998 Nancy Anderson Council Secretary 31Q City Hall 15 West Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Appeal by Pat Byrne Zoning File No. 97-207 January 27, 1998 Dear Ms. Anderson: Attached please fmd a s3gned resolution memorializing the decision of the Saint Paul City Council in the above-entitled matter. Would you please place this matter on the Council Consent Agenda at your earliest convenience. If you haue any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, ��/�� Peter W. VJarner Assistant City Attorney PW Wfrmb Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF PLFvNYING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT crrY oF sanvr Pavz. Norm Calemarz, Mayor December 8, 1997 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: Divirion of P(mviing 25 A'estFau�th Street Saint Pau1, MNSSIO2 y8 3 y5� � '' . Telephone: 6I2-266-6565 Facsimi[e: 612-228-3374 I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Monday, December 22, 1997 for the following appeal of a Planning Commission decision approving a special condition use permit: Appellant: PAT BY12NE File Number: #97-207 Purpose: Appeal a Planning Commission decision approving a special condition use permit to allow cluster development with ten (10) dwelling units. (Applicant: Mendota Homes) Address: x� Lexington Parkway South (southwest quadreant of Lexington and St. Clair) Legal Description of Property: See Survey in File Previous Action: Planning Commission Action: Approval with conditions; vote: 16-1, November 21, 1997 Zoning Committee Recommendation: Approval with conditions; vote: 4-0, November 13, 1997 My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda for the December 1�, 1997 City Council meeting and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Please call me at 266-6580 if you have any questions. Sincere Beth Bartz City Planner cc: File #97-207 Mike Kraemer Donna Sanders — , xcfa'ics.� PoauC �aanrc The Satnt Paul �1ty Counctf wi11 mnduct a public hearing on Monday, December 22, 1997 at 4:39 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Third Floot. � City Hall-Court Hous� W consider ihe appeat of Pat Byme, to a dectsion of ihe Planning Commission approving a spectal conditlon use pernvt to allow ciuster development with ten dweliing nnits (applicant: Menddta Hoates) at ao�c Ix�dngYOn Parkway South [southwest quadrant of Lerrtc�gton and St. Clair Avenues). - � � - Daked: December 9. 1997 � . - - �� NANCYANDERSON � ' - AsSistant CYLS Coundl Setxetazy " . - - ' � e., ,. . = , �(D_ceember i I. 1997j - DEPARTMENT OF PT.ANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CTTY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Co[eman, Mayor Dec i2- Prfaq 2i, 1997 Ms. Nancy Anderson Secretary to the City Council Room 310 CiTy Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Division af PlanrrLtg 25 West Fowth Street SaintPaul, MN55102 i� Te[epharze: 6I &26Cr6565 Facsimile: 612-228-33I4 RE: Zoning File #97-207: Appellant: PAT BYRNE City Council Hearing: December 22, 1997 430 p.m. City Council Chambers PURPOSE: Appeal a planning commission decision approving a special condition use permit to allow a cluster development with ten (10) dwelling units on property located at the southwest quadrant of Lexington Pazkway South and St. Clair Ave. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS, 16-1 ZONRVG COMNIITTEE RECOn�IIV1ENDATION: APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS, 4-0 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL SUPPORT: One person spoke. Two letters received in support. OPPOSITTON: Six persons spoke. Eight letters were received in opposition. The Summit Hill Association voted to oppose the special condition use permit. Dear Ms. Anderson: PAT BI'RNE has appealed the decision of the Saint Paul Planning Commission to approve a special condition use permit to allow a cluster development with ten (10) dwelling units on properry located at the southwest quadrant of Lexington Parkway South and St. Clair Avenue. The Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission held a public hearing on the request on October 30, 1997 and November 13, 1997. The applicant addressed the committee on both occassions. At the close of the public hearing on November 13 the committee voted 4-0 to recommend approval of the permit with conditions. The Planning Commission upheld the Zoning Committee's recommendation for approval on a 16-1 vote on November 21, 1997. This appeal is scheduled to be heard by the City Counci] on December 22, 1997. Please notify me if any member of the CiTy Council wishes to have slides of the site presented at the public hearing. Sincerely, �[,�p- - wvt�, Ken Ford Planning Administrator Attachments cc: City Council members c I �'��t� APPLICATtON FOR APPEAL Department ojPlanning and Economic Development Zoning Section II00 Cit}� Hall Annex 15 West Fourth Street Sainr Paul, Mh' S5102 266-6589 APPELLANT Address �-4 3 t�/ L�.x`,�U�rv�� n�,e��J City S�r«.� �./ St.1>t Zip SS�/�SDaytime phone.,266 PROPERTY Zoning File LOCATION . , , ., C�il./> - /��.�,Ps' . �/P 57-Zp7 f , f< TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the: i� Soard of Zoning Appeals City Council under the prov'tsions of Chapter 64, Section 2�? Paragraph � of the Zoning Code, to appeai a decision made by the �L�`�J�Ji �C_ C�runi iSI� � on ! t � 2 1� 9 7 , 19� File number. j�7 — Z� � (date o decis on) GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative o�cia{, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission. /�� /l � S � z �" Attach additional sheet if ApplicanYs /f �� C �7r f� Date /02 S �'�City agent� t2��'� 2 9�-3g� Attachment to Application For Appeal Appellant Patrick Byrne 243 S. Lexington Parkway St. Paul, Minn 55105 266-6171 Property Mendota Homes, File 97-207 Location Southwest quadrant of Lexington and St. Clair Lot 19 Rueths Addition This is an appeai to the City Council of a decision made by the Planning Commission on Friday, November2lst, 1997, #97-207 Grounds for Appeal: The Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission and City Staff within PED and Public Works made errors in facts, procedures and findings in assessing the safety issues involved with traffic, parking, and storm water management. There is sufficient unrefuted public testimony to indicated different from their findings. The Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission and City Staff within PED made errors in facts, procedures and findings in assessing the compatibility of the project with the surrounding neighborhood. There is sufficient unrefuted public testimony to indicated different from their findings. The Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission and City Staff within PED and Pubiic Works made errors in facts, procedures and findings in assessing whether or not the project complied with ali provisions of granting a special use permit for a"cluster development". Signature: � Date: 1215 7 City Agent: 3 1�-�u.�z- �� 9 � city of saint paul pianning commission resolution file number 97-�$ �te November 21, 1997 _ WHEREAS, MENDOTA HOMES, file #'t 97-207, has applied for a Special Condition Use under the provisions of Section 60.413 (li) and 64300 (d) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code for the purpose of constructing a 10 unit cluster development on undeveloped property located on Lexington Parkway south of St. Clair, as legally described in the file; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission on 10l30l97 and i ll13l97 held public heazings at which all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to said application in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.300 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and WHEREAS, Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zoning Committee at the public hearing as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact: The applicant has a purchase a�reement for the property proposed for development. Ten dwelling units are proposed: 3 buildings of two units, 1 building of three units, and 1 building of one unit. Access to the homes and garages is proposed to be entirely from Lexington Parkway via a private street. There is no vehicular access from the alley to the site. 2. Chapter 60.413 (13) of the Zoning Code permits cluster developments subject to the following conditions: a. There shall be a minimum of hvo (2) units. This condition is met. Ten units aze planned. b. Tlze units shall be attnche�t, common wall, single family, with no unit iniruding on the vertica! airspace of any other unit. This condition is partially met. Nine of the units are attached, common wall, single- family, with no unit intruding on the vertical air space of any other unit. One unit is a single-family home and this condition (b) is modified for that home in finding 4, below. moved by Field seconded by in favor 16 $��# 1 (Nordin) � / f./ r � �� Zoning File #.97-207 Page Two c. TJze parcel slzall meet t/te lot area required per ur:it in tJ:e zoning rlistrict. This condition can be met. The lot azea, including half of the alley is 107,380.5 square feet. This allows 10,738.05 square feet per unit, exceedin� the 5000 square feet per unit requirement. d. T/ze parcel s/zallltave a mi�aitsutm frontage of eigl:ty (80) feet o�r an improved street. This condition is met. The parcel has 183.93 feet of frontage on Lexington Parkway. e. The structure shall confortn to the schedtde of regulatio�:s for I:ei;kt, !ot coverage, setbacks and parking. This condition is met. As proposed, the development meets the requirements for height, lot coverage and parking prescribed by the zoning district. Eight visitor parking spaces will be provided in addition to a double garage for each unit. Zonin� enforcement has determined the front yard to be on Lexington, and the rear yard to be the farthest northwest corner of the parcel. The pian appears to meet all setback requirements. f. TI:e design skall be compatible witle tlee srerrour:ding neigltborltood Overall the proposed design is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood which consists of a mixture of I, 1-1/2, and 2 story structures with gabled and hipped roofs. Materials used in the surrounding neighborhood include stucco, clapboard, metal siding, and composite shingles. Windows are a mixrizre of double hung and fixed "picture" windows. The proposed units aze 1 to 2 stories in height with intersecting gable roofs. (See drawings attached.) The applicant has not specified which units will be one or two stories, but rather proposes that decision be made with the potential buyer. Exterior material is proposed to be vinyl siding. The overall massing, while larger than the typical home in the neighborhood due to the paired unit design, is broken up by a central gabled bay. Porches and double hung windows provide other design elements similaz to houses in the area. g. Individua! lots, bui[dings, street and parking areas shall be designed and situated to minimize alteration ofthe natnrt�7features anrl topograplzy. The project would require some grading to provide proper drainage for the site. The grading plan also includes construction of a storm water pond near Lexington. However, the overall topography of the site, including the slope into the railroad corridor, wouid not be disturbed. Some of the existing trees in the slope azea of the site would remain. h. Applicafons for c[uster clevelopment shall include site plans, including Inndscaping and elevations and other informtztion t{ze planning commission may reqzcest. This condition is met. The applicant submitted a site plan, landscape plan, and building elevations along with a written description detailing the specifics of the development. � 98-39� Zoning File #�97-207 Pa�e Three 3. Section 64300 (d) of the zoning code requires that before the planning commission may grant approval of a principal use subject to special conditions, the commission shall find that: a. Tlze extetzt, Zocatiorz atttl intetzsity of tF:e use tvi11 be in substaritial compliarxce witk the Saint Pau! Comprelzensive Plan and any applicable si[barea plans w{zicJz were approved by t/te city cot�ncil. The District 16 Plan does not include any proposals relevant to this matter. There are no applicable small area plans for this area. The Saint Paul Housing Policy for the 1990s recommends "expansion of housing opportunities for middle and higher income households where this market is or can be addressed in Saint Paul." The units in this proposal will be priced at $139,400 - $200,000, addressing middle income populations. b. Tlte use wilt provide adequate ingress and egress to minimize traffic congestion in the pttblic streets. A private street will provide access to the units and allow emergency vehicle traffic and visitor parking. The Fire Department has determined this access to be sufficient for emergency access. Initially the applicant proposed extending the alley through to Lexington raising concerns about traffic cuttin� through the alley to avoid the intersection at St. Clair and Lexington. The current proposal does not extend the existing alley and does not connect the alley to the private street, eliminating the ability for traffic to cut through. c. The use wi![ not be detrimental to t/te existing cJiaracter of development in the immediafe neighbor/:ood or endanger t1:e public healt/i, safety and genera[ wetfare. This condition is met. The number of new dwelling units can be accommodated by existing facilities and services provided by the city. The private street will accominodate emergency vehicles and all requirements for water, sewer and storm water have been met. d Tlze use will not impede the norn:al an�l orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district This condition is met. The surrounding property is fuliy developed. The new housing will serve as a buffer between the single family homes on St. Clair and Lexinb on and the railroad - Ayd Mill Road corridor. e. The use shall, in all otJzer respects, conform to t1:e applicab[e regulatians of t)te district in which it is located This condition is met. � 98�39y Zoning File �97-207 Page Four (4) Section 64300 (t� of the zoning code states: "The plannin� commission, after public hearing, may modify any or all special conditions, when strict application of such special conditions would unreasonably limit or prevent otherwise lawful use of a piece of property or an existing structure and would result in exceptional undue hardship to the owner of such proper[y or structure; provided, that such modification will not impair the intent and purpose of such special condition and is consistent with health, morals and general �n�elfare of the community and is consistent with reasonable enjoyment of adjacent properiy °' The building fronting on Lexington Parkway is a stand alone single-family home that does not meet the common wall condition of (2) c, above, and is hereby modified. Siting a single- family home rather than a two-family home is more in keeping with the singie-family homes adjoining and to the north along Lexington Parkway. Including the single family home in the cluster development avoids the hardship of separate description and easements for a singie-family lot. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commission, that under the authoriTy of the City's Legislative Code, the application for a Special Condition Use to allow a 10 unit cluster development on the undeveloped pzoperty located on Lexington Parkway south of St. Clair is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the cluster development be constructed in conformance with the plan dated 11/13/97, a part of the file; 2. That there be provided a physical barrier to prevent vehiculaz access from the alley to the site, as determined by site plan review staff; 3. That the area between the alley and the cluster development be landscaped to buffer nearby residences, as determined by site plan review staff; 4. That the applicant grant an easement of sufficient size that allows emergency and service vehicles to cross the corner where the rivo aileys meet; 5. That a no left turn sign be posted by the applicant, prohibiting left turns onto Lexington Park�vay northbound. 7 �, ��.� 98 -39`/ '� \ � �. ��.,� �-.,., ., -.�; .. , �. ��, I, �; , y � �.� `.. .. �� C -��,_-. - ;,;' � ,. '� '� � �. � ; � �, �. ' �` �� ' '• �`___ . .,. ,- .�t �� . °� , '� � \ �'tr,t i z � K , t � . , `�. � <"- :t �"'' ._.. k t, 'u,' �n ;..... v...�' % .�� Z;:•,�'� . s :. ,�%; �. �; �, �� ,,. � �` ;�<�{ _ _ , ; , :.' � � � _. ��. �_ •., _ �-- � j � ': r+ , ' � � /" t / -� s�\ '_ I � �1 '_ =' �`-� � f3 � f :} _ � .., ° . '- .,_ � _ ' , t � J � ,.; �, .,� " `�\. ^ • �` .,, '` 1 ��, i i � � `� \ �i'� ` � ...� = ` .^ - ' � \�„ : "� _ >_ �� .` � . � �,� :F� ,s ;: '�-: � `Z �/ 1� .., �� { � �•. � /^ ;�' e • • � ; � :� • i. 1' . 1 ��`l�� / l ' r � �l . � � -___ � ^-- ' t � � . •; � . �.., � , � � '� �� 9` �� ( � ` �:; 1 \ \ ; � / '� ` �� %' i %�' r�:. i, �. ; � �� i � ��;., ' ti ; ' ! :� f r � fii `r ,�• � � (/�� • � � ' � ) L j `i. ��) � \ � ' / �"C..: L" ��7, i �✓ /.�.. � � ' .� '' �\� '�CS �' -�: ,i 5 � c..; �� i _ '"_ � kti � / � S:-� / � : �„ � i � r �:�y � ,,,a•:. �\ \ 1�' , �.�! R' �•,'�. • tt '` ��' �..�^ �� j ( / .�.. + � _ ` �^�' , �Y . ' i � ` ��i ,} \ . �:/`t!� f = r 1 � % : �. / . � ' `' �' J� � � , JJ 1 / ! �' ..""t i,.Z,.! :t\TP� �� ' I'`�.1"'.3�'. j� �. J � t ' % i o � ` � „ t � \ , / � � ..a ,, �i., � � � � � :C: � � � ^ '�' t .` :, � � % i ,�� V il ; �ll ` ` ; i >, � � �� '� '�_`. ' k \ �r' f 3 �. � r�/ �. }� / �Z C; �\ � ��:I�� r �.Q7 `L t N � �i !� i� ` � / F� ys �� . , .; ,.. .. l.Y' ? �• �• � � i • t � ' Ri,�4:. � 1� L,_�� ' � . �. \ ��t I � � •� �r,�'��i� . �.. . 9 -^- ,� ,:�, , � 1 �� ' �� ;,r ` 1 :',� i ., 1� � , � ..�.. , �/�<, \ � r ``• 'i` ` i ,'' � � [4 �� , '�''\• Y ` L \ �+ / 7 � �� '��•\ eh�'Z1J �` ,. , 1 �� Y Up'.V.� .` ��\ ` r..,�`�•ti� f� ' .-' i \� • . .,Sy ��` �.t l �'.� :, i� ''�.�, `� ��J { �'� � � .� � ' i ( \`� � �• •`5'=' �,\', r �, � ..,� � ` / t � [ r / 7r f � �� F ��, �, . �,� ` � � �'� '. :z ` `i.. �'r. i 4. .� ��' � �.. ,� .,� �; / , � ti � r � �k �' '��`'- �f {� � � a �. �� `�°�` � •� ` { �`. !' yFy , `� � �� } /� �q"" C �,'� ' ?� . I ''• ! '�. i:{ ' ,,\ aii a` i :('j x � `� � t;! '�'. a r� �r� �' 70 � 6 � �.;�.;$ �� . r . ._�'�t �:\ ' ; '-� `f ` o �,.. ,� ,; 1 j i . - � � �. •i\ r i j � / : V� C� �� ..�n.A �. � � i � � � `: !n� n / i� � , G ..� � � �� n�.'« �l / ! ZO'd 06£L-'b8L (2I9) uos�aN .,�atiob d8t=Z0 L6-2i-^°N V � �c�t � g�'"� Saint Paul Plannina Commission City Hall Conference Center 15 Kellogg Boulevard West A meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, November 21, 1997, at 830 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall. Commissioners Mmes. Duarte, Engh, Faricy, Geisser, Nordin, Treichel, and Wenct, and Messrs. Present: Chavez,. Field Jr., Gordon, Kong, Kramer, Mazdell, Nowlin, Sharpe, Vaught and Wilson Commissioners Ms. *Maddox and Messrs. *Johnson and *McDonell Absent: *Excused Also Present: Ken Ford, Planning Administrator; Jean Birkholz, Beth Bartz, Kady Dadlez, Nancy Frick, Tom Harren, Nancy Homans, Patricia James, Roger Ryan, and Lucy Thompson, Department of Planning and Economic Development staff. T. Approval of Minutes of November 7, 1997 MOTION: Commissioner Field moved fo approve the minutes of November 7, 1997; Commissioner Gordon seconded the moiion which carried unanimously on a voice vote. II. Chair's Announcements First Vice Chair Goxdon officiated the meeting in Chair McDonell's absence. First Vice Chair Gordon announced that Commissioner Maddox' mother passed away; her funeral was yesterday. III. Planning Administrator's Announcements Mr. Ford announced that on Wednesday, November 19, the City Council passed a resolution requesting that the Planning Commission advise the City Council within 120 days of its intentions with respect to updating the Fire and Medical Emergency Services Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff will be working on recommendations to bring to the Commission. N. Zoning Committee #97-207 Mendota Homes - Special condition use permit to allow a 10-unit cluster development at the southwest quadrant of Lexina on and St. Clair. Beth Bartz, Southwest Team. MOTION: Commissioner Field moved approval of the requested special condition use permit to allow a 1 D-unit cluster development at the southwest quadrant of Lerington and St Clair subjeet to conditions: � I. ThaL the cluster development be constructed in conformance with ihe plan dafed II/13/97, a part of the ftle; 2. That ikere be provided a plrysical barrier to prevent vehicutar access from the atley to the site, ar determined by tlte site plan review staff,• 3. That the area between the alley and the cluster development be landreaped to buffer nearby residences, as determined by the site plan review staff,• 4. That the applicant grant an easement of sufficient size that allows emergency and service ve/:icles to eross tlze corner where the two aZleys meet; 5. That a no left turn sign to posted by the applicant, prolzibiting left turns onto Lexington Parkway northbourxd. Commissioner Field informed the Commission that the Zoning and Land Use Committee of the Summit Hill Association and the District 16 Planning Council recommended denial of this request, but it was based on an eazlier proposal than the one viewed last Thursday. There was numerous testimony in opposition to the project presented at the Zoning Committee meeting. The developer and the neighborhood met several times to try to compromise. Commissioner Nordin asked to hear more about the discussion that took place at the Zoning Committee meeting. She said that she feels this is a good use of land and would like to vote in favor of it, but the amount of pavement on the site disturbs her as well as no use of the alley which would eliminate three driveways and a few turn arounds. Commissioner Vaught noted that he had the same concerns as well as a safety concem going into the Zoning Committee meeting. He assured Commissioners that what they see before them represents a compromise after listening to all of the various positions. Even though this plan is not particularly perfect, the Committee felt that it could get the job done. First Vice Chair Gordon asked if the Department of Public Works took a position on this plan? Commissioner Vaught replied that they spoke about the issues, but were not particularly helpful. Commissioner Nordin stated that she could not vote in favor of this case. She believes that the Commission should stand their ground more firmly. Although she said she thinks iYs a wonderful use of land, no alley access is not a good use. Commissioner Field said that he also sits on the Housing Task Force with Commissioner Nordin and he understands her concems and support of the project. However, he feels that this issue is one that may have to be dealt with more often in the future. In filling up the City's green space with housing, there's a need to be sensitive to the surrounding neighbors, and compromises will have to be made. Commissioner Nordin commented that this neighborhood knew that it was always a possibility that this open land would be developed. This plan is inconsistent with any existing planning within the City. She feels that this is not a legitimate compromise to be made for housing. Commissioner Vaught noted that at the Zoning Committee meeting, Susan Kimberly made the I� �18-�9N comment that in looking to try to meet the needs for new housing in this City, compromises will have to be made. Commissioner Nordin stated that she understands why the road and the cul-de-sac are there because taking tfiat out would tum the alley into a street. She said she is having a hard time accepting is the four driveways off of it that add all the pavement and all the little turn arounds you need to get back to that driveway. She stated that those four driveways can be eliminated with just the alley access; that would leave green space between the houses. Commissioner Field repeated that the result here is a compromise that is trying to accommodate all of the conflicting interests of the parties. The motion on the floor to approve fhe reques[ed special condition use permit to allow a IO- unit cluster development at the southwest quadrant ofLe.rington and St. Clair carried on a vote of I6 to I(Nordi�r). #97-258 US West Communications - Special condition use permit to allow a 90' cellular telephone antenna at 426 Fairview Avenue North. Nancy Homans, Northwest Team. MOTION: Commissioner Field moved approval of the requested special condition use persnit to allow a 90' cellular telephone anlenna at 426 Fairview Avenue Nortl:. Commissioner Field noted that the Merriam Park Community Council voted to not support the special condition use permit. Commissioner Field referred to a memo dated November 20, 1997, which states that the switching gear will be housed in structures near the antenna. This makes it a different situation than we the Zoning Committee understood at the time of the vote. It is not viewed as germane to the actual height of the antenna itself. In addition, there were documents provided in connection with the pole itself that showed certain landscaping around the antenna and other structures related to this. There was some concern expressed as to whether that landscaping would be there in view of the change. MOTION: Commissdoner Yaught moved to amend the original motion to include a site plan review; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Wencl which carried unanimously on a voice vote. The amended motion on the floor to approve the requested special condition use permit to allow a 90' cellular telephone antenna af 426 Fairview Avenue North carried unanimously on a voice vote. #97-259 US West Communications - Specia] condition use permit to altow a 90' cellular telephone antenna at 1669 Arcade Street. Patricia James, Northeast Team. MOTION: Commissioner Fie1d moved approval of the requested special condition use permit fo allow a 90' celiula� telephone anienna ai I669 Arcade Street, subject to appropriate screening approved by site plan review staff, carried unanimously on a voice vote. �� 98-3q y MINUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE CITY COUNCTI, CHAMBERS, SAZNT PAUL, MINNESOTA OI3 NOVEMBER 13, 1997 PRESENT: Mmes. Faricy and Wencl; Messrs. Field, Kramer and Vaught of the Zoning Committee; Mr. Warner, Assistant City Attorney; Mmes. Bartz, Frick, Homans, James and Sanders and Mr. Ryan of PED. ASSENT: Chavez Gordon, excused Time: 4:20 - 5:45 p.m. The meeting was chaired by Litton Field, Chairperson. MENDOTA HOMES• southwest quadrant of Lexington and St C1aiY• #97-207• Snecial Condition Use Permit: To allow a 10 unit cluster development. Beth Bartz, PED, Southwest Quadrant, reviewed that this matter was heard on Oc[ober 30 and laid over for two weeks to this meeting to allow a Department of Public Works representative to attend this meeting to respond to concerns. Tom Kuhfeld from Public Works was present at the meeting to respond to questions. Ms. Bartz reported that the applicant and representatives of the neighborhood aonvened and discussed the proposal during the interim. The neighborhood presented the applicant with two options: A� To have the units exclusively use the private drive and not be accessed via the alley; or B) If the units were to be accessed from the alley, that the applicant agree to improve and maintain the alley in perpetuity. There were also additional conditions which were outlined in the November 13 letter from David Schultz who represented the neighbors, as well as correspondence and a revised site plan from the applicant. The revised site plan is not the applicant's preferred site plan, however they will do it if they need to. These items were distributed at the meeting and are included in the case file. Commissioner Vaught asked for confirmation that the Mathern reaction to Options A& B was the proposal which includes on the western most part of the site, a 3-unit building as opposed to a 2-unit building, and includes a single unit building on the Lexington end of the site and still includes 10 units. Ms. Bartz responded that was the Mathern response to one of the neighbors' requests that there only be a single unit on Lexington Avenue, as opposed to�a duplex. The neighborhood was requesting then, that the total number of units included in the development be reduced to 9 units, and Ms. Bartz reported the Matherns' wish to keep the number of units at 10, and to accommodate that a third unit was added to one of the buildings on the site. Ms. Bartz noted that staff has had some concern with the proposed site plan about the additional driveways and how the revised site plan cuts up the siCe. Tom Beach, LIEP, site plan review, has reviewed the site and feels there is an alternative to access to the site that would access all of the units off of Lexington Parkway, but would e3iminate some of the need for a driveway. Ms. Bartz distributed a copy o£ these comments. !Z q8-395� Tom Kuhfeld, Department of Public Works, was available to respond to questions. Commissioner Vaught reviewed concern with a proposal that provides ingress and egress primary to all or some o£ the units, onto Lexington, has to do with the topography of Lexington from St. Clair to Ayd Mill Road. He noted speed of traffic in this location, and said that although there is a signal intersection on St. C1air that as you cross St. C1air you can't see the ingress/egress point. Noting concern over the amount o£ tra£Eic on Lexington and the safety concerns of an additional access road, he asked Mr. Kuhfeld to elaborate on the thinking of Public works as it related to the. possibility of using alleys, which he noted is not unprecedented in the city. Mr. Kuhfeld, Department of Public Works, noted that he had discussed this matter with the trafEic engineer and recognized the valid concerns. However, he noted that the situation is not that different from many other similar situations in Saint Paul, i.e. driveways and unsignalled streets, e.g., Maryland Avenue. Mr. Kuhfeld reviwed that the Lexington Street frontage is the only street frontage that the proposed property has, and said that until and unless the City were to purchase the right-of-access that the applicant could not be denied that access. Further, it was his position that where a property has both alley and street frontage that they ought to have access to both. Commissioner Vaught noted that access to Lexington initially was not what the applicants were seeking, but that their first choice was to primarily use the alley for access, but were told by Public Works staff that was not possible. FIe asked iE the proposed site were looked at as two parcels, it being subdivided, with the front parcel including just the £rontage on Lexington Pkwy., the back parcel wouldn't have any right or access to Lexington Pkwy. Vaught contended that other than the fact that the alley doesn't have a name and does not allow for address numbers off of the alley, he asked what rationale the Department has beyond that the department has for not having the primary access to the proposed site being the alley, as opposed to Lexington. Mr. Kuhfeld responded that their primary responsibility is to fulfill the Legislative Code that is given to them through ordinances of the City Council, and he noted that one such ordinance requires an improved street, sewer and water, or a house number is not issued. He said that a waiver may be granted to those conditions, with the order of importance being: 1) the sanitary sewer, 2) water and 3) street frontage. It was noted that the first two are in place, and Kuhfeld said that the private road gives them something which is comparable to street frontage and addresses would be given off of Lexington. He said that in putting in the private road, they would be doing something allowed in other areas and does not place an added burden on the City for maintenance, i.e. plowing. Commissioner Vaught asked that if the point of ingress/egress to the property was not on Lexington Parkway, that the safety concerns that he raised above would not be an issue. Mr. Kuhfeld responded that those concerns would be eliminated, however it would affect the safety concerns in the alley and direct its access to St. Clair. 2 !J 98-3 / y Commissioner Vaught reviewed that exceptions do exist to the general rule o£ not having an address off o£ an unimproved street or an alley to indicate that - this situation is not unique. He asked what tests Public works uses in order to a11ow such an exception, and name the alley and assign street numbers to it. Mr. Kuh£eld responded that the alley is not a platted street. He said he believed the City could turn the proposed alley into aa of£icial street with all o£ the rights and responsibilities, however he said that would be a different matter than what is before the committee, and would require a process o£ its own. Commissioner vaught established from Mr. Kuhfeld that he was aware of places where egress and ingress was off of an a11ey. John Mathern, Mendota Homes, the applicant, spoke. Mr. Mathern reviewed that since the October 30 meeting that time has been spent reviewing the site plan and a meeting was held with the neighborhood. He reviewed that the neighborhood presented them with Options A& B. He noted that concerns raised at the meeting which the applicant tried to address, were that two units would be built on Lexington Pkwy. next to a single-family one-level house, with their primary concern thaC the proposal be reduced to one unit. Mr. Mathern agreed that if he could do that by revising their plan that he would. Secondly, there was concern of the alley, and that if the alley were improved that Mendota Homes would plow and maintain the alley. Mr. Mathern said that on behalf of Mendota Homes and the townhouse association that he could not obligate the association to maintaining the entire alley and plowing the entire alley with no cost to the neighborhood in perpetuity. Mendota Homes did agree a£ter meeting with the neighborhood that they would put a proposal together to see if the goals that they wished to accomplish could be achieved. This being reducing the density on Lexingtan by allowing only one unit to be built on Lexington; and could all ingress/egress be on Lexington and not share the alley with the neighborhood at all. Mr. Mathern reviewed that a proposal was put together quickly and given to the neighborhood, and after having had a chance to review it themselves, Mendota Homes has decided that it is not a proposal that Mendota would be in favor of because of the amount of asphalt in both the cul-de-sac and the private driveways necessary. A copy of this site plan was distributed. Mr. Mathern reviewed that their preferred plan is the plan reviewed on October 30, with part of the traffic load onto the alley; part onto Lexington; and the bringing of the cul-de-sac off of Lexington. He reviewed that they received an additional alternative from Mr. Beach, LIEP, which shows coming in with their road off of Lexington and then paralleling the alley with their own private road. Their concerns with proposal were that the private road would be right next to the public alley and the difficulty in keeping maintenance separate. Mendota Homes could not support that proposal. Mr. Mathern asked £or the committee to support the plan with 10 units, with half of the traffic on Lexington and half the traffic on the alley. If committee support of their preferred plan wasn't possible, Mendota Homes had their engineer take Che plan that had all of the traffic on Lexington and revise that to something with less parking and asphalt on it. This revision 3 � 98 �39 y was circulated at the meeting. Mr. Mathern said that as a compromise they would accept this proposal which loads all of the traf£ic onto Lexington, does not share the a11ey with the neighbors, and also has one unit on Lexington and keeps the proposal at 10 units. Mr. Mathern briefly reviewed the alternative site plan proposal. There was some discussion regarding other possible scenarios to configuration which were ruled out as infeasible. Commissioner Vaught said he would be hesitant to cut off access to residences that back onto an alley, to that alley, as he didn�t see the sense, £airness or equity in it. The problem he saw was to go so far as to establish the primary or only access to those properties to be off of the alley, but given the alternative proposal by Mendota Homes, he could accept that. Commissioner Faricy said she felt that units 8, 9 and 10 as laid ou[ in the preferred alternative was too congested and asked whether Mr. Mathern would consider reducing the number of townhouses to 9 units. Mr. Mathern responded that they are firm with the number 10, and noted that their original proposal called for 14 or 15 units, and this represents a compromise on density. He said it is the only 3-unit on site and said that with respect to townhouses it is rather low in density as most townhouses go 4-6 units attached. Commissioner Vaught said he believed the trade-off, that being one unit on Lexington and the 3-Unit discussed above, was a superior plan, given the relationship to the existing home on Lexington. Mr. Mathern noted that by putting only one unit on Lexington it will likely enable them to widen the roadway at its entrance/exit point. Commissioner Vaught expressed concern that left turns both on to Lexington and off of Lexington into the development, materially increases the safety hazard that exists there, and asked if the applicant would be agreeable to prohibiting that. Mr. Mathern responded that if restrictions were to be made that he would prefer that they be limited to certain hours of the day of heavy traffic. Pat Byrne, 243 S. Lexington Pkwy., reviewed his prepared comments, a copy of which are in the case file. Mr. Byrne addressed the most recent proposal with Che one unit on Lexington Pkwy. He expressed concern that given the change in the proposal at this meeting, that the community council and those present with comments at the last meeting were being bypassed in the decisionmaking as they have not seen the latest information. Chair Field responded that Peter Warner, Assistant Attorney, advised that it may be left to the discretion of the committee revisited on those issues, and that notice was given. He said that frequently there are cases that during tke course of discussion compromises may be reached. Commissioner Vaught noted that upon layover at the October 30 meeting that it was never the intent to go back to the Summit Hill Association, but suggestion was made, and the opportunity provided to those most immediately a£fected to take part in the process, and he said he suspected that those who could participate were able to do that. 4 �s 98-3Sy Mr. Byrne asked £or the staff position on the pre£erred proposal of the applicant. Ms. Bartz responded that there is no staft response to the new proposal. She indicated that one piece o£ the preferred proposal is not in compliance with the SCUP, with that being the single unit on Lexington. I£ the preferred proposal were considered for approval by the committee an added condition would be necessary that that single unit on Lexington be split off from the rest of the development, as a single, unattached unit is not allowed as part of a cluster development, and there£ore any revised platting there would need to be reviewed to ensure that there is an 80 foot frontage maintained on Lexington Avenue for the rest o£ the development. Commissioner Vaught asked whether the zoning code allows the committee to vary that requirement. Mr. Warner responded that Eor the purposes of the SCUP application that variances can also be taken into consideration. He noted that section 64.300 subd. f(27 of the Legislative Code, indicates tkat the planning commission may act as the board of zoning appeals and grant variances for any regulations of the code related to permits or site plan approval; which gives them the authority. Chair Field said that putting that issue aside, and having seen the applicant's revised proposed plan, whether staff noted any consistencies with the original staff report that would be impacted by the revision. Ms. Bartz said that the original stafE report conclusions stand, and that Public Works stafE has provided input noting that it is not substantively different enough to affect the sta£f recommendation. Mr. Byrne spoke to finding 2(f), compatibility to the surrounding neighborhood, and disagreed with staff and found the revised proposal to be incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. He also spoke to the issue ingress and egress and reviewed that staff has not been able to find that these are safe conditions and finds the access to Lexington to be unsafe. Byrne opposed the revised proposal and requested Che committee deny the request until the neighborhood had an opportunity to review the latest proposal. Commissioner Vaught ascertained £rom Mr. Byrne that given a choice oE two versus one units located on Lexington, that he preferred one unit on Lexington. oP Mr. David Schultz, 1120 St. Clair Avenue, spoke in opposition. Mr. Schultz reviewed that the neighborhood did attempt to arrive at a compromise and came up with two options, Options A and S. Ae reviewed that a neighborhood meeting did take place with the developer and that they did work out what appeared to be a compromise, however uneasy, as it wasn't acceptable to a11. Aowever, Mr. Mathern was to later inform them that he couldn't agree to it. Mr. Schultz said the "preferred alternative" was new to him and he addressed it. Mr. Schultz' concerns were addressed in his November 13 letter that was distributed, which he reviewed, and a copy of which is in the case file. Concerns included a desire for a good bufEer of trees between the development and the alley. Concern remains that there be sufficient alley easement for emergency vehicles and for neighborhood parking. Mr. Schultz noted that the neighbors who did agree to the compromise liked the proposal of where the triplex was located on the proposal that was presented to them, and liked the 5 �� q8-39 y� idea that it be located further away from other residential structures. One of the neighbors asked that it be written into the association bylaws that residents and visitors to Lexington Commons wouldn't use the alley. In looking at the current proposal, Mr. Schultz said he could not speak £or the neighbors due to the changes. He expressed concern that the preferred proposal pushes the triplex closer to the existing homes on the St. Clair side. He noted that the concerns addressed towards the proposal they considered over the weekend, the adequate buffer, questions about easements Eor safety vehicles, etc, still pertain. Mr. Schultz agreed with the single unit on Lexington and found it to be an improvement. Mr. Schultz spoke of concern on where the triplex units would be located. Ae said that when the neighUors compromised that they originally wanted to go for four double units and a single unit on Lexington. He asked that the triplex be reduced Co a duplex and the overall units be reduced to nine units. Commissioner Vaught asked Mr. Schultz to elaborate on the point made by Mr. Schultz about easements for safety vehicles. Mr. Schultz said that there are two concerns that the neighborhood had discussed that were agreed upon by the developer and he said he wished to make sure were konored: 1) he noted the entrance to the alley and proceeding to where a right hand turn is made to the east/west portion of the alley Chat goes on Co St. Clair, that it is a very narrow alley, and the concern is to make sure that there is enough room, which means to cut into the developer's property a bit for an easement to allow adequate space for service trucks to get through; and 2) That there be enough space on the alley to accommodate reasonable parking by residents was also an issue addressed by the neighborhood that he said Mr. Mathern appeared sympathetic to. Commissioner Vaught asked what Mr. Schultz was looking for in terms of what they don't have currently, in terms of parking in the alley. Mr. Schultz said the primary issue is the easement for service vehicles. The secondary issue is that currently some residents do park in parts of the alley because of the types of garages they have, and the developer seemed to indicate a willingness to accommodate some kind of room on his property to address both issues. He noted that residents have concern that the development would make it difficult for residents to park where Chey have been parking in the back, and that they would be forced to go out onto the street, and is an attempt to address what they see as a safety issue. Commissioner VaughC asked what Mr. Schultz suggested with respect to bu£fering. Mr. Schultz said that the neighborhood discussion originally proposed it as a privacy fence. Upon speaking with the developer, it was his estimation that it would be approximately $20,000 to do, however he did agree at that time to do a good buffer in terms of a tree landscape buffer to separate the project from the alley. Commissioner Vaught received agreement from Mr. Schultz that he would prefer to see one unit on Lexington instead of two. 6 l� 98 9N Chair Field requested that Mr. Schultz elaborate on the nature of his complaints regarding the administrative due process issues he alleged at the end o£ his letter. Mr. Schultz reviewed his concerns related to two issues: 1) He reviewed that Tim Sullivan had submitted information for public record which included a letter and attachments, and he understood that only the letter and not the attachments, were forwarded to the zoning committee for its review; and 2) He noted concern that Commissioner Vaught at the October 30 meeting engaged in what he thought was an ex parte discussion with city staff on some material. He said that as the zoning committee is a formal adjudicative administrative hearing that the in£ormation is supposed to be on the record, with decisions based upon it. Commissioner Vaught responded that he is not prohibited from making ex parte comments. He further commented that Mr. Schultz had attempted to draw him into ex parte comments after that October 30 discussion and that he refused to be engaged. Mr. Schultz responded that he had approached Commissioner Vaught only to inquire as to whether or not public testimony would be accepted at this meeting. Keith Curtner, 259 So. Lexington Parkway, spoke in opposition. He expressed concern over traffic filtering off of St. Clair through the development and out onto Lexington. He said that it appears that the preferred proposal has parking or driveway pads in significantly short proximity to the alleyways that would allow that to happen relatively easily, and asked that be considered in the committee's recommendations. Mr. Mathern, Mendota Homes, the applicant, spoke in rebuttle. Mr. Mathern said that in the meeting held with the neighborhood they did agree that tkey would allow a widening beyond the extent o£ the a11ey at the corner because that is where the trucks make the turn and it is difficult. He said that this could be worked out with staff as to rededicating and widening the alley. Ae said that they do not agree to provide any parking spaces at that location for the neighborhood. He noted that the location of the triplex, he believes, is a matter of preference and that Mendota Homes prefers it as shown in the preferred proposal. He said that a landscape plan wi11 be provided to the City which will include trees and shrubs on the site. Commissioner Vaught asked for clarification as to what is intended with the widening o£ the alley, deeding the property or providing an easement. Mr. Mathern noted it is just giving the neighborhood the ability to make the turn. The public hearing was closed. 7 �V 9�- �iy Commissioner Vaught moved approval of the special coadition use permit with the £ollowing conditions: 1) That it be conditioned upon the specific plan that was presented at this meeting which includes the triplex and it includes less asphalt then the preceding proposal that included the triplex; 2) That there be no vehicular access from the alley to the site itsel£; (the intent is that there actually be physical barriers) 3) That there be a suitable landscaping plan £os the area between the existing asphalt and the alley; 4j That there be some speci£ic resolution o£ the issue o£ the passage o£ safety vehicles and/or other service vehicles acrosa the corner of the alley; 5) There be required to be posted by the applicant (if appropriate) at egress £rom the property, a prohibition on left turns onto Lexington northbound; and 6) That the requirements be varied in line with the code provisions sited earlier by Mr. Warner, to allow the single unit on Lexington as a parC of this development without requiring that it be broken off as a second development. Commissioner Kramer seconded the motion. The motion carried on a unanimous voice vote of 4 to �. Commissioner Wencl was not present for the vote. Commissioner Vaught noted that he believed that Susan Kimberly's testimony at the October 30 meeting was valuable. He noted that i£ the proposed property hadn't been an unusual piece of land that it would have been built on a long time ago. Vaught said he had some difficulty retricting alley access to property that's across the alley and has alley access, but was willing Co do so if the developer was agreeable to it. He reiterated his concern over the traffic on Lexington. He said he preferred this as to the proposal presented earlier to the neighborhood, and liked the fact that there is less asphalt and he finds units 6 and 7 to be closer to the houses on St. Clair then 8, 9 and 10 are in either proposal. He noted that he believes one unit on Lexington is appropriate. 8 /9 9�-3s� Commissioner Vaught, after a recess, revisited the complaint by Mr. Schultz. He said he believed his behavior to be inappropriately characterized as ex parte. He said that the allegation that the committee is sitting in some manor o£ quasi-judicial capacity is incorrect, and said it is an administrative hearing, which is a recommendation to the planning commission which either makes the decision in terms of SCUPS or advises the city council in the case of rezonings. He reviewed that those decisions that are made finally by the planning commission are subject to appeal to the city council and that it is at that point that the city council sits in a quasi-judicial capacity. Ae said that a conversation that he has with a staff person is never an ex parte contact and he said it was inappropriately categorized as such, and even if it were it is not prohibited and the only prohibition that he's aware of in the legislative code dealing with ex parte contacts is that which prohibits a member of the city council sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity reviewing an appeal oE a decision of the planning commission from having contact with the parties. Drafted by: ' /Mln�� 0�'� � � Donna Sanders Recording Secretary Sub ' ted b. Approved by: �� Beth Bartz ' on Fi d Southwest Quadrant Chairpe son 0 � 98-ag`f MINUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA ON OCTOSER 30, 1997 PRESENT: Mme. Wencl; Messrs_ Chavez, Field, Gordon, Kramer and Vaught of the Zoning Committee; Mr. Warner, Assistant City Attorney; Mmes. Bartz, Homans, James and Sanders and Mr. Ryan o£ PED. ARSENT- Fa, excused Time: 3:37 - 6:20 p.m. _ The meeting was chaired by Litton Field, Chairperson. MENDOTA HOMES• xxx Lexinaton Pkwv S(southwest auadrant of Lexinaton and St Clair: #97-207; Special Condition Use Permit. To allow a 10 unit cluster development. Beth Bartz, PED, Southwest Quadrant, reviewed the staff report and presented slides. Staf£ recommended approval of the special condition use permit based on findings 1 through 3 of the staff report. Tom Beach, LIEP, site plan review staff, was present to respond�to questions. The Zoning and Land Use Committee of the Summit Hill Association/District 16 Planning Council recommended denial of the request for a special condition use permit to allow a 10 unit cluster development. A letter stating their position was distributed. Seven letters of opposition were received, plus one letter signed by numerous residents of the community in opposition. Reference was made to a letter of opposition received from Mr. Sullivan by Commissioner Vaught, and there was agreement by staff and by the commiCtee's legal counsel that its contents regarding the applicant's previous history related to bankruptcy and the like was not relevant to the discussion. Commissioner Gordon spoke to the width of the alley and asked staff's opinion with respect to whether the alley would be wide enough to accommodate two cars at the same time. Mr. Beach responded that presently there is an unpaved alley and noted that it is quite narrow in a few locations. Ae said that the platted right-of-way is 20 feet, with the narrowest point when approaching St. Clair there being a fence on one side and a power pole and trees on the other side, and he noted that the paved area currently is only about 10-12 feet. Public Works, A11eys staff, reviewed these measurements, and it was deCermined that with some modification and paving of the alley it would be possible to get a 15-16 foot paved strip through the location, where a 16 foot paved alley is standard and it is not uncommon to have a power pole sticking out a foot into that area. That would be wide enough for two cars in the summer, and in the winter months it might just have a single track through there. The applicant has agreed to pave the a11ey. Commissioner Gordon asked whether staff has reviewed the concerns addressed by the Canadian Pacific Railway in their letter of opposition dated, August 27, 1997. Ms. Bartz responded that those concerns have been reviewed. In regards �� / � 7 � to the noise barriers that they are requesting the City does not require that of any developments along railroad corridors. What the railroad is suggesting in terms of a berm and a fence, has been reviewed by Mr. Beach and found them to be inappropriate for the site. Regarding the noise vibrations, this is something that is also not typically required during City review. If the committee would choose to do so, staff from LZEP sta£E could examine that further. Commissioner Gordon asked whether the committee would have the authority to deal with the various issues addressed by the railroad, i.e. noise, vibration and insulation from the vibration, and warnings to prospective purchasers about the associated problems. Ms. Bartz responded that staff has reviewed the letter from the railroad as protection for the railroad that in the case they either choose to increase their use of the railroad track that they would have issued some public statement that potential buyers and the developer should have been forewarned. Commissioner Gordon asked whether any meetings have been held with Mr. Mathern, the developer, and the citizens in the area with concerns to attempt to reconcile the issues. Ms. Bartz responded that Mr. Mathern has met with the Zoning Committee of District 16 on three occasions and has o£fered to meet with a groups of residents of the immediate area which was declined by those neighbors. Peter warner, Assistant City Attorney, responded to the question £rom Commissioner Gordon whether the committee had the authority to deal with any or all of the issues set forth in the letter from the railroad as stated above. He said that the committee did not have the authority, and noted that in reviewing the specific requirements set £orth in the code, that the types of concerns in the letter are not those concerns that can easily be read into the language of the two applicable provisions of the code. Commissioner Gordon further asked whether other City agencies would. Mr. Warner responded that LIEP, in its site plan review, and the issues looked at in that process, would likely not get to the noise and vibration issues. Commissioner vaught asked Mr. Beach whether the issues raised by the railroad that are relevant considerations are being dealt with at the site plan review process. Mr. Beach responded affirmatively, and he noted that the issue regarding the vibration he will discuss with the building code staff to determine whether there are any rules there. Commissioner Gordon asked whether the applicant has offered to take any actions with respect to any of these issues. Staff was not aware that they have. Chair Field questioned whether steps were taken in the site plan review process to address potential erosion issues. Mr. Beach responded that as part of the site plan the applicant will be required to take the standard precautions for erosion, i.e. silt fences, reseeding the hills on the embankment that comes up from the railroad track, which is likely the only place where there are substantial grades where erosion would be an issue. 2 22 � 98-.�� John Mathern, the applicant, 23920 Hawthorne Avenue North, Forest Lake, spoke. He reviewed design renderings that were part of the staff packet. Mr. Mathern reviewed his first proposal was Eor 15 units on the site and had intended to come in off of the a11ey on St. Clair. However they were unable to obtain staff approval on that proposal and revised the proposal, putting in a private road, a cul-de-sac, which accesses their property off of Lexington Avenue. The cul-de-sac he said has been reviewed by City staff and found to be sufficient to a11ow ingress and egress of emergency vehicles, as we11 as the residential traffic on that property. In addition, he said that in order to minimize the amount of road traffic on any one particular road they split [he accessibility to the garages for these residences between the.alley on St. Clair and Lexington and on the Street o£ Lexington as well. He reviewed that Lexington Avenue is an extremely busy avenue and accessibility to the property has been one of the concerns of the neighborhood. However, he made the point that it is the only road they have and is the access to the property and they intend to use it. He reviewed that 10 one and two-story townhome units would be built on the site which he finds to be in fitting with the neighborhood as the neighborhood consists of a mixture of two-story and one level homes. Mr. Mathern acknowledged the letter from Canadian Pacific Railway and cited examples of other townhouse developments they have built adjacent to extremely noisy roads which have all sold and have had resales as well. He reviewed that the proposed site is above the Canadian Pacific Railway and are 18-20 feet above the railroad bed itself. It is a tiered site with a major storm sewer artery along the Canadian Pacific Road which is elevated about i0 feet above the railroad itself and they come up another 10 feet to the plateau of their site. He said their road has been staged to be between their development and the railroad, leaving the units backed away from the railroad area and back up to the a11ey, which disCances them as far away Erom the site as possible. Mr. Mathern said that the houses will be built on virgin soils so the shaking in that area should be minimized. Regarding soil borings he said that they had yet to be done. The fill that exists on the site is where their road bed would be along the edge of the ridge. He said that the sites themselves seem to be sandy soil down about 4 to 6£eet. As they intend for basements on many of the town homes he said it poses no problem for them. Upon some rudimentary exploration of the site they found their virgin soil where the houses would be. He addressed an issue by some of the neighbors that this site was once a dump site. He said that he was awaiting a call back from the MPCA, however he said he understood that within Ramsey County there is a list of between 70-90 closed unlisted dump sites but said that this doesn't seem to be on it. He said that they have been unable to find that any contamination ever existed on the site, however such issues have been raised as we11. Mr. Mathern spoke to issues related to the alley. Mendota Homes has agreed to pave the a11ey as a means of ingress/egress £or their residents. He noted that they have asked for some discussion with the neighborhood to discuss this matter, however the neighborhood declined. At the last meeCing with the district council some opposition was raised by the neighborhood over improvements to the alley for fear that it may increase the level of service on the alley and it may incur a cost for maintaining the alley in the future. Mendota Homes however does object to maintaining the a11ey indefinitely at no cost to the entire neighborhood. He said that they would use an upgraded 3 23 � 98 gravel alley if acceptable to staff and to the neighborhood i£ that is more acceptable to the neighborhood. Mr. Mathern reviewed that their proposed site has been used as a parking area for the residents for some time, which has raised concerns in the neighborhood about future parking availability. He said that had they met with the neighborhood the neighborhood might have Eound that they could have provided some parking spaces in the back on the curve where the alley will likely have to be widened, which would also accommodate the garbage truck�s accessibility. He summarized that they desire to be flexible, have dropped their density from 15 to 10. He spoke of a number of individuals who had given them reservation agreements already for the site, who are from the neighboring area who would like to reside in a townhouse and remain in that neighborhood and he said he sees their development as compatible with the long-term residential development o£ the City of Saint Pau1. He said that the town homes would be in a mid-price range of $139 to $200,000 range, most of them likely being between $139 -$179,000 range, which seems to be compatible with Saint Paul's long-term plan for housing in the City of Saint Paul. Traffic on Lexington. This was another large issue which Mr. Mathern addressed as having been raised by the neighbors in all of their district council meetings. He said that the traffic is probably between 15-20,000 cars per day. However, he said if he adds 10 units with an average of 10 trips per day with two cars, he didn't feel that those 80 trips per day will significantly increase the traffic load on that road. He acknowledged that it will be a problem with access, as Lexington is a rather fast trafficking street, but no different than what the current residents must deal with as there are a number o£ driveways currently on Lexington. Mr. Mathern noted that staff has required that a catch basin at the end of the alley be included so that the water that is there can drain into their pond, which they will do. He reviewed the aesthetics of the exterior of the buildings and their relationship to the neighborhood. Mr. Mathern circulated a chart which showed the exteriors o£ the existing one and two-1eve1 homes in the neighborhood and he said that they feel that their one and two-level town homes fit the neighborhood. He summarized that they believe it to be a fairly compatible use for the property, and that it is generally in keeping with the neighborhood as there are town homes on the other side of Ayd Mill Road. They believe that the 10 unit development allows for a very nice area with a lot of green space to it. Commissioner Gordon asked for the current conditions of the two alleys. Mr. Mathern reviewed that the surface of the north/south a11ey is currently gravel, however they would asphalt it. They would also pave the east/west alley. When complete there would be a paved surface of approximately 16 feet wide and he said that is what would be allowed on a 20 foot wide alley easement, but he was unable to guarantee that two cars could be next to each other in passing. He pointed out that in the area entering St. Clair that there is somewhat of a bottle neck with large trees there, fences and garages that are an existing condition. He said that the possibility would exist for 4 " � 98 :�y all o£ their traffic to be loaded onto Lexington with nobody on the alley, however splitting the load appears to them to be sufficient. Commissioner Gordon asked for Mr. Mathern to respond to a proposal for no access to Lexington, with all access from the alleys. Mr. Mathern responded that the City has said that £or them to have addresses that they need a street and they will not allow the alley to be used as their street. Commissioner Gordon asked Mr. Mathern to respond to the Railway's suggestion of a fence or a berm. Mr. Mathern said he was not in favor o£ a fence or a berm. He noted that they sit 20 £eet above the railroad. He.anticipated that his residents will consist primarily of single individuals andJor married couples between 40 to 70 with few children, and no minor children that they would have to guard against. Commissioner Vaught noted that the unusual topography raises some particular questions. He noted that the difference between units 6 thru 10 and the abutting residential property either on St. C1air or on Lexington, is that the only means of vehicular access is through the alley as there is no access to any of those units from either Lexington, St. Clair or the private road, which in effect turns the alley into a public street. Given that, and that it wouldn't need to be done to service the vehicular needs of any of the other abutting properties in that area, he doesn't see the reason why having once paved the alley that Mr. Mathern doesn't think it ought to be the obligation of the people who created the need to do that because it is the only vehicular access to their property, why that ought not to be a continuing obligation. Mr. Mathern responded that the units that do not have their garages exiting on to the private road, but on to the alley have a sidewalk that takes them down to the private road, where they can park on the private road. Commissioner Wencl asked how much guest parking would be provided. Mr. Mathern responded that there are 8 parking spaces, with 4 on the end of the cul-de-sac and 4 where you drive past units one and two. He noted that for the units on the alley that two cars could be parked in front of each double garage. Commissioner Wencl asked Eor the width of the private road. Mr. Mathern responded that the road will be 2� feet wide, with the a11ey easement being 2� feet wide with a 16 foot wide asphalt surface. Commissioner Wencl asked staff what width is required when the Fire Department issues their regulations for the width of a street, allowing for their trucks to get in and turn-around. Mr. Beach responded that the Fire Department typically likes a 20 foot access for emergency vehicles. He said that in this case the 20 foot street out in front with the cul-de-sac was reviewed by them and determined to be sufficient. He noted Chat the Fire Department was at the meeting of this project and the plan presented at this meeting meets the Fire Department approval. Commissioner Gordon asked whether the Fire Department's approval would be withdrawn if there was no private road with a 20 foot width and there were only the alleys to access the homes. Ms. Bartz reviewed that just using the alleys as they were would not have been sufficient. 6" .� �5 98 3qy Commissioner Gordon asked whether Mr. Mathern had looked at the possibility of a regulation that would prohibit right turns only to exit and enter the development. Mr. Mathern said that those things dealing with health and safety issues they would take guidance from the City on. Susan Kimberly, PED, Southwest Team Leader, spoke. Ms. Kimberly noted that over the past few years there has been an ongoing discussion at the Metropolitan Council about how to deal with the issue of urban growth and what the impacts of that growth and those policies were on our community. She reviewed that the Saint Paul Planning Commission and the City Council took positions on those issues and made a strong case to limit the overall growth of the region, and need to take the steps necessary to see that sprawl is diminished. The Metropolitan Council took a position that limited growth to some extent, and as a result of that Saint Paul is forecasting an approximate increase of 500 housing units per year £or the next 20 years. She reviewed as a point of re£erence, that there was some debate about putting housing on the Koch Mobil site, and the City Council has instructed PED to develop that 65 acre site for housing, and is currently being proposed to be developed in a fairly intense fashion with 456 units proposed. If there were 20 sites of that site available all of the new housing could be put on sites that have little or no impact on any existing neighborhood, however that is not possible. When looking at how the City would meet the housing goal it was realized that it is going to happen in increments as being considered with this proposal. Ms. Kimberly noted that over time these conversations must be resolved in favor of additional housing in Saint Paul if the City is to meet these housing goals. Chair Field recalled the related discussion by the Planning Commission about housing and their response to the Metropolitan Council, and asked whether the proposed site was identified at that time as one of the potential housing sites. Ms. Bartz responded a map was presented at the Planning Commission discussion which showed some of the larger sites, as we11 as smaller undeveloped sites, particularly along the Ayd Mill Road corridor and the 2-35E corridor which have some potential for development and that the proposed site would have been included among those. Commissioner Gordon received confirmation £rom staff that the Department of Public Works has stipulated that the alleys in question may not be used to provide a street address for the proposed units, but that access to a City street must be provided for this purpose. Ms. Bartz reviewed that the only frontage that the proposed site has is on Lexington Parkway and that during the site plan review process that Public Works determined that the applicant could not address all of the properties off of Lexington and required that they develop a private street. Mr. Beach further reviewed that in order to build a house in Saint Paul it must have £rontage on an approved street which has to do with public safety issues and response to calls. In response to an inquiry, Mr. Beach said that the Department o£ Public Works has said no to an option to name the alley so thaC it may be used as a street address to eliminate access to Lexington. There was some discussion about the different configurations looked at. Chair Fie1d noted that the cul-de-sac basically constitutes the Fire Department 6 !� } g�- 39�f access aad is critical in such a discussion. Commissioner Vaught questioned the rationale that was used by Public works £or requiring the private road £or the sole purpose of providing the buildings with addresses, as opposed to,-and juxtaposed with, the obvious hazard o£ dumping that traffic onto Lexington Avenue, either right or 1e£t, given the hazards. Mr. Beach said that upon review Public Works determined that the ingress/egress situation was not ideal, but acceptable. He noted that an option might be to keep the private road to meet the technical requirements £or addresses and fire access and to have all the cars come in off of the alley. Commissioner Vaught asked what the reason was for not allowing the access off the alley. Mr. Beach said that one of the main considerations was the impact on the neighborhood, and that this was an alley and shouldn't be the main access for every unit in the development. Commissioner Vaught commented that all of the properties using the alley for access is an inconvenience, however he felt that five of the properties using Lexington to egress is a hazard. Ms. Bartz pointed out that if the committee would desire some direct input from the Department of Public Works that time would allow for this item to be postponed for two weeks. Chris Trost, Executive Director, Summit Hill Association, DistricC 16 Planning Council, spoke in opposition. Ms. Trost read in as testimony, the letter from District 16 dated October 29, 1997. In summary, the Zoning and Land Use Committee of the Summit Hill Association/District 16 Planning Council recommended denial of the request by Mendota Homes for a Special Condition Use permit. (A copy of this letter is in the case file). Commissioner Wencl asked for further explanation of the statement that "The scale of the town homes is out of proportion with the adjacent homes.° Ms. Trost responded that the size of the individual unit, hal£ of the footprint of the unit, is approximately twice the size of many, if not most, oE the homes that surround the townhome development on both Lexington and on St. Clair. Commissioner Gordon asked whether District 16 made a proposal that would resolve each of those issues to the applicant with respect to the issues as they related to the soil tests, the vibration, the finished widths and the scale. Ms. Trost said that the issues were raised at each of the meetings over a 3-month period. She suggested that the overall issue and concern is that there is a lack of confidence because there are so many details le£t unanswered. Ms. Trost comments are as follows: Scale. Units should be smaller. Finished width of the alle� Problem with finished width of alley is related to the density of the proposal. Finished width might be fine the way proposed if there were fewer units and fewer people using the alley. 7 � 27 ss-��y Soil. Looking Eor evidence or confirmation that it is not polluted and that it is buildable. Vibration. Concerned about establishing that it would not be unacceptable vibration as addressed by the Canadian Pacific Railway. Commissioner Gordon asked if there are existing homes as close to the railroad tracks as any of the proposed homes would be located. Ms. Trost said that srie was not aware of any that are. Commissioner Gordon asked why the citizens declined having a meeting with the applicant. Ms. Trost was unable to answer that. Charlotte Patros, 1126 St. Clair Avenue, spoke in opposition. Ms. Patros expressed concern that the townhouse development would substantially devalue her home. She said that although access from Lexington is all that is available to the site, that it does not make it a safe solution. Commissioner Gordon commented that typically higher valued homes built nearby lower valued homes tend to increase the costs of nearby homes and asked for clarification on this point, with Ms. Patros deferring to another person who would be testifying. He asked whether Ms. Patros saw any solution to the development which would accommodate the concerns of the neighborhood and the applicant's desire to do the project. Ms. Patros said her greatest concerns relate to the soil conditions and the buildability on the soil and the stability of the structures when built and their subsequent marketability, and iE these concerns can be met she believes that a solution can be reached. Chair Field asked staff who is responsible for the oversight of the suitability of soils for construction. Mr. Seach responded that would typically be handled by LIEP when building plans are reviewed by LIEP for compliance with the building code. If staff had reason to believe there to be soil issues they would ask for soil tests. Chair Field noted that as the soil issues are not in the purview of the committee, but rather by LIEP, that they not be included in the committee discussion. Keith Curtner, 259 Lexington, a registered professional engineer, spoke in opposition. Mr. Curtner identified his primary concerns as those of tra£fic, soil conditions and commented on faetors he believes will impede project realization. With respect to traffic he expressed concern that the proposed project wi11 create a variety of traffic and safety problems of significant proportions. (Please see a copy o£ Mr. Curtner's prepared testimony in the case file. A set o£ photos was distributed for review and are also part of the case file.) Pat Byrne, 243 S. Lexington Parkway, a registered civil engineer, spoke in opposition. He noted 100� of resident land owners oppose the project. The issues addressed in decisionmaking included: Trees. Now serve as a sound and visual barrier to Ayd Mill Road and railroad to be removed, which also serve as an introduction to neighborhood traveling north on Lexington; Green space will be severely diminished; Alley traffic. Mr. Byrne said that the addition 0 28 � 9' 8-39y of 10 more cars in alley wi11 be a sa£ety hazard; Property values. Mr. Byrne alleged that due to the wide disparity in property values between the proposed units and the existing homes, that the proposal will decrease the value of existing homes and make them unsalable. No performance bond on the developer. Byrne expressed concern over risk oE development £ailing and spoke of the vibrations that are a factor in the neighborhood and which cause cracks in walls which he believes are due to the poor soils. Mr. Syrne addressed the issue of the meeting with Mr. Mathern being declined by the neighborhood residents. He said that because residents saw no alteration of the conditions which they opposed, they chose not to meet. Byrne addressed the issue of eliminating the ingress/egress from Lexington which he supported. I-Ie reviewed the Fire Department's need for a 90 foot cul- de-sac £or turn-around in conjunction with the Department of Public Work's need of a street for purposes of addressing. Mr. Byrne spoke to Ms. Kimberly's remarks above, and noted that 20 sites may be available in the city but many have issues of contaminated soil and are costly to develop, however he didn�t believe it justified development that is not in character with the existing site. Commissioner Vaught asked how o£ten the Division of Traffic and Accident does speed enforcement on Lexington Parkway. Mr. Byrne responded that his £amily has asked the Police Department to do speeding enforcement along that stretch but Police said that they cannot do it as there is no good place to put a radar unit. With regard to traffic, the Traffic Division of Public Works when doing traffic reviews can only look at two issues: 1) distance from the signalized intersection and 2) line of sight. A1 Shetka, Public Works, Traffic, was requested by the residents to review Mr. Curtner's concerns addressed in his letter, and his only response was regarding the frequency of accidents on St. Clair, which averaged approximately one accident per month, which was found to be acceptable. Aowever, Mr. Byrne disagreed, commenting that it was unacceptable in a residential area. (A copy of Mr. Byrne's prepared remarks are in the case file). Commissioner Vaught noted that such issues as green space, and marketability were not issues relevant to the zoning committee's decision making. He reviewed that although the footprint of the individual units proposed may be somewhat larger than some of the smaller existing homes in the neighborhood that they are not in much variance with the larger homes in the neighborhood_ Commissioner Vaught addressed the alley traffic. He hypothesized that at most the proposal would generate at most a quarter increase in what is a very low traffic pattern, and which pales in comparison to that existing on Lexington, and said that the increase may be a nuisance, but not a hazard as the Lexington traffic issue is. L•] Z9 � 98 3q� Mr. Byrne responded that this would be 2-3 times the city average use oE an a11ey. He noted the fact that it is a two-block long dead-end alley, and there is no on-street parking allowed on Lexington during rush hour. Commissioner Gordon ascertained from Mr. Byrne that is personal there are 8-10 existing homes on the north/south alley currently using the alley, and 9 existing homes using the east/west a11ey. Mr. Byrne said that no hard numbers exist for measurement of the traffic in these alleys, but rather personal observation and impressions. Commissioner Gordon asked whether Mr. Byrne was aware of any other access available to these residents to either Lexington or to St. Clair that the proposed project could use. Mr. Byrne was not. Helene Schultz, 1120 St. Clair Avenue, spoke in opposition. Ms. Schultz spoke to the following issues: Al1ey tra£fic. Ingress/egress from the present alley on to St. Clair Avenue, she indicating that two cars cannot safely pass each other at the entrance at the same time and noted that the residents using the alley have developed a system that works for negotiating around one another. Chair Field noted that the alley would be widened if the project were to proceed. Regarding the traffic flow through the a11ey, she said the question was not the total number of cars passing through it on a daily basis, but at what hours it is most congested, with Ms. Schultz indicating that being during rush hour, both morning and evening. Declined invitation to meet with developer. Ms. Schultz indicated Chat Mr. Mathern notified them in advance of the third Zoning and Land Use Committee meeting as to what his plan would be and asked for neighborhood support. Since they didn't support it, and were not asked to come to discuss their particular concerns, she declined the invitation to meet. Reasonableness factor. She spoke of the negative views the proposed units would have, the backs of the homes on St. Clair and from the other view would be overlooking a railroad, and she questioned their marketability. Ms. Schultz spoke of her neighbor, Bev, who was present at hearing but had to leave. She said that the private road is proposed to go to the edge of her property line, as well as a double-unit at this property line. She requested that the proposal be considered without the home developed on that parcel. Density. Concern that this type of development is very uncharacteristic of the neighborhood, and that the cost of the units and character of development is a significant misfit in the neighborhood. Ms. Schultz would support a single family development on the site with 4-5 homes with adequate green space. Ms. Schultz spoke of a term called In-Rem, which refers to the situation when property Curns out to be unmarketable, and falls into to disrepair, owners don't have the resources to maintain it, and eventually falls to the city without any taxes being paid on it. 5he cautioned against the risk o£ this 10 3� i�- q8-39y property falling within such an In-Rem status in this neighborhood. Chair Field asked that public testinony not include the economics of the project. David Schultz, 1120 Saint Clair Avenue, a professor of political science, with expertise in land use and regulatory takings, and experience in code enforcement, land use, zoning and housing and economic development, spoke in opposition. Mr. Schultz reviewed the letter he submitted Co the commission dated 11./13/97, which summarized his concerns. (A copy of this letter is in the case file). Before doing so he said he disagreed with the. way that staff has characterized the project and found staff's review of the site to be remiss in several areas and noted that he found Ms. Kimberly's comments regarding the Metropolitan Council to be inaccurate, saying he could speak to that as someone who has worked with the metropolitan council on land use development in the metropolitan region. I-Ie agrees that more housing should be built. However, he said Met Council never said to build housing where it doesn't fit and creates safety hazards and seriously impacts on existing housing. Further comments included: Traffic safety. As elaborated above by others. He addressed the issue of shifting the traffic on to the St. Clair alley. While the alley will be widened, he noted that at its narrowest point (12-14 feet), he said that there is almost no room to widen it beyond a couple of additional feet, which will not be significant in order to accommodate additional traffic. Question had been addressed as to the number of accidents which have occurred in the a11ey and he suggested the more appropriate issue to be what is the traffic flow on St. Clair, which he said is exceedingly high, especially during rush hour, which provides for difficulty currently in entering and exiting the alley. He noted that there is currently an average of one accident per month. To add to this traffic he said would not create an inconvenience but a£urther hazard that already exists on the St. Clair alley. Parking. If additional alley area parking is provided it would close up the alley to allow adequate traffic flow to go through, and in addition the project will put additional parking out onto already overcrowded streets, creating further hazards on the streets. Fire Safety issues. Ae said that even with the widening to 16 feet, that the ability to get a hook and ladder down the a11ey at its narrowest point is problematic. He stated that there is an assumption that the entrance to the proposed cul-de-sac�at St. Clair will adequately absorb fire safety vehicles and he proposed that is assuming it's not rush hour traffic and that there is not guest parking in the cul-de-sac, and if not the case there will be signiEicant difficulty. Proposal is inconsistent with integrity of the neighborhood, including aesthetics and lines of the structure. He said it looks different and there are no other cluster developments in the area. Mr. Schultz addressed the fact that the existing units in the neighborhood range in price Erom $60,OOD to $90,000, with the proposed units going from $140,000 to $200,000. He finds this to indicate an incapatability with the 11 3► � �jd'-39�{ existing units. Inconsistent with the comprehensive plan for the neighborhood. The fact that it needs a SCUP alone, he said, indicates its incompatability. Mr. Schultz said he felt attached units, not clustered units would be permissible. He suggested removal of the two units on Lexington, as the two large units next to a small house was not acceptable. I-Ie also suggested the architectural look o£ the building must be changed. John Mathern, the applicant, spoke in rebuttle. He reviewed the communication with the neighborhood on a number of occasions. He said that the district council advised that they meet with the neighborhood and he said that they attempted to do so, and he said that they desired to have an open dialogue. He reviewed that they have over the course of time, reduced their density, changed their roads, changed the way they load on to the alleys. He noted that the units proposed for bordering on Lexington will be one level units. Chair Field questioned the issue that detached homes cannot be placed on the property. Mr. Mathern said this was addressed and at one time they had two detached units proposed, but were told they had to use a common wa11 with attached units. Commissioner Kramer asked i£ certain units couldn't be platted as separate parcels and make them not part of the clusCer development. Mr. Beach responded noting that one of the problems is that the units have frontage on a private street. Given the unusual shape of the lot there might be some question in meeting the minimum lot size reguirements. Mr. Ryan further noted that in R-4 zoning they would need 40 feet of frontage and there is only 180 feet o£ frontage available on Lexington Parkway. Commissioner Kramer asked if the only way to do stand alone units would be under a planned unit development. He agreed, but said that in that case a rezoning would be required. Commissioner Chavez asked whether the developer has a performance bond in place. Mr. Mathern responded that none is required for Chis project. He said that once the project has been approved they would be required to post a completion bond, which they will do. � Commissioner Chavez spoke of the a11ey traffic and asked if a11 alleys aren't pretty similar where two cars cannot pass one another in the alley. Mr. Beach acknowledged that this situation is quite common. Mr. Mathern said that had they had an opportunity to meet with the neighborhood their various concerns could have been addressed, i.e. the additional parking, the aesthetics, etc. Commissioner Gordon asked if the site were zoned properly for free-standing homes he asked if the developer would consider building it that way. Mr. Mathern responded that it would not be free-standing homes on a City street as the property doesn't a11ow for that, and an earlier proposal with attached and 12 32 � 98-39� detached units was turned doom by City staff. Commissioner Gordon asked whether Mr. Mathern was still willing to meet with the neighbors to attempt to work out the problems. Mr. Mathern responded that he did not want to meet with the neighborhood, but wanted to see action taken by the committee. Commissioner Chavez noted through staff that the applicant has already agreed to extension of the 60-day period so that he could continue conversations with the neighbors and work with district 16 and with staff with issues raised in the site plan review process. � Commissioner Wencl said that it appeared that the requirement of having an additional street is the most limiting part of the development. Mr. Mathern responded affirmatively. However, he said it was naive of them initially to believe that they could have all units accessed by the a11ey. It was pointed out at a number o£ meetings that nobody wanted all of the garages to load on St. Clair, nobody wanted them to run through from St. Clair to Lexington. He said that he likes the cul-de-sac. Commissioner Wencl asked if there is any other possible way to configure the development so that the cul-de-sac can be minimized, to position the house more favorably on the site so as to limit the number that have to be accessed £rom the a11ey. Mr. Beach responded that 90 feet is the minimum required by the fire code and despite looking at other designs, in the end a better design could not be identified. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Vaught said that the Lexington traffic significantly bothered him. He said that he understood that the cul-de-sac oEf of Lexington likely represented a compromise between what the original proposal was, which was to use the alley exclusively for access. However, he noted that primary access to the a11ey wi11 remain £or five of the units. He said he had significant concerns and unanswered questions with respect to why Public Works was adamant with respect to the design of this, as he didn't feel it makes sense. Commiasioner Vaught moved a two-week layover, to November 13, 1997, to allow Public Works` representatives to attend the meeting to address this issue. Commissioner Gordon seconded the motion. Commissioner Vaught welcomed the event Chat the neighborhood and the developer might decide to meet to try and reach agreement. Chair Field reviewed that in the event a compromise were arrived at, that the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Vaught included in his motion that the public hearing be reopened in the event a compromise were reached, but would not a11ow for the revisiting of any and all issues outlined at this meeting. Commissioner Gordon supported the motion. Commissioner Gordon also desired input from Public Works and wished to see any 13 33 � q�-39y available data on the use of the a11ey. Commissioner Vaught noted that the motion implies that the public hearing would be opened in the event of a compromise with the Chair framing the discussion and allowing testimony regarding only new issues. The motion £or a layover to November 13 carried on a unanimous voice vote of 6 to 0. Drafted by: ' ltJ�tA-- � ✓ Donna Sanders Recording Secretary S itted Beth Bartz Southwest Quadrant Approved by: ton 'el Chairpers, 14 34 � 98-39�f ZONING COMMITTHS STARF RSPORT FILS # 97-207 1. APPLIC2:N'P: MENDOTA HOMES DATS OF HEARING: 10/30/97 2. CLASSIFICATION: Special Condition Use 3. LOCATION: xxx LEXINGTON PKWY S(southwest quadrant of Lexington and St. Clair) 4. PLA23NI23G DISTRICT: 16 5. LEGAL DESCR2PTION: see file 6. PRESENT ZONING: R-4 ZONING CODS RSFERENCE:§60.413 (13) &§64.300 (d) 7. STAFF INVBSTIGATION P.ND REPORT: DATS: October 17, 1997 BY: Beth Bartz 8. DATE RECEIVSD: 08/04/97 DEADLINE FOR ACTION: 12/02/97 A. PIIRPOSE: A special condition use permit to a11ow a 10 unit cluster development. B. PARCEL SIZE: The development parcel is roughly triangular in shape with 183.93 feet o£ frontage on Lexington Avenue. Total lot area is 107,380.5 square feet. C. EXISTING LAND IISE: One storage building is currently located on the property. Otherwise, it is vacanC. D. SIIRROUNDING LAND IISE: The property is surrounded by single family homes on the north and east, and by the Short Line railroad corridor and Ayd`Mill Road diagonally on the southwest. E. ZONING COnH CITATION: Sections 60.413 (13) and 64.300 (d) of the zoning code permit cluster developments subject to the conditions detailed i.n findings #2 and #3 of this report. F. HISTORY/DISCIISSION: There are no previous zoning cases concerning this property. A site plan review is also required. Initial reviews indicate applicant has meC the site plan requirements; approval is pending on the approval of the special conditional use permit. G. DISTRICT COIINCIL RBCOMMENDAT20N: The Summit Hill AsSOCiation reviewed an earlier proposal for a 12-unit cluster development on October 9, 1997. They reoommended denial of the special conditional use permit for a 12-unit development. The 10-unit proposal will be presented to the Zoning and Land Use Committee of the Summit Hi11 Association on October 28, 1997. Any n� 98 �39`f Zoning file # 97-207 Page 2 £urther recommendations will be presented at the October 30 public hearing by the Planning Commission. H, FINDINGS• 1. The applicant has a purchase agreement for the property proposed for development. Ten dwelling units are proposed, 5 buildings of two units each. Access to the parcel is proposed from Lexington Parkway via private street. Five units wi11 access their garage from the private street; the remaining five garages will be accessed by the existing alley. 2. Chapter 60.413 (13) of the Zoning Code permits cluster developments subject to the £ollowing conditions: a. There shall be a minimum of two (2) units. This condition is met. Ten units are planned. b. The units shall be atCached, common wall, single-family, with no unit iatruding on the vertica2 airspace of any other unit. This condition is met. The units are paired side-by-side, with no unit intruding on the vertical air space of any other unit. c. The parcel sha12 meet the Iot area required per unit in the zoning district. This condition can be met. The 1ot area, including half of the a11ey is 107,380.5 square feet. This allows 10,738.05 square feet per unit, exceeding the 5000 square feet per unit requirement. d. The parcel shall have a minimum frontage of eighty (80) feet on an improved street. This condition is met. The parcel has 183.93 feet o£ frontage on Lexington Parkway. e. The structure shaSl confozm to the schedu2e of regulations for height, lot coverage, setbacks and parking. This condition is met. As proposed, the develoment meets tfie requirements for height, lot coverage and parking prescribed by the zoning district. Twelve visitor parking spaces will be provided in addition to a double garage for each unit. Zoning enforcemenC has determined the £ront yard to be on Lexington, and the rear yard to be the farthest northwest corner of the parcel. The plan appears to meet all setback requires; LIEP will be con£irming conformance will the front yard setback requirement next week. f. The design sha12 be compatibSe with the sssrroundiag aeighborhood. Overall the proposed design is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood which consists o£ a mixture o£ 1, 1-1/2, and 2 story structures with gabled and hipped roofs. Materials used in the surrounding neighborhood include stucco, clapboard, metal siding, and composite shingles. Windows are a mixture of double hung and fixed � 9�-3 5� Zoning file # 97-207 Page 3 "picture" windows. The proposed units are 1 to 2 sCOries in height with interseeting gable roofs. (See drawings attached.) The applicant has not specified which units will be one or two stories, but rather proposes that decision be made with the potential buyer. Exterior material is proposed to be vinyl siding. The overall massing, wtiile larger than the typical home in the neighborhood due to the paired unit design, is broken up by a central gabled bay. Porches and double hung windows provide other design elements similar to houses in the area. g. Individual lots, buildings, street and parkiag areas shall be designed and situated to minimize alteration of the natural features and topograpky. The project would require some grading to provide proper drainage for the site. The grading plan also includes construction of a storm water pond near Lexington. However, the overall topography of the site, including the slope into the railroad corridor, would not be disturbed. Some of the existing trees in the sl.ope area of the site would remain. h. Applications for cluster deve2opment sfia21 ineSude site plans, including landscaping and e2evations and other infozmation the pSanning commissioa may request. This condition is met. The applicant submitted a site plan, landscape plan, and building elevations along with a written description detailing the specifics of the development. 3. Section 64.300 (d) of the zoning code requires that before the planning commission may grant approval of a principal use subject to special conditions. the commission shall find that: a. The extent, location and intensity of the use wi32 be in substantial compliance with the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan and any applicable subarea plans which were approved by the city counciZ. The District 16 Plan does not include any proposals relevant to this matter. The"re are no applicable small area plans for this area. The Saint Paul Housing Policy for the 1990s recommends "expansion of housing opportunities for middle and higher income households where this market is or can be addressed in Saint Paul." The units in this proposal will be priced at $139,900 -$200,000, addressing middle income populations. b. The use will provide adequate ingress and egress to minimize traffic congestioa ia the public streets. A private street wi11 provide primary access to the units and allow emergency vehicle traffic and visitor parking. The Fire Department has determined this access to be sufficient for emergency access. Five of the ten units will access their garage from this private road � 3? �� Zoning file # 97-207 Page 4 as well. The remaining five units will access their units from the alley. The applicant has agreed to make improvements to the alley as part of the project. Initially the applicant proposed extending the alley through to Lexington raising concerns about traf£ic cutting through the alley to avoid the intersection at St. Clair and Lexington. The current proposal does not extend the existing alley and does not aonnect the alley to the private street, eliminating the ability for traffic to cut through. Several residents have expressed concerns about any additional use of the alley due to the proximity of the alley outlet to the St. Clair - Lexington intersection and the width o£ the alley. Public Works has reviewed the pzoposal and found the use of the alley and the proposed curb cut acceptable provided the alley is paved and the entrance to the private street from Lexington appear similar to a driveway curbcut, rather than a street, to minimize confusion. a. The use wi11 uot be detrimeatal to the existing charaeter of development in the immediate neighborhood or endanger the public health, safety and general we2fare. This condition is met. The number of new dwelling units can be accommodated by existing facilities and services provided by the city. The private street will accommodate emergency vehicles and all requirements for water, sewer and storm water have been met. d. The use will not impede the normal aud orderZy development and improvement of the surrounding propesty for uses permitted in tke district. This condition is met. The surrounding property is £ully developed. The new housing will serve as a buffer between the single family homes on St. Clair and Lexington and the railroad - Ayd Mill Road cox'ridor. e. The use sha11, in aIl other respects, coaform to the app2icab2e regulations of the district in which it is located. This condition is met. 2. STAFF RECObIDfEtIDATION: Based on findings 1 through 3 staff,recommends approval of the special conditional use permit. q 3$ 98-39� SPECIAL CONDITION USE PERMIT APPLICATION Department of Planning and Economic Development Zoning Section 31 DO City Hall Annex 25 West Fourth Street Saint Paut, MN SSIO2 266-6589 APPLICANT PROPERTY LOCATION Address� • O. 'P�o� c��lp City�PfS�'�a.�e� St iUJ�-� Zip � Daytime phone (t$8-lv3�2r Name of owner (if different) ��k.�. (�LLk�� Legai „ t-, OV�./ Current Zoning 2` (attach additional sheet if necessary) TYPE O�F PERM : Application is hereby made under the provisions of Chapter , Section �t��' _, Paragraph l�_ of the Zoning Code for a: � Speciai Condition Use Permit ❑ River Corridor Conditional Use Permit ❑ Modification of River Corridor Standards SUPPORTING INFORMATION: in the space below supply information that is applicable to your type of permit (attach additional sheets if necessary) • SPECIAL CONDITION USE: Expiain how the use will meet each of the special conditions. • RIVER CORRIDOR CONDITIONAL USE: Describe how the use will meet the applicable conditions. • MODIFICATION OF RIVER CORRIDOR STANDARDS: Explain why modifications are needed. . .. _� i. . I� site ApplicanYs sig is � City agenf / � �'" ��h/�D %}� 6��vYl'l6� -�?-�, x �� 1 98-39� � «,;�.: ,, s 4 . -= � :�- R?• 207 � � ��: ; �. � � ��_, -_v , - h � �� ; MENDOTA HONIES, WC. P.O. BC�X 416 FORES7 L.AKE, MN 65025 Octb�er 23,1997 ,� ;: 8eth Bartz City of St. Paul P{anning and Economic Development 25 West �ourth Street St. Paul, MN 55102 We are proposing the development of a two-plus aere parcel of land located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Laxington Qaricway South and St. Clair Avenue in St. Paul. The devefopment will be a townhouse community consisting of five fixinhomes. 'fhe property has streetfrontage of approximatoly 184 feet on Lexington Parkway. tt then moves back and widens west of Lexington Parkway South to the front of the altey behind the homes on Lexington Parkway South and St. Ciair Ave. Ouf proposal is to build ten homes (five twinhomes) on this project site of 101,589 square feet. The averaga lot siza wili be 2,87D syuare feet. The reason this tot size is signiftcantly smaller than originally proposed is due to the addition of an outlot of 74,236 square feet labele8 as "Lot 11" on the preliminary plat. in order to provide ac�ess to this properky, we propose a private drive off of Lewngton Ave. that wil� service the garages of five of the townhome units. The remaining ftve units wili have �arages and street access off the existing aileys and St. Clair Avenue. This proposal is in r�sponse to concerns about tra�c increases on Lexington Parkway. We feel that by routing half the traffic of the development onto Lexington Parkway and haif onto St. Clair Ave., we mitigate the problem. In addition, we have agreed to pave ti�e north/south and east/west alleys to provide a hard surface roadvray for residents and neighbors. After much discussion, we have praduced an exterior design that will be easify incorporated into the varied design of the existing neighborhood which consists m�in4y of one and two story structures with detached garages. Our townhomes will'be a mixture of one attd two story units with and without basements. They wili have two or three bedrooms, two or thfee bathrooms, and an attached, two-car garage off the rear of the structure. Twenty covered and 2A uncoveted parking .; � ' z�- Z0'd LSZcggg L£b1b`Z69£9�9 Wd SSCTO f7H1 16-SZ-1D0 9C �,314 ..., �s.a'� ��r. 3 ?� �i; 'u.V, �� a .:� i � . •� �� J — ' ---.- _'._ _.�---�,,. � f '—' spots wi(I be incorporated. maintain the development. A townhome association wi11 be put in place to Much discussion has occurred on this development with The Summit Hill Assocfatian, neigF�bors, and City oi St. Paul stafif. We feel we now have a well ptaiined and designed development. We are hoping for a favorable response. Sincerely, � . Erin �. Mathern for �endota Nomes, inc. 40'd � T6Z£889 41 � i�cWy'Z89£9�'9 Wd 6S= T0 f1Hl L6—£Z-1�� 98-3g�f ; � �:��r:�* 7 ,--� = 7 f ~� ��3_'��'�; y °:' � Q7• � � z = :�� ., _______.__ .^---°^°-..-��..._ 3 MEN[)�TA F10N1ES, ISVC. p.a. Box �.� s FOf2EST LAKE, MN 55025 October 22, 1997 Beth Bartz City of St. Paul Planning and Economic Qevelopment 25 West Fourth Street St. Paui, MN 55102 Dear Beth, This IetEer serves fo Update our tetter of September 25, 1997, regarding pricing and development costs of Lexington Commons Townhomes. We remain committed to price ssnsitivity and providing a townhome product suitable for purchase by r�sidents who already live in tho area of Lexington Parkway and St. Glair Avenue. Ho�vever, due to fewer uniis in the developmant, our prices have been adjusted upward to accomodate allocation of land development costs. The Lexington Commons townhomes will now range in price from $139,900.40 to around $200,000.00. The lower price delivers a rambler with an unfinished basement. Prices then inerease according to number of leveis, square footage, and interior selections. In talking with individuals who are interosted in living in this development, we have discovered that the increase in price has alienated some potential buyers. 4'Vhile this is unfortunate, we have also received new inquiries from potential buyers seeking a slightiy higher price range. Overall, this project remains viable despito changes in price range. lnterest is stili high and we look forvvard to approval and moving forward with construction. Again, thank you very much for your continued support and suggestions on this development. Sincerely, �`� Erin;E, Mathern for f�lendota Homes, Inc. � g'2 � �a•..� S6Zcgg9 Z<'Wb'Z8989�9 Wd SS:ZS f1Hl L6-£Z-1�0 �j8-3y`f � ( � + ',' : :" J ,� :: J:= � Y �� o 011 �y;� I , C � 1 �' °`�� $ . i � , c ;` ? � � - a:3 f � a -j � R �j' / i � �. ,\ � � 1�� '� I I � � � � I I Y� �� ' . � J �� .� ;r �I r - , i ; , �� _ ��,� . � ',',. `'r,l:8ll i ,° "� " +--,i�=:1� '_ : %� j �-'I .II � .; _ \ Y�/ i� �' �i1% J i .: cA 4�i �� ' � I d' :__°= IQ .., - %� �, � � `f /i � . [ ... �� / � :. �� c Y � � , � � i "! �� . yy ` � � ^ � \ � Y � V�� , 'I � �. t i �I ~ -_ �� . ,-/ ` � u � ' � • � I n � r � �%� `, �S�\ . a[ / �( � ''� ' � �•\ i ? � � `\'.\ I � x � 3 � �V � �� =�� C - � � � =s =:< � � _ � ;_ �: v . �' ��z i,,V`� a, �a. . i, 2 2�' � � '^.� �' L3 _".d � � § °:i �� \ = 05: ti' s^ EE$ i o " n ' � C �, i= SI? i ti C pE ega i a �€° i � �n ez3 ; ! b(?. � c � nb �.. .� s , � �l �� I �� tz0� � 9 l � - ,C ' i � e � J T �_ � m 1� z �� O � . r C ^ ` V , � � � e �3 � :// {1 ' ,$ �� 1 , �� s � � �� ..,.�' '4 < ��, �, # � � . y .-i ` J �` l,. .��,��A x � � � ` r � ."�``ti . � �, S s.., 1 h�...�v�'`� �b �� \t7 V• .� / � � /� �t �.,L. \ � t� / ��. I 1 � i �� i t�: � - � � J � � � ,� fl �- i � �� .- I — u -0 z ^ � � i� ' j� �; �� I�' % � �� , � . 9� Z� � ^ � 7-`^ ` , � � � � � � � � � . � �� , � �4 � � y ., s •� � �` IZ � � �X i � W . . 1 � I � �a � I� 3 �-'"�—: �� - - i V �� - � I I � . . ' .�...* {, �I' .. � - �� ' � , ! �� ' i r ,, , � � cz-; _ � � w__� ", ' � -__ _ � ,�.� i , � � ' ! � =xe 1 � _� 1 ' �i I � C�� - • ±� � ` l 4 � \ .� I � � ��{ � +_ /�.� � I � � ;? � 1 +? . V � ♦\ \ \ \ \ V . ,: �� /' �� - P D �,✓• ` .f - � . Hw r i ' - ff• ��4 . k �3 a� y� � ��a i b 's � stw�,�a �5 � 1� � 'V I � \ 1 Y� � . �. �'� � � � � Y I � 1 � \\ � A � i �� . I J 5 �� ` 1 1 1 � � `�� E�F � � t� j! I � t11� �iSlll� E �t � �\� � i . � �� ' �., , �:; �. � . � � � g8-35�t � 0 9 '�3 � �m r� �?a-a � c f. C� a-.eca �'� � .4 � � �� f • P �� "'f � p �� ► -i� � � .�i � � � q5, ' � _'_""";'_""�'�"___'"": 7'c�cacia '••�_._..�..... � L�Wb'Z89£9�'9 Wd 9S-Z0 3f11 L6-bS-1�0 /��V� 1 Sf� .. `�s" s � �� °i9 �, �� i �� ?,.� c�..�- a,.= .a 8 ��8 3 t� �J i I ? � SEP T UE 04=4o PM 6o6568Z-4MO7 i ' r � � �� .�: _ � � � G4.^ � L :.�Y � �=a a .� � � 6880291 P_02 � ' ` `!`8-3�t�f .�� ---. .. . . . . ._. - -----5�= 2�'-�� . �%�- � � �� 6s=+e t� ��9 � �- ` V � O J � �(40 5��,. S�FT._ f8�� 1qR� ----.. � U ----------- - ��c �OR . .. L�x 4N ��N -}- 5 C�-i 1Z .. . _.. . � _.._. � �-------- --� �i', }�i9-UC.. . . . ...--- --------�� -��y �/ � 39`I 1 i 1 � I � � s-�� : �_�. ��; e:�. �� ,_ � �=-� :��j � � V 1'� =♦ � • �.J. � � i ,,., _„ _' . ��I`'4Y��Q� ^`}"•-w/-F�-��L--.... "' _ _.___...�._�_..-_.......- ... . � . � 1.__.�.__....� __ . _._. 7 ' ^�. y� 39`�l �i ; �� ; �' �s � �� '�� ;, �_z i � �� `''� 4 v � � � � � � � � r �Q �� _ � �+ U�1 Q :� �� }; �� .-.1 � i� � _. """"""" _ ";..�"""' .... _ � _._,__ _ �.sa_ rr"c.""--"; ..""' _ -..�-_. "'.•` rc�caa<a � L�'Wb'Z89c9£ � Wd SS=ZO 3f11 t6—bt-17C� 98-39� � � � ��. � � .• � t�cn ' � � � i . ) { 1 � i"� i � ' •N 1 _4 v 9 a e � r� !. � � x \\ ��i1111111' �� 3, s� SEP TUE 04:44 PM 656e682.4M57 6885291 P.Bo .. ' I. 9 `8'.3g`f � � � �� r� �:� ,.�� ..: : ��.� � ��s �:, E : e J � �a :. �,y 52 y�-�9`� �� '., -- ------ ----------�- - -- ---- � . 4 � � I . i .. �� 0 ��\C1J�(o..l�=�`_of�l� �t- = �� 4n � �! � � s � Dti.l �b�(� tzN�, , •l . a i ' ' . . � � I � O. — `� � 'IDl(.• — I ._ K�1T, �o r _ i{ � ( f" - =s �r � I in �n � t : .r� � '� � �� ;.� � � � b ' _ ! —tic�fii —�i�(i2.�(. � � �9 ��--� — - -- -.. . �1- � �{7��eil� o . � �� --}1_l _ — — — N - . 1 � � � � �a . �-�, � °� � 0 e�.''�-_ � . � �� a 1 . � O ' 4 �, � ° : 4 = - ,___.___-= ?�s'�n._.__-.-. -_�+r =_ � � , £� � . ":�" � . __. , � ��E�� ' J � . _ � � _ .__. .. _. � . � • _...__. . _ �_�____. ----�1 -- 803 ��_ _ � .__�.--- ..... . �...5"COR .,_ . --�-�- ----- . .:: __��str�i�-rc�t_�:��t�=--.__.. . � . - �' - r � s ' (�gZ � -----s�� _..-wr�—.--. . .. �53 ...... .�.�-3y`f � � � �� ,.'� . '�a� �� ..z tl'Y� � � N 0 � : �`�: : e �..�_,.�i �irs�:�i�i!�it%+`.��!1*`.y/'.wls�� .�T i;a __� --��-��.�.. 4,�� r � �. �¢ 98-3y5� Summit Hi11 Association District �6 Planning Council Beth B2rtz 86� Saint Clair Avenue Planning and Economic Development saint Paui, Minnesota 5sios 25 West Fourth Street Te�ephone 612-222-1222 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Fax s�2-222-issa e-mail summit.hillC�?stpaul.gov October 29, 1997 RE: Zoning File Number 97-207 .��- =5, _.-�--_�~-�---�- ,.�; q��Z�� Dear Ms. Bartz and Members of the Zoning Committee of the Pianning Commission, The Zoning and Land Use Committee of the Summit Hiil Association/District 16 Planning Council met with Erin and John Mathern of Mendota Homes in August, September and October to discuss their proposal for a ten unit ciuster development southwest of Lexington and St. Clair. Throughout the process, the Matherns have been willing to discuss their proposal and have made changes and adjustments in response to concerns raised at these meetings. However, it is the opinion of the Zoning and Land Use Committee that there are still significant issues which have not been addressed in a satisfactory manner. Briefly, these issues are safety, density, soil conditions and architecture: • The traffic on Lexington is close to its maximum capacity and may actually reach maximum capacity during rush hour. • There is evidence that this site may be a former dumpsite. Yet the developer has little knowledge of the condition of the soil. A soii test shouid be done and should be determined to be acceptab4e for a development of this size. • The multiple concerns of the Canadian Pacific Railroad have not been addressed. A vibration test should be done and should be determined to be acceptable for residential habitation. • The developer has not adequately addressed several issues regarding the aliey; in particular, the actual finished width and assessments. • There remains concern over adequate maneuvering room for emergency vehicles and garbage trucks. • The scale of the townhomes is out of proportion with the adjacent homes. • The character and the aesthetic of the townhome development is inappropriate for this particular site. Therefore, the Zoning and Land Use Committee of the Summit Hill Association/District 16 Pfanning Council recommends denial ofi the requesi by Mendota Homes for a Speciai Condition Use Permit in order to construct a ten unit cluster development southwest of texington and St. Cfair. Sincerely, �,G�vCeh �� K) Charles Skrief, Chair Zoning and Land Use Committee Summit Hili Association/District 16 Planning Council ss` 98 3yY November 5, 1997 Beth .Bartz City of St. Paul Department of Planning and Zoning 1100 City Hail Annex 25 West 4th Street St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Mendota Homes/Lexington and St. Clair Zoning File 97-207 Dear Beth: I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed development of townhomes on the southeast corner of Lexington Parkway and St. Ciair Avenue. { live in a townhome at Wilder Park, direct4y across Ayd Mili Road from this proposed development. The townhouse style of living appeals to those of us who do not want the upkeep of a single family home. �he possibifity of having more townhomes in this area is an exciting one, since it would allow peopfe to have this styie of iiving, but remain in the city. 1 understand that there are serious concerns regarding access to this site. When there are so few lots available in the city for new homes to be built, I think it essential that some sort of compromise be worked out to enable this development to proceed. I encourage all parties to work toward a safe, realistic solution which would aliow these homes to be built. Thank you. Very truly yours, – 1 V\ ------�— Kate cGough 1172 St. Clair Avenue St. Paul, MN 55105 5� 9�-3�5� 1166 St. Clair Ave St Paul, MN 55105 November 5, 1997 Dept. of Planning & Economic Development Att'n: Beth Bartz 1100 City Hall Annex 25 W. 4th St. St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Zoning File 97-207 Mendota Homes Dear DPED: ; -- ------ --'-- ..___:-- �__� � _� .. �:� : ��:� .. ._._ ; s ��..._._�__�.�.�...__..�.�.� We support the modified proposal to build ten townhomes in the southwest quadrant of Lexington & St. Clair. We live in Wilder Park, across Ayd Mill Road from the proposed development. We understand that access remains an issue, and we urge you and the developer to find a suitable compromise that will allow the project to move forwazd. St. Paul needs to encourage these types of developments to provide housing choices, help keep our t� base viable, and to encourage people to remain in--or perhaps move back to—the city. With so littie space available for cluster development in St. Paul, a creative solution must be found that atlows the community to take advantage of this unique opportunity. Si C�72�, > �� 6.�_____ Lauralee GarFieid and Rodney Oisen sJ^'? �-3 5`f ...., _......... .._.. _.. ------ --__.. _ . - ; , a?LZU7 ; October 19, 1997 To: Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission 25 West Fourth Street 100 City Hall Annes Saint Paul, �' S5102 From: Le�ngton & Saint Clair Property Owners prosimate to Subject Development (below) Subject: Special condirion use permit far 10-unit cluster development called Lexington Commons Zoning File Number: 97-207 Zoning File l�iame: MENDOTA HOMES References: • Article; Highland Villager, August 6, 1997; MnDOT foresees uaffic congestion without Ayd Mill Road Connection. • Article; Highland Villager, October 8, 1997; Ciry Council iejeas request fo= MaoGrove townhomes. • Sumaxit Hill Association and Distsict 16 Planning Council; 1997 Goals and Objectices Ladies and Gentlemen: We, the undersigned property owners, are unanimously opposed to the proposed cluster development as wimessed by our signatures on this document. We describe in this letter our reasons why we are opposed to this project. We want the Zoning Committee to deny the proposed cluster development. Our rationale: TRAFFIC DENSITY AND PUBLIC SAFETY I.exington Avenue is a very hi� volume toadway, especially beriveen I-94 and Randolph; we believe that this project will exacexbate the tcaffic density in tlus corridor, zefez to the attached article from Highland Villagez, August 6,1997. Accident frequenry at St. Clair and Lexington is high; we believe that the additional entry/exit traffic to/from the pxoposed duster development will inczease the frequency of accidents due to the very short haffic mixiug length afforded by the available sites for new stieet access to the pzoject. It is very probable that the point of intersection of the proposed street access with Lexington Pazkway coincides with the ma�imum tcaffic velocity in both the north- and south-bound directions; thus making it very difficult foz traffic movements into and out of the proposed development We believe that the pzoposed pxoject will cieate a vauetp of tcaffic aad safety pioblems of significant pxoportions. Private street access for the project onto Lexington Pa:kway will occur at the bottom of the valley betmeen St. Claix and Jeffrxson, just before the bridge (southboun� oveL Apd Mill Road. Two feanues of This geometry combine to form a dangerous set of traffic conditions: (1) this low point is whete traffic will typically have its maximum velocity, (2) drivexs atteniion is drewn to points above the madwap to the traffic lights at the top of the hill (m eithez direction St Qair for northbound tiaffic and Jefferson for southbound ttaffic). Thus, with cacs at maximum velocitp and with daveis looking ahead to see if ihey can make the lights, the traffic will be ill pzepazed foz perpendiculaz uaffic movements enteting/leaving the I.eaiagron madwap at the end of the bridge. Summit F3il1 Association recognizes the tzaffic problems in District 16 and has set polides to promote traffic c lm a pmjects; the pmposed project is in duect conflict mith these traffio-calmuig objectives. PARBING ISSUE Gurmndy it is possible for guests and escess parking in the reaz of zesideats on Leffington Parkway. With the increased traffic and deaease in appazent useable surface, parking will no longez be possible in the alleys. The altemative is pazking on Lexington Pazkmay. Wlule pazking is only restricted there Monday thru Faday and then only during rush hou=s, absolutely none of the residents park thexe during other houts because the huge potential for causing a fatality. This is not just an opinion. We C� -- � i8 3951 _=.=�::�-;�:;�'��`�? {��:,�-4 �t7• Zo�_ have done studies where cus aze parked duzing daylight hours and seen the number of neaz accidents that occuL We have not tried this during night hours on weekends because we aze not prepazed to accept the responsibility for the accident ihat will occua ARCFiITECTURAL HARMONY We find ihe plaaned decelopment m be inconsistent wirh e�sting neighborhood arrhitectuie that is currendy all single-family homes with detached gerages The Rambler styling, walkout basemenrs and cul-de-sac sueet organization w-ill make the pmject look ]ike �X/oodbury-in-Saint- Paul very much out of character for the area. ALLEY ACCESSIBILITY AND TRAFFIC The subject development will place about a 30% increase in alley traffic aboae that esisting today. The alley in quesrion is a tee with dead-end ternrinations and no tumarovnds. An 18-foot opening off of St Clair avenue approximaiely 120 feet west of ihe intexsection of St. Clair and I.esingtoa Pazkway affocds enttance. Figure (ENTER) shows ihis entrance to rhe alley. The increase in alley treffic will deczease properry calues for rhe residents on Lexington Parkway and St. Clair Avenue. Neighbors have successfiilly appealed increased properry valuations by arguing incteased street uaffic causes deteriorating pxopetry values. Figuxe ENTE,R This is the entrance &om St Clair Avenue to ihe dead-end alley rhat sezves 18 neighbors. Note the small access road widch. Its ONE GAR WIDE! Traffic is always very 6eavy at this e�t.� NEIGHBORAOOD CHARACTER Constrvcfion plans call fnz a pavate sixeet to secvice the proposed development Building this srreet will zequice the xemoval of most, if not all, of the trees along the vdge that forms the pzoperty boundary of Reuth's Lot 19. Removing these trees will exacerbate the existing soil ezosion condirions along Ayd Mill Road. Additionally, these nees form a windbxeak and sound barrier for the neighborhood; it would be important to keep tliis function for the pioposed homes due to ihe high levels of uaffic noise (auto and railroad) fiom Lexington, Ayd Mill Road and ihe Soo Line tracks. There is a kind of Gateway to ihe azea of Saint Paul noxth of Ayd Nfill Road which is formed by the uees along ridge of the railroad cut Figure (GA3'E) shows the effect that ihese irees have in prociding the green enu�zcay to the city u one proceeds north on Lexington. Aemoving the tcees to make way for the private stceet access to the ptoposed project will dcastically alter the chazacter of the neighborhood. Summit Hill Association has speufic objectives to ptomote greening of District 16. Tlus proposed development is in direct conflict with these greening objectives. � ��-3gy , '� _ �'� � S � � h'.`x'� x —'_—. V � _ �� Figure GATE This is the view looking north along Lesington Parkway. Notice the Garewaq formed bp the tcees at the top of the adge at the leR These trees will be removed to make puvate street access if the proposed decelopmentgoes forcvazd_ This wrould be a drastic and irrecocable modification of the neighborhood chazacteL FIRE AND SECURITY r' �s �� a `".' m { Fire company access to buildings in the pioposed addition would be severely limited by ihe alley access which has overhead powerlines, restriaed width (single lane) and will require fire rigs to either enter or exit by bac6ing up since rhere is no pzovision foc tumaround of large azticulated vehicles. Curiendy the waste disposal vehicles (considerable shorrer than hook- and-ladder equipment) must back up and rurn azound in the tee of ihe alley ln order to access nelghborhobd waste picb The alley is not designed to serve as a traffic laterat, a role ihat is forced on it now due to pazking limitations and the unique configuration of the site. It is unsafe now, with no additional traffic. You can't say ihat it will get 30% more unsafe; instead there w-ill be a disproportionate, nonlineaz increase in safery threat due to ihis tiaffic loading. STRUCTURAL AND EKVIRONMENTAL ISSUES We believe diat Lot 19 Reuth's Addition will be built on a former waste disposal site. Current residents have recently at[empted modemizadon and expansion pmjects. These piojects have shown tY�at the sod in Reuth's Addition is composed of dischazge material such as coal ash and domestic detatus of verg porous chazactec wtuch in some cases has cequired footings of up to 24 feet in otder to meet consttuction codes of Saint Paul. We believe that soil stabiliry will pose pLOblems during development foz existing homes in the neighbozhood and will affect post-development homes strucnual quality. We believe that Ruerhs Addition Lot 19 is the youngest azea of the waste disposal site and would thecefoxe have ihe least stable soil chatacteristics and greatest potential for hazudous substance entrainment We have concems about the structural integrity of slab-on-grade houses built on soil of dubious stabiliry; espedallp as this affects rhe long-term prospects of our community as a whole. We believe that there is reason to question the environmentai condirion of subsurface soils; i.e. waste disposal fill material will ptobably contain agents wluch would xequise remediation befoze the soil could be dassified as enviionmentally acceptable foz homes. Neighbois hace found cieosote tteated railmad ties, lead pipe, bottle glass, coal ash and other debds. We aze concemed ihat no rigorous and unbiased soil samp3ing has been attempted; we aze not aware of any actual soil resting has been accomplished on a scale which would permit accurate evaluation of the soil strucmral and environmental qualiry of Reuth's I.ot 19. We believe that paor to wnsiderarion of the duster de� the issue of soil condition (structure and encironmental hazazds) should be resolved fhtough soil tesring. ECONO�IIC BEA'EFIT The property, Reuth's Lot 19, has been dassified as having no economic value and has been murimally assessed as such for many years. To the best of our knowledge, Reuth's Lot 19 was purchase under a Saint Paul surplus propertp program. The buyer I:new the state of the piopezt� its access limitations and existing soil condition at the time of purchase. Denying the special condition use perntit will thecefoie not hazm the cuccent ownec The tand is zoned fot Residential developmeat of single family dwellings and can be sold and/or developed for such purposes. t�a , gs-�9y ; s ��&�� ;:,��, � a�� We, the neighbors, should not be placed at risL- by City Council to be unieasonably affected by the monetazy goals of either ihe seller or a developer whose sole purpose is to make monej: We hope that greed of those seeking the special condirion use pexmit dces not tal.e precedence ovex the desiie of our neighborhood to retain its individuality and charactez ECOVOhfICS OF DEVELOPhfE1VT We do not believe there is sufficient marl:et intecest in new construction in a neighborhood w�th home value chazacteristics that e�st in Reurh's Additioa. Ecea ihough Mendota Homes hu indicated there is interest in the development by persons unL-nown; we believe that thete is a significant diffecence in intetest and intent 2o buy. We believe that the detractozs 2o the pmpetry described belom will dampen the interest of the prospective buyes. We believe that there aze significant detraaoxs which will affect the mazketability of the proposed units: pro�miry to railroad right-of-way; tcaffic density and entrance/egLess to Lexington Pazb proximity to aircraft appxoaches at MSP Intemational Airport; un-resolved I-35 Conneaor issues; proximiry to NSP lugh-voltage transmission lines; pending iecreational bike-parh pmject All of these issues would negarively affect an astute potential buye�s decision to pucchase. Mazket prices quoted by Mendota Homes fox the units are up to 5180,000. The average home value in fltis neighborhood is around $8Q000. This means that the proposed uni[s will be valued an mote than 2_times the existing homes We believe that astute home buyecs would not consider such an investment in ielatively over-priced =eal estate; especially given ihe aesthetics of the primary ciew from the pioposed residences. Loo�ng from ihe bxow of the hill bordering on the Aqd Mill Road at the apptosimate location of the ptoposed private sneet access to the project properries is the 14plus story brick Wilder high-rise and NSP high voltage transmission lines which dominate the view CLOSING REQUEST We ask you to please acknowledge our voice as residents of this community and vote to denp any variances to existing ailowed development. Sincerely, `t-e'�Z� �ti4�P�, Keith Gurtner 259 xington Pkwy �', / � �� r� � en umer 6 t. Clur v.A�e 1120 St. Clair Ave St Claii Ave 1134 St. Clair Ave Jdc Patios 1126 St Claic Ave �� "F" "�w Lexington Pkwy erta Binket 263 S Lexington Pkwy �'' � 'Gf��c� o �� ar M 251 S Levngton Pkwy en soa 279 S � / �'/� l� , , . /� ` i�tichael Wigfield 1' St Clair ve I/S6 �'i • CL�..�z-.e ��, � ��' ` Be Dunbaz ^ 283��5.7� xington Pb-wy � � l C`�C� azg � 1142 St. Clair Ave y,,�a e 1�oe' � 1142 St C1air Ave 1' t Byr� 24�gton Pb-wy Ra2he1 Blank 243 S Le�ington Pkwy -�ra,,lav�e.C� �.e�- F� e m 259 S Lesington Pb-my �"t drick� ' E^?`X S I.e�ngton Pb-wy `� Kativ'e M -�51 Lexington Pb-wS Chadotte atcos � 1 t Claiz Ave Helene Schultz 9'120 t C;lauulve Susien�Wag�net 11�� St� aire A e L�SA- 5(n3YrR5/J,�rnES sw`;�S ) icf � � e (.0�+ ) <hl� r � l �c� �v � vV\�� Mt�f:!} �t-t��S Ilsz S� c�Ati2yld� /��,�v1'� l�«�r.�-r.�— �i�y� �lfc�'/�S�/�/ ttYz s ; Ca.�a�r ;�v� �� g�-�5�1 October 24, 1447 : :� �<�, m n v � � �:, �.- ? t 6:_ 5 �y F ,. � . a�"� i x.. $ fi •: .h � � , '�_, .,.. �' �7 Zoning Committee 25 West Fourth St. 1100 City Hall Annex St. Paul, MN. 55102 Dear Commissioners: Re: Zoning file number 97-207: Mendota Homes I am opposed to a speciai condition use pemut to allow a 10 unit cluster development for the reasons of safety, trafTic, and character of the neighborhood. The visitors that now pazk on the side or our garages will no longer be able to park there. They will instead need to pazk on Lexington Parkway thus eliminating one lane on uaffic between St. Clair and the bridge over Ayd Mill Road. This poses a safety problem as the cars going south on Le�ngton Parkway will not be able to cleazly see the park cars. The additional street or road entrance/e�t onto Lexington by the bridge over Ayd Mill Road will cause additional problems. This is because both the northbound and the southbound traffic on Leacington Pazkway has hills. The placement of the opening is at the bottom of both hills. The aliey is not wide enough for two cars to use at the same time. If a car is coming in and a car is going out one of the cars must backup. The means backing up onto to St. Clair on backing down the aliey until you have enough room to stop. The garbage trucks need to back out from the north/south alley to the east/west alley to tum around to leave the alley or vice versa. Our alley in unique in that there is only one entrance/exit. I do not think our alley could handie any additional cars. I am against the tearing down of the trees along Ayd Mill Road side of the property because they act as a sound barrier from the train and traffic noise on Ady Mill Road and the Soo Line railroad tracks. It wili also change the view and the privacy that people have when using the backyards for entertaining. It will change the chazacter of the neighborhood. Sincerely Yours, � ��Ci(�f'/�C�- � ��'�z'' " _ � Alberta L. Binker 263 So. Lexington Pkwy. St. Paul, MN. 55105 42 �-3qy ------------ --------- ---------- -� ._ : _::-- -�� - ��-�o� � �:=:t,� .. �;:-..�; ; .: �__ ! .�r -_ - --- - -- - _... -- - -- � Joan .�?. Vanr.Prbilt 1181 Edgcu*abP Road r; ST. Paul, :+'T; 55105 Zoning Co*.nmittPP ?5 �:/PSt Kellogg Blvd. St. Pa.ul, M1V 55102 DPar Sirs: I am writing regarding a spPCia.l pPrmit for P�Yendota HomPS, to build a 13 unit cluster dPVelopmPrit on thP southwPSt quadrant of Zexington and St, Clair AvenuPS in St. Paul. I am definitPl,y against this zoning change for this small parcel of land. It is a green spacP so badly nPeded in cities nov:. There are Pnough homes in this area nou� plus the railraod tracks and steam lines so near. I certainl,y hope common sense will be used regarding this matter and leave thP area alone: SincerPly, �� .° � ��«GG� 1��.�� ,: � ' c �nc: RECEIVED J '''` � ? �� prbllt SEP Q 3 1997 ZONING �03 �. I a �9 a:��j''=+� : ' � � — v�q7•20� � � f.��:s:.;.,�: �r-;., ,• �� yy� �'� : ..�..�� _ .� �/�.e� �� r�a � 98 �3�f �� ,,�� : ��–�- 9 � –.� �• 7 ��'-.�sL..�.�a� //i� �.a? ��o�� .y ��--��J �..s��-z"�.��-��--�-�-� .��J �� d -��-� ,� � ,`',��c--�� :3,5' / ' f'��-�D ��'`'�'��szy✓� .��'�/ `�{ `� �.-a-Q�.�&'��J�.�� d .��_-�-�/�.�./c.J _� ..�r�-�-�� -��-�=�� °> , �� .� �� .� �.�.� ' � �'<--�,�'��..�.�..�� - .�� ' �-. �� ---� �'��_�t� ��.� .��J.�-� .��° �=��i ��t'%F-�-u�- -a-,'.,-.� ��,��-�� ,� �. � � �z-r`✓.��,iy��Eti�h��/��✓�J �� G' � _ .� ,/'�-,'.��/ .�i.1�,�.� �LC./,�'J.� ✓ ��t��-��, .��!��.� :. �� 'r� .�---� `/�� .1 �- �.��.�/. � 1tr� ��,�• "�� _�� , � ,,� ` r -f�Yi�/��-��/ ..�C'-�d -�C�.�f�G _ . �7_�'.� _�"'�/i��.��'v! ./��--�'� c ��L ��'--� � �� o �' ' �� -� � � . � 4 -� � r �fi ,____ 98-3q�{ � �`�: .y--.� ?-------� __�� "� '_�. --L1'�� `3 �s � 9 5 �l ✓J �/�t�_/..��/'.�,��.�.�C'—l'�.i d��✓��-_� �,��%i�� .��C��u��-J� �� .-%�/.�4:-��E ,��z •✓ / �-,z��,�� r �!��c�� .�1 � �c�/� c�-�� _ — .C��%.�e-L��'� .��/ C�!iL[� ��l�J �c� ��=-��1 �!/�l'c�.h'-- �� .��/__�� .�� ,a��.��c��.✓ ��a �%��.�--�- z� .�-�� -��=o��_.. �� --�.��.�. .�� .��-d�:�-� � ,�� .�lc� .�'/ ��f—��-��".�,t' _,.�t��L�-e-�-�� .�%�� ' " �.��c��J�� r� �-�i�J-� ✓ ��;�,��-w. G �-.� ��c.-��-l��i� _�..�2/��t �T-�-EJ�v�� . / .�.r�_� � c,�� ;y�� /�..J-r-UG-zL_��(�yy��i✓7 - ..��L/y'.�i .�' • �/��.�{-;� ��"�'.�-��--�-�?� G�� -�'-��-� `� � ,�.��C'� ��t� ��:� ��s�.�� _ �. -�� i/�� ✓'.� .ir'. -��i�' � �.�hi' - // �. ��'�� ".�.�� " ��,� �/'--��L!' � )�i"✓n-'�s�� r--o " --� �� .�c�¢J��. C�/��,- � f ,1 ��' �C/�'rtiG�� : /r��-�'.J�.�--i�r �'" �1 :: � r L • �! -y / � �./�'.�—�`^''�--��ilC��?� ��/; � �� ,r..t�-.� /�CL _� --��=�/ �.��-y._'-�-C ,��r-t/,.�=��.�/>'l"�'-�= i � �G��{z-r�Ci�F'� .1.,c��j/ / _�e�E' ✓��C9C� �� .�y��, � ' /i �� ` �[�- �'� ��—G�-t ��.�`-� " �--L `�A � .�-r��.� �..--�'—i�� `�1�'� ,� PJ `% �iF�u��c�„� � � .�i�.�_/ .��2��/' .1� �.1.i �.� � "�i �� y�-3sy� j ! y �.d'tlasd � Ht >:•.''E`%'f ' a �7n # �-- a o�� y:,� �' �?� ,.� _ 7 ' �v i j _""__"'_'_'--- « �...._.J `�� /.�-��"��/ �il�.�—��/✓ �.�i�� Q''�/� ��J�rt ��ti�� L�� _�,�-�-�/ - � • �� - � ��.�"..�-�- _ � �-y�.�.�e .�u�-�-e�/�1�� ' �=[�-�/ '��'�� ! /� / � .�..�- �--2�-�-i� �. ✓�.� �_,�-t-cc-�, �i%yJ . u �� 'B' 105 South Sth St�eet Box 530 Minneapoirs MN 55440-0530 Fax (6f2) 347-8170 Canadian Pacefic P;ailenra�+ RealEstafe Marketing (US) MINNEAPOLIS, M�i t August 27, 1997 Zoning Committee City of St. Paul 25 West Fourth St. I 100 City Hall Annex Saint Paul, MN 55102 9V I� G,., t'•;, ic t� ; 1 '. `„ _ . . � �. �� # i" <' +" : i t.„ °_ �; t 5 %9 L • , L L. __ __'. � RECEIVED AU6 2 9 1997 �ONING RE: Zoning File Number 97-207, Mendota Homes Special conditional use pemut to allow a 13 unit cluster development Southwest quadrant ofLexington and St. Ciair CPR Mileage 414, Merriam Park Subdivision To whom it may concern: We have reviewed the above-mentioned proposal and wish to state our opposition to it. Residential development adjacent to our right-of-way is not compatible with railway operations. The health, safety and welfare of potential residents could be adversely affected by railway activities. . Notwithstandin� our opposition, should the proposed draft plan of subdivision be approved, Canadian Pacific Railway requests that the following conditions be imposed on the development: 1. Berm, or combination berm and noise attenuation fence, havins extensions or retums at the ends, to be erected on adjoining property, parallel to the railway right-of-way with construction accordin� to the following specifications: a) Minimum total heisht of 18 feet above top-of-rail; b) Berm minimum height 8 feet and side slopes not steeper than 2.5:1; c) Fence, or wall, to be constructed without openines and of a durabie material weighing not less than 4 Ib/sq. ft. of surface azea. �� - �...SrPI�.'`vt T �,�� J�__ 1. continued.... I`TO part of berm/noise barrier is to be constructed on railway property. A clause should be inserted in all offers of sale and purchase or lease, and be registered on title or included in the lease for each dwelling affected by any noise and vibration attenuation measures, advisin� that any berm, fencin„ or vibration isolation features implemented are not to be tampered with or altered, and further that the owner shall have the sole responsibility for and shall maintain these features. Dwellings must be constructed such that the interior noise levels meet the criteria of the appropriate authority. A noise study should be cazried out by a professional noise consultant to detemune what impact, if any, railway noise would have on residents of proposed subdivisions and to recommend mitigation measures if required. The recommendations of the sTudy aze to be implemented. - 2. Setback of dwellings from the railway right-of-way to be a minimum of 90 feet. While no dwelling should be closer, an unoccupied building, such as a garage, may be built closer. The 8 feet hi�h earth berm adjacent to the right-of-way must be provided in all instances. 3. Ground vibration transmission to be estimated through site tests. If in excess of the acceptable levels, all dwellings within 225 feet of the nearest track should be protected. The measures employed may be: a) Support the buildin� on rubber pads between the foundation and the occupied structure so that the maximum vertical natural frequency of the stnxcture on the pads is 12 Hz; - b) Insulate the buiiding from the vibration ori�inatin' at the railway tracks by an intervening discontinuity or by installing adequate insulation outside the building, protected from compaction that would reduce its effectiveness so that vibration in the building became unacceptable; or c) Other adequate measures that �vill retain their effectiveness over time 4. A clause should be inserted in all offers to purchase, agreements of sale and purchase or lease and in the title deed or lease of each dwelling, warnine prospective purchasers or tenants of the e�stence of the Railwav's operating right-of-way; the possibility of alterations, including the possibility that the Railway may expand its operations, which expansion may affect the living envuonment of the residents notwithstandin� the inclusion of noise and vibration attenuating measures in the desien of the subdivision and individual units, and that the Railway will not be responsible for complaints or claims arising from use of its facilities and/or operations. �I$ �.a'. '-------____-_ 9 8 � 39 y i ...�`'�`� �'_��;;�_ � �� .. . _.� 9 Z� 5. Any proposed alterations to the e3cisting drainage pattern affecting railway property must receive prior concurrence from the Railway, and be substantiated by a draina�e report. 6. Any proposed utilities under or over railway property to serve the development must be approved prior to their installation and be covered by the Railway's standard a�reement. 7. A 6 foot high chain link fence should be constructed and maintained along the common property line of the Railway and the development by the developer at his expense, and the developer is made aware of the necessity of includin� a covenant running with the lands, in all deeds, obliging the purchasers of the land to maintain the fence in a satisfactory condition at their expense. To ensure the safety and comfort of adjacent residents and to mitigate as much as possible the inherent adverse environmental factors, your assurance that the above conditions witl be imgosed on the developer would be appreciated. We would appreciate being advised of your decision regarding this proposal in due course. Sincerely, c`-��;�� David S. Drach Area Manager 612/347-8354 97239-Oi.ltr � g �- 35 y BEST R. FLAI�TACzAI�T ROBERT L CROSDS" Lco� axn �I_ Anni�cro� Ronattr R. B.+m'x �. ��ALTEH GIUFF jLLE] D. BdR\ARD RICFt{RD A.P£[ERSOS RosElrr J. Cx�usria�so�. Jx. Fa.v�x J. \1:�iz Fa.a�x t'oGt �(exc�cs �ti. �}�.e P�-rras, Jx. D..�'av B. ]IOxsE Joxs A.Bctrro�.Jx. Je>res C.D�u.ccss Rosem' L.SIEi�a,Ja- DIORFIS E.FL\OnF Jcncrx A.RocosxessE SWT[ D. ELL£R C�i{g{ES C. BEF0�15T E..Joserx L.+FacE CiHCGOftY D.$OliL£ CATRY E. GORLIS PAiRICF B. HESSESSY 7180THY d. $iLLSV'A] Bxus F. R�ce D:.�iEi R.H: \EVSO� Trsacz J-�.L� Srea�auxcx Da�-in J- ZcehE ST£\'ES R. F�ALGP-R Jwves P. >trcxaz.s Pntiz E.li xi�stic .IOx� P. Borie Ross C.FOekEic Cwxrs S. Gw�'ER �IARY' E. SHEARES BdRH.aRi X.RO55 CASRERIS£ J. COLA'[SEY Ja.+�-�rcf �I.Rcar.c Ms. Beth Bartz Zoning Office City of St. Paul 1100 Ciry Hall Annex 25 West Fourth Street St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Southwest Quadrant of Lexington and St. Clair Applicant: Mendota Homes Zoning File No. 97-207 Dear Ms. Bartz: liec�� J. Dcvie�-r Jir.� E Lwoars SAgAH CRIFFE\ iS.iDI50V Roa�� D.?fexax D.+� H.Joxssos tL E.�LiL'IHER {�ii.cux J. Mo��s Dt:cxwai H. Pi�x D.i]]EL t�. H{pL1Y Avr J. 5��-Ennsac O� Co�. � {YAR➢ $ I.F'��:� Ancxi�wtu �-= -zrz Roaeer >I �- - Joxs R.Cae.=.,� Ja.ies D- O�- :s Jwvcsl.B=.. ��rrz-��re ftosErzr J. F:...� .:...� �am-�3>> --.._"_,_,_---- _ + '�;� � �' ai� :` ' "s _��,.y.__'""""-- -�. 1f�,, v� k� �? : � " Y Y �, ' " I , p vCd��7�a ,,.:➢.''sa,c. / �.'7a,� 1 .._ GU i _ � i I am enclosing for your reference copies of three court decisions involving John Mathern, a principal in Mendota Homes An Order in mortgage foreclosure action on townhomes built in Washington County; 2. An Order granting United Mortgage Company relief in the bankruptcy of John and Sandra Mathern and denying the Matherns' discharge; An Order confirmine the bankruptcy court's denial of the Matherns' discharge in bankrup[cy. As I no[ed to you on the phone, Mathems did brina an action against their bankruptcy attorney in connection with their bankruptcy filing. In addition to reservations about the developer, I think the site is quite small for the ambitious project proposed. Substan�ial tra�c will be brouoht into the neighborhood. The budszt raises concerns about the project's viabiliry, suggestin� the project should be rejected for a special conditional use permit. Very tmly yours, C - � �,,�} Professional Limited Iiabilit� Partnership 4000 FIRST B?�\"B PLACE 601 SECO�D A1 SoL�'x A'IIA"\E-'+POLIS� NII_\'_\'ESOS2. 5540°-4331 XTTP�// Sl'�1 ti .BESTLI�V.CO�I (612) 339-7121 Fdti �632� 339-38W September 11, 1997 Timothy A. Sullivan �Q dpr:sloaa �+ 5 �-3yY PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE ZONING COMMITEE OF THE SAINT PAUL PLANNING COMMISSION TO property Owners �r��ithin 350 feet; / Representatives of Planning District 16 - �' t�> `��, �o n .',.. / � APPLICANT PURPOSE �. o a=�=: 9� � b Y � � �� 9 ' � MENDOTA HOMES �,_ " �,.: A special condition use permit to allow a 10 unit cluster development. *�i • p ,.� _ • y ,� fa y � a. ' 3. V 'c : _ ��s ";�- . I .n ./ ' ''t_. .... ". . '"�e' -� �:-^h ».rq.,,..-". .. � ... -,. �~ ..F°-� � .�;a , `,_" ..�:.,r'�° ; ... . •' ' _ i .r:.,.�':; .i.: ,.;:.�-M-- $` 5 ,.a.d�:��=::.:i '... _ '` . : > �s..,.-;=.. , . ." - - �._. . �� 'r J ., J _ - ' - yJ'� .%4«�...r� r' � � 4 t^�a ��`..'w�� `� P r ...•� » ... ..., . ...�::yw. ..- ' . x.��,. ...... � ' ..-.� � ,. _..e...&k"�... ,.'r•-..:• ...'_`y-� ..:?z.� �,� , � . f s;....� ,,�;a.� ,. . Y "aK;w - 1s , s n � _,�. LOCATTON OF PROPERTY southwest quadrant of Lexington and St. Clair ,a , r Legal Description: see file .'-"�`4: -%' �: �%.��.<-' �±a p • � , ' 2';',z .�' �� 2,��`�� ,:n� �. . �. _ �.-� <, 4��: -,' - .""` i �� .'i �.�t.'�:.,�,>�,+.1 °�`��..- _ 0. TIME OF HEARING PL ACF OF HEARIl�'G HOW TO PARTICIPATE A1�TI' QUESTIONS Thursday, 10/30/97 at 3:30 p.m. Cit}' Council Chambers, 3rd Floor City� Hall-Cour House 15 West Kelloge Blvd, Saint Paul, ivIIv' S5102 1. You ma�� attend hzarino and testif� . 2. You mav send a letter before the hearina to the Zonine Committee. �: �Vest Fourth St, 1100 City Halt Annex Saint Pau1, M1v » 102. 3. Participation is not required. This is your notice of public hearins. Call Beth Baztz of the South«•est tzam at 266-6�80 or your District C ounc,: Representati��e at 222-1222 �sith the follou information: Zonin� File Number 97-207 Zoning File Iv'ame MENDOTA HONIES Mailing Date i0/17 47 �7 9$ 3 95f David & Helene I,evy Schultz 1120 Saint Clau Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota 5�10� 292-1096 October 20, 1997 Zoning Committee c/o Beth Bartz 25 West Fourth Street 1100 City Hall Annex Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear Zoning Committee Members: Re: Mendota Homes/ file number 97-207 ��`��'=��: ��_,� `�7'�?_ i 3 'r.s5 � __..,.._� r. ..._. _. ....�..,. __ ...��_ -_ ----� We are properiy owners abutting on tbe proposed developed for a ten unit cluster development at the southwest quadrant of Lexington and Saint Clair. We oppose the granting of a special condition use permit to permit this development and we urge members of your committee and the entire Planning Commission to oppose the special use permit. There are several reasons why we oppose the granting of the special use permit. The Mendota Homes project poses a traffic safety problem for the neighboThood. On the one hand, the development will create an egress on to Lexington Avenue next to the bridge crossing Ayd Mill parkway and the railroad tracks. This new eeress will force additional cars and traffic on to a road that MNDOT has alreadv described - as one of the busiest roads in Saint Paul. (see attached Highland Villager article) Already, the traffic con�estion on Lexington makes it difficult to enter this street and the Mendota Homes development would only exacerbate the problem. In addition, unlike other residential streets in the neiahborhood that have altemative egresses besides entering on to Lexington, the Mendota Homes development w�ill not. An eQress at this ]ocation will pose riro additional traffic safetv�roblems. First, the egress �vill come at the base of a slope of an incline that makes it difficult to see oncouung traffic. This slope thus creates a visual hazard that w�il make tums across tbe Vaf6c very difficult. Second, an e�ress here will create a hazard for people wishing to make left tums across the traffic. There is no question that such tums «zli cause traffic backups. additional con�esrion, ' and accidents. In addirion to tbe traffic problems Mendota Homes wil] cause by the creation of a new earess on to Lexinaton, the project also calls for the use of an exisring and small alley off Da�id & Helene L,evy SchulWMendoW Homzs �2 � ----------- i ' �i t'�i i � `:; . � - - r� >. .,., ._ �_. w /_ i of Saint Clair as egress for several of the units. This additional demand on the alley is also a traf6c safety problem for several reasons. First, the alley is very narrow (ZO feet across) and seivice vehicles and passenger cars already have difficulty driving down it Moreover, there is no possibility of widening tbe alley. Second. the allev already enters on to a verv busy intersection where there are many traffic accidents. Those of us �vho already use the alley for our homes have difficulty entering and leaving the alley because of the Saint Clair traffia Third, tlie traffic demand on this alley_is alread�reat and the proposed Mendota Homes development would si�nificantiv increase the number of cars in an allev alreadV overcrowded. Fourth, unlike other alleys that laave two egresses, the Saint Clair alley only has one. This means sib ificant stress on an existing al]ey a3ready overused, placing the additional traffic on to a very busy street. Hence, adding more traffic makes no sense. The Mendota Homes pro,ject should be denied a special condition use permit because similar projects for this property have been turned down in the past. Several times in tl�e past requests for development at this location have been made and the City l�as consistenUy turned tl�e project down citing dwelling density, congestion, and traffic safety issues on Saint Clair. Those decisions were made when the traffic congestion on the street was much less than it is today. The Mendota Homes project will create �re safety problems. Because of the narrowness of the Saint Clair alley and the traffic conQestion on Saint Clair and Lexington. it wil] be verv difficult for public safetv vehicles. e.g., fire, police and ambulance services, to enter the Mendota Homes develo np �ent• While the developer contends that his proposed L,e�ngton egress will be accommodate public safety vehicles, we do not believe that is the case. Especially in situations during rush hours, or when residents have guests over, the additional cars parked in the area will make entrance by service vehicles problematic. The Mendota Homes project is inconsistent with the overall integrity of the neighbor.hood. An important consideration in granting a special use permit is that the project fit in with the overall intearitv of the neighborhood. On several fronts, this development does not. First. it creates a type of unit— cluster development—that is out of character witb tl�e rest of the homes in the neiohborhood. The rest of the houses are single famih� detached units. Second, the architectural stvle of the proposed units is inconsistent �oith the houses in the neishborhood. Third, a cul-de-sac development like Ylendota Homes is inconsistent «ith the type of development �ce have or want in this neiQhborhood. Fourth, the project increases unit densit�� beyond what is compatible ��ith the current neiQhborhood. The Mendota Homes project is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan for the neighborhood. The comprehensive plan for this area of Saint Paul does not call for this t�rpe of development or increase in the unit densiri�. Since zonin? laws. ��ariances, and permits must be consistent �iith the overall comprehensive plan. the cluster development specia] unit permit shou]d be aiewed as a form of spot zonina that is contran� to citv law and the overall development plans for the nei�bborhood. UaviS 8 Heizne Lew Scnul[z"htend�[a Hon��s 73 � qB - 3gy j . , . �.,. r . :. � . ;, , — --------- --------_._ _--- `- _��'�'L��'�:._, v ..:.:..-; ` 1 ?-�� _—_______----- The Mendota Homes request for a special condition use permit to buiid cluster ` units shouid be rejected for the same reasons a similar project on Juliet and I.exington was TejeCted. Law, as well as fairness dictates that equals should be treated the same. Here, the Mendota Homes project is very similar to a special condition use permit for cluster development that you and the City Council rejected recently on Juliet. There, tl�e basis of rejection was traffic safety, emergency vehicle access, a lack of harmony bet�veen the proposed project and the neighborhood, and lack of support by neighbors. (see attached Highland Villager article) T7ie same conditions are present here except to the e�tent that the Mendota Homes project has even less direct access to a main street than did the 7uliet project. Hence, fairness and the ]aw dictate that you reject the special condition use permit. The Mendota Homes request for a spe�ial condition use permit should be denied because none of the neighbors abutting on the project support it. Lacking community support from those who must live near the project, we urge you to oppose the granting of a special condition use perrnit for Mendota Homes. 'I'hank you for considering our letter and viewpoint. Sincerely, �L�r�. �� Helene Levy Schultz - � David Schultz David & Helene Lery Schultz'htendota Homes � ` ��<. : ;; - : -, e V�� G�, '� S �`.� 98- 39 `f u :. -� q7• ZpZ N�nDOZ foreseQS traf�ic car�ges�ia� City Counci) rejects request for Mac-Grove townhomes �1 proposed Macalester-Groveland hous- ing development was dealt another setback on September 2�4 whzn the St. Paut City Council rejected a request by Highland Park dzveloper John Kratz to vacatz a section of Paiace �venue. i:*a:z :can[s to construct a two-building, eisht-uni_ townnome complex on about =9.000 sauazz fzzt ot ��acant land that he ol� ns zast o* Lzx�r.g*.or. Parkwav bem�een Palace and Juiiet a: enues. Hz ��as hoFinQ to a C{� L^.2 'i:iQ2`: E:O: ZC S2CI:OR OS .nZ�dC2 Sd'2.^.112 ?O u.2 rz>: oEni> r:oper,;�.�chxh nz purnaszefrom ,ie \tiar.z�o.a Dzpz:tment ot T: ar.spo:.a- t;c:n-:eczz*sa°^.. ---�- --�=_:_ _� L�� s: Ju: z thz �ir: Cour,cil re;eaed nra:z's reaues: ier a s�eci�I coaditior, usz ee: :ii*. to build a"c:uster dzvz(ovmer.t;' a construc:ion CQRtIEII:niiOR L:ldi d:iZ`I1DC5 LO C7252R'B 2S i[17L`CP Of i'2 SUL:CL' :QI:1� 0�12.1 S�dC2 eS POS- j siSle.The�lacalzste:-G:oazlzn�Com:acnirv � Cuun:il i:ad rzcommznded that t:.z oermi: ' .�?2C2R32CCL'2COIF251Z20iLI12iOWP ; IZ12C10Z1 :J SI1ILOl:P,C:R° 7253�2!1C:5. `t:a�? said the council should not approve the street vacation until Kratz and his neighbors can agree on a development plan for the prooerr.�� witho�� Ayd Mi�l Road conne��ion byJane;�IcClure � tzattheanatysisdidro:zndicateLSa;,. . ,e:szc:ior.sx�ouldzxpe:iencesiga:ficzr.,,,- � Proposedcor:ectionsben+•eenAqdi�tilL_f.cpreolems."Ionl�seesieintzrseccicn>o•, Road and I-91 wiL be o.zser:ted to the Ayd c:-aci.y;'said �iacaiescer-Grove!aac :e��_ �Mi11 Road Task Force aU:00 p.n. �Ionda•r, � se�tatr:° Kac� \.fcGough."bVhv 2re •.re :oe's- Augus:l3, at thz �izrriam Pzr1: Community i:g at milIions aad millions ef dolia: s:e, c Centz:, 2000 SC 3nthor.y A•:e. Thz task force, >iiil Road iP.+�e can hzr.d'tz the t:a�:ic �.: i;.i "e which is composed of rzpresentatives fron 5::2°G`n'e 42 oOCY�� - local commenirr councils,businzss associa- �I:.l Klassen oFthz SL Paul Puoiic �.�or.:; 'tionsandocherne:ghboihood�rouos,hopes Dzpa:tment respondzd tha[ probi�c:> al- to make a recomnendation'on thz future of readv esistir.g at somz intersections cs ;no; thero2dway:n19S3. - rzzdilcberecufiedwithoutdiveCin�::�;c-c Connzctino d.d �[ilf Road's south end is A�'d �Iill Road. No solu;ion has be�a _ou�c simolvamarerofremocingL`�ebarriersnear ferthecapacityproblemsloomin�;;3a::_ JefTerson Avenue and I-3�E. Connzctin� the c'eloh and I-35E or at Selby and Sr.e:;i ,�, j:2 Ayd �.Iill Road's north end to I-94 is another s:�d. matter.Sevzralconnections, Hzreare44ekeyfindin�sfrointhzz::zivsis: and interchange layouts are being studizd, • Snzlling Avenue is expected to >ze .h� and a?I involve 4'�e removal of residential and la:gesc increase in trafric bythe ye;: 30?0. comme:cial propzrties. Strong opposition to Pza: ai,ernoon rush hour traftic ve•._mz i> anyconnectiononthenorthendhasblockzd 'c�*readvat2,375vehidesanhoura*._4-�:ir.� the comple!ion o; Ayd �titl Road since thz - aac Shz:burnz;3,600 at Snzlline and :=_::har; 195Cs. ' � � a: d 2,100 at Snellin� and Lincoi. . i�os: Or.e of the ootions still bzeng e;;zd forAyd r.c.mbers are expectzd to intrease o�: z_ e::: :? Mill is [o do nothing. fioweve:, city and statz perceat-to 2,750, 4, I CO ar.d 2,72=, rzsoec- officizls say iailcrz to connec; the roadtivay to tiszly—if Ayd Mill is r.ot connzet:? :o ta: [he ir.rerstate svstzm i4'i11 result in inc*eased" ?e��vavs4s�e� _��,_____� _._ traficonalreadycon�estzdareastre�s. • T:aftic on Lexing[on Parkecav, e_::�c� Treresultsofat.afficanai/sisofnei�hbor- o-eoithearea'sbusiests.reetsdu*i-=:us� in� st*eets werz reviewed by thz Ayd �fill •'r.eur, is predicted [o increase from _._=J :e RoadTas�ForceonJuly2l:The�tinnesota 2,:�Ovehidesanhourat Deoutme�f of Trznspor.ation (�InDOT) be:ne, from 2,L25 to 2,500 ac Lzxi, �-ca a:c przpa:ed t�5e trz ti.0 ioL2Ca5t5 EOCL'1.°�'ea*?020 ±a doien, frem 2,»0 [0 2,350 at Le:::-g:r.. ' fors::�e:si.^,thza:�abouaczdbvSh.zrburne z.cCar:oll,Fom1,�C0:e1,5��a::z._ce_cc A V2^:X, V :c_oria Stre°t, Raadoi�h Av°au.., r� ii,coln. =_r.d F:o^ SCC to 9CG z: =e��-a- and�_:in�:en..�. �c �te�z�>ei.�.., ,�� ., � , - « �Ce!eoi:e_at i�:=_r.z:;oonc_ -:c:aces 'r:.-....�� °'s3 �e�:'s::-c.r=---_ be:acse�ha,;:c�z:_:r.es.c�a':re:oclzr.:sco- �..;_c'�zfei:z:RarceL^ .w::zr� _.r--= cu., saic' S:_. _ " c: \I.^.J.�.O.�. r ' 7" .=i."._ :O:_-;2 S 8 ?2C,.... ._ ' ] "_c lec::__-:_�:..;cce� -c:c:,:•.�zex�z=--:co :r......;: ��, �:_-icesa..-._r.=r..=._r b eL._:nC�:..�_c_. .r_:-___�=._zn, __- . _:,.-_.-. :.-_- ii �•:e �[i:i Bozc:er..�.::s as:_ is.5 :�.. --- :_ --_. =.nco.... fr,._....` ._ - . --- �':_.._.iP.:2'S2C;:CLS.-.....A'CP.CC{CJLI_' _.:_:.,_.::Z.--..-J�O=J dia.Se:o�: r.cG:_�c�..w�[c_c .._._..c_ ..._..-...rse_:iec- -= -- —.- I'i'v':L� =LJ'.'_� "'"":'l:r,.:_C.�:E:12II �C""._. 3S:'�5:-'� ..:_._ '._ EC{, v�.:iSQG R3CCC:^ �....._� i...�CSE�- C LCe.- C�i:: �C2G3LC 1:C3::C?::'-C"' "_ i10.^.5:'_Si�� __: C'n°S:C: t'_"Z�cpttiCCCC'_ . _. .., . ��.� .�...C:2> 2.... _:..,C_G- -'.- Oi"°"_372C:C , _�-' .:�_^9�t�iCa,.]�;�c::::'-".._n'G' $r.-2C35(::OLC_^2:^J::Stv2.:5i1:7::i:_ _"'..:-. " ` � � ii� 7� � y �-3S�f 1. SUNRAY-BATTT,ECREEK•HIGHWOOD 2. fIAZEL PARK HADEN-PROSPERITY HILLCREST 3. WEST SIDE 4. DAYTON'S BLLJFF 5. PAYNE-PHAI.EN 6. NORTH END 7. THOMAS-DALE 8. SUMMIT-iJNIVERSPTI' 9. WEST SEVENT�I 10. COMO 11. HAMLINE-MTDWAY 12. ST. ANT'HONY PARK 13. MERRIAM PARK-LEXINGTON HAMLINE-SNELLING HAMLINE 14. MACALESTEJ2 GROVELAND 15 16. SUMMIT 17. OWN ZONiNG FILF �?� � 76 CTTIZEN PARTICIPATION PLANNING DISTRICTS 9 � 3q�! � . d . . �...:__� . . S I �� r � •.., . .� � , t'' . � , . � Z �_. :.:,;.^� fn t , . :_;� i � � i ::. .. � :' : `.%t:.., � , _��'.`�'. `, \ I` \ 4' � ��.'`" .!,\ } ) � � 0 ., � �— , :� �^%�E1�J �� . �t� � �; � • � � � hfs � � i �Y -� � t.. ,> • • w • � � � �� !�. ��,+�^�� ' v � './ ;. � 3 �c.� + z^";��(l �A� _� ^ :� ' �� '+ ' ,_;) • j �, j, ' �?� �� r � �� , � �:�3 � � ':� � � �'+� .� � � � � � ,� �, '�' � .;� ^ 3 � i � '�P �'.� `.� t AVE. _ m �1� � �� • • •••�••••••• • t�� • � . � � L� G � 0 � •� I ��!�� • � � l- . . �� I� � �C'� . e•.e. . � � r � � � � �, � ; � , l '<. -�� ' -'1 � �, � Y • • �.�ra�.�...�. �� •� � � • • •�� - � ;� fl • • • � � t �� :� �ao��Q�� _ -.... 0�� eeeed��. ... 0 r ; \ �` i� _ _ Q � v � V V �• �"�'�"�=�� ' � '""' "-- APPLICANT +�E��1'• �� LEGEND PURPOSE �W � � zoning district boundary FILE # �� ( DATE�_��_ � subject property n� orthi PLNG. DIST.� _ MAP # Y o one family •♦� commercial � � two family � � � industrial SCALE 1" = 400' � v __,. s ...,_ �-� Q multiple family V vacant � .,.�v.�... , �� . . . . . . . � .� �� • c ' �g �.�. � �� :1� �� i •�'�Jaa�'-13-98 10:22A Sewer Utility 298 5621 P.Ol y8 3�� i �� Et�� rA`L JR'� � �'�� The Lexington St. Clair Neighborhood �ro: FAX: �FROM Ella Thaver 266-8574 Pat Byme VOICE: 266-617i OF: VO(CE: Address DATE: Councilmember Benanav's Of 266-8643 243 S. Lexington Parkway Tuesdav, Januarv 13. 1998 TOTAL NUMBER t?F SHEETS (including this one): �a REMARKS Conceminp "lexinqton Commons proposal (�Lexinpton and St. Clair' � .. . .- -�- , - . -. ,. �_ .�-� - .� . . .��- . u .��. - Also. I was sur�ised to hear that anv residents su000rted the oroaosed develooement But then 1 look�d u� their addresses f 1166 and f 172 St. Clair) and nofed thev are not in our neiqhborhood but across the freeway from the or000sed developemerrt T hank vou for distnbutina this �AX SENT BY: ob TIME: io:25 AM DATE: i�i3/ss Jar.i13-98 10:23A Sewer Utility 298 5621 � To the Councilmembers of the City Council of St. Paui, Good Afternoon . P_02 9�-��y I'm here to read a letter signed by ail af my neighbors. I'd like to note that aimost all of these neighbors have shown up for at least one and sometimes all of the five public meetings already scheduled to discuss this issue. Most have shown up for at least one of the five private meetings held in various neighbor's homes or rented community center meeting rooms. It is a very concerned group of neighbors and a very united group of neighbors. It consists of 100% of the people living next to the site and includes neighbors on the other side of Lexington Parkway We think there were a number of errors and omissions in the process performed by both Staff and Planning Commission Members. In the tollowing list of comments however you will note that we address both those errors and omissions and repeat a number of comments we have made in the last five public meetings held discussing this issue. • ProperEy Acquisition The property consists of two loes. One on Lexington Parkway and one landlocked � lot behind everyone's houses. It was acquired by Roger Vik as surplus county property for hundreds of dollars. It was deemed valueless or near so then because of it's unsuitability for development. We are not saying you can't develop properey because it was deemed valueless at some point in its history. We just want to be clear that there is no mayor investment or livelihood that we are threatening with denial of this development. This is not a situation of depriving a property owner of value of their property. It has accurately been described as valueless in past, peopie have moved into the neighborhood aware that it was valueless, it was acquired under that status, and continues to exist under that status unless you decide to award it a variance thru this special use permit. � • Minimum Requirements It is our understanding that the owner needs to demonstrate an inability to deveiop the property under the existing zoning before issuing a speciai use permit. The owner has not done this. 'Fhere has never been a discussion of developing the site as zoned_ The site is zoned single family residential, and the owner has not tried to put singie family residential there. This can happen with no changes, to the property fronting Lexington Parkway now, and can happen, with some changes, to the second, bigger lot. We would like to explore this 1 of i 3 Jan=13-98 10:23A Sewer Utility � � � concept later. 298 5621 P.03 9$-34�{ Ostensibly one of the other reasons for having a special use permit for a cluster development is to preserve and increase green space, to cluster the structures in such a manner as to increase green space within the City. As you view the proposal, note this does not happen. • Aliey Use The alley use has been a major item for most of residents and others. It is two, not one, dead end alleys that furthermore combine into one outlet. Everyone involved has already reached a minimum proposal to not allow major increased traffic on the alley. AlI the residents agree this would be insanity to allow. Accidents have happened already due to combination of density of existing traffic and proximity of the alley (125'} to an intersection that has 24,000 ADT. Any increased use of the aliey would require a paved surface 16' wide_ This would require removal of the trees in the ailey and supporting of existing structures. • Existing Property Values Initially some of the neighbors thought property values would suffer. it was thought that if you put new housing woxth $150,000 to $200,000 right next to an existing oId house worth $60,000 that the contrast between the two would actually devalue the existing house. However at one of our private meetings we invited a number of real estate professionats to speak to us. Two of them inform us this would not be the case. However both were very emphatic that amenities to the neighborhood are indeed lost, and that their statements on property value were very much contingent on the proposal being completed and completed correctly. However even with this assurance sume are still fearful. This concern was listed in this letter for this reason. And to lead into the next matter. One agent made this disclaimer only when made awaxe of who the developer is. I'd like to return to this issue a bit later. • Viability of the Proposal There are strong doubts as to viability of this project. 1) The developer has already gone thru bankruptcy procedures in past 2of13 Jan-13-98 10:24A Sewer Utility i � 298 5621 P_04 98 2) The developer has indicated he will ignore the wamings issued by the railraad company as to the vibrations generated by the tracks at the bottom of the hill from the development. The owner of the furthest house away on this block has indicated that you feel the trains far in advance of hearing them. There are a minimum of two schedule trains everyday right now plus commercial routings. developments. 3) There has been indications of the possibility of contaminated soils or at the very least an abandoned dump site. However after months of questioning this, no soil barings have been performed. Instead, slab on grade construction has been proposed. 4)The site proposal calls for removal of the hundreds of trees on site, leaving a barren exposure to both the railroad and the freeway. And the future of that particular freeway is uncertain; wiil it be turned into renovated four lane expressway or into a linear park? 5) Because of the limited investment in the property acquisition there are fears that if the development does not produce, the developer will walk away leaving a mess behind. With the resulting mess, the City will then allow even more deviation or variances, because there will be a need to restore the site inio something usable. In 1978 Roger Vik pr�posed apartment buildings with underground garages. Will this proposal come back? • Compatibility The requirements include, and the staff report states "The design will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood". The comment is made that overall the proposed design is compatible with surrounding neighborhood which consists of a mixture of 1, 1.5 and 2 story stnzctures with gabled and hipped roofs. We think there is a mistake here. The anly really compatib2e item will be that they house people. You go from a 64' or 9Q+' by 25' structures with attached garages of 800 sq feet for a total of 24Q0 to 3600 square feet structures to the existing structures ranging from 600 square feet to 900 square feet. You go Erom a mixEure over SQ years of construction of stucco, clapboard, metal sliding, wood to one of uniform vinyl siding. � 3of13 Jan=13-98 10:24A Sewer Utility 298 5621 P_O5 ��-�y � The obvious incompatibility is you go from single family housing to multiple family housing. You go from fenced or treed lots fronting a pubiic street with yards and boulevards to a cul-de-sac with almost no yard space and most of the trees removed. You go from a developed St. Paul Community with its own unique characterizations to a Woodbury house farm. Another obvious incompatibility is that you go from homes valued at $25,000 to $100,00 and now add homes valued at $140,000 to �200,000 Again the requirement is far granting a special use permit that compatibility exists. Stating that compatibility exists solely because there are 1 and 2 story structures with gabled and hipped roofs is an extreme, very liberal, interpretation of the word compatible. Almost to the point of making that requirement a non existent one. We believe of the envelope of possible interpretations of the word `compatible' is being stretched, and stretched in the wrong direction. • Safety � r� � We feel staff and P1aruling Commission inadequately addressed the issue of safety, either thru a mistaken assessment or no assessment at all. Having the ptoposal be safe is another requirement in granting variances thru a special use permit. Traffic We have had two professionals in municipal traffic and municipal engineering testify that the proposed outlet to Lexington Parkway is unsafe. Their comments are on public record. There has been no conflicEing testimony from City Staff, engineering or otherwise. The best response we have is that it meets standards as to distance from a signalized intersection, that it meets line of sight requirements, and that it is as safe as a driveway on Maryland Avenue. The last statement, that it is as safe as a driveway on Maryland Avenue, carne from staff in response to a direct question by a member of the planning commission. Later at another public meeting the same planning commission member, when quizzed on how informative Public Works was, stated his disappointment in them. While he did not elaborate as to why, it is our opinion he was disappointed because staff would not say directly 'it is safe'. We, the neighbors, are equally disappointed because staff would not say directly 'it is unsafe'. We'd like to come back to this issue later. Again, there has been comments from two professionals on municipal engineering and municipal traffic that it is unsafe in their professional opinions. One was very descriptive as to why, citing speed at the bottom of two hills, 4 of 13 .Jan�13-98 10:25A Sewer Utility 298 5621 P_06 98-3��{ . distracting characteristics, camouflage appearances, ADT, distance of alleys from intersections, etc. When a copy of that was submitted to the Public Works staff and they were questioned as to whether they would say he was wrong, they could or would not do so. There was an attempt to attenuate one of these safery hazards by requiring a no le£t turn during rush hour traffic sign as you leave the development. This inadequately address the issue as speed is still the greatest on the bottom of the two hills Iocated right at the point. Also the entrance and exit are designed to look like a driveway, not a street that requires more attention. And, there was no corresponding effort to regulate left turns into the site from north bound Lexington Parkway, again causing an unexpected road blockage for norEh bound traffic and crossing over south bound traffic. The existence of other, possibly more unsafe situations, does not create a reason to condone this type of planning now. Those other situations evolved over decades and correcting them may not be practical now. Storm Water Mana� ment There is a requirement that calls for the inclusion of a detention pond on the proposed developed site. This is due to storm water management requirements � that are part of city ordinances. In most cases you will find this requirement being applied or incorporated into a parking lot or on the site of induscrial or business expansions. Staff has found these ponds to be intrinsically unsafe in residential areas or in park areas due to the presence of children. However it is the policy to let the developer seek a variance rather then to selectively urge a variance based upon this particular safety issue. Parking On Lexington If a proposal takes away guest parking for existing residents on Lexington Parkway, on any type of property, whether it be the existing alley or the existing private property, with the end resuit be3ng that guest of residents on Lexington end up parking on Lexington, you will almost for sure be causing a tatality. Residents have done studies, parking cars on Lexington during broad daylight and observing the number of near accidents that occur. The near accidents occurred almost every signal light cycle. Night time experiments could not be __ conducted_ This issue has not been addressed at all by staff because it is a- --- seconctary effect of the proposal. But without this proposal it would not happen at all. � 5of13 Jan-13-98 10:25A Sewer Utility � • Not In My Neighborhood! 298 5621 P_07 �J8-3� This is not a'not in my neighborhood you don't' issue. Yes, we like the open space. Yes, when we moved into this neighborhood we were assured this land locked lot could not be developed and that it had no value. And yes as we look out at the 24,000 ADT in the front of our houses we would prefer to have the back remain palatable. It's kind of a`no brainer' that we do not want this here. But this isn't a halt way house moving in, or a]ibrary, and there are no social movements being hindered here. Also this is not depriving the awner the right to access the lots on Lexington Parkway or development of his property as single family housing. This does seek to deny development of a land locked lot that appropriately has had no value or development over the decades. We offer alternatives later. We are offering real acceptable reasons for denying this proposal and they are usable by you the decision makers. • Metropolitan Council Policy On Urban Development We are all aware of the Metropolitan Council Policy on Urban Development where the stopping of urban sprawl out further and further is to be discouraged � and deveiopment within existing highly dense sites is to beencourage. There are plenty of sites within the City of Saint Paul that can be developed for residential use. You have the old Amhoist site between Robert and Wabasha, you have river front sites in conjunction with Shepard Road Development, ,you have the Phalen Corridor with it's accompanyuig light industrial. These alone offer the opportunities for 1000's of residential units. And if you want to continue coping with this particular policy and think it worth an investment by the community at large, you can mave on to cleaning up contaminated sites suitable for light industrial and moving the pieces around a little bet#er, again opening up sites for thousands of residential units. They will be coordinated with the community and there will be little or no problems with compaYibility, safety, access, property values. These sites will be planned sites. They exist now. Wilder Homes just across the Freeway is a good example. � The Summit Hill Zoning Committee strongly endorse the Met Councit Policy. 'They have also turned down on three different public meeting a number of variations of deveioping this site including one not significantly different then what you are iooking at now. As an aside the executive director also appeared at an earlier public hearing to recommend denial. 6 of S 3 Jan�13-98 10:26A Sewer Utility 298 5621 � The process of developing a coordinated or planned community to help with this policy is a much better process then the one being suggested for this neighborhood. We don't view filling in every little empty space as the right way of complying with the Met Council. Furthermore, the process we have been subjected to appears to be somewhat willy nilly. The developer has offered many variations of basically the same problem proposal but changing it enough at the last minute to make it a difficult moving target. For the last change, offered 5 minutes before the zoning committee meeting, no prepared comments from the residents were possible. Even complete staff apgroval had to be estimated by the staff present at the meeting. This did not appear to be the way to decide a community's future. • Tough Questions, Tough Answers � � We have some real serious concerns about this process. There doesn't seem to be a lack o€ tough questions but there does seen to be a lack of tough answers. Take the issue of the Met Council Policy. No where in staff's answers or approach is there a discussion or a recommendation as to whether or not the City's professional staff feels this is a good example of complying or meeting expectations set by that policy. However they are willing to state off the record they do not think so, and in fact think this is a bad example of compiying with that policy. But there is no departmental procedure for getting that opinion to you. There is no where an avenue for expressing that opinion to you. There is a vacuum from the City on what appears to be the majar impetus for granting approval. And going back to the safety issue. Why can't a citizen get an answez to the question 'is this a good idea? Is this safe?' Do we get the response that safety is a relative word because we have an official stance of neutrality and we can't risk having a Iawyer sue us because our professionai opinion may make it hard for them to engage in a business? Staff however is sometimes limited in how they can present an issue. Look at the storm water management requirements. Those are mandated by ordinance_ However also note that variances exist for them. But it is the responsibility of the developer to request that variance. There was a situation where Division of Parks was going to put a pond next to the children's playground. Staff couldn't make the decision to grant a variance. They had to call Parks staff and ask Park staff to ask them for a variance which was then granted. If staff starts issuing them without being requested they run into problems with setting precedence, etc. and that isn't easy to explain or deal with. Is staEf really supposed to answer that a vinyl sided 24Q0 square foot townhouse 7 of 13 P.08 !�+ �� 7� . Jan•-13-98 10:26A Sewer Utility 298 5621 P.09 98 •.�5� � with attached garages on a cul-de-sac surrounded by bituminous surfacing and no trees worth $200,000 is compatible with an 85 year old neighborhood of siucco, and wood housing with 600 to 900 square feet foot prints, treed and shrubbed yards off set from public streets and Blvd? The easy answer appears to be yes. Is staff to be blamed for this lack of hard answers? We don't think so. It is the policy makers in the departments that have gradually edged toward this direction. We are aware that there is a pluralistic society of tax payers and citizens out there and that they all have their concerns and needs. But we also feel tough answers to tough questions is a route that leads to better conditions. And we with our 400 yearsof invesYment in this community, are members of that society aiso. We have indicated our differences with staff statements; and where and why we think errors or omissions were made. One suggestion we would like to have you entertain is to have Mr. Shetka, traffic engineer, come and make a definitive statement on whether or not he thinks this is a good idea and whether ar not he thinks it is safe; to have Mr. Puchreiter come over and make a definite statement that ponding sites in residentiai neighborhoods are needed and safe; to have Ms. Wheelock make the statement that Ehis is a good example of complying with Met Council Policy. � As an aside, this issue of complying with Met Council Policy is the only one the residents have heard thru� all the various puhlic hearings cited by advocates of this proposal, both at the District Council and at the Planning Commission. If you do approve this proposal piease tell the residents that you have determined it to be safe for traffic, parking, children; have indeed determined that it is compatible with their neighborhood; have determined that there is no possibility of developing these sites as zoned; and have determined that the cluster development does preserve and/or increase green space. • Community Involvement The community has met with the Summit Hill District Council three times on this issue, each time to address a variation of the proposal, and as noted earlier, sometimes multiple variations that were not viewed ahead of time. In each case the neighborhood was united in it's opposition to the proposals. In each case the Summit Hill District Council agreed with the community, and even citing the developers inability to address the issues presented to him earlier. • 8of13 Jan=13-98 10=27A Sewer Utility 298 5621 P.10 9� 39y � Along with a lack of response at the formal meetings, the developer made no sincere effort to communicate with the neighborhood and negotiate with them. The first we heard about his willingness to do so was in front of the zoning committee where, while stating he had been willing all along to discuss and negotiate, he no longer was willing to do so. � • However after members of the zoning commission stated they wouid view favorably the attempt at communication, neighborhood members did gather, did discuss alternatives amongst themselves, and did set up a meeting with the developer. An agreement was reached with those who attended on some issues, mainly the alIey access, but nowhere near all issues. Before the neighborhood coordinator could get all the responses from the rest of the neighborhood, the developer had called back and said there were problems. It was with this information we attended the zoning committee's second meeting. When the issue went to the full Planning Commission, Mr. Field, Chairperson of the Zoning Committee appeared to inaccurately portrayed the proposa] as having neighborhood support. He repeated this position a number of times to the fulI commission. The only part of the proposal that had neighborhood support was the issue of not using the alley outletting to St. Clair Avenue by future owners or guests ot future owners of the town homes. Public record from the second of the two dates for the public hearing in front of the zoning committee show that the Matherns never came to an agreement on any other issue, that they found problem with the proposed agreement before it could be presented to the remaining neighbor. The final result of all this is that we are united yet in our opposition to all of the proposals we have seen presented so far. The existing residents of this area with a total of 400 years ot time invested in their neighborhood are requesting that you, the City Council, pay attention to these findings and find Ehem cause for denying what many in the area feel will lead to the degradation if not destruetion of our neighborhood. • EarYier Comments on Viability and Fears Earlier we mentioned fears about the viability and about property values and the real estate agents comments that the project needs to be done right. As part of the information submitted during this whole process there was some information submitted bya Timothy Sullivan, an attorney. Upon review of that information it appears that John and Sandra Mathern, referred to in the documents as 'The Matherns' were found to be in debt to United Mortgage Corporations for two lots they purchased and that the debt was a Iittle over half a million. This occurred in October of 1989. Not so bad and it happens to a lot of 9 of 13 Jan=13-98 10:27A Sewer Utility 298 5621 P.11 98 �'f � people. However in 1992 there was a claim that the Matherns had hindered or delayed their creditors, failed to produce adequate financial records, and knowingly made false oaths. It appears that it was further found that the courts held that substantial evidence to support an inference of fraudulent intent bythe Mathems. An appeal court found the Matherns failed to set forth affirmative admissible evidence to rebut the considerable circumstantial evidence of fraudulent intent and ruled against them. We are aware this is a sensitive issue. We are also aware that the City Attorney chose to not have the fulf material released in a package to planning commission members, deeming it not relevant or not to be considered in their decision making capacity. Instead just the cover letter from the presenting attorney was included. Most of the neighbors do not have a problem with this decision by the City Attorney. As noted abave staff and now commission members are limited as to what they can say or do. . . However it is a significant contributor to the reasons we tear this proposal. And because of this we feel it may be inappropriate to simply ignore it. In other communities when the professional capabilities of a developer are questioned and evidence is provided to support that questioning, provisions do exist for calming those questions. While we are not suggesting it as an alternative as we have other ideas, we are suggesting that if the proposal does get approved that the performance bond for complying with alt the provisions of the site plan review be expanded to require completion of the whatever the final proposal is within a 18 month time period, that all grading be completed in the 18 month time table, and that maintenance of the entire site be accomplished by either the developer or the owners. We would like the City to explore this or something similar. Again we are not offering this as an alternative, just something to be done in case our alternatives are rejected. • Alternatives We reatize we can't stop at just say no and that there is a need to offer alternatives or compromises. VVhy has there been so much problem with the existing proposal? Why the repetitive redoing and reshaping of it? Why have Planning Commission members noted for public record 'they wouId never buy it'? Why has it required so much effort and supposed creative thinking? Because in its current rendition and in alt past renditions it is simply a bad idea. It carries too much baggage. As noted in the first paragraph, there has not been a proposal to develop just as is now allowed - single family housing on an accessible street. Our first alternative is to do just fhaE on the lot on Lexington Parkway, just like everyone else in the neighborhood has. 10 of i 3 Jan=13-98 10:28A Sewer Utility � �_� I HELEN H CURRIER I 1 t 16 ST. C�AIR AVENUE I LOT 9, RUETH'S ADDITION I DAVID A& HELEN L SCHULTZ I t 120 ST. CLAIR AVENUE 1 LOT 10, RUETH'S ADDiTION I JOEL M& CHARLOTTE PATROS I 1126 ST. CLA1R AVENUE I LOT 11, RUETH'S ADQITION I ALICE L PETERSON I 113� ST. CLAIR AVENUE I LOT 12, RUETH'S ADDITION I MARGARET H MARKS I 1134 ST. CLAIR AVENUE i LOT i3, RUETH'S ADDITION I SUSAN E WAGNER 1 1138 ST. CLAIR AVENUE I LOT 14, RUETH'S ADDITION f CRAIG & BERYL P BOE I 1142 ST. Cl1aIR AVENUE -- I LOT 15, RUETH'S ADDITIOI�I _ I JAMES W& LISA R SWYERS I 1146 ST. CLAIR AVENUE 29S 5621 Our second alternative would be to have a Public Road built onto the site, not a driveway. And then to canstruct single family housing fronting that public road. While this does not satisfy all of the complaints it does deal with some. The approach so far as been too narrow and too focused on us versus them. Movement has gone on with too little input during the public hearing phase (for whatever reason) until now and too little response to the neighbor`s concerns and statements. Please slow down, please respond to all of the concerns, please make sure you have asked all the questions and received alt the answers. This is our petition to the City Council of St. Paui from the following residents: P.12 9� � 11 of 13 JanLL13-98 10:28A Sewer Utility • � � 298 5621 f LOT 16, RUETI-t'S ADDITIQIV I MII.KA P& TODD THORESEN I 1152 ST. CLAtR AYENUE I LOT 17, RUETH'S ADDITiON I SETH M ANDERSON I 1156 ST. CLAIR AVENUE I E 40 FT OF LOT 18, RUETH'S ADDITION i MICHAEL R WIGFIELD I 1160 ST. CLAIR AVENUE f WITH AND SUBJ TO ESMTS AND EX THE I E 40 FT LOT 18, RUETH'S ADDITION I PAT BYRNE & RACHEL BI.ANK I 243 S. I.EXIIVGTON PARKWAY I N 1 O FT OF LOT 2 AND ALL OF LOT i, I RUETH'S ADDITION I CHARLES W& KATHLEEN MARKS I 251 S. LEXINGTON PARKWAY { EX N 1 O FT, LOT 2, RUETH'S ADD{TION I KEIYH LANE CURTNER 1 259 S. LEXINGTON PARKWAY I LOT 3, RUETH'S ADDITION I ALBERTA L 81NKER I 263 S. LEXINGTON PARKWAY I EX S 7 FT, LOT 4, RUETH'S ADDITION I HEI.ENE G OSTROW I 269 S. LEXINGTON PARKWAY I S 7 FT OF LOT 4 AND ALL OF LOT 5, 1 RUETH'S ADDtTION I CHRlSTOPHER WALKER I 273 S. LEXINGTON PARKWAY I LOT 6, RUE7H'S ADDITION I ROBERT E& KATHLEEN A HENDRICKSON I 279 S. LEXINGTON PARKWAY I EX S 2 FT, LOT 7, RUETH'S ADD�TION 12 of 13 P.13 9� :�4 �Jan-13-98 10:29A Sewer Utility �� 298 5621 f BEVERLY Y DUNBAR I 283 S. LEXINGTON PARKWAY I S 2 FT OF LOT 7 AND ALL OF LOT 8, I RUETH'S ADDITION Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, The above signed residents. 13 of 13 P.14 98-3y4 �18 39� To the Councilmembers of the City Council of St. Paul, Good Aftemoon. My name is Pat Byrne and I reside at 243 S. Lexington Parkway. I'm here to read a letter signed by all of my neighbors. However as a courtesy, the letter was provide to you before hand and Its been indicated that it has been read by the Council Members. It is important to the signers of that letter that it is read or listened to as this is their first opportunity to speak to a public representative in this process. Anyway I'm going to summarize that letter instead of reading it. However I will read the summary. (I'm not sure if it is the reading or the length that bores people and puts them to sleep). I'd like to note it is a very concemed group of neighbors and a very united group of neighbors that share in this appeal. It consists of 100% of the people living next to the site and incfudes neighbors on the other side of Lexington Parkway. If possible I'd like to have those neighbors stand up, especially those who do not like to speak in public. We think there were a number of errors and omissions in the process pertormed by both Staff and Planning Commission Members. In the following list of comments however you will note that we address both those errors and omissions and repeat a number of comments we have made in the fast five public meetings held discussing this issue. I apologize to the signers if this seems briefer then it should, and I apologize to the Council if it seems longer then it should. ! Property Acquisition The site was acquired for very little money back in the 70's. It was deemed worthless then and has been deemed almost worthfess since then by both ihe owner and Ramsey County property taxing system. We are not depriving someone from their livelihood. I'd like to note at this time an error in the letter sent out. It was not acquired as surplus county property. ! Minimum Requirements There has never been a discussion of developing the site as a single family residential site and therefore not requiring anyone to go thru this process. Ostensibly one of the reasons for having a special use permit for a cluster development is to preserve and increase green space, to cluster the structures in such a manner as to increase green space within the City. As you view the proposal, note this does not happen. I'd note that one of the requirements is to minimize alterations of the natural features and topography. The plan proposes the removal of most if not a�l of the 9�- 35 �{ trees on this site. ! Alley Use The alley use has been a major item for most of residents and others. It is two, not one, dead end alleys that furthermore combine into one outlet Everyone involved has already reached a minimum proposal to not allow major increased traffic on the alley. All the residents agree this would not be good to ailow. Accidents have happened already due to cambination af density of existing traffic and proximity of the alley (125') to an intersection that has 24,000 ADT. Any increased use of the alley would require a paved surtace 16' wide. This wouid require removai of the trees in the alley and supporting of existing structures. ! Existing Property Values As noted those people right next to the proposed 150,000 units feel their 60,000 would not sell due to contrast. However two real estate agents, while acknowledging that amenities are reduced, property values should not be affected. However they noted this is only true if done right and if done completely as the plan indicates. However even with this assurance some are still fearful. This concern was listed in this letter for this reason. And to lead into the next matter. One agent made this disclaimer only when made aware of who the developer is. ! Viability of the Proposal There are strong doubts as to viabiiity of this project. 1) The developer has already gone thru bankruptcy procedures in past developments. 2) The developer has indicated he will ignore the warnings issued by the railroad company as to the vibrations generated by the tracks at the bottom of the hill from the development. 3) There has been indications of the possibility of contaminated soils or at the very least an abandoned dump site. 4)The site proposal calis for removal of the hundreds of trees on site, leaving a barren exposure to both the railroad and the freeway. And the future of that particular freeway is uncertain; will it be turned into renovated four lane expressway or into a linear park? 9 �-3g� 5) There are fears the developer wili walk if the units don't seil even though he has assured us they will sell like hotcakes. And then what will the City allow to happen on the site to salvage it ! Compatibility The requirements include, and the staff report states AThe design wili be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood@. We think there is a mistake here. And this is one of the major issues to everyone in the neighborhood. The only really compatible item will be that they house people. You go from a 90' by 25' structures with attached garage of 800 sq feet for a total 3600 square feet structures to the existing structures ranging from 600 square feet to 900 square feet. The attached garage is bigger then some of the houses You go from a mixture over 80 years of construction of stucco, clapboard, metaf sliding, wood to one of uniform vinyl siding. The obvious incompatibility is you go from single family housing to multiple family housing. You go from fenced or treed lots fronting a public street with yards and boulevards to a cul-de-sac with almost no yard space and most of the trees removed. You go from a developed St. Paul Community with its own unique characterizations to a Woodbury house farm. Another obvious incompatibility is that you go from homes valued at $25,000 to $100,00 and now add homes valued at $140,000 to $200,000 Again the requirement is for granting a special use permit that compatibility exists. Stating that compatibility exists solely because there are 1 and 2 story structures with gabled and hipped roofs is an extreme, very liberal, interpretation of the word compatible. Almost to the point of making that requirement a non existent one. We believe of the envelope ofi possibie interpretations of the word `compatible' is being stretched, and stretched in the wrong direction. ! Safety Another requirement is that `The use will not be detrimental to the existing character of the development in the immediate neighborhood or endanger public health, safety, and general welfare' We feel staff and Planning Commission inadequately addressed the issue of safety, either thru a mistaken assessment or no assessment at all. This is the second major issue with the neighborhood. 98-39� Traffic The pubVic record contains assessments by engineering professionals that the proposed outlet to Lexington Parkway is unsafe, and there has been no conflicting testimony from City Staff. In fact when asked directly if they could say the neighbor's assessment was incorrect we got a negative answer. The best response we have is that it meets standards as to distance from a signalized intersection, that it meets line of sight requirements, and that it is as safe as a driveway on Maryland Avenue. The last statement, that it is as safe as a driveway on Maryland Avenue, came from staff in response to a direct question by a member of the planning commission who fater expressed unhappiness with the response level, as we have though 1 suspect for different reasons. He was fooking for a clear statement that is was safe and we were looking for a clear statement that it was unsafe. As an aside to the letter I'd like to point out that surviving the review process is not a statement from City Staff that it is safe. It is a statement from staff that it met distance from signalized intersection standards and it met line of sight standards. That is all. There was an attempt to attenuate one of these safety hazards by requiring a no left turn during rush hour traffic sign as you leave the development. This at best addresses about 20°l0 ofi the traffic safety issue and was done with no consultation at sll with traSfic professionals. Storm Water Manaaement There is a requirement that calls for the inclusion of a detention pond on the proposed developed site. As a Water resource professionaf I have found this to be intrinsically unsafe in residential areas where chifdren are or in areas where their existence is a surprise. Parkina On Lexinqton One end result of the proposal, whether directly or indirectly, will be a definite increase in Parking on Lexington Parkway. Parking on Lexington will lead to many traffic accidents and I will easily state, traffic fatalities. There has been no comment or review or contribution to discussion on this item from anyone within the City. In the list of major accident areas throughout the city, Lexington Parkway already occupies 1t8 of that list. 9�-3s4 ! Not In My Neighborhood! This is not a`not in my neighborhood you don'Y issue. Yes, we like the open space. Yes, when we moved into this neighborhood we were assured this land focked lot couid not be developed and that it had no value. And yes as we look out at the 24,000 ADT in the front of our houses we would prefer to have the back remain patatabie. It's kind of a`no brainer' that we do not want this here. But this isn't a half way house moving in, or a library, and there are no social movements being hindered here. Also this is not depriving the owner the right to access the lots on Lexington Parkway or development of his property as single famity housing. This does seek to deny development of a land locked lot that appropriately has had no value or development over the decades. We ofEer alternatives later. As you review the permitted uses in the zoning law you will note that all non single family residential uses are all socially benefiting items fike churches, schools, libraries, transitional housing, battered women and children residences, hospices, etc. Even Cluster development was there to provide more green space. But as noted elsewhere that also required compatibility and safety. We are offering reaf acceptable reasons for denying this proposal and they are usable by you the decision makers. ! Metropolitan Council Policy On Urban Development Our community council is on record as strongly agreeing with the principles espoused in the Metropolitan councils regional blueprint cal{ing for decrease in urban sprawl and an increase in redevelopment of St. Paul sites. This community councii is also on record as opposing this particular development This proposal is not a good example of complying with that policy. We feel the pressure is misplaced. We know the Mayor's office wants development of over 600 sites within the City. In off record comments we know that PED has been `nice' to this developer. There is a push to get this redevelopment process going. But I listed possible examples in the letter. Those sites �end themselves to a coordinated planned community with no one to complain. They exist now. Just Iook across the freeway to the Wiider Site. I woufd also like to say as a manager of various programs that I feel the best way to a successful program is early simpfe successes, to make sure in your very first implementations to have everything well thought out, with special attention, to not use the easier method o4 seeing what happens and then make corrections as you get into the bulk of a program. No one in the neigh6orhood or community council is 9� arguing with the policy. Just that this is the wrong way to start it, whether in our neighborhood or anyone eise's neighborhood. With over 400 years of investment in this City we deserve better then this. The City deserves better then this. ! Tough Questions, Tough Answers We have some reai serious concems about this process. There doesn't seem to be a lack of tough questions but there does seen to be a lack of tough answers. Take the issue of the Met Council Policy. No where in staff's answers or approach is there a discussion or a recommendation as to whether or not the City's professional staff feels this is a good example of complying or meeting expectations set by that policy. And going back to the safety issue. Why can't a citizen get an answer to the question `is this a good idea? Is this safe?' Why do we get vague answers like it as safe as a driveway to Maryland Avenue, or safety is a relative thing? Why can't the city address the Parking issue before someone gets killed. Why can't Staff suggest a variance before a developer asks for it? How do we manage to get the statement that a vinyl sided 3000 square foot structure on a cul-de-sac surrounded by bituminous surfacing and no trees worth $200,000 is compatible with an 85 year old neighborhood of stucco, and wood housing with 600 to 900 square feet foot prints, treed and shrubbed yards off set from public streets and Bivd? We have indicated our differences with staff statements; and where and why we think errors or omissions were made. One suggestion we would like to have you entertain is to have Ms Becker have staff come and make a definitive statement on whether or not they thinks this is a good idea and whether or not they thinks it is safe; whether it be traffic, parking or ponds. to have Ms. Wheelock or staff make the statement that this is a good example of compfying with Met Council Policy. If you do approve this proposal please tefl the residents that you have determined i to be safe for traffic, parking, children; have indeed determined that it is compatible with their neighborhood; have determined that there is no possibility of developing these sites as zoned; and have determined that the cluster development does preserve and/or increase green space. ! Community Involvement The community has met many times with Summit Hill Council, with themselves, with 9�-.�'� pianning commission people. We have been asked to give our opinions on plans that have been changed on us at the last minute. We have sent {etters with issues. We have asked quest+ons. One of the main reasons cited by the community council for not approving the the plan was the developers unwillingness to answer our questions. However we have met with the developer after he was severely prompted to by the planning commission. However no agreement was ever reached with the developer. A partial agreement was reached about the alley. However this agreement was blown up to the extent that Mr. Field, Chairperson of the Zoning Committee appeared to inaccurately portrayed the proposal as having neighborhood support. He repeated this position a number of times to the fufl commission. The final result of all this is that we are united yet in our opposition to al{ of the proposals we have seen presented so far. The existing residents of this area with a total of 400 years of time invested in their neighborhood are requesting that you, the City Council address these concerns find them cause for denying what many in the area feel will lead to the degradation if not destruction of our neighborhood. ! Earlier Comments on Viability and Fears Earlier we mentioned fears about the viability and about property values and the real estate agents comments that the project needs to be done right. In our letter we addressed this issue. It basicalfy was that, because of public records brought to our attention we have strong doubts as the suitability and ability of Mendota Homes to develop this site. This was not due to the bankruptcy issues as much as to the findings by the court that there was substantial evidence of know+ngly making false oaths and inference of fraudulent intent. An appeals court also found against them. We are aware this is a sensitive issue. However it is a significant contributor to the reasons we fear this proposal. And because of this we feel it may be inappropriate to simply ignore it. In other communities when the professionai capabilities of a developer are questioned and evidence is provided to support that questioning, provisions do exist for calming those questions. While we are not suggesting it as an altemative as we have other ideas, we are suggesting that if the proposal does get approved that the performance bond for complying with all the provisions of the site plan review be expanded to require completion of the whatever the final proposal is within a 18 month time period, that all grading be completed in the 18 month time table, and that maintenance of the entire site be accomplished by either the developer or the owners. We would like the City to explore this or something similar. Again we are not offering this as an alternative, just something to be done in case our alternatives are rejected. 98-35'f ! Alternatives We realize we can't stop at just say no and that there is a need to ofEer altematives or compromises. Why has there been so much problem with the existing proposal? Why the repetitive redoing and reshaping of it? Why have Planning Commission members noted for public record `they would never buy it'? Why has it required so much effort and supposed creative thinking? Because in its current rendition and in all past renditions it is simply a bad idea. It carries too much baggage. As noted earlier, there has not been a proposal to develop as a single family housing on an accessible street. Our first alternative is to do just that on the lot on Lexington Par4cway, just like everyone eise in the neighborhood has. Our second alternative would be to have a Public Road built onto the site, not a driveway. And then to construct single family housing fronting that public road. While this does not satisfy all of the complaints it does deal with some. The approach so far as been too narrow and too focused on us versus them. Movement has gone on with too little input during the public hearing phase (for whatever reason) until now and too little response to the neighbor's concerns and statements. Please slow down, please respond to alt of the concerns, please make sure you have asked all the questio�s and received all the answers. Before I summarize I like to show this tape prepared by some residents; it was prepared for one of the initial discussion with the community council. Tape We had proposed another video but I'm going to have to ask you to use your imagination on this one. The video was going to go back and forth between a picture of the houses in our community, which you have seen, and a picture of a suburban cul-de-sac with double and triple townhouses all in uniform color and vinyl and no or little trees, again which I assume most of you have seen before. In Summary (of a summary) We feef a major issues is compatibility with the neighborhood. We feel the envelope of possible interpretations of that requirement has been extremely enlarge and furthermore pushed in the wrong direction We feel a major issue is safety in traffic, in parking, and in ponding requirements. We also feel that the City has not responded adequately or at all to these concerns, and that you cannot site passing a review process as an adequate addressing of 98 direct concerns, especiaNy if those questions are not part of the review process. We feel issues of alley use is a major safery issue. We feel a major issue is that cluster deve{opments should lead to increased green space. We feei the issues of property vatue, ofi viability of the project, ofi proper management are important. We feel there are more acceptable alternatives, development alternative and they should be the only ones ailowed. t8 -3�� To the Councilmembers of the City Council of St. Paul, Good Aftemoon . I'm here to read a letter signed by all of my neighbors. I'd like to note that almost ali of these neighbors have shown up for at least one and sometimes all of the five public meetings already scheduled to discuss this issue. Most have shown up for at least one of the five private meetings he�d in various neighbor's homes or rented community center meeting rooms. It is a very concerned group of �eighbors and a very united group of neighbors. It consists of 100% of the people living next to the site and includes neighbors on the other side of Lexington Parkway We think there were a number of errors and omissions in the process performed by both Staff and Planning Commission Members. In the foliowing list of comments however you wili note that we address both those errors and omissions and repeat a number of comments we have made in the last five public meetings held discussing ihis issue. ! Property Acquisition The property consists of finro lots. One on Lexington Parkway and one landlocked lot behind everyone's houses. It was acquired by Roger Vik as surpius county property for hundreds of dollars. ft was deemed valuefess or near so then because of iYs unsuitability for development. We are not saying you can't develop property because it was deemed valusless at some point in its history. We just want to be clear that there is no major investment or livelihood that we are threatening with denial of this development. This is not a situation of depriving a property owner of va{ue of their property. It has accurately been described as valueless in past, people have moved into the neighborhood aware that it was valueless, it was acquired under that status, and continues to exist under that status unless you decide to award it a variance thru this special use permit. ! Minimum Requirements It is our understanding that the owner needs to demonstrate an inability to develop the p�oQerty under the existing zoning before issuing a special use permit. The owner has not done this. There has never been a discussion of developing the site as zoned. The site is zoned single family residential, and the owner has not tried to put single family residential there. This can happen with no changes, to the property fronting Lexington Parkway now, and can happen, with some changes, to the second, bigger lot. We would like to explore this concept later. Ostensibly one of the other reasons for having a special use permit for a cluster 98 -�yy development is to preserve and increase green space, to c�uster the structures in such a manner as to increase green space within the City. As you view the proposal, note this does not happen. I Alley Use The alley use has been a major item for most of residents and others. It is two, not one, dead end alleys that furthermore combine into one outlet. Everyone involved has aiready reached a minimum proposal to not aliow major increased traffic on the alley. All the residents agree this would be insanity to allow. Accidents have happened already due to combination of densiry of existing traffic and proximity of the alley (125') to an intersection that has 24,000 ADT. Any increased use of the alley would require a paved surface 16' wide. This wou{d require removal of the trees in the alley and supporting of existing structures. ! Existing Property Values Initiafly some of the neighbors thought property values would suffer. It was thought that if you put new housing worth $150,000 to $200,000 right next to an existing old house worth $60,000 that the contrast between the two would actually devalue the existing house. However at one of our private meetings we invited a number of real estate professionals to speak to us. Two of them inform us this wouid not be the case. However both were very emphatic that amenities to the neighborhood are indeed fost, and that their statements on property value were very much contingent on the proposal being completed and completed correct�y. However even with this assurance some are stiil fearful. This concern was listed in this letter for this reason. And to lead into the next matter. One agent made this disclaimer only when made aware of who the developer is. I'd like io return to this issue a bit later. ! Viability of the Proposal There are strong doubts as to viability of this project. 1) The developer has already gone thru bankruptcy procedures in past developments. 2) The developer has indicated he will ignore the warnings issued by the railroad company as to the vibrations generated by the tracks at the bottom of the hiil from the deve{opment. The owner of the furthest house away on this block has indicated that you feel the trains far in advance of hearing them. There are a minimum of two 98-34Y schedule trains everyday right now plus commercial routings. 3) There has been indications of the possibility of contaminated soils or at the very least an abandoned dump site. However after months of questioning this, no soii borings have been performed. Instead, siab on grade consiruction has been p�aposed. 4)The site proposal cails for removal of the hundreds of trees on site, leaving a barren exposure to both the railroad and the freeway. And the future of that particular freeway is uncertain; will it be turned into renovated four lane expressway or into a linear park? 5) Because of the limited investment in the property acquisition there are fears that if the development does not produce, the developer will walk away leaving a mess behind. With the resulting mess, the City will then allow even more deviation or variances, because there will be a need to restore the site into something usable. In 1978 Roger Vik proposed apartment buildings with underground garages. Wil1 this proposal come back? ! Compatibility The requirements include, and the staff report states AThe design will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood@. The comment is made that overall the proposed design is compatible with surrounding neighborhood which consists of a mixture of 1, 1.5 and 2 story structures with gabled and hipped roofs. We think there is a mistake here. 7he onfy reafly compatible item wilf be that they house people. You go from a 64' or 90+' by 25' structures with attached garages of 800 sq feet for a total of 2400 to 3600 square feet structures to the existing structures ranging from 600 square feet to 900 square feet. You go from a mixture over 80 years of construction of stucco, clapboard, metal sliding, wood to one of uniform vinyl siding. The obvious incompatibility is you go from single family housing to multiple family housing. You go from fenced or treed lots fronting a public street with yards and boulevards to a cuf-de-sac with afmost no yard space and most of the trees removed. You go from a developed St. Paul Community with its own unique characterizations to a Woodbury house farm. Another obvious incompatibility is that you go from homes valued at $25,000 to 9�-��y $100,00 and now add homes valued at $140,000 to $200,000 Again the requirement is for granting a specia! use Qermit that compatibility exists. Stating that compatibility exists solely because there are 1 and 2 story structures with gabled and hipped roofs is an extreme, very liberal, interpretation of the word compatible. Almost to the point of making that requirement a non existent one. We believe of the envelope of possible interpretations of the word `compatible' is being stretched, and stretched in the wrong direction. ! Safety We feel staff and Planning Commission inadequately addressed the issue of safety, either thru a mistaken assessment or no assessment at all. Having the proposal be safe is another requirement in granting variances thru a special use permit. Traffic We have had two professionals in municipal tra�c and municipal engineering testify that the proposed outlet to Lexington Parkway is unsafe. Their comments are on public record. There has been no conflicting testimony from City Staff, engineering or otherwise. The best response we have is that it meets standards as to distance from a signa4ized intersection, that it meets Iine of sight requirements, and that it is as safe as a driveway on Maryland Avenue. The last statement, that it is as safe as a driveway on Maryland Avenue, came from staff in response to a direct question by a member of the planning commission. Later at another public meeting the same planning commission member, when quizzed on how informative Public Works was, stated his disappointment in them. While he did not elaborate as to why, it is our opinion he was disappointed because staff would not say directly `it is safe'. We, the neighbors, are equally disappointed because staff would not say directly `it is unsafe'. We'd like to come back to this issue later. /�qain, there has been comments from two professionals on municipal engineering and municipal traffic that it is unsafe in their professional opinions. One was very descriptive as to why, citing speed at the bottom of two hills, distracting characteristics, camouflage appearances, ADT, distance of alleys from intersections, etc. When a copy of that was submitted to the Public Works staff and they were questioned as to whether they would say he was wrong, they could or woufd not do so. There was an attempt to attenuate ane of these safety hazards by requiring a no left turn during rush hour traffic sign as you Ieave the development. This inadequately address the issue as speed is still the greatest on the bottom of the two hills located right at the point. Also the entrance and exit are designed to look like a driveway, 9� �sy� not a street that requires more attention. And, there was no corrssponding effort to regulate left turns into the site from north bound Lexington Parkway, again causing an unexpected road blockage for north bound traffic and crossing over south bound traffic. The existence of other, possibly more unsafe situations, does not create a reason to condone this type of planning now. Those other situations evolved over decades and correcting them may not be practicai now. Storm Water Manaqement There is a requirement that calis for the inclusion of a detention pond on the proposed developed site. This is due to storm water management requirements that are part of city ordinances. In most cases you will find this requirement being applied or incorporated into a parking lot or on the site of industrial or business expansions. Staff has found these ponds to be intrinsicaily unsafe in residential areas or in park areas due to the presence of children. However it is the policy to let the developer seek a variance rather then to selectively urge a variance based upon this particular safety issue. Parkinq On Lexinqton If a proposal takes away guest parking for existing residents on Lexington Parkway, on any type of property, whether it be the existing alley or the existing private property, with the end result being that guest of residents on Lexington end up parking on Lexington, you wifl afmost for sure be causing a fatafity. Residents have done studies, parking cars on Lexington during broad daylight and observing the number of near accidents that occur. The near accidents occurred almost every signal light cycle. Night time experiments could not be conducted. This issue has not been addressed at all by staff because it is a secondary effect of the proposal. But without this proposal it would not happen at all. ! Not In My Neighborhood! This is not a`not in my neighborhood you don't' issue. Yes, we like the open space. Yes, when we moved into this neighborhood we were assured this land focked lot could not be developed and that it had no value. And yes as we look out at the 24,000 ADT in the front of our houses we would prefer to have the back remain palatable. IYs kind of a`no brainer' that we do not want this here. But this isn't a half way house moving in, or a library, and there are no social movements being hindered here. Also this is not depriving the owner the right to access the lots on Lexington Parkway or development of his property as single � family housing. This does seek to deny development of a land locked lot that appropriatefy has had no value or development over the decades. We offer altematives later. We are offering real acceptable reasons for denying this proposal and they are usabie by you the decision makers. ! Metropolitan Council Policy On Urban Development We are all aware of the Metropolitan Council Policy on Urban Development where the stopping of urban sprawl out further and further is to be discouraged and development within existing highly dense sites is to be encourage. There are plenty of sites within the City of Saint Paul that can be developed for residential use. You have the old Amhoist site between Robert and Wabasha, you have river front sites in conjunction with Shepard Road Development, you have the Phalen Corridor with iYs accompanying light industrial. These alone offer the opportunities for 1000's of residential units. And if you want to continue coping with this particular policy and think it worth an investment by the community at large, you can move on to cleaning up contaminated sites suitable for light industrial and moving the pieces around a little better, again opening up sites for thousands of residential units. They will be coordinated with the community and there will be little or no problems with compatibility, safety, access, property values. These sites will be planned sites. They exist now. Wilder Homes just across the Freeway is a good example. The Summit Hill Zoning Committee strongly endorse the Met Council Policy. They have also turned down on three different public meeting a number of variations of developing this site including one not significantly different then what you are looking at now. As an aside the executive director also appeared at an earlier public hearing to recommend denial. The process of developing a coordinated or planned community to help with this policy is a much better process then the one being suggested for this neighborhood. We don't view filling in every little empty space as the right way of complying with the Met Councit. Furthermore, the process we have been subjected to appears to be somewhat willy nilly. Tne deve►oper has offered many variations of basicafly the same probfem proposaf but changing it enough at the last minute to make it a difficult moving target. For the �ast change, offered 5 minutes before the zoning committee meeting, no prepared comments from the residents were possible. Even complete staff approval had to be estimated by the staff present at the meeting. This did not appear to be the way to decide a community's future. ! Tough Questions, Tough Answers �8 �9� We have some real serious concerns about this process. There doesn't seem to be a lack of tough questions but there does seen to be a lack of tough answers. Take the issue ofi the Met Councii Policy. No where in staff's answers or approach is there a discussion or a recommendation as to whether or not the City's professional staff feels this is a good example of complying or meeting expectations set by that poficy. However they are willing to state off the record they do not think so, and in fact think this is a bad example of complying with that policy. But there is no departmental procedure for getting that opinion to you. There is no where an avenue for expressing that opinion to you. There is a vacuum from the City on what appears to be the major impetus for granting approval. And going back to the safety issue. Why can't a citizen get an answer to the question `is this a good idea? Is this safe?' Do we get the response that safety is a relative word because we have an official stance of neutrality and we can't risk having a lawyer sue us because our professional opinion may make it hard for them to engage in a business? Staff however is sometimes limited in how they can present an issue. Look at the storm water management requirements. Those are mandated by ordinance. However aiso note that variances exist for them. But it is the responsibifity of the developer to request that variance. There was a situation where Division of Parks was going to put a pond next to the children's playground. Staff couldn't make the decision to grant a variance. They had to call Parks staff and ask Park staff to ask them for a variance which was then granted. If staff starts issuing them without being requested they run into problems with setting precedence, etc. and that isn't easy to explain or deal with. Is staff really supposed to answer that a vinyl sided 2400 square foot townhouse with attached garages on a cul-de-sac surrounded by bituminous surfacing and no trees worth $200,000 is compatible with an 85 year old neighborhood of stucco, and wood housing with 600 to 900 square feet foot prints, treed and shrubbed yards off set from public streets and Blvd? The easy answer appears to be yes. Is staff to be blamed for this lack of hard answers? We don't think so. It is the policy makers in the departments that have gradually edged toward this direction. We are aware that there is a pluralistic society of tax payers and citizens out there and that they all have their concerns and needs, But we also feel tough answers to tough questions is a route that leads to better conditions. And we with our 400 years of investment in this community, are members of that society also. We have indicated our differences with staff statements; and where and why we think errors or omissions were made. One suggestion we would like to have you entertain is to have Mr. Shetka, traffic 9��gy engineer, come and make a definitive statement on whether or not he thinks this is a good idea and whetfier or not he thinks it is safe; to have Mr. Puchreiter come over and make a defnite statement that ponding sites in residential neighborhoods are needed and safe; to have Ms. Wheelock make the statement that this is a good example of compfying with Met Councif Policy. As an aside, this issue of complying with Met Council Policy is the only one the residents have heard thru all the various public hearings cited by advocates of this proposal, both at the District Council and at the Planning Commission. If you do approve this proposal please tell the residents that you have determined it to be safe for traffc, parking, children; have indeed determined that it is compatible with their neighborhood; have determined that there is no possibility of developing these sites as zoned; and have determined that the cluster development does preserve and/or increase green space. ! Community Involvement The community has met with the Summit Hill District Councif three times on this issue, each time to address a variation of the proposal, and as noted earlier, sometimes multipte variations that were not viewed ahead ofi time. In each case the neighborhood was united in it's opposition to the proposals. In each case the Summit Hill District Council agreed with the community, and even citing the developers inability to address the issues presented to him earlier. Along with a lack of response at the format meetings, the developer made no sincere effort to communicate with the neighborhood and negotiate with them. The first we heard about his willingness to do so was in front of the zoning committee where, while stating he had been willing all along to discuss and negotiate, he no longer was willi�g to do so. However after members of the zoning commission stated they would view favorably the attempt at communication, neighborhood members did gather, did discuss alternatives amongst themselves, and did set up a meeting with the developer. An agreement was reached with those who attended on some issues, mainly the alley access, but nowhere near all issues. Betore the neighborhood coordinator could get alf the responses firom the rest of the neighborhood, the developer had called back and said there were problems. It was with this information we attended the zoning committee's second meeting. When the issue went to the fufl Planning Commission, Mr. Field, Chairperson of the Zoning Committee appeared to inaccurately portrayed the proposal as having neighborhood support. He repeated this position a number of times to the full commission. The only part of the proposal that had neighborhood support was the 98-�� issue of not using the a11ey outletting to St. Clair Avenue by future owners or guests af future owners of the town homes. Pub{ic record from the second of the two dates for the public hearing in front of the zoning committee show that the Matherns never came to an agreement on any other issue, that they found problem with the proposed agreement before it could be presented to the remaining neighbor. The final result of all this is that we are united yet in our opposition to all of the proposals we have seen presented so far. The existing residents of this area with a total of 400 years of time invested in their neighborhood are requesting that you, the Ciry Council, pay attention to these findings and find them cause for denying what many in the area feef will lead to the degradation 'rf not destruction of our neighborhood. ! Earlier Comments on Viability and Fears Earlier we mentioned fears about the viabi�ity and about property values and the rea� estate agents comments that the project needs to be done right. As part of the information submitted during this whole process there was some information submitted by a Timothy Sullivan, an attorney. Upon review of that information it appears that John and Sandra Mathern, referred to in the documents as `The Matherns' were found to be in debt to United Mortgage Corporations for two lots they purchased and that the debt was a IittVe over half a milfion. This occurred in October of 1989. Not so bad and it happens to a lot o4 people. However in 1992 there was a claim that the Matherns had hindered or delayed their creditors, failed to produce adequate financial records, and knowingly made false oaths. It appears that it was further found that the courts held that substantia� evidence to support an inference of fraudulent intent by the Matherns. An appeal court found the Matherns failed to set forth affirmative admissible evidence to rebut the considerable circumstantial evidence of fraudulent intent and ruled against them. We are aware this is a sensitive issue. We are also aware that the City Attomey chose to not have the full material released in a package to planning commission members, deeming it not relevant or not to be considered in their decision making capacity. Instead just the cover letter from the presenting attorney was included. Most of the neighbors do not have a problem with this decision by the City Attorney. As noted above staff and now commission members are Iimited as to what they can say or do. However it is a significant contributor to the reasons we fear this proposal. And because of this we feel it may be inappropriate to simply ignore it. In other communities when the professional capabilities of a developer are questioned and evidence is provided to support that questioning, provisions do exist for calming those questions. While we are not suggesting it as an alternative as we have other ideas, we are suggesting that if the proposal does get approved that the q�� perFormance bond for compiying with all the provisions of the site plan review be expanded to require completion of the whatever the final proposal is within a 18 month time period, that all grading be completed in the 18 month time table, and that maintenance of the entire site be accomplished by eitfier the developer or the owners. We would like the City to explore this or something similar. Again we are not offering this as an altemative, just something to be done in case our alternatives are rejected. ! Altematives We realize we can't stop at just say no and that there is a need to offer alternatives or compromises. Why has there been so much problem with the existing proposal? Why the repetitive redoing and reshaping of it? Why have Planning Commission members noted for public record `they wauld never buy iY? Why has it required so much effort and supposed creative thinking? Because in its current rendition and in all past renditions it is simply a bad idea. It carries too much baggage. As noted in the first paragraph, there has not been a proposal to develop just as is now allowed - single family housing on an accessible street. Our first alternative is to do just that on the lot on Lexington Parkway, just like everyone else in the neighborhood has. Our second alternative would be to have a Public Road built onto the site, not a driveway. And then to construct single family housing fronting that public road. While this does not satisfy all of the complaints it does deal with some. The approach so far as been too narrow and too focused on us versus them. Movement has gone on with too little input during the public hearing phase (for whatever reason) until now and too little response to the neighbor's concerns and statements. Please slow down, please respond to all of the concerns, please make sure you have asked all the questions and received all the answers. This is our petition to the C'ity Council of St. Paul from the following residents: HELEN H CURRIER 1116 ST. CLAIR Avenue LOT 9, Rueth's Addition DAVID A& HELEN L SCHULTZ 1120 ST. CLAIR Avenue LOT 10, Rueth's Addition � JOEL M& Charlotte PATROS 9�-3g� � 1126 ST. CLAIR Avenue � LOT 11, Rueth's Addition � A�ICE L PETERSON � 1130 ST. CLAIR Avenue � LOT 12, Rueth's Addition � MARGARET H MARKS � 1134 ST. CLAIR Avenue � LOT 13, Rueth's Addition � SUSAN E WAGNER � 1138 ST. CLAIR Avenue � LOT 14, Rueth's Addition � Craig & BERYL P BOE � 1142 ST. CLAIR Avenue � LOT 15, Rueth's Addition � JAMES W& LISA R SWYERS � 1146 ST. CLAIR Avenue � LOT 16, Rueth's Addition � Milka P& Todd Thoresen � 1152 ST. CLAIR Avenue � LOT 17, Rueth's Addition � SETH M ANDERSON � 1156 ST. CLAIR Avenue � E 40 FT OF LOT 18, Rueth's Addition � MICHAEL R WIGFIELD � 1160 ST. CLAIR Avenue � WfTH AND SUBJ TO ESMTS AND EX THE � E 40 FT LOT 18, Rueth's Addition � PAT BYRNE & RACHEL BLANK � 243 S. Lexington Parkway j N 1 O FT OF LOT 2 AND ALL OF LOT 1, � Rueth's Addition � CHARLES W& KATHLEEN MARKS � 251 S. Lexington Parkway � EX N 1 O FT, LOT 2, Rueth's Addition 9�- 3y5� KEITH LANE CURTNER 259 S. Lexington Parkway LOT 3, Rueth's Addition � ALBERTA L BINKER � 263 S. Lexington Parkway � EX S 7 FT, LOT 4, Rueth's Addition � HELENE G OSTROW � 269 S. Lexington Parkway � S 7 FT OF LOT 4 AND ALL OF LOT 5, � Rueth's Addition � Christopher WALKER � 273 S. Lexington Parkway � LOT 6, Rueth's Addition ROBERT E& KATHLEEN A HENDRICKSON 279 S. Lexington Parkway EX S 2 FT, LOT 7, Rueth's Addition BEVERLY Y DUNBAR 283 S. Lexington Parkway S 2 FT OF LOT 7 AND ALL OF LOT 8, Rueth's Addition 9� Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, The above signed residents. 9� �9y K To the Councilmembers of the City Council ot St. Paul, Good Afternoon . � Z �� -�� I'm here to read a letter signed by all of my neighbors. I'd like to note that almost all of these neighbors have shown up for at least one and sometimes all of the five public meetings already scheduled to discuss this issue. Most have shown up for at least one of the five private meetings held in various neighbor's homes or rented community center meeting rooms. It is a very concerned group of neighbors and a very united group of neighbors. It consists of 100% of the people living next to the site and includes neighbors on the other side of Lexington Parkway We think there were a number of errors and omissions in the process performed by both Staff and Planning Commission Members. In the following list of comments however you will note that we address both those errors and omissions and repeat a number of comments we have made in the last five public meetings held discussing this issue. • Property Acquisition The property consists of two lots. One on Lexington Parkway and one landlocked lot behind everyone's houses. It was acquired by Roger Vik as surplus county property for hundreds of dollars. It was deemed valueless or near so then because of it's unsuitability for development. We are not saying you cari t develop property because it was deemed valueless at some point in its history. We just want to be clear that there is no major investment or livelihood that we are threatening with denial of this development. This is not a situation of depriving a property owner of value of their property. It has accurately been described as valueless in past, people have moved into the neighborhood aware that it was valueless, it was acquired under that status, and continues to exist under that status unless you decide to award it a variance thru this special use permit. • Minimum Requirements It is our understanding that the owner needs to demonstrate an inability to develop the property under the existing zoning before issuing a special use permit. The owner has not done this. There has never been a discussion of developing the site as zoned. The site is zoned single family residential, and the owner has not tried to put single family residential there. This can happen with no changes, to the property fronting Lexington Parkway now, and can happen, with some changes, to the second, bigger lot. We would like to explore this 1 of 13 i concept Iater. Ostensibly one of the other reasons for having a special use permit for a cluster development is to preserve and increase green space, to cluster the structures in such a manner as to increase gxeen space within the City. As you view the proposal, note this does not happen. • Alley Use The alley use has been a major item for most of residents and others. It is two, not one, dead end alleys that #urthermore combine into one outlet. Everyone involved has already reached a minimum proposal to not allow major increased traffic on the alley. All the residents agree this would be insanity to allow. Accidents have happened already due to combination of density of e�cisting traffic and proximity of the alley (125') to an intersection that has 24,000 ADT. Any increased use of the alley would require a paved surface 16' wide. This would require removal of the trees in the alley and supporting of existing structures. • Existing Property Values Initially some of the neighbors thought property values would suffer. It was thought that it you put new housing worth $150,000 to $200,000 right next to an existing old house worth $60,000 that the contrast between the two would actually devalue the existing house. However at one of our private meetings we invited a number of real estate professionals to speak to us. Two of them inform us this would not be the case. However both were very emphatic that amenities to the neighborhood are indeed tost, and that their statements on pmperty value were very much contingent on the proposal being completed and completed correctly. However even with this assurance some are still fearfizL This concern was listed in this leiter for this reason. And to lead into 4he next matter. One agent made this disclaimer only when made aware of who the developer is. I'd like to return to this issue a bit later. • Viability of the Pmposal There are strong doubts as to viability of this project. 1) The developer has already gone thru bankruptcy procedures in past . 2of13 V � `�8�39� developments. 2) The developer has indicated he will ignore the warnings issued by the railroad company as to the vibrations generated by the tracks at the bottom of the hill from the development. The owner of the furthest house away on this block has indicated that you feel the trains far in advance of hearing them. There are a minimum of two schedule trains everyday right now plus commercial routings. 3) There has been indications of the possibility of contaminated soils or at the very least an abandoned dump site. However after months of questioning this, no soil borings have been performed. Instead, slab on grade construction has been proposed. 4)The site proposal calls for removal of the hundreds of trees on site, leaving a barren exposure to both the railroad and the freeway. And the future of that particular freeway is uncertain; will it be turned into renovated four lane expressway or into a linear park? 5) Because of the limited investment in the property acquisition there are fears that if the development does not produce, the developer will walk away leaving a mess behind. With the resulting mess, the City will then allow even more deviation or variances, because there will be a need to restore the site into something usable. In 1978 Roger Vik proposed apartment buildings with underground garages. Will this proposal come back? • Compatibility The requirements include, and the staff report states "The design will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood". The comment is made that overall the proposed design is compatible with surrounding neighborhood which consists of a mixture of 1, 1.5 and 2 story structures with gabled and hipped roofs. We think there is a mistake here. The only really compatibie item will be that they house people. You go from a 64' or 90+' by25'structures with attached garages of 800 sqfeet for a total of 2400 to 3600 square feet structures to the existing structures ranging from 600 square feet to 900 square feet. You go from a mixture over 80 years of construction of stucco, clapboard, metal sliding, wood to one of uniform vinyl siding. 3of13 The obvious incompatibility is you go from single family housing to multiple family housing. You go from fenced or treed lots fronting a public street with yards and boulevards to a cul-de-sac with almost no yard space and most of tfie trees removed. You go from a developed St. Paul Community with its own unique characterizations to a Woodbury house tarm. Another obvious incompatibility is that you go from homes valued at $25,OOQ to $I00,00 and now add homes valued at $140,000 to $200,000 Again the requirement is for granting a special use permit that compatibility exists. Stating that compatibility exists solely because there are 1 and 2 story structures with gabled and hipped roofs is an extreme, very liberal, interpretation of the word compatible. Almost to the point of making that requirement a non existent one. We believe of the envelope of possible interpretations of the word 'compatible' is being stretched, and stretched in the wrong direction. • Safety We feel staff and Planning Commission inadequately addressed the issue of safety, either thru a mistaken assessment or no assessment at all. Having the proposal be safe is another requirement in granting variances thru a special use permit. Traffic We have had two professionats in municipal traffic and municipal engineering testify that the proposed outlet to Lexington Parkway is unsafe. Their comments are on public recard. 'There has been no conflicting testimony from City Staff, engineering or otherwise. The best response we have is that it meets standards as to distance from a signalized intersection, that it meets line of sight requirements, and that it is as safe as a driveway on Maryland Avenue. The last statement, that it is as safe as a driveway on Maryland Avenue, came from staff in response to a direct question by a member of the planning commission. Later at another public meeting the same planning commission member, when quizzed on how informative Public Works was, statea his disappointment in them. Whi1e he did not elaborate as to why, it is our opinion he was disappointed because staff would not say directly 'it is safe'. We, the neighbors, are equally disappointed because staff would not say directly `it is unsafe'. We'd like to come back to this issue later. Again, there has been comments from two professionals on municipal engineering and municipai traffic that it is unsafe in their professional opinions. One was very descriptive as to why, citing speed at the bottom of two hills, 4of13 �8-39y distracting characteristics, camouflage appearances, ADT, distance of alleys from intersections, etc. When a copy of that was submitted to the Public Works staff and they were questioned as to whether they would say he was wrong, they could or would not do so. There was an attempt to attenuate one of these safety hazards by requiring a n o left turn during rush hour traffic sign as you leave the development_ This inadequately address the issue as speed is still the greatest on the bottom of the Ywo hills located right at the point. Also the entrance and exit are designed to look like a driveway, not a street that requires more attention. And, there was no corresponding effort to regulate left turns into the site from north bound Lexington Parkway, again causing an unexpected road blockage for north bound traffic and crossing over south bound traffic. The existence of other, possibly more unsafe situations, does not create a reason to condone this type of planning now. Those other situations evolved over decades and correcting them may not be practical now. Storm Water Management There is a requirement that calls for the inclusion of a detention pond on the proposed developed site. This is due to storm water management requirements that are part of city ordinances. In most cases you will find this requirement being applied or incorporated into a parking lot or on the site of industrial or business expansions. Staff has found these ponds to be intrinsically unsafe in residential areas or in park areas due to the presence of children. However it is the policy to let the developer seek a variance rather then to selectively urge a variance based upon this particular safety issue. Parking On Lexin�ton If a proposal takes away guest parking for existing residents on Lexington Parkway, on any type of property, whether it be the existing alley or the existing private property, with the end result being that guest of residents on Lexington end up parking on Lexington, you will almost for sure be causing a fatality. Residents have done studies, parking cars on Lexington during broad daylight and observing the number of near accidents that occur. The near accidents occurred almost every signal light cycle. Night time experiments could not be conducted. This issue has not been addressed at ail by staff because it is a secondary effect of the proposal. But without this proposal it would not happen at all. 5of13 • Not In My Neighborhood! This is not a'not in my neighborhood you don t' issue. Yes, we like the open space. Yes, when we moved into this neighborhood we were assured this land locked lot could not be developed and that it had no value. And yes as we look out at the 24,000 ADT in the front of our houses we would prefer to have the back remain palatable. It's kind of a'no brainer' that we do not want this here. But this isn't a half way house moving in, or a library, and there are no social movements being hindered here. ALso this is not depriving the owner the right to access the lots on Lexington Parkway or development of his property as single family housing. This does seek to deny development of a land locked lot that appropriately has had no value or development over the decades. We offer alternatives later. We are offering real acceptable reasons tor denying this proposal and they are usable by you the decision makers. • Metropolitan Council Policy On Urban Development We are all aware of the Metropolitan Council Policy on Urban Development where the stopping of urban sprawl out further and further is to be discouraged and development within existing highly dense sites is to be encourage. There are plenty of sites wifhin the City of Saint Paul that can be developed for residential use. You have the old Amhoist site befween Robert and Wabasha, you have river front sites in conjunction with Shepard Road Development, you have the Phalen Corridor with it's accompanying Iight industrial. These alone offer the opportunities for 1000's of residential units. And if you want to continue coping with this particular policy and think it worth an investment by the community at large, you can move on to cleaning up contaminated sites suitable for light industrial and moving the pieces around a little better, again opening up sites for thousands of residential units. 'They will be coordinated with the community and there will be little or no problems with compatibility, safety, access, property values. These sites will be planned sites. They exist now. Wilder Homes just across the Freeway is a good example. The Summit Hill Zoning Committee strongly endorse the Met Council Policy. They have also turned down on three different public meeting a number of variations of developing this site including one not significantly different then what you are looking at now. As an aside the executive director also appeared at an earlier public hearing to recommend denial. 6of13 � r 9'� 39y The process of developing a coordinated or planned community to help with this policy is a much better process then the one being suggested for this neighborhood. We don't view filling in every little empty space as the right way of complying with the Met Council. Furthermore, the process we have been subjected to appears to be somewhat willy nilly. The developer has offered many variations of basically fihe same problem proposal but changing it enough at the last minute to make it a difficult moving target. For the last change, offered 5 minutes before the zoning committee meeting, no prepared comments from the residents were possibie. Even complete staff approval had to be estimated by the staff present at the meeting. This did not appear to be the way to decide a community's future. • Tough Questions, Tough Answers We have some real serious concerns about this process. There doesn't seem to be a lack of tough questions but there does seen to be a lack of tough answers. Take the issue of the Met Council Policy. No where in staff's answers or approach is there a discussion or a recommendation as to whether or not the City's professional staff feels this is a good exampie of complying or meeting expectations set by that policy. However they are willing to state off the record they do not think so, and in fact think this is a bad example of complying with that policy. But there is no departmental procedure for getting that opinion to you. There is no where an avenue for expressing that opinion to you. There is a vacuum from the City on what appears to be the majar impetus for granting approval. And going back to the safety issue. Why cari t a citizen get an answer to the question 'is this a good idea? Is this safe?' Do we get the response that safety is a relative ward because we have an official stance of neutrality and we cari t risk having a lawyer sue us because our professional opinion may make it hard for them to engage in a business? Staff however is sometimes limited in how they can present an issue. Look at the storm water management requirements. Those are mandated by ordinance. However also note that variances exist for them. But it is the responsibility of the developer to request that variance. There was a situation where Division of Parks was going to put a pond next to the children's playground. Staff couldn't make the decision to grant a variance. They had to call Parks staff and ask Park staff to ask them for a variance which was then granted. If staff starts issuing them without being requested they run into problems with setting precedence, etc. and that isn t easy to explain or dea] with. Is staff really supposed to answer that a vinyl sided 2406 square foot townhouse 7 of 13 with attached garages on a cul-de-sac surrounded by bituminous surfacing and no trees worth $200,000 is compatible with an 85 year old neighborhood of stucco, and wood housing with 600 to 900 square feet foot prints, treed and shrubbed yards off set from public streets and Blvd? The easy answer appears to be yes. Is staff to be blamed for this lack of hard answers? We don't think so. It is the policy makers in the departments that have gradually edged toward this direction. We are aware that there is a pluralisiic society of tax payers and citizens out there and Ehat Ehey all have their concerns and needs. But we also feel tough answers to tough questions is a route that leads to better conditions. And we with our 400 years of investment in this community, are members of that society aIso. We have indicated our differences with staff statements; and where and why we think errors or omissions were made. dne suggestion we would Iike to have you entertain is to have Mr. Shetka, traffic engineer, come and make a definitive statement on whether or not he thinks this is a good idea and whether or not he thinks it is safe; to have Mr. Puchreiter come over and make a definite statement that ponding sites in residential neighborhoods are needed and safe; to have Ms. Wheelock make the statement that this is a good example of complying with Met Council Policy. As an aside, this issue of complying with Met Council Policy is the only one the residents have heard thru all the various public hearings cited by advocates of this proposal, both at the District Councii and at the Planning Commission. If you do approve this proposal please te11 the residents that you have determined it to be safe for traffic, parking, children; have indeed determined that it is compatible with their neighborhood; have determined that there is no possibility of developing these sites as zoned; and have determined that the cluster development does preserve and/or increase green space. • Community Involvement The community has met with the Summit Hill District Council three times on this issue, each time to address a variation of the proposal, and as noted earlier, sometimes multiple variations that were not viewed ahead of time. In each case the neighborhood was united in it's opposition to the proposals. In each case the Summit Hill District Council agreed with the community, and even citing the developers inability to address the issues presented to him earlier� 8of13 � : 9 8-39�} Along with a lack of response at the formal meetings, the developer made no sincere effort to communicate with the neighborhood and negotiate with them. The first we heard about his willingness to do so was in front of the zoning committee where, while stating he had been willing all along to discuss and negotiate, he no longer was willing to do so. However after members of the zoning commission stated they would view favorably the attempt at communication, neighborhood members did gather, did discuss alternatives amongst themselves, and did set up a meeting with the developer. An agreement was reached with those who attended on some issues, mainly the alley access, but nowhere near all issues. Before the neighborhood coordinator could get all the responses from the rest of the neighborhood, the developer had called back and said there were problems. It was with this information we attended the zoning committee's second meeting. When the issue went to the full Planning Commission, Mr. Field, Chairperson of the Zoning Committee appeared to inaccurately portrayed the proposal as having neighborhood support. He repeated this position a number of times to the full commission. The only part of the proposal that had neighborhood support was the issue of not using the alley outletting to St. Clair Avenue by future owners or guests of future owners of the town homes. Public record from the second of the two dates for the public hearing in front of the zoning committee show that the Matherns never came to an agreement on any other issue, that they found problem with the proposed agreement before it could be presented to the remaining neighbor. The final result of all this is that we are united yet in our opposition to all of the proposals we have seen presented so far. The existing residents of this area with a total of 400 years of time invested in their neighborhood are requesting that you, the City Council, pay attention to these findings and find them cause for denying what many in the area feel will lead to the degradation if not destruction of our neighborhood. • Earlier Comments on Viability and Fears Eariier we mentioned fears about the viability and about property values and the real estate agents comments that the project needs to be done right. As part of the information submitted during this whole process there was some information submitted by a Timothy Sullivan, an attorney. Upon review of that information it appears that John and Sandra Mathern, referred to in the documents as 'The Matherns' were found to be in debt to United Mortgage Corporations for two lots they purchased and that the debtwas a little over half a million. This occurred in October of 1989. Not so bad and it happens to a lot of 9of13 people. However in 1992 there was a claim that the Matherns had hindered or delayed their creditors, failed to produce adequate financial records, and knowingly made false oaths. It appears that it was further found that the courts held that substantial evidence to support an inference of fraudu�ent intent bythe Matherns. An appeal court found the Matherns failed to set forth affirmative admissible evidence to rebnt the considerable circumstantial evidence of fraudulent intent and ruled against them. We are aware this is a sensitive issue. We are also aware that the City Attorney chose to not have the full material released in a package to planning commission members, deeming it not relevant or not to be considered in their decision making capacity. Instead just the cover letter from the presenting attorney was included. Most of the neighbors do not have a problem with this decision by the City Attorney. As noted above staff and now commission members are lunited as to what they can say or do. However it is a significant contributor to the reasons we fear this proposal. And because of this we feel it may be inappropriate to simply ignore it. In other communities when the professional capabilities of a developer are questioned and evidence is provided to support that questioning, provisions do exist for calming those questions. While we are not suggesting it as an alternative as we have other ideas, we are suggesting that if the proposal does get approved that the performance bond for complying with all the provisions of the site plan review be expanded to require completion of the whatever the final proposal is within a 18 month time period, that all grading be completed in the 18 month time table, and that maintenance of the entire site be accomplished by either the developer or the owners. We would like the City to explore this or something similar. Again we are not offering this as an alternative, just something to be done in case our altematives are rejected. • Alternatives We realize we can't stop at just say no and that there is a need to offer alternatives or compromises. Why has there been so much problem with the existing proposal? Why the repetitive redoing and reshaping of it? Why have Planning Commission members noted for pubIic record 'they would never buy it'? Why has it required so much effort and supposed creative thinking? Because in its current rendition and in all past renditions it is simply a bad idea. It carries too much baggage. As noted in the first paragraph, there has not been a proposal to develop just as is now allowed - single family housing on an accessible street. Our first alternative is to do just that on the tot on Lexington Parkway, just like everyone else in the neighborhood has. 70of13 . , . 9 8-39�f Our second alternative would be to have a Public Road built onto the site, not a driveway. And then to construct single family housing fronting that public road_ While this does not satisfy all of the complaints it does deal with some. The approach so far as been too narzow and too focused on us versus them. Movement has gone on with too little input during the public hearing phase (for whatever reason) until now and too little response to the neighbor's concerns and statements. Please slow down, please respond to all of the concerns, please make sure you have asked all the questions and received all the answers. This is our petition to the City Council of St. Paul from the following residents: ..�� o �� I DAVID A& HELEN L SCHULTZ I 1120 ST. CLAIR AVENUE I LOT 10, RUETH'S ADDITION I HELEN H CURRIER , I 1116 ST. CLAIR AVENUE �: ,� ,,� J� LOT 9, RUETH'S ADDITION I JOEL M& CHARLOTTE PATROS I 1126 ST. CLAIR AVENUE I LOT 11, RUETH'S ADDITION � \ � ) �� / " � � �.�%�-��-- I ALICE L PETERSON I 1130 ST. CLAIR AVENUE I LOT 12, RUETH'S ADDITION I MARGARET H MARKS ,,� I� 1134 ST. CLAIR AVENUE ' ^ � ��l'�2'�, 13, RUETH'S ADDITION �� : � : "' ' �~✓ z, a,. � Z:. � T '� I SUSAN E WAGNER �-��'�'�----,_ . I 1138 ST. CLAIR AVENUE r � �� l LOT 14, RUETH'S ADDITION �..•° ,, � p� � Z/� Jy > r�t.rc � - sr��,p � CRAIG & BERYL P BOE �`��'u�� s'�"` �`�� v� I 1142 ST. GLAIR AVENUE 0-��-� �� —` ��/ I LOT 15, RUETH'S ADDITION _ s� �� - ---------------------------- - ----------- ��t7 �C `7 �CSO -,�/�c I JAMES W& LISA R SWYERS S'i��erinv-, />�°f �- /�«��.� ,�, I 1146 ST. CLAIR AVENUE `��i �y� �..�� : I LOT 16, RUETH'S ADDlTION 11 of 13 ------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ , , , ----�-;, ----------------------------- r� '' '' '��'ti,--,.✓�` f MILKA P& TODD THORESEN F� '� ' i ( 1152 ST. CLAIR AVENUE I LOT 17, RUETH'S ADDITION S , f^�l . ��,,__-- � i �-�� I SETH M ANDERSON I 1156 ST. CLAIR AVENUE I E 40 FT OF LOT 18, RUETH'S ADDITION I MICHAEL R WIGFIELD �I 1160 ST. CLAIR AVENUE I WITH AND SUBJ TO ESMTS AND EX THE ,�E 40 FT LOT 18, RUETH'S ADDITION PAT BYRNE & RACHEL BLANK 243 S. LEXINGTON PARKWAY N 1 O FT OF LOT 2 AND ALL OF LOT 1, RUETH'S ADDITION I CHARLES W& KATHLEEN MARKS I 251 S. LEXINGTON PARKWAY � I EX N 1 O FT, LOT 2, RUETH'S ADDITION �.��.� G�.� _------------------------------------------------ ��.,�.-�-�'�--�--� }�4,t�.rv- �S�CZ. i.,� I KEITH l.ANE CURTNER I 259 S. LEXINGTON PARKWAY I LOT 3, RUETN'S ADDITION I ALBERTA L 81NKER I 263 S. LEXINGTON PARKWAY EX S 7 FT, LOT 4, RUETH'S ADDITION 1 HELENE G OSTROW I 269 S. LEXINGTON PARKWAY I S 7 FT OF LOT 4 AND ALL OF LOT 5, i RUETH'S ADDITION z� �Z/��v, I CHRISTOPHER WALKER f 273 S. LEXINGTON PARKWAY I LOT 6, RUETH'S ADDITION I ROBERT E& KATHLEEN A HENDRICKSON � 279 S. LEXINGTON PARKWAY I EX S 2 FT, LOT 7, RUETH'S ADD�TION 12 of 13 . ..y.: y �-39`� I BEVERLY Y DUNBAR I 283 S. LEXINGTON PARKWAY I S 2 FT OF LOT 7 AND ALL OF LOT 8, I RUETH'S ADDITION a a� � � D�Lo�� Il��w" ��.� 2'�� i � n�� .�. �-� �� 1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------=------ - ;��'�"�-'�- ��'lt�''�lkS�vV � J � � �t �i �e Il�� -�"�� nsov� ---�------------------------------------------------ �--� 5'o x�� x tn� f k�� ----------------------------------------------------- ►� � ��-rn�S �S , �� —`°� � ��y� S� Q,� a.-�'. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, The above signed residents. 13 of 13 � �j �-39�1 To the Councilmembers of the City Council of St. Paul, Good Afternoon. My name is Pat Byrne and I reside at 243 S. Lexington Parkway. I'm here to read a letter signed by all of my neighbors. However as a courtesy, /� the letter was provide to yot�ef re hand and Its been indicated that it has been d�ii,/�, JYL read by the Council Members.�mportant to the signers of that letter that it is read or listened to as this is their first opportunity to speak to a public �.�C representative in this process. Anyway I'm going to summarize that letter t��"' instead of reading it. However I will read the summary. (I'm not sure if it is the �4 ll reading or the length that bores people and puts them to sleep). I'd like to note it is a very concerned group of neighbors and a very united group of neighbors that ��,� / share in this appeal. It consists of 100°lo of the people living ext to the site and � � J'' �� .�(� includes neighbors on the other side of Lexington Parkway.��es°��^��T'� '—'�o � •�� el� ^a�••�' itn� ri�ll�t�lOS2 w -��-Sr7��C-lri ��' p � V We think there were a number of errors and omissions in the process performed by both Staff and Pianning Commission Members. In the following list of comments however you will note that we address both those errors and omissions and repeat a number of comments we have made in the last five public meetings held discussing this issue. I apologize to the signers if this seems briefer then it should, and I apologize to the Council if it seems longer then it should. • Property Acquisition, The site was acquired for very little money back in the 70's. It was deemed worthless then and has been deemed almost worthless since then by both the owner and Ramsey County property taxing system. ' g � p f* �n'-��:-_�'�•�, I'd like to note at this time an error in the letter sent out. It was not acquired as surplus county property. • Minirnum Requirements There has never been a discussion of developing the site as a single family residential site and therefore not requiring anyone to go thru this process. Ostensibly one of the reasons for having a special use permit for a cluster development is to preserve and increase green space, to cluster the structures in such a manner as to increase green space within the City. As you view the proposal, note this does not happen. 1 of 9 y 8-39y I'd note that one of the requirements is to minimize alterations of the natural features and topography. The plan proposes the removai of most if not all of the trees on this site. • Alley Use The alley use has been a major item for mos of residents �. It is two, n 3n�-�vrs� — ir -- n"` "'' Everyone involved has already reached a minimum proposal to not allow major increased traffic on the alley. � � �P-; e �a �` '- a ^�� a. Accidents have happened already due to combination of density of existing traffic and proximity of the alley (125') to an intersection that has 24,000 ADT. As noted those people right next to the proposed 150,OQQ units feel their 6�,�0� would not sell due to contrast. However two real estate agents, while acknowledging that amenities are reduced, property values should not be affected. However they noted this is only true if done right and if done compietely as the plan indicates. However even with this assurance some are still fearful. This concern was listed in this letter for this reason. And to lead into the next matter. One agent made this disclaimer only when made aware of who the developer is. • Viability of the Proposal There are strong doubts as to viability of this project. 1) The developer has already gone thru bankruptcy procedures in past developments. 2) The developer has indicated he will ignore the warnings issued bythe railroad company as to the vibrations generated by the tracks at the bottom of the hill from the development. 3) T`here has been indications of the possibility of contaminated soiis or at the very least an abandoned dump site. 2 of 9 • Existing Property Values 9�-39`f 4)The site proposal calls for removal of the hundreds of trees on site, leaving a barren exposure to both the railroad and the freeway. And the future of that particular freeway is uncertain; will it be turned into renovated four lane expressway or into a linear park? 5) There are fears the developer will walk if the units don't sell even though he has assured us they will sell like hotcakes. And then what will the City allow to happen on the site to salvage it • Compatibility The requirements include, and the staff report states "The design will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood". We think there is a mistake here. And this is one of the major issues to everyone in the neighborhood. The only really compatible item will be that they house people. You go from a 90' by 25' structures with attached garage of 800 sq feet for a total 3�0 square feet structures to the existing structures ranging from 600 square feet to 900 square feet. The attached garage is bigger then some of the houses You go from a mixture over 80 years of construction of stucco, clapboard, metal sliding, wood to one of uniform vinyl siding. The obvious incompatibility is you go from single family housing to multiple family housing. You go from fenced or treed lots fronting a public street with yards and boulevards to a cul-de-sac with almost no yard space and most of the trees removed. You go from a developed St. Paul Community with its own unique characterizations to a Woodbury house farm. • Safety 3 of 9 Another obvious incompatibility is that you go from homes valued at $25,000 to $100,00 and now add homes valued at $140,000 to $200,000 9�'3g�f \ � r/ "V �� Yv ��f Another requirement is that 'The use will not be detrimentai to the existing character of the development in the immediate neighborhood or endanger public health, safety, and general welfare' We feel staff and Planning Commission inadequately addressed the issue of safety, either thru a mistaken assessment or no assessment at ail. This is the second major issue with the neighborhood. Traffic The public record contains assessments by engineering professionals that the proposed outlet to Lexington Parkway is unsafe, and there has been no conflicting testimony from City Staff. In fact when asked directly if they could say the neighbor's assessment was incorrect we got a negative answer. The best response we have is that it meets standards as to distance from a signalized intersection, that it meets line of sight requirements, and that it is as safe as a driveway on Maryland Avenue. The last statement, that it i�, a�s safe on au n t mu sp� cti Y r i T�r t asoy��. ' e a� 1� in ro a lea st e�ite�[t is ` s e dUw�ver loo in�for a cie r s� t t that it s safe. �� l� � � ✓�c�c v�. �a�"tv tks an aside to the letter I'd like to point out t�at surviving the review process is not a statement from City Staff that�� is safe. It is a statement from staff that it met distance from signalized intersection standards and it met line of sight standards. That is all. There was an attempt to attenuate one of these safety hazards by requiring a no left turn during rush hour traffic sign as you leave the development. This�a�t addresses about 20°fo of the traffic safety issue and was done with no consuitation at all with traffic professionals. Storm Water Mana ement There is a requirement that calls for the inclusion of a detention pond on the p\�proposed developed site. As a Water resource professional I have found this to ��' be intrinsically unsafe in residential areas where children are�or in axeas where �� t�gi� existence is a surprise. �` Parking On Lexi�ton 4 of 9 q8-39� One end result of the proposal, whether directiy or indirectly, will be a definite increase in Parking on Lexington Parkway. Parking on Lexington will lead to � j many traffic accidents and I will easily state, traffic fatalities. There has been no � comment or review or contribution to discussion on this item from anyone within the City. In the list of major accident areas throughout the city, Lexington Parkway already occupies 1/8 of that list. • Not Itt My Neighborhood! This is not a'not in my neighborhood you don't' issue. Yes, we like the open space. Yes, when we moved into this neighborhood we were assured this land locked lot could not be developed and that it had no value. And yes as we look out at the 24,000 ADT in the front of our houses we would prefer to have the back remain palatable. It's kind of a'no brainer' that we do not want this here. But this isn t a half way house moving in, or a library, and there are no social movements being hindered here. Also this is not depriving the owner the right to access the lots on Lexington Parkway or development of his property as single family housing. This does seek to deny development of a land locked lot that appropriately has had no value or development over the decades. We offer alternatives later. As you review the permitted uses in the zoning law you will note that all non �,, � single family residential uses are ail socially benefiting items like churches, �`• i, schools, libraries, transitional housing, battered women and children residences, �v �� hospices, etc. Even Cluster development was there to provide more green space. �� But as noted elsewhere that also required compatibility and safety. i� t � 4 \� We are offering real acceptable reasons for denying this proposal and they are usable by you the decision makers_ Council Policy On Urban Development Our community council is on record as strongly agreeing with the principles espoused in the Metropolitan councils regional blueprint calling for decrease in urban sprawl and an increase in redevelopment of St. Paul sites. This community council is also on recard as opposing this particular development This proposal is not a good example of complying with that policy. We feel the pressure is mispiaced. We know the Mayor's office wants development of over 600 sites within the City. In off record comments we know that PED has been �� 9�-395f 'nice' to this developer. There is a push to get this redevelopment process going. ,�ut I listed possible examples in the letter. Those sites lend themselves to a / coordinated planned community with no one to complain. They exist now. Just `� look across the freeway to the Wilder Site. / I would also like to say as a manager of various programs that I feel the best way to a successful program is early simple successes, to make sure in your very first implementations to have everything weil thought out, with special attention, to � not use the easier method of seeing what happens and then make corrections as � you get into the bulk of a program. No one in the neighborhood or community � council is arguing with the policy. Just that this is the wrong way to start it, whether in our neighborhood or anyone else's neighborhood. With over 400 years of investment in this City we deserve better then this. The City deserves better then this. • Tough Questions, Tough Answers We have some reai serious concerns about this process. There doesn't seem to be a lack of tough questions but there does seen to be a lack of tough answers. Take the issue of the Met Council Policy. No where in staff's answers or approach is there a discussion or a recommendation as to whether or not the City's professional staff feels this is a good example of complying or meeting expectations set by that policy. And going back to the safety issue. Why can't a citizen get an answer to the question 'is this a good idea? Is this safe?' Why do we get vague answers like it as safe as a driveway to Maryland Avenue, or safety is a relative thing? Why cari t the city address the Parking issue before someone gets killed. Why cari t Staff suggest a variance before a developer asks for it? How do we manage to get the statement thaX a vinyl sided 3000 square foot structure on a cul-de-sac surrounded by bituminous surfacing and no trees worth $200,000 is compatible with an 85 year old neighborhood of stucco, and wood housing with 60� to 900 square feet foot prints, treed and shrubbed yards off set from public streets and Bivd? We have indicated our differences with staff statements; and where and why we think errors or omissions were made. One suggestion we would like to have you entertain is to have Ms Becker have staff come and make a definitive statement on whether or not they thinks this is a good idea and whether or not they thinks it is safe; whether it be traffic, parking 6 of 9 g � 394� or ponds. to have Ms. Wheelock or staff make the statement that this is a good example of complying with Met Council Policy. If you do approve this proposal please tell the residents that you have determined it to be safe for traffic, parking, children; have indeed determined that it is compatible with their neighborhood; have determined that there is no possibility of developing these sites as zoned; and have determined that the � cluster development does preserve and/or increase green space. • _Community Involvement The com unity has met many times with Summit Hill Council, with � themselves, with planning commission people. We have been asked to give our � opinions on plans that have been changed on us at the last minute. We have sent letters with issues. We have asked questions. One of the main reasons cited by the community council for not approving the the plan was the � developers unwillingness to answer our questions. However we have met with the developer after he was severely prompted to by the planning commission. � However no agreement was ever reached with the developer. A partial agreement was reached about the alley. However this agreement was � blown up to the extent that Mr. Field, Chairperson of the Zoning Committee appeared to inaccurately portrayed the proposal as having neighborhood support. He repeated this position a number of times to the full commission. i result of ali this is that we are united yet in our opposition to ail of the proposals we have seen presented so far. The existing residents of this area with a total of 400 years of time invested in their neighborhood are requesting that you, the City Council address these concerns find them cause far denying what many in the area feel will lead to the degradation if not destruction of our neighborhood. • Earlier Comments on Viability and Fears Earlier we mentioned fears about the viability and about property values and the real estate agents comments that the project needs to be done right. In our letter we addressed this issue. It basically was that, because of public records brought to our attention we have strong doubts as the suitability and ability of Mendota Homes to develop this site. This was not due to the bankruptcy issues as much as to the findings by the court that there was substantial evidence of knowingly making false oaths and inference of fraudulent intent. An appeals court also found against them. We are aware this is a sensitive issue. 7of9 �18-3y`l We had proposed another video but I'm going to have to ask you to use your imagination on this one. The video was going to go back and forth between a picture of the houses in our community, which you have seen, and a pictuxe of a suburban cul-de-sac with double and triple townhouses all in uniform color and vinyl and no or little trees, again which I assume most of you have seen before. In Summary (of a summary) We feel a major issues is compatibility with the neighborhood. We feel the envelope of possible interpretations of that requirement has been extremely enlarge and furthermore pushed in the wrong direction We feel a major issue is safety in traffic, in parking, and in ponding requirements. We also feel that the City has not responded adequately or at all to these concerns, and that you cannot site passing a review process as an adequate addressing of direct concerns, especially if those questions are not part of the review process. We feel issues of alley use is a major safety issue. We feel a major issue is that cluster developments should lead to increased green space. We feel the issues of property value, of viability of the project, of proper management are important. We feel there are more acceptable alternatives, development alternative� and they should be the only ones allowed. ' 9of9 y�-3y�{ , � � i � However it is a significant contributor to the reasons we fear this proposal. And because of this we feel it may be inappropriate to simply ignore it. In other communities when the professional capabilities of a developer are questioned and evidence is provided to support that questioning, provisions do exist for calming those questions. While we are not suggesting it as an alternative as we have other ideas, we are suggesting that if the proposal does get approved that the performance bond fox complying with all the provisions of the site plan review be expanded to require completion of the whatever the final proposal is within a 18 month time period, that all grading be completed in the 18 month time table, and that maintenance of the entire site be accomplished byeither the developer or the owners. We would like the City to expiore this or something similar. Again we are not offering this as an alternative, just something to be done in case our alternatives are rejected. • Alternatives We realize we can`t stop at just say no and that there is a need to offer alternatives or compromises. Why has there been so much probiem with the existing proposal? Why the repetitive redoing and reshaping of it? Why have Planning Commission members noted for public recard 'they would never buy it'? Why has it required so much effort and supposed creative thinking? Secause in its current rendition and in all past renditions it is simply a bad idea. It carries too much baggage. As noted earlier, there has not been a proposal to develop as a single £amily housing on an accessible street. Our first alternative is to do just that on the lot on Lexington Parkway, just like everyone else in the neighborhood has. Our second alternative would be to have a Public Road built onto the site, not a driveway. And then to construct single family housing fronting that public road. While this does not satisfy all of the complaints it does deal with some. The approach so far as been too narxow and too focused on us versus them. Movement has gone on with too little input during the pubiic hearing phase (for whatever reason) until now and too little response to the neighbor's concerns and statements. Please slow down, please respond to all of the concerns, please make sure you have asked all the questions and received all the answers. Before I summarize I like to show this tape prepared by some residents; it was prepared for one of the initial discussion with the community council. Tape :. • 9 �-3�Y TO APPLICANT . � . . �ZJ� LOCATION OF PROPERTY TIME OF HEARING PLACE OF HEARING PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE SAINT PAUL CTTY COUNCIL ZONTNG Properry Owners within 350 feet; I Representatives of Planning District 16 � BYRNE, PATRICK Appeal the Planning Commission approval of a 10 unit cluster development. / City Council Chambers, 3rd Floor City Hall-Court House 15 West Keliogg Blvd; Saint Paul, MN 55102 HOW TO PARTICIPATE 1. You may attend hearing and testify. 2. You may send a letter before the hearing to the Zoning Section of the Planning and Economic Development Department, 25 West Fourth St, 1100 City Ha11 Annex, Saint Paul, MN 55102. . 3.. Participation is not required. This is your notice of public hearine. ANY QUESTIONS Call Kady Dadlez of the Zoning o�ce at 266-6582 or your District Council Representative at 222-1222 with the following information: Zoning File Nutnber 97-313 Zoning File Name MENDOTA HOMES APPEAL Mailing Date 12/10/97 5�8-3S�f David & Helene Schultz 1120 Saint Clau Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota 55105 612-292-1096 January 13, 1998 St. Paul City Council c/o Zoning Section of PED 25 West Fourth Street 1100 City Hall Annex Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear City Council Members: Re: Mendota Homes Appeal Zoning File Number 97-313 We are adjoining property owners to the proposed Mendota Homes project and we are sending this letter to oppose the special use permit that was granted by the Planning Commission. We hope that this letter will be given all the weight that oral testimony would haue received. We oppose the granting of the special use permit for all of the reasons stated in the letter endorsed by all of the adjoining property owners in the area. However, we do wish to reinforce several points. We believe that the Planning Commission erred in failing Yo give sufficient attention to both the traffic safety problems and the incompatibility of the proposed project with the current architecture and land use of the neighborhood. First, placing additional traffic on either Lexington or Saint Clair Avenues will be a safety hazard that should be considered. Second, the proposed development, with large two and three unit structures, will be significantly larger than any of the eusting units in the area. Hence, the new Mendota Homes units will dwarf and hover over the e�sting houses. Overall, it is our believe that the Planning Commission failed to give due regard to these factors. Second, we believe that the Planning Commission erred in failing to permit certain testimony to be placed on the record for their consideration. By that, neighbors repeatedly sought to enter into the record their concern about the soil conditions on the land upon which this proposed development might be erected. The neighbors have legitimate concerns that because of the soil conditions construction of buildings on this property would perhaps endanger the public health or othenvise damage or be detrimental to neighboring property. In effect, because the Commission refused to allow testimony on this subject the Commission abused its discretion and failed to consider facts that may be critical to a fu11 and proper evaluation of the application of a special use permit for this project. Third, we believe that the Planning Commission erred in failing to consider all of the information submitted to them as a matter of public record. By that, Tim Sullivan had submitted court information to Beth Bartz regarding John Mathern's financial difficulties with other similar housing projects. Ms. Bartz failed to pass along to the Planning Commission this information. We believe that the Planning Commission should have reviewed this information and made its own decision to its relevancy. The failure to consider information submitted for public record, as well as the failure to pass this information along to the Planning Commission is an error of law. In sum, we hope that City Council considers this information when it reviews the Mendota January 13, 1998 (5:57pm) David Schultz 5�-3sy Homes project since it may speak to the capacity of the developer to execute and complete this project. Fourth, we believe that the Planning Commission erred in giving weight to facts and testimony that are not relevant to the statutory requirements specific to the granting of a special use permit. By that, during the public hearing Susan Kimberly testified to a Metropolitan Council determination that St. Paul needed to intensify its Iand use and increase the number of housing units in the city over the ne� iwenry years. Similarly, in its deliberations, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission referred to her testimony_ While Ms. Kimberl�s testimony may have some merit, neither the Met Council's report nor overall housing needs in the city are relevant to the granting of a special use permit for this property. Specifically, no where in §64.300 of the St. Paul I,egislative Code does it permit a regional or general concern for land development to count as a factor for allowing a special use permit for a specific property. Instead, one must look only to the applicable statutory conditions of the code as they apply to a specific parcel of property. To the e�ent that the Planning Commission considered irrelevant information such as this in its decision the Commission erred, and we urge you to consider the request for a special use permit for this project based solely upon the statutory relevant factors and facts considering this property. Fifth, at no point did the Planning Commission consider other alternative and less intensive uses than the proposed development. Instead of considering a ten unit cluster development some regard should be given to a less intense but otherwise compatible use for the property, e.g., several single family units. Overall, for the reasons specified above, as well as for those listed in the joint letter by all the neighbors, we believe that City Council should overturn the Planning Commission decision and vote to deny a special use permit for this project. However, were City Council disposed to supporting this project, we would ask that you modify the current special use permit in several ways. First, the overall number of units should be reduced to eight or nine units such that there will not be either a double unit directly on I.exington or a triple unit located anyv✓here in the project. A triple unit is clearly incompatible with the existing neighborhood and would be very out of size and character with the neighborhood. Second, by allowing only one unit on I.exington it will protect the house ne� to it. Third, by reducing the number of units to eight or nine it will less the intensification of use, preserve green space, and make the project less of a traffic safety problem. Fourth, we would like to see the developer post a bond guaranteeing that the project will be completed as specified. What the neighbors fear most is a project that is started and never completed, leaving a partially undeveloped hazard in the neighborhood. Please note, in making this request for a reduction in the number of units the developer will claim that he has already compromised from his initial plan of fifteen units. However, the original proposal for the plan was twelve units and subsequently the developer increased his request to fifteen. Hence, a compromise of eight or nine units to preseroe the neighborhood does not seem unreasonable. Thank you very much for considering our concerns. Sincerely, c� �_� Helene and David Schultz Jauuary 13, 1998 (S:S7pm) David Schultz ORIGINAL Presented By Referred To Council File � $- y Green Sheet # � O `� � ` RESOLUT ON SAINT,F' L, MINNESOTA Committee: Date WHEREAS, Mendota Homes, in Zoning File No. 97-207, made application to the Saint Paul Plauniug Commission for a special condition use permit under the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code Section 60.413(13) and 64300(d) for the purpose of constnxcting a 10 unit cluster development on undeveloped property located on Lexington Pazkway south of St. Clair, and legally described as and; WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Plamiing Commission on October 30, 1997, and on November 13, 1997, after having provided nofice to afFected property owners, held public hearings at which all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard and submitted it recommendafion to the commission. The commission, by its Resolution No.97-78, adopted on November 21, 1997, decided to grant the applica6on based upon the following findings and conclusions: 1. The applicant has a purchase agreement for the property proposed for development. Ten dwelling units are proposed: 3 buildings of two units, 1 building of three units, and 1 building of one unit. Access to the homes and gazages is proposed to be entirely from Lexington Parkway via a private street. There is no alley access. 2. Chapter 60.413(13) of the Zoning Code permits cluster developments subject to the following conditions: � � There shall be a minimum of two (2) units. This condition is met. Ten units are planned. The units shall be attached, common wall, single family, with no unit intruding on the vertical airspace of any other unit. This condition is partially met. Nine of the units are attached, common wall, single-family, with no unit intruding on the vertical air space of any other unit. One unit is a single-family home and this condition (b) is modified for that home in finding 4, below. c. The parcel shall meet the lot area required per unit in the zoning dish-ict. This condition can be met. The lot azea, including half of the alley is 107,380.5 square feet. This allows 10,738.05 square feet per unit, exceeding the 5,000 squaze feet per unit requirement. 11 qg -39"�! z a. 3 4 5 6 7 8 e. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 f � The parcel shall have a minimum frontage of eighty (80) feet on an improved street. This condition is met. The parcel has 183.93 feet of frontage on Le�ngton pazkway. The structure shall conform to the schedule of regulations for height, lot coverage, setbacks and parking. This condifion is met. As proposed, the development meets the requirements for height, lot coverage and pazking prescribed by the zoning district. Eight visitor parldng spaces will be provided in addition to a double garage for each unit. Zoning enforcement has deternuned the front yazd to be on Lexington, and the rear yazd to be the farthest northwest corner of the pazcel. The plan appears to meet all setback requirements. The design shall be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Overall the proposed design is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood which consists of a mixture of 1, 1-1/2, and 2 story shuctures with gabled and hipped roofs. Materials used in the surrounding neighborhood include stucco, clapboazd, metal siding, and composite shingles. Windows are a mixture of double hung and fixed "picture" windows. The proposed units are 1 and 2 stories in height with intersecting gable roofs. (See drawings attached.) The applicant has not specified which units will be one or two stories, but rather proposes that decision be made with the potential buyer. Exterior material is proposed to be vinyl siding. The overall massing, while larger than the typical home in the neighborhood due to the paired unit design, is broken up by a central gabled bay. Porches and double hung windows provide other design elements similar to houses in the azea. Individual lots, buildings, sireet and parking areas shall be designed and situated to minimize alteration of the natural features and topography. The project would require some grading to provide proper drainage for the site. The grading plan also includes construction of a storm water pond near Le�ngton. However, the overall topography of the site, including the slope into the railroad corridor, would not be disturbed. Some of the existing trees in the slope azea of the site would remain. h. Applications for cluster deveZopment shall include site plans, including landscaping and elevations and other fnformation the planning commission may request. This condition is met. The applicant submitted a site plan, landscape plan, and building elevations along with a written descripfion detailing the specifics of the development. 2 q$•3�y 2 3. Section 64300(d) of the zoning code requires that before the plauning coxnxnission may 3 grant approval of a principal use subject to special conditions, the commission shall find 4 that: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 � � c. � The extent, Zocation and intensity of the use wi11 be in substantial compliance with the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan and any applicable subarea pZans which were approved by the city council. The District 16 Plan does not include any proposals relevant to flus matter. There aze no applicable small area plans for this azea. The Saint Paul Housing Policy for the 1990's recotnmends "expansion of housing opportunities for middle and higher income households where this mazket is or can be addressed in Saint Paul." The units in this proposal will be priced at $139,900 - $200,000, addressing middle income populations. The use will provide adequate ingress and egress to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. A private street will provide access to the units and a11ow emergency vehicle traffic and visitor pazking. The Fire Deparhnent has determined this access to be sufficient for emergency access. Initially the applicant proposed extending the alley through to Lexington raising concerns about traffic cutting through the alley to avoid the intersection at St. Clair and Lexington. The current proposal does not ea�tend the existing alley and does not connect the alley to the private street, eluninating the ability far traffic to cut through. The use will not be detrimental to the existing character of development in the immediate neighborhood or endanger the public health, safety and general welfare. This condition is met. The nuxnber of new dwelling units can be accommodated by exisring facilities and services provided by the city. The private street will accommodate emergency vehicles and all requirements for water, sewer and storm water have been met. The use will note impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. This condition is met. The surrounding property is fully developed. The new housing will serve as a buffer between the single family homes on St. Clair and Lexington and the raikoad - Ayd Mill Road corridor. q�-�°t�l � � The use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is Zocated. � This condition is met. 6 7 4. Section 64300( fl of the zoning code states: "The planning commission, after public 8 hearing, may modify any or all special conditions, when strict application of such speeial 9 conditions would unreasonably limit or prevent otherwise lawful use of a piece of 10 property or an e�sting structure and would result in exceptional undue hardship to the 11 owner of such property or structure; provided, that such modificafion will not impair the 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 intent and purpose of such special condifion and is consistent with health, morals and general welfaze of the community and is consistent with reasonable enjoyment of adjacent property." The building fronting on Lexington Pazkway is a stand alone single-family home that does not meet the common wall condition of (c) above and is hereby modified. Siting a single-fanuly home rather than a two-fanvly home is more in keeping with the single- family homes adjoining and to the north along Lexington Parkway. Including the single family home in the cluster development adds the hazdship of sepazate description and easements for a single-family lot. WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislarive Code § 64.206, Pat Byrne, duly filed with the City Clerk an appeal from the determination made by the plauning commission, requesting that a hearing be held before the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the said commission; and WHEREAS, acting pursuant to § 64.206 through § 64.208, and upon norice to affected parties a public heazing was duly conducted by the City Council on January�; 1998, where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and �Y WIIEREAS, the Council, hauing heazd the statements made, and having considered the application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the zoning committee and of the planning commission, does hereby; RESOLVE, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby reverse the decision of the planning commission in this matter, based on the following findings of the Council: The Council finds that the planning commission erred with respect to fmding 2( fl and 2(b) in that: (1) the proposed design is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood as the exterior design characteristics of the units aze out of character with the neighborhood; and (2) the overall design of the proposal is more like a suburban Woodbury styled development which is not in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. The Council fiu•ther finds with respect to finding 3(b) that the ingress and egress to Lexington Avenue does not minimize traffic congestion in the public street and, in fact, adds to traffic congestion; and n °1$ "3�`t � 2 BE IT FURTAER RESOLVED, that the appeal of Pat Byrne be and is hereby granted; 3 and 4 5 BE TT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolufion 6 to Pat Byrne, the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission. 7 Reguested by Department of: By: 1 \ — Approved by By: Form Appro d by City Attorney sy: � �C✓aiYY�' �� l7- �,7 Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: By: Adopted by Conncil: Date �\V\�� \�� Adoptio� Certified by Council Se r ary 1 Citv Council Offices DATE 4/2� GREEN SHEET �$-3q� No 608$1 Mike Harris, 266-8630 � �� — dUST eE ON COUNCIL AGk7JDA BY (Q4TEa AsslGx NUYBERFOR ❑tlIV�iTOR1ET tlIVGiRK ROIRING � ❑HYUICMLiFRYKFSOW. NMIKMLiERVIICCT¢ ❑wrwe(aewsm,urtl ❑ TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CL1P ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Finalizing the decision of the Saint Paul City Council in granting the appeal oE Pat Byrne for property located at Lexington Parkway and St. Clair. PLANNING COMMISSION CIB COMMITTEE CIVIL SERVICE CAMMISSION Has tnis P��n everworketl under a conhact far this dePaNnenl? VES NO Fias thie P�Nfirm ever been a citY emWuYee9 YES NO Does this P��m P�s a sltlti not �wrmallYP�� M ar�Y cuneM citY �W�'ee? YES NO !s 1Ma pe�soMfifm a fatgeted vendcYt YES NO arM atqch to areen sheet IF AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION S 'k��tti��;��5, �,?vnni:•!-d �`',��,eh�p � APR 2 4 199� COST/REVRlUE BUDf3ETED (GRCLE ONE) ACTNIN NUMBER YES NO INFORMAiION(EXPWM OFFICE OF TE� CITY ATTORNEY �� PegBir75 CiryAnomey CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Co7emme, Mayar Civi[ Division 400 City H¢!L IS West KelZogg Blvd Saint Paul, Mi�n+esota 55702 Telephone: 612 266-87Z0 Facsimile: 612 298-5619 Apri121, 1998 Nancy Anderson Council Secretary 31Q City Hall 15 West Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Appeal by Pat Byrne Zoning File No. 97-207 January 27, 1998 Dear Ms. Anderson: Attached please fmd a s3gned resolution memorializing the decision of the Saint Paul City Council in the above-entitled matter. Would you please place this matter on the Council Consent Agenda at your earliest convenience. If you haue any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, ��/�� Peter W. VJarner Assistant City Attorney PW Wfrmb Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF PLFvNYING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT crrY oF sanvr Pavz. Norm Calemarz, Mayor December 8, 1997 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: Divirion of P(mviing 25 A'estFau�th Street Saint Pau1, MNSSIO2 y8 3 y5� � '' . Telephone: 6I2-266-6565 Facsimi[e: 612-228-3374 I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Monday, December 22, 1997 for the following appeal of a Planning Commission decision approving a special condition use permit: Appellant: PAT BY12NE File Number: #97-207 Purpose: Appeal a Planning Commission decision approving a special condition use permit to allow cluster development with ten (10) dwelling units. (Applicant: Mendota Homes) Address: x� Lexington Parkway South (southwest quadreant of Lexington and St. Clair) Legal Description of Property: See Survey in File Previous Action: Planning Commission Action: Approval with conditions; vote: 16-1, November 21, 1997 Zoning Committee Recommendation: Approval with conditions; vote: 4-0, November 13, 1997 My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda for the December 1�, 1997 City Council meeting and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Please call me at 266-6580 if you have any questions. Sincere Beth Bartz City Planner cc: File #97-207 Mike Kraemer Donna Sanders — , xcfa'ics.� PoauC �aanrc The Satnt Paul �1ty Counctf wi11 mnduct a public hearing on Monday, December 22, 1997 at 4:39 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Third Floot. � City Hall-Court Hous� W consider ihe appeat of Pat Byme, to a dectsion of ihe Planning Commission approving a spectal conditlon use pernvt to allow ciuster development with ten dweliing nnits (applicant: Menddta Hoates) at ao�c Ix�dngYOn Parkway South [southwest quadrant of Lerrtc�gton and St. Clair Avenues). - � � - Daked: December 9. 1997 � . - - �� NANCYANDERSON � ' - AsSistant CYLS Coundl Setxetazy " . - - ' � e., ,. . = , �(D_ceember i I. 1997j - DEPARTMENT OF PT.ANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CTTY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Co[eman, Mayor Dec i2- Prfaq 2i, 1997 Ms. Nancy Anderson Secretary to the City Council Room 310 CiTy Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Division af PlanrrLtg 25 West Fowth Street SaintPaul, MN55102 i� Te[epharze: 6I &26Cr6565 Facsimile: 612-228-33I4 RE: Zoning File #97-207: Appellant: PAT BYRNE City Council Hearing: December 22, 1997 430 p.m. City Council Chambers PURPOSE: Appeal a planning commission decision approving a special condition use permit to allow a cluster development with ten (10) dwelling units on property located at the southwest quadrant of Lexington Pazkway South and St. Clair Ave. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS, 16-1 ZONRVG COMNIITTEE RECOn�IIV1ENDATION: APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS, 4-0 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL SUPPORT: One person spoke. Two letters received in support. OPPOSITTON: Six persons spoke. Eight letters were received in opposition. The Summit Hill Association voted to oppose the special condition use permit. Dear Ms. Anderson: PAT BI'RNE has appealed the decision of the Saint Paul Planning Commission to approve a special condition use permit to allow a cluster development with ten (10) dwelling units on properry located at the southwest quadrant of Lexington Parkway South and St. Clair Avenue. The Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission held a public hearing on the request on October 30, 1997 and November 13, 1997. The applicant addressed the committee on both occassions. At the close of the public hearing on November 13 the committee voted 4-0 to recommend approval of the permit with conditions. The Planning Commission upheld the Zoning Committee's recommendation for approval on a 16-1 vote on November 21, 1997. This appeal is scheduled to be heard by the City Counci] on December 22, 1997. Please notify me if any member of the CiTy Council wishes to have slides of the site presented at the public hearing. Sincerely, �[,�p- - wvt�, Ken Ford Planning Administrator Attachments cc: City Council members c I �'��t� APPLICATtON FOR APPEAL Department ojPlanning and Economic Development Zoning Section II00 Cit}� Hall Annex 15 West Fourth Street Sainr Paul, Mh' S5102 266-6589 APPELLANT Address �-4 3 t�/ L�.x`,�U�rv�� n�,e��J City S�r«.� �./ St.1>t Zip SS�/�SDaytime phone.,266 PROPERTY Zoning File LOCATION . , , ., C�il./> - /��.�,Ps' . �/P 57-Zp7 f , f< TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the: i� Soard of Zoning Appeals City Council under the prov'tsions of Chapter 64, Section 2�? Paragraph � of the Zoning Code, to appeai a decision made by the �L�`�J�Ji �C_ C�runi iSI� � on ! t � 2 1� 9 7 , 19� File number. j�7 — Z� � (date o decis on) GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative o�cia{, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission. /�� /l � S � z �" Attach additional sheet if ApplicanYs /f �� C �7r f� Date /02 S �'�City agent� t2��'� 2 9�-3g� Attachment to Application For Appeal Appellant Patrick Byrne 243 S. Lexington Parkway St. Paul, Minn 55105 266-6171 Property Mendota Homes, File 97-207 Location Southwest quadrant of Lexington and St. Clair Lot 19 Rueths Addition This is an appeai to the City Council of a decision made by the Planning Commission on Friday, November2lst, 1997, #97-207 Grounds for Appeal: The Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission and City Staff within PED and Public Works made errors in facts, procedures and findings in assessing the safety issues involved with traffic, parking, and storm water management. There is sufficient unrefuted public testimony to indicated different from their findings. The Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission and City Staff within PED made errors in facts, procedures and findings in assessing the compatibility of the project with the surrounding neighborhood. There is sufficient unrefuted public testimony to indicated different from their findings. The Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission and City Staff within PED and Pubiic Works made errors in facts, procedures and findings in assessing whether or not the project complied with ali provisions of granting a special use permit for a"cluster development". Signature: � Date: 1215 7 City Agent: 3 1�-�u.�z- �� 9 � city of saint paul pianning commission resolution file number 97-�$ �te November 21, 1997 _ WHEREAS, MENDOTA HOMES, file #'t 97-207, has applied for a Special Condition Use under the provisions of Section 60.413 (li) and 64300 (d) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code for the purpose of constructing a 10 unit cluster development on undeveloped property located on Lexington Parkway south of St. Clair, as legally described in the file; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission on 10l30l97 and i ll13l97 held public heazings at which all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to said application in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.300 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and WHEREAS, Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zoning Committee at the public hearing as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact: The applicant has a purchase a�reement for the property proposed for development. Ten dwelling units are proposed: 3 buildings of two units, 1 building of three units, and 1 building of one unit. Access to the homes and garages is proposed to be entirely from Lexington Parkway via a private street. There is no vehicular access from the alley to the site. 2. Chapter 60.413 (13) of the Zoning Code permits cluster developments subject to the following conditions: a. There shall be a minimum of hvo (2) units. This condition is met. Ten units aze planned. b. Tlze units shall be attnche�t, common wall, single family, with no unit iniruding on the vertica! airspace of any other unit. This condition is partially met. Nine of the units are attached, common wall, single- family, with no unit intruding on the vertical air space of any other unit. One unit is a single-family home and this condition (b) is modified for that home in finding 4, below. moved by Field seconded by in favor 16 $��# 1 (Nordin) � / f./ r � �� Zoning File #.97-207 Page Two c. TJze parcel slzall meet t/te lot area required per ur:it in tJ:e zoning rlistrict. This condition can be met. The lot azea, including half of the alley is 107,380.5 square feet. This allows 10,738.05 square feet per unit, exceedin� the 5000 square feet per unit requirement. d. T/ze parcel s/zallltave a mi�aitsutm frontage of eigl:ty (80) feet o�r an improved street. This condition is met. The parcel has 183.93 feet of frontage on Lexington Parkway. e. The structure shall confortn to the schedtde of regulatio�:s for I:ei;kt, !ot coverage, setbacks and parking. This condition is met. As proposed, the development meets the requirements for height, lot coverage and parking prescribed by the zoning district. Eight visitor parking spaces will be provided in addition to a double garage for each unit. Zonin� enforcement has determined the front yard to be on Lexington, and the rear yard to be the farthest northwest corner of the parcel. The pian appears to meet all setback requirements. f. TI:e design skall be compatible witle tlee srerrour:ding neigltborltood Overall the proposed design is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood which consists of a mixture of I, 1-1/2, and 2 story structures with gabled and hipped roofs. Materials used in the surrounding neighborhood include stucco, clapboard, metal siding, and composite shingles. Windows are a mixrizre of double hung and fixed "picture" windows. The proposed units aze 1 to 2 stories in height with intersecting gable roofs. (See drawings attached.) The applicant has not specified which units will be one or two stories, but rather proposes that decision be made with the potential buyer. Exterior material is proposed to be vinyl siding. The overall massing, while larger than the typical home in the neighborhood due to the paired unit design, is broken up by a central gabled bay. Porches and double hung windows provide other design elements similaz to houses in the area. g. Individua! lots, bui[dings, street and parking areas shall be designed and situated to minimize alteration ofthe natnrt�7features anrl topograplzy. The project would require some grading to provide proper drainage for the site. The grading plan also includes construction of a storm water pond near Lexington. However, the overall topography of the site, including the slope into the railroad corridor, wouid not be disturbed. Some of the existing trees in the slope azea of the site would remain. h. Applicafons for c[uster clevelopment shall include site plans, including Inndscaping and elevations and other informtztion t{ze planning commission may reqzcest. This condition is met. The applicant submitted a site plan, landscape plan, and building elevations along with a written description detailing the specifics of the development. � 98-39� Zoning File #�97-207 Pa�e Three 3. Section 64300 (d) of the zoning code requires that before the planning commission may grant approval of a principal use subject to special conditions, the commission shall find that: a. Tlze extetzt, Zocatiorz atttl intetzsity of tF:e use tvi11 be in substaritial compliarxce witk the Saint Pau! Comprelzensive Plan and any applicable si[barea plans w{zicJz were approved by t/te city cot�ncil. The District 16 Plan does not include any proposals relevant to this matter. There are no applicable small area plans for this area. The Saint Paul Housing Policy for the 1990s recommends "expansion of housing opportunities for middle and higher income households where this market is or can be addressed in Saint Paul." The units in this proposal will be priced at $139,400 - $200,000, addressing middle income populations. b. Tlte use wilt provide adequate ingress and egress to minimize traffic congestion in the pttblic streets. A private street will provide access to the units and allow emergency vehicle traffic and visitor parking. The Fire Department has determined this access to be sufficient for emergency access. Initially the applicant proposed extending the alley through to Lexington raising concerns about traffic cuttin� through the alley to avoid the intersection at St. Clair and Lexington. The current proposal does not extend the existing alley and does not connect the alley to the private street, eliminating the ability for traffic to cut through. c. The use wi![ not be detrimental to t/te existing cJiaracter of development in the immediafe neighbor/:ood or endanger t1:e public healt/i, safety and genera[ wetfare. This condition is met. The number of new dwelling units can be accommodated by existing facilities and services provided by the city. The private street will accominodate emergency vehicles and all requirements for water, sewer and storm water have been met. d Tlze use will not impede the norn:al an�l orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district This condition is met. The surrounding property is fuliy developed. The new housing will serve as a buffer between the single family homes on St. Clair and Lexinb on and the railroad - Ayd Mill Road corridor. e. The use shall, in all otJzer respects, conform to t1:e applicab[e regulatians of t)te district in which it is located This condition is met. � 98�39y Zoning File �97-207 Page Four (4) Section 64300 (t� of the zoning code states: "The plannin� commission, after public hearing, may modify any or all special conditions, when strict application of such special conditions would unreasonably limit or prevent otherwise lawful use of a piece of property or an existing structure and would result in exceptional undue hardship to the owner of such proper[y or structure; provided, that such modification will not impair the intent and purpose of such special condition and is consistent with health, morals and general �n�elfare of the community and is consistent with reasonable enjoyment of adjacent properiy °' The building fronting on Lexington Parkway is a stand alone single-family home that does not meet the common wall condition of (2) c, above, and is hereby modified. Siting a single- family home rather than a two-family home is more in keeping with the singie-family homes adjoining and to the north along Lexington Parkway. Including the single family home in the cluster development avoids the hardship of separate description and easements for a singie-family lot. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commission, that under the authoriTy of the City's Legislative Code, the application for a Special Condition Use to allow a 10 unit cluster development on the undeveloped pzoperty located on Lexington Parkway south of St. Clair is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the cluster development be constructed in conformance with the plan dated 11/13/97, a part of the file; 2. That there be provided a physical barrier to prevent vehiculaz access from the alley to the site, as determined by site plan review staff; 3. That the area between the alley and the cluster development be landscaped to buffer nearby residences, as determined by site plan review staff; 4. That the applicant grant an easement of sufficient size that allows emergency and service vehicles to cross the corner where the rivo aileys meet; 5. That a no left turn sign be posted by the applicant, prohibiting left turns onto Lexington Park�vay northbound. 7 �, ��.� 98 -39`/ '� \ � �. ��.,� �-.,., ., -.�; .. , �. ��, I, �; , y � �.� `.. .. �� C -��,_-. - ;,;' � ,. '� '� � �. � ; � �, �. ' �` �� ' '• �`___ . .,. ,- .�t �� . °� , '� � \ �'tr,t i z � K , t � . , `�. � <"- :t �"'' ._.. k t, 'u,' �n ;..... v...�' % .�� Z;:•,�'� . s :. ,�%; �. �; �, �� ,,. � �` ;�<�{ _ _ , ; , :.' � � � _. ��. �_ •., _ �-- � j � ': r+ , ' � � /" t / -� s�\ '_ I � �1 '_ =' �`-� � f3 � f :} _ � .., ° . '- .,_ � _ ' , t � J � ,.; �, .,� " `�\. ^ • �` .,, '` 1 ��, i i � � `� \ �i'� ` � ...� = ` .^ - ' � \�„ : "� _ >_ �� .` � . � �,� :F� ,s ;: '�-: � `Z �/ 1� .., �� { � �•. � /^ ;�' e • • � ; � :� • i. 1' . 1 ��`l�� / l ' r � �l . � � -___ � ^-- ' t � � . •; � . �.., � , � � '� �� 9` �� ( � ` �:; 1 \ \ ; � / '� ` �� %' i %�' r�:. i, �. ; � �� i � ��;., ' ti ; ' ! :� f r � fii `r ,�• � � (/�� • � � ' � ) L j `i. ��) � \ � ' / �"C..: L" ��7, i �✓ /.�.. � � ' .� '' �\� '�CS �' -�: ,i 5 � c..; �� i _ '"_ � kti � / � S:-� / � : �„ � i � r �:�y � ,,,a•:. �\ \ 1�' , �.�! R' �•,'�. • tt '` ��' �..�^ �� j ( / .�.. + � _ ` �^�' , �Y . ' i � ` ��i ,} \ . �:/`t!� f = r 1 � % : �. / . � ' `' �' J� � � , JJ 1 / ! �' ..""t i,.Z,.! :t\TP� �� ' I'`�.1"'.3�'. j� �. J � t ' % i o � ` � „ t � \ , / � � ..a ,, �i., � � � � � :C: � � � ^ '�' t .` :, � � % i ,�� V il ; �ll ` ` ; i >, � � �� '� '�_`. ' k \ �r' f 3 �. � r�/ �. }� / �Z C; �\ � ��:I�� r �.Q7 `L t N � �i !� i� ` � / F� ys �� . , .; ,.. .. l.Y' ? �• �• � � i • t � ' Ri,�4:. � 1� L,_�� ' � . �. \ ��t I � � •� �r,�'��i� . �.. . 9 -^- ,� ,:�, , � 1 �� ' �� ;,r ` 1 :',� i ., 1� � , � ..�.. , �/�<, \ � r ``• 'i` ` i ,'' � � [4 �� , '�''\• Y ` L \ �+ / 7 � �� '��•\ eh�'Z1J �` ,. , 1 �� Y Up'.V.� .` ��\ ` r..,�`�•ti� f� ' .-' i \� • . .,Sy ��` �.t l �'.� :, i� ''�.�, `� ��J { �'� � � .� � ' i ( \`� � �• •`5'=' �,\', r �, � ..,� � ` / t � [ r / 7r f � �� F ��, �, . �,� ` � � �'� '. :z ` `i.. �'r. i 4. .� ��' � �.. ,� .,� �; / , � ti � r � �k �' '��`'- �f {� � � a �. �� `�°�` � •� ` { �`. !' yFy , `� � �� } /� �q"" C �,'� ' ?� . I ''• ! '�. i:{ ' ,,\ aii a` i :('j x � `� � t;! '�'. a r� �r� �' 70 � 6 � �.;�.;$ �� . r . ._�'�t �:\ ' ; '-� `f ` o �,.. ,� ,; 1 j i . - � � �. •i\ r i j � / : V� C� �� ..�n.A �. � � i � � � `: !n� n / i� � , G ..� � � �� n�.'« �l / ! ZO'd 06£L-'b8L (2I9) uos�aN .,�atiob d8t=Z0 L6-2i-^°N V � �c�t � g�'"� Saint Paul Plannina Commission City Hall Conference Center 15 Kellogg Boulevard West A meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, November 21, 1997, at 830 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall. Commissioners Mmes. Duarte, Engh, Faricy, Geisser, Nordin, Treichel, and Wenct, and Messrs. Present: Chavez,. Field Jr., Gordon, Kong, Kramer, Mazdell, Nowlin, Sharpe, Vaught and Wilson Commissioners Ms. *Maddox and Messrs. *Johnson and *McDonell Absent: *Excused Also Present: Ken Ford, Planning Administrator; Jean Birkholz, Beth Bartz, Kady Dadlez, Nancy Frick, Tom Harren, Nancy Homans, Patricia James, Roger Ryan, and Lucy Thompson, Department of Planning and Economic Development staff. T. Approval of Minutes of November 7, 1997 MOTION: Commissioner Field moved fo approve the minutes of November 7, 1997; Commissioner Gordon seconded the moiion which carried unanimously on a voice vote. II. Chair's Announcements First Vice Chair Goxdon officiated the meeting in Chair McDonell's absence. First Vice Chair Gordon announced that Commissioner Maddox' mother passed away; her funeral was yesterday. III. Planning Administrator's Announcements Mr. Ford announced that on Wednesday, November 19, the City Council passed a resolution requesting that the Planning Commission advise the City Council within 120 days of its intentions with respect to updating the Fire and Medical Emergency Services Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff will be working on recommendations to bring to the Commission. N. Zoning Committee #97-207 Mendota Homes - Special condition use permit to allow a 10-unit cluster development at the southwest quadrant of Lexina on and St. Clair. Beth Bartz, Southwest Team. MOTION: Commissioner Field moved approval of the requested special condition use permit to allow a 1 D-unit cluster development at the southwest quadrant of Lerington and St Clair subjeet to conditions: � I. ThaL the cluster development be constructed in conformance with ihe plan dafed II/13/97, a part of the ftle; 2. That ikere be provided a plrysical barrier to prevent vehicutar access from the atley to the site, ar determined by tlte site plan review staff,• 3. That the area between the alley and the cluster development be landreaped to buffer nearby residences, as determined by the site plan review staff,• 4. That the applicant grant an easement of sufficient size that allows emergency and service ve/:icles to eross tlze corner where the two aZleys meet; 5. That a no left turn sign to posted by the applicant, prolzibiting left turns onto Lexington Parkway northbourxd. Commissioner Field informed the Commission that the Zoning and Land Use Committee of the Summit Hill Association and the District 16 Planning Council recommended denial of this request, but it was based on an eazlier proposal than the one viewed last Thursday. There was numerous testimony in opposition to the project presented at the Zoning Committee meeting. The developer and the neighborhood met several times to try to compromise. Commissioner Nordin asked to hear more about the discussion that took place at the Zoning Committee meeting. She said that she feels this is a good use of land and would like to vote in favor of it, but the amount of pavement on the site disturbs her as well as no use of the alley which would eliminate three driveways and a few turn arounds. Commissioner Vaught noted that he had the same concerns as well as a safety concem going into the Zoning Committee meeting. He assured Commissioners that what they see before them represents a compromise after listening to all of the various positions. Even though this plan is not particularly perfect, the Committee felt that it could get the job done. First Vice Chair Gordon asked if the Department of Public Works took a position on this plan? Commissioner Vaught replied that they spoke about the issues, but were not particularly helpful. Commissioner Nordin stated that she could not vote in favor of this case. She believes that the Commission should stand their ground more firmly. Although she said she thinks iYs a wonderful use of land, no alley access is not a good use. Commissioner Field said that he also sits on the Housing Task Force with Commissioner Nordin and he understands her concems and support of the project. However, he feels that this issue is one that may have to be dealt with more often in the future. In filling up the City's green space with housing, there's a need to be sensitive to the surrounding neighbors, and compromises will have to be made. Commissioner Nordin commented that this neighborhood knew that it was always a possibility that this open land would be developed. This plan is inconsistent with any existing planning within the City. She feels that this is not a legitimate compromise to be made for housing. Commissioner Vaught noted that at the Zoning Committee meeting, Susan Kimberly made the I� �18-�9N comment that in looking to try to meet the needs for new housing in this City, compromises will have to be made. Commissioner Nordin stated that she understands why the road and the cul-de-sac are there because taking tfiat out would tum the alley into a street. She said she is having a hard time accepting is the four driveways off of it that add all the pavement and all the little turn arounds you need to get back to that driveway. She stated that those four driveways can be eliminated with just the alley access; that would leave green space between the houses. Commissioner Field repeated that the result here is a compromise that is trying to accommodate all of the conflicting interests of the parties. The motion on the floor to approve fhe reques[ed special condition use permit to allow a IO- unit cluster development at the southwest quadrant ofLe.rington and St. Clair carried on a vote of I6 to I(Nordi�r). #97-258 US West Communications - Special condition use permit to allow a 90' cellular telephone antenna at 426 Fairview Avenue North. Nancy Homans, Northwest Team. MOTION: Commissioner Field moved approval of the requested special condition use persnit to allow a 90' cellular telephone anlenna at 426 Fairview Avenue Nortl:. Commissioner Field noted that the Merriam Park Community Council voted to not support the special condition use permit. Commissioner Field referred to a memo dated November 20, 1997, which states that the switching gear will be housed in structures near the antenna. This makes it a different situation than we the Zoning Committee understood at the time of the vote. It is not viewed as germane to the actual height of the antenna itself. In addition, there were documents provided in connection with the pole itself that showed certain landscaping around the antenna and other structures related to this. There was some concern expressed as to whether that landscaping would be there in view of the change. MOTION: Commissdoner Yaught moved to amend the original motion to include a site plan review; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Wencl which carried unanimously on a voice vote. The amended motion on the floor to approve the requested special condition use permit to allow a 90' cellular telephone antenna af 426 Fairview Avenue North carried unanimously on a voice vote. #97-259 US West Communications - Specia] condition use permit to altow a 90' cellular telephone antenna at 1669 Arcade Street. Patricia James, Northeast Team. MOTION: Commissioner Fie1d moved approval of the requested special condition use permit fo allow a 90' celiula� telephone anienna ai I669 Arcade Street, subject to appropriate screening approved by site plan review staff, carried unanimously on a voice vote. �� 98-3q y MINUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE CITY COUNCTI, CHAMBERS, SAZNT PAUL, MINNESOTA OI3 NOVEMBER 13, 1997 PRESENT: Mmes. Faricy and Wencl; Messrs. Field, Kramer and Vaught of the Zoning Committee; Mr. Warner, Assistant City Attorney; Mmes. Bartz, Frick, Homans, James and Sanders and Mr. Ryan of PED. ASSENT: Chavez Gordon, excused Time: 4:20 - 5:45 p.m. The meeting was chaired by Litton Field, Chairperson. MENDOTA HOMES• southwest quadrant of Lexington and St C1aiY• #97-207• Snecial Condition Use Permit: To allow a 10 unit cluster development. Beth Bartz, PED, Southwest Quadrant, reviewed that this matter was heard on Oc[ober 30 and laid over for two weeks to this meeting to allow a Department of Public Works representative to attend this meeting to respond to concerns. Tom Kuhfeld from Public Works was present at the meeting to respond to questions. Ms. Bartz reported that the applicant and representatives of the neighborhood aonvened and discussed the proposal during the interim. The neighborhood presented the applicant with two options: A� To have the units exclusively use the private drive and not be accessed via the alley; or B) If the units were to be accessed from the alley, that the applicant agree to improve and maintain the alley in perpetuity. There were also additional conditions which were outlined in the November 13 letter from David Schultz who represented the neighbors, as well as correspondence and a revised site plan from the applicant. The revised site plan is not the applicant's preferred site plan, however they will do it if they need to. These items were distributed at the meeting and are included in the case file. Commissioner Vaught asked for confirmation that the Mathern reaction to Options A& B was the proposal which includes on the western most part of the site, a 3-unit building as opposed to a 2-unit building, and includes a single unit building on the Lexington end of the site and still includes 10 units. Ms. Bartz responded that was the Mathern response to one of the neighbors' requests that there only be a single unit on Lexington Avenue, as opposed to�a duplex. The neighborhood was requesting then, that the total number of units included in the development be reduced to 9 units, and Ms. Bartz reported the Matherns' wish to keep the number of units at 10, and to accommodate that a third unit was added to one of the buildings on the site. Ms. Bartz noted that staff has had some concern with the proposed site plan about the additional driveways and how the revised site plan cuts up the siCe. Tom Beach, LIEP, site plan review, has reviewed the site and feels there is an alternative to access to the site that would access all of the units off of Lexington Parkway, but would e3iminate some of the need for a driveway. Ms. Bartz distributed a copy o£ these comments. !Z q8-395� Tom Kuhfeld, Department of Public Works, was available to respond to questions. Commissioner Vaught reviewed concern with a proposal that provides ingress and egress primary to all or some o£ the units, onto Lexington, has to do with the topography of Lexington from St. Clair to Ayd Mill Road. He noted speed of traffic in this location, and said that although there is a signal intersection on St. C1air that as you cross St. C1air you can't see the ingress/egress point. Noting concern over the amount o£ tra£Eic on Lexington and the safety concerns of an additional access road, he asked Mr. Kuhfeld to elaborate on the thinking of Public works as it related to the. possibility of using alleys, which he noted is not unprecedented in the city. Mr. Kuhfeld, Department of Public Works, noted that he had discussed this matter with the trafEic engineer and recognized the valid concerns. However, he noted that the situation is not that different from many other similar situations in Saint Paul, i.e. driveways and unsignalled streets, e.g., Maryland Avenue. Mr. Kuhfeld reviwed that the Lexington Street frontage is the only street frontage that the proposed property has, and said that until and unless the City were to purchase the right-of-access that the applicant could not be denied that access. Further, it was his position that where a property has both alley and street frontage that they ought to have access to both. Commissioner Vaught noted that access to Lexington initially was not what the applicants were seeking, but that their first choice was to primarily use the alley for access, but were told by Public Works staff that was not possible. FIe asked iE the proposed site were looked at as two parcels, it being subdivided, with the front parcel including just the £rontage on Lexington Pkwy., the back parcel wouldn't have any right or access to Lexington Pkwy. Vaught contended that other than the fact that the alley doesn't have a name and does not allow for address numbers off of the alley, he asked what rationale the Department has beyond that the department has for not having the primary access to the proposed site being the alley, as opposed to Lexington. Mr. Kuhfeld responded that their primary responsibility is to fulfill the Legislative Code that is given to them through ordinances of the City Council, and he noted that one such ordinance requires an improved street, sewer and water, or a house number is not issued. He said that a waiver may be granted to those conditions, with the order of importance being: 1) the sanitary sewer, 2) water and 3) street frontage. It was noted that the first two are in place, and Kuhfeld said that the private road gives them something which is comparable to street frontage and addresses would be given off of Lexington. He said that in putting in the private road, they would be doing something allowed in other areas and does not place an added burden on the City for maintenance, i.e. plowing. Commissioner Vaught asked that if the point of ingress/egress to the property was not on Lexington Parkway, that the safety concerns that he raised above would not be an issue. Mr. Kuhfeld responded that those concerns would be eliminated, however it would affect the safety concerns in the alley and direct its access to St. Clair. 2 !J 98-3 / y Commissioner Vaught reviewed that exceptions do exist to the general rule o£ not having an address off o£ an unimproved street or an alley to indicate that - this situation is not unique. He asked what tests Public works uses in order to a11ow such an exception, and name the alley and assign street numbers to it. Mr. Kuh£eld responded that the alley is not a platted street. He said he believed the City could turn the proposed alley into aa of£icial street with all o£ the rights and responsibilities, however he said that would be a different matter than what is before the committee, and would require a process o£ its own. Commissioner vaught established from Mr. Kuhfeld that he was aware of places where egress and ingress was off of an a11ey. John Mathern, Mendota Homes, the applicant, spoke. Mr. Mathern reviewed that since the October 30 meeting that time has been spent reviewing the site plan and a meeting was held with the neighborhood. He reviewed that the neighborhood presented them with Options A& B. He noted that concerns raised at the meeting which the applicant tried to address, were that two units would be built on Lexington Pkwy. next to a single-family one-level house, with their primary concern thaC the proposal be reduced to one unit. Mr. Mathern agreed that if he could do that by revising their plan that he would. Secondly, there was concern of the alley, and that if the alley were improved that Mendota Homes would plow and maintain the alley. Mr. Mathern said that on behalf of Mendota Homes and the townhouse association that he could not obligate the association to maintaining the entire alley and plowing the entire alley with no cost to the neighborhood in perpetuity. Mendota Homes did agree a£ter meeting with the neighborhood that they would put a proposal together to see if the goals that they wished to accomplish could be achieved. This being reducing the density on Lexingtan by allowing only one unit to be built on Lexington; and could all ingress/egress be on Lexington and not share the alley with the neighborhood at all. Mr. Mathern reviewed that a proposal was put together quickly and given to the neighborhood, and after having had a chance to review it themselves, Mendota Homes has decided that it is not a proposal that Mendota would be in favor of because of the amount of asphalt in both the cul-de-sac and the private driveways necessary. A copy of this site plan was distributed. Mr. Mathern reviewed that their preferred plan is the plan reviewed on October 30, with part of the traffic load onto the alley; part onto Lexington; and the bringing of the cul-de-sac off of Lexington. He reviewed that they received an additional alternative from Mr. Beach, LIEP, which shows coming in with their road off of Lexington and then paralleling the alley with their own private road. Their concerns with proposal were that the private road would be right next to the public alley and the difficulty in keeping maintenance separate. Mendota Homes could not support that proposal. Mr. Mathern asked £or the committee to support the plan with 10 units, with half of the traffic on Lexington and half the traffic on the alley. If committee support of their preferred plan wasn't possible, Mendota Homes had their engineer take Che plan that had all of the traffic on Lexington and revise that to something with less parking and asphalt on it. This revision 3 � 98 �39 y was circulated at the meeting. Mr. Mathern said that as a compromise they would accept this proposal which loads all of the traf£ic onto Lexington, does not share the a11ey with the neighbors, and also has one unit on Lexington and keeps the proposal at 10 units. Mr. Mathern briefly reviewed the alternative site plan proposal. There was some discussion regarding other possible scenarios to configuration which were ruled out as infeasible. Commissioner Vaught said he would be hesitant to cut off access to residences that back onto an alley, to that alley, as he didn�t see the sense, £airness or equity in it. The problem he saw was to go so far as to establish the primary or only access to those properties to be off of the alley, but given the alternative proposal by Mendota Homes, he could accept that. Commissioner Faricy said she felt that units 8, 9 and 10 as laid ou[ in the preferred alternative was too congested and asked whether Mr. Mathern would consider reducing the number of townhouses to 9 units. Mr. Mathern responded that they are firm with the number 10, and noted that their original proposal called for 14 or 15 units, and this represents a compromise on density. He said it is the only 3-unit on site and said that with respect to townhouses it is rather low in density as most townhouses go 4-6 units attached. Commissioner Vaught said he believed the trade-off, that being one unit on Lexington and the 3-Unit discussed above, was a superior plan, given the relationship to the existing home on Lexington. Mr. Mathern noted that by putting only one unit on Lexington it will likely enable them to widen the roadway at its entrance/exit point. Commissioner Vaught expressed concern that left turns both on to Lexington and off of Lexington into the development, materially increases the safety hazard that exists there, and asked if the applicant would be agreeable to prohibiting that. Mr. Mathern responded that if restrictions were to be made that he would prefer that they be limited to certain hours of the day of heavy traffic. Pat Byrne, 243 S. Lexington Pkwy., reviewed his prepared comments, a copy of which are in the case file. Mr. Byrne addressed the most recent proposal with Che one unit on Lexington Pkwy. He expressed concern that given the change in the proposal at this meeting, that the community council and those present with comments at the last meeting were being bypassed in the decisionmaking as they have not seen the latest information. Chair Field responded that Peter Warner, Assistant Attorney, advised that it may be left to the discretion of the committee revisited on those issues, and that notice was given. He said that frequently there are cases that during tke course of discussion compromises may be reached. Commissioner Vaught noted that upon layover at the October 30 meeting that it was never the intent to go back to the Summit Hill Association, but suggestion was made, and the opportunity provided to those most immediately a£fected to take part in the process, and he said he suspected that those who could participate were able to do that. 4 �s 98-3Sy Mr. Byrne asked £or the staff position on the pre£erred proposal of the applicant. Ms. Bartz responded that there is no staft response to the new proposal. She indicated that one piece o£ the preferred proposal is not in compliance with the SCUP, with that being the single unit on Lexington. I£ the preferred proposal were considered for approval by the committee an added condition would be necessary that that single unit on Lexington be split off from the rest of the development, as a single, unattached unit is not allowed as part of a cluster development, and there£ore any revised platting there would need to be reviewed to ensure that there is an 80 foot frontage maintained on Lexington Avenue for the rest o£ the development. Commissioner Vaught asked whether the zoning code allows the committee to vary that requirement. Mr. Warner responded that Eor the purposes of the SCUP application that variances can also be taken into consideration. He noted that section 64.300 subd. f(27 of the Legislative Code, indicates tkat the planning commission may act as the board of zoning appeals and grant variances for any regulations of the code related to permits or site plan approval; which gives them the authority. Chair Field said that putting that issue aside, and having seen the applicant's revised proposed plan, whether staff noted any consistencies with the original staff report that would be impacted by the revision. Ms. Bartz said that the original stafE report conclusions stand, and that Public Works stafE has provided input noting that it is not substantively different enough to affect the sta£f recommendation. Mr. Byrne spoke to finding 2(f), compatibility to the surrounding neighborhood, and disagreed with staff and found the revised proposal to be incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. He also spoke to the issue ingress and egress and reviewed that staff has not been able to find that these are safe conditions and finds the access to Lexington to be unsafe. Byrne opposed the revised proposal and requested Che committee deny the request until the neighborhood had an opportunity to review the latest proposal. Commissioner Vaught ascertained £rom Mr. Byrne that given a choice oE two versus one units located on Lexington, that he preferred one unit on Lexington. oP Mr. David Schultz, 1120 St. Clair Avenue, spoke in opposition. Mr. Schultz reviewed that the neighborhood did attempt to arrive at a compromise and came up with two options, Options A and S. Ae reviewed that a neighborhood meeting did take place with the developer and that they did work out what appeared to be a compromise, however uneasy, as it wasn't acceptable to a11. Aowever, Mr. Mathern was to later inform them that he couldn't agree to it. Mr. Schultz said the "preferred alternative" was new to him and he addressed it. Mr. Schultz' concerns were addressed in his November 13 letter that was distributed, which he reviewed, and a copy of which is in the case file. Concerns included a desire for a good bufEer of trees between the development and the alley. Concern remains that there be sufficient alley easement for emergency vehicles and for neighborhood parking. Mr. Schultz noted that the neighbors who did agree to the compromise liked the proposal of where the triplex was located on the proposal that was presented to them, and liked the 5 �� q8-39 y� idea that it be located further away from other residential structures. One of the neighbors asked that it be written into the association bylaws that residents and visitors to Lexington Commons wouldn't use the alley. In looking at the current proposal, Mr. Schultz said he could not speak £or the neighbors due to the changes. He expressed concern that the preferred proposal pushes the triplex closer to the existing homes on the St. Clair side. He noted that the concerns addressed towards the proposal they considered over the weekend, the adequate buffer, questions about easements Eor safety vehicles, etc, still pertain. Mr. Schultz agreed with the single unit on Lexington and found it to be an improvement. Mr. Schultz spoke of concern on where the triplex units would be located. Ae said that when the neighUors compromised that they originally wanted to go for four double units and a single unit on Lexington. He asked that the triplex be reduced Co a duplex and the overall units be reduced to nine units. Commissioner Vaught asked Mr. Schultz to elaborate on the point made by Mr. Schultz about easements for safety vehicles. Mr. Schultz said that there are two concerns that the neighborhood had discussed that were agreed upon by the developer and he said he wished to make sure were konored: 1) he noted the entrance to the alley and proceeding to where a right hand turn is made to the east/west portion of the alley Chat goes on Co St. Clair, that it is a very narrow alley, and the concern is to make sure that there is enough room, which means to cut into the developer's property a bit for an easement to allow adequate space for service trucks to get through; and 2) That there be enough space on the alley to accommodate reasonable parking by residents was also an issue addressed by the neighborhood that he said Mr. Mathern appeared sympathetic to. Commissioner Vaught asked what Mr. Schultz was looking for in terms of what they don't have currently, in terms of parking in the alley. Mr. Schultz said the primary issue is the easement for service vehicles. The secondary issue is that currently some residents do park in parts of the alley because of the types of garages they have, and the developer seemed to indicate a willingness to accommodate some kind of room on his property to address both issues. He noted that residents have concern that the development would make it difficult for residents to park where Chey have been parking in the back, and that they would be forced to go out onto the street, and is an attempt to address what they see as a safety issue. Commissioner VaughC asked what Mr. Schultz suggested with respect to bu£fering. Mr. Schultz said that the neighborhood discussion originally proposed it as a privacy fence. Upon speaking with the developer, it was his estimation that it would be approximately $20,000 to do, however he did agree at that time to do a good buffer in terms of a tree landscape buffer to separate the project from the alley. Commissioner Vaught received agreement from Mr. Schultz that he would prefer to see one unit on Lexington instead of two. 6 l� 98 9N Chair Field requested that Mr. Schultz elaborate on the nature of his complaints regarding the administrative due process issues he alleged at the end o£ his letter. Mr. Schultz reviewed his concerns related to two issues: 1) He reviewed that Tim Sullivan had submitted information for public record which included a letter and attachments, and he understood that only the letter and not the attachments, were forwarded to the zoning committee for its review; and 2) He noted concern that Commissioner Vaught at the October 30 meeting engaged in what he thought was an ex parte discussion with city staff on some material. He said that as the zoning committee is a formal adjudicative administrative hearing that the in£ormation is supposed to be on the record, with decisions based upon it. Commissioner Vaught responded that he is not prohibited from making ex parte comments. He further commented that Mr. Schultz had attempted to draw him into ex parte comments after that October 30 discussion and that he refused to be engaged. Mr. Schultz responded that he had approached Commissioner Vaught only to inquire as to whether or not public testimony would be accepted at this meeting. Keith Curtner, 259 So. Lexington Parkway, spoke in opposition. He expressed concern over traffic filtering off of St. Clair through the development and out onto Lexington. He said that it appears that the preferred proposal has parking or driveway pads in significantly short proximity to the alleyways that would allow that to happen relatively easily, and asked that be considered in the committee's recommendations. Mr. Mathern, Mendota Homes, the applicant, spoke in rebuttle. Mr. Mathern said that in the meeting held with the neighborhood they did agree that tkey would allow a widening beyond the extent o£ the a11ey at the corner because that is where the trucks make the turn and it is difficult. He said that this could be worked out with staff as to rededicating and widening the alley. Ae said that they do not agree to provide any parking spaces at that location for the neighborhood. He noted that the location of the triplex, he believes, is a matter of preference and that Mendota Homes prefers it as shown in the preferred proposal. He said that a landscape plan wi11 be provided to the City which will include trees and shrubs on the site. Commissioner Vaught asked for clarification as to what is intended with the widening o£ the alley, deeding the property or providing an easement. Mr. Mathern noted it is just giving the neighborhood the ability to make the turn. The public hearing was closed. 7 �V 9�- �iy Commissioner Vaught moved approval of the special coadition use permit with the £ollowing conditions: 1) That it be conditioned upon the specific plan that was presented at this meeting which includes the triplex and it includes less asphalt then the preceding proposal that included the triplex; 2) That there be no vehicular access from the alley to the site itsel£; (the intent is that there actually be physical barriers) 3) That there be a suitable landscaping plan £os the area between the existing asphalt and the alley; 4j That there be some speci£ic resolution o£ the issue o£ the passage o£ safety vehicles and/or other service vehicles acrosa the corner of the alley; 5) There be required to be posted by the applicant (if appropriate) at egress £rom the property, a prohibition on left turns onto Lexington northbound; and 6) That the requirements be varied in line with the code provisions sited earlier by Mr. Warner, to allow the single unit on Lexington as a parC of this development without requiring that it be broken off as a second development. Commissioner Kramer seconded the motion. The motion carried on a unanimous voice vote of 4 to �. Commissioner Wencl was not present for the vote. Commissioner Vaught noted that he believed that Susan Kimberly's testimony at the October 30 meeting was valuable. He noted that i£ the proposed property hadn't been an unusual piece of land that it would have been built on a long time ago. Vaught said he had some difficulty retricting alley access to property that's across the alley and has alley access, but was willing Co do so if the developer was agreeable to it. He reiterated his concern over the traffic on Lexington. He said he preferred this as to the proposal presented earlier to the neighborhood, and liked the fact that there is less asphalt and he finds units 6 and 7 to be closer to the houses on St. Clair then 8, 9 and 10 are in either proposal. He noted that he believes one unit on Lexington is appropriate. 8 /9 9�-3s� Commissioner Vaught, after a recess, revisited the complaint by Mr. Schultz. He said he believed his behavior to be inappropriately characterized as ex parte. He said that the allegation that the committee is sitting in some manor o£ quasi-judicial capacity is incorrect, and said it is an administrative hearing, which is a recommendation to the planning commission which either makes the decision in terms of SCUPS or advises the city council in the case of rezonings. He reviewed that those decisions that are made finally by the planning commission are subject to appeal to the city council and that it is at that point that the city council sits in a quasi-judicial capacity. Ae said that a conversation that he has with a staff person is never an ex parte contact and he said it was inappropriately categorized as such, and even if it were it is not prohibited and the only prohibition that he's aware of in the legislative code dealing with ex parte contacts is that which prohibits a member of the city council sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity reviewing an appeal oE a decision of the planning commission from having contact with the parties. Drafted by: ' /Mln�� 0�'� � � Donna Sanders Recording Secretary Sub ' ted b. Approved by: �� Beth Bartz ' on Fi d Southwest Quadrant Chairpe son 0 � 98-ag`f MINUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA ON OCTOSER 30, 1997 PRESENT: Mme. Wencl; Messrs_ Chavez, Field, Gordon, Kramer and Vaught of the Zoning Committee; Mr. Warner, Assistant City Attorney; Mmes. Bartz, Homans, James and Sanders and Mr. Ryan o£ PED. ARSENT- Fa, excused Time: 3:37 - 6:20 p.m. _ The meeting was chaired by Litton Field, Chairperson. MENDOTA HOMES• xxx Lexinaton Pkwv S(southwest auadrant of Lexinaton and St Clair: #97-207; Special Condition Use Permit. To allow a 10 unit cluster development. Beth Bartz, PED, Southwest Quadrant, reviewed the staff report and presented slides. Staf£ recommended approval of the special condition use permit based on findings 1 through 3 of the staff report. Tom Beach, LIEP, site plan review staff, was present to respond�to questions. The Zoning and Land Use Committee of the Summit Hill Association/District 16 Planning Council recommended denial of the request for a special condition use permit to allow a 10 unit cluster development. A letter stating their position was distributed. Seven letters of opposition were received, plus one letter signed by numerous residents of the community in opposition. Reference was made to a letter of opposition received from Mr. Sullivan by Commissioner Vaught, and there was agreement by staff and by the commiCtee's legal counsel that its contents regarding the applicant's previous history related to bankruptcy and the like was not relevant to the discussion. Commissioner Gordon spoke to the width of the alley and asked staff's opinion with respect to whether the alley would be wide enough to accommodate two cars at the same time. Mr. Beach responded that presently there is an unpaved alley and noted that it is quite narrow in a few locations. Ae said that the platted right-of-way is 20 feet, with the narrowest point when approaching St. Clair there being a fence on one side and a power pole and trees on the other side, and he noted that the paved area currently is only about 10-12 feet. Public Works, A11eys staff, reviewed these measurements, and it was deCermined that with some modification and paving of the alley it would be possible to get a 15-16 foot paved strip through the location, where a 16 foot paved alley is standard and it is not uncommon to have a power pole sticking out a foot into that area. That would be wide enough for two cars in the summer, and in the winter months it might just have a single track through there. The applicant has agreed to pave the a11ey. Commissioner Gordon asked whether staff has reviewed the concerns addressed by the Canadian Pacific Railway in their letter of opposition dated, August 27, 1997. Ms. Bartz responded that those concerns have been reviewed. In regards �� / � 7 � to the noise barriers that they are requesting the City does not require that of any developments along railroad corridors. What the railroad is suggesting in terms of a berm and a fence, has been reviewed by Mr. Beach and found them to be inappropriate for the site. Regarding the noise vibrations, this is something that is also not typically required during City review. If the committee would choose to do so, staff from LZEP sta£E could examine that further. Commissioner Gordon asked whether the committee would have the authority to deal with the various issues addressed by the railroad, i.e. noise, vibration and insulation from the vibration, and warnings to prospective purchasers about the associated problems. Ms. Bartz responded that staff has reviewed the letter from the railroad as protection for the railroad that in the case they either choose to increase their use of the railroad track that they would have issued some public statement that potential buyers and the developer should have been forewarned. Commissioner Gordon asked whether any meetings have been held with Mr. Mathern, the developer, and the citizens in the area with concerns to attempt to reconcile the issues. Ms. Bartz responded that Mr. Mathern has met with the Zoning Committee of District 16 on three occasions and has o£fered to meet with a groups of residents of the immediate area which was declined by those neighbors. Peter warner, Assistant City Attorney, responded to the question £rom Commissioner Gordon whether the committee had the authority to deal with any or all of the issues set forth in the letter from the railroad as stated above. He said that the committee did not have the authority, and noted that in reviewing the specific requirements set £orth in the code, that the types of concerns in the letter are not those concerns that can easily be read into the language of the two applicable provisions of the code. Commissioner Gordon further asked whether other City agencies would. Mr. Warner responded that LIEP, in its site plan review, and the issues looked at in that process, would likely not get to the noise and vibration issues. Commissioner vaught asked Mr. Beach whether the issues raised by the railroad that are relevant considerations are being dealt with at the site plan review process. Mr. Beach responded affirmatively, and he noted that the issue regarding the vibration he will discuss with the building code staff to determine whether there are any rules there. Commissioner Gordon asked whether the applicant has offered to take any actions with respect to any of these issues. Staff was not aware that they have. Chair Field questioned whether steps were taken in the site plan review process to address potential erosion issues. Mr. Beach responded that as part of the site plan the applicant will be required to take the standard precautions for erosion, i.e. silt fences, reseeding the hills on the embankment that comes up from the railroad track, which is likely the only place where there are substantial grades where erosion would be an issue. 2 22 � 98-.�� John Mathern, the applicant, 23920 Hawthorne Avenue North, Forest Lake, spoke. He reviewed design renderings that were part of the staff packet. Mr. Mathern reviewed his first proposal was Eor 15 units on the site and had intended to come in off of the a11ey on St. Clair. However they were unable to obtain staff approval on that proposal and revised the proposal, putting in a private road, a cul-de-sac, which accesses their property off of Lexington Avenue. The cul-de-sac he said has been reviewed by City staff and found to be sufficient to a11ow ingress and egress of emergency vehicles, as we11 as the residential traffic on that property. In addition, he said that in order to minimize the amount of road traffic on any one particular road they split [he accessibility to the garages for these residences between the.alley on St. Clair and Lexington and on the Street o£ Lexington as well. He reviewed that Lexington Avenue is an extremely busy avenue and accessibility to the property has been one of the concerns of the neighborhood. However, he made the point that it is the only road they have and is the access to the property and they intend to use it. He reviewed that 10 one and two-story townhome units would be built on the site which he finds to be in fitting with the neighborhood as the neighborhood consists of a mixture of two-story and one level homes. Mr. Mathern acknowledged the letter from Canadian Pacific Railway and cited examples of other townhouse developments they have built adjacent to extremely noisy roads which have all sold and have had resales as well. He reviewed that the proposed site is above the Canadian Pacific Railway and are 18-20 feet above the railroad bed itself. It is a tiered site with a major storm sewer artery along the Canadian Pacific Road which is elevated about i0 feet above the railroad itself and they come up another 10 feet to the plateau of their site. He said their road has been staged to be between their development and the railroad, leaving the units backed away from the railroad area and back up to the a11ey, which disCances them as far away Erom the site as possible. Mr. Mathern said that the houses will be built on virgin soils so the shaking in that area should be minimized. Regarding soil borings he said that they had yet to be done. The fill that exists on the site is where their road bed would be along the edge of the ridge. He said that the sites themselves seem to be sandy soil down about 4 to 6£eet. As they intend for basements on many of the town homes he said it poses no problem for them. Upon some rudimentary exploration of the site they found their virgin soil where the houses would be. He addressed an issue by some of the neighbors that this site was once a dump site. He said that he was awaiting a call back from the MPCA, however he said he understood that within Ramsey County there is a list of between 70-90 closed unlisted dump sites but said that this doesn't seem to be on it. He said that they have been unable to find that any contamination ever existed on the site, however such issues have been raised as we11. Mr. Mathern spoke to issues related to the alley. Mendota Homes has agreed to pave the a11ey as a means of ingress/egress £or their residents. He noted that they have asked for some discussion with the neighborhood to discuss this matter, however the neighborhood declined. At the last meeCing with the district council some opposition was raised by the neighborhood over improvements to the alley for fear that it may increase the level of service on the alley and it may incur a cost for maintaining the alley in the future. Mendota Homes however does object to maintaining the a11ey indefinitely at no cost to the entire neighborhood. He said that they would use an upgraded 3 23 � 98 gravel alley if acceptable to staff and to the neighborhood i£ that is more acceptable to the neighborhood. Mr. Mathern reviewed that their proposed site has been used as a parking area for the residents for some time, which has raised concerns in the neighborhood about future parking availability. He said that had they met with the neighborhood the neighborhood might have Eound that they could have provided some parking spaces in the back on the curve where the alley will likely have to be widened, which would also accommodate the garbage truck�s accessibility. He summarized that they desire to be flexible, have dropped their density from 15 to 10. He spoke of a number of individuals who had given them reservation agreements already for the site, who are from the neighboring area who would like to reside in a townhouse and remain in that neighborhood and he said he sees their development as compatible with the long-term residential development o£ the City of Saint Pau1. He said that the town homes would be in a mid-price range of $139 to $200,000 range, most of them likely being between $139 -$179,000 range, which seems to be compatible with Saint Paul's long-term plan for housing in the City of Saint Paul. Traffic on Lexington. This was another large issue which Mr. Mathern addressed as having been raised by the neighbors in all of their district council meetings. He said that the traffic is probably between 15-20,000 cars per day. However, he said if he adds 10 units with an average of 10 trips per day with two cars, he didn't feel that those 80 trips per day will significantly increase the traffic load on that road. He acknowledged that it will be a problem with access, as Lexington is a rather fast trafficking street, but no different than what the current residents must deal with as there are a number o£ driveways currently on Lexington. Mr. Mathern noted that staff has required that a catch basin at the end of the alley be included so that the water that is there can drain into their pond, which they will do. He reviewed the aesthetics of the exterior of the buildings and their relationship to the neighborhood. Mr. Mathern circulated a chart which showed the exteriors o£ the existing one and two-1eve1 homes in the neighborhood and he said that they feel that their one and two-level town homes fit the neighborhood. He summarized that they believe it to be a fairly compatible use for the property, and that it is generally in keeping with the neighborhood as there are town homes on the other side of Ayd Mill Road. They believe that the 10 unit development allows for a very nice area with a lot of green space to it. Commissioner Gordon asked for the current conditions of the two alleys. Mr. Mathern reviewed that the surface of the north/south a11ey is currently gravel, however they would asphalt it. They would also pave the east/west alley. When complete there would be a paved surface of approximately 16 feet wide and he said that is what would be allowed on a 20 foot wide alley easement, but he was unable to guarantee that two cars could be next to each other in passing. He pointed out that in the area entering St. Clair that there is somewhat of a bottle neck with large trees there, fences and garages that are an existing condition. He said that the possibility would exist for 4 " � 98 :�y all o£ their traffic to be loaded onto Lexington with nobody on the alley, however splitting the load appears to them to be sufficient. Commissioner Gordon asked for Mr. Mathern to respond to a proposal for no access to Lexington, with all access from the alleys. Mr. Mathern responded that the City has said that £or them to have addresses that they need a street and they will not allow the alley to be used as their street. Commissioner Gordon asked Mr. Mathern to respond to the Railway's suggestion of a fence or a berm. Mr. Mathern said he was not in favor o£ a fence or a berm. He noted that they sit 20 £eet above the railroad. He.anticipated that his residents will consist primarily of single individuals andJor married couples between 40 to 70 with few children, and no minor children that they would have to guard against. Commissioner Vaught noted that the unusual topography raises some particular questions. He noted that the difference between units 6 thru 10 and the abutting residential property either on St. C1air or on Lexington, is that the only means of vehicular access is through the alley as there is no access to any of those units from either Lexington, St. Clair or the private road, which in effect turns the alley into a public street. Given that, and that it wouldn't need to be done to service the vehicular needs of any of the other abutting properties in that area, he doesn't see the reason why having once paved the alley that Mr. Mathern doesn't think it ought to be the obligation of the people who created the need to do that because it is the only vehicular access to their property, why that ought not to be a continuing obligation. Mr. Mathern responded that the units that do not have their garages exiting on to the private road, but on to the alley have a sidewalk that takes them down to the private road, where they can park on the private road. Commissioner Wencl asked how much guest parking would be provided. Mr. Mathern responded that there are 8 parking spaces, with 4 on the end of the cul-de-sac and 4 where you drive past units one and two. He noted that for the units on the alley that two cars could be parked in front of each double garage. Commissioner Wencl asked Eor the width of the private road. Mr. Mathern responded that the road will be 2� feet wide, with the a11ey easement being 2� feet wide with a 16 foot wide asphalt surface. Commissioner Wencl asked staff what width is required when the Fire Department issues their regulations for the width of a street, allowing for their trucks to get in and turn-around. Mr. Beach responded that the Fire Department typically likes a 20 foot access for emergency vehicles. He said that in this case the 20 foot street out in front with the cul-de-sac was reviewed by them and determined to be sufficient. He noted Chat the Fire Department was at the meeting of this project and the plan presented at this meeting meets the Fire Department approval. Commissioner Gordon asked whether the Fire Department's approval would be withdrawn if there was no private road with a 20 foot width and there were only the alleys to access the homes. Ms. Bartz reviewed that just using the alleys as they were would not have been sufficient. 6" .� �5 98 3qy Commissioner Gordon asked whether Mr. Mathern had looked at the possibility of a regulation that would prohibit right turns only to exit and enter the development. Mr. Mathern said that those things dealing with health and safety issues they would take guidance from the City on. Susan Kimberly, PED, Southwest Team Leader, spoke. Ms. Kimberly noted that over the past few years there has been an ongoing discussion at the Metropolitan Council about how to deal with the issue of urban growth and what the impacts of that growth and those policies were on our community. She reviewed that the Saint Paul Planning Commission and the City Council took positions on those issues and made a strong case to limit the overall growth of the region, and need to take the steps necessary to see that sprawl is diminished. The Metropolitan Council took a position that limited growth to some extent, and as a result of that Saint Paul is forecasting an approximate increase of 500 housing units per year £or the next 20 years. She reviewed as a point of re£erence, that there was some debate about putting housing on the Koch Mobil site, and the City Council has instructed PED to develop that 65 acre site for housing, and is currently being proposed to be developed in a fairly intense fashion with 456 units proposed. If there were 20 sites of that site available all of the new housing could be put on sites that have little or no impact on any existing neighborhood, however that is not possible. When looking at how the City would meet the housing goal it was realized that it is going to happen in increments as being considered with this proposal. Ms. Kimberly noted that over time these conversations must be resolved in favor of additional housing in Saint Paul if the City is to meet these housing goals. Chair Field recalled the related discussion by the Planning Commission about housing and their response to the Metropolitan Council, and asked whether the proposed site was identified at that time as one of the potential housing sites. Ms. Bartz responded a map was presented at the Planning Commission discussion which showed some of the larger sites, as we11 as smaller undeveloped sites, particularly along the Ayd Mill Road corridor and the 2-35E corridor which have some potential for development and that the proposed site would have been included among those. Commissioner Gordon received confirmation £rom staff that the Department of Public Works has stipulated that the alleys in question may not be used to provide a street address for the proposed units, but that access to a City street must be provided for this purpose. Ms. Bartz reviewed that the only frontage that the proposed site has is on Lexington Parkway and that during the site plan review process that Public Works determined that the applicant could not address all of the properties off of Lexington and required that they develop a private street. Mr. Beach further reviewed that in order to build a house in Saint Paul it must have £rontage on an approved street which has to do with public safety issues and response to calls. In response to an inquiry, Mr. Beach said that the Department o£ Public Works has said no to an option to name the alley so thaC it may be used as a street address to eliminate access to Lexington. There was some discussion about the different configurations looked at. Chair Fie1d noted that the cul-de-sac basically constitutes the Fire Department 6 !� } g�- 39�f access aad is critical in such a discussion. Commissioner Vaught questioned the rationale that was used by Public works £or requiring the private road £or the sole purpose of providing the buildings with addresses, as opposed to,-and juxtaposed with, the obvious hazard o£ dumping that traffic onto Lexington Avenue, either right or 1e£t, given the hazards. Mr. Beach said that upon review Public Works determined that the ingress/egress situation was not ideal, but acceptable. He noted that an option might be to keep the private road to meet the technical requirements £or addresses and fire access and to have all the cars come in off of the alley. Commissioner Vaught asked what the reason was for not allowing the access off the alley. Mr. Beach said that one of the main considerations was the impact on the neighborhood, and that this was an alley and shouldn't be the main access for every unit in the development. Commissioner Vaught commented that all of the properties using the alley for access is an inconvenience, however he felt that five of the properties using Lexington to egress is a hazard. Ms. Bartz pointed out that if the committee would desire some direct input from the Department of Public Works that time would allow for this item to be postponed for two weeks. Chris Trost, Executive Director, Summit Hill Association, DistricC 16 Planning Council, spoke in opposition. Ms. Trost read in as testimony, the letter from District 16 dated October 29, 1997. In summary, the Zoning and Land Use Committee of the Summit Hill Association/District 16 Planning Council recommended denial of the request by Mendota Homes for a Special Condition Use permit. (A copy of this letter is in the case file). Commissioner Wencl asked for further explanation of the statement that "The scale of the town homes is out of proportion with the adjacent homes.° Ms. Trost responded that the size of the individual unit, hal£ of the footprint of the unit, is approximately twice the size of many, if not most, oE the homes that surround the townhome development on both Lexington and on St. Clair. Commissioner Gordon asked whether District 16 made a proposal that would resolve each of those issues to the applicant with respect to the issues as they related to the soil tests, the vibration, the finished widths and the scale. Ms. Trost said that the issues were raised at each of the meetings over a 3-month period. She suggested that the overall issue and concern is that there is a lack of confidence because there are so many details le£t unanswered. Ms. Trost comments are as follows: Scale. Units should be smaller. Finished width of the alle� Problem with finished width of alley is related to the density of the proposal. Finished width might be fine the way proposed if there were fewer units and fewer people using the alley. 7 � 27 ss-��y Soil. Looking Eor evidence or confirmation that it is not polluted and that it is buildable. Vibration. Concerned about establishing that it would not be unacceptable vibration as addressed by the Canadian Pacific Railway. Commissioner Gordon asked if there are existing homes as close to the railroad tracks as any of the proposed homes would be located. Ms. Trost said that srie was not aware of any that are. Commissioner Gordon asked why the citizens declined having a meeting with the applicant. Ms. Trost was unable to answer that. Charlotte Patros, 1126 St. Clair Avenue, spoke in opposition. Ms. Patros expressed concern that the townhouse development would substantially devalue her home. She said that although access from Lexington is all that is available to the site, that it does not make it a safe solution. Commissioner Gordon commented that typically higher valued homes built nearby lower valued homes tend to increase the costs of nearby homes and asked for clarification on this point, with Ms. Patros deferring to another person who would be testifying. He asked whether Ms. Patros saw any solution to the development which would accommodate the concerns of the neighborhood and the applicant's desire to do the project. Ms. Patros said her greatest concerns relate to the soil conditions and the buildability on the soil and the stability of the structures when built and their subsequent marketability, and iE these concerns can be met she believes that a solution can be reached. Chair Field asked staff who is responsible for the oversight of the suitability of soils for construction. Mr. Seach responded that would typically be handled by LIEP when building plans are reviewed by LIEP for compliance with the building code. If staff had reason to believe there to be soil issues they would ask for soil tests. Chair Field noted that as the soil issues are not in the purview of the committee, but rather by LIEP, that they not be included in the committee discussion. Keith Curtner, 259 Lexington, a registered professional engineer, spoke in opposition. Mr. Curtner identified his primary concerns as those of tra£fic, soil conditions and commented on faetors he believes will impede project realization. With respect to traffic he expressed concern that the proposed project wi11 create a variety of traffic and safety problems of significant proportions. (Please see a copy o£ Mr. Curtner's prepared testimony in the case file. A set o£ photos was distributed for review and are also part of the case file.) Pat Byrne, 243 S. Lexington Parkway, a registered civil engineer, spoke in opposition. He noted 100� of resident land owners oppose the project. The issues addressed in decisionmaking included: Trees. Now serve as a sound and visual barrier to Ayd Mill Road and railroad to be removed, which also serve as an introduction to neighborhood traveling north on Lexington; Green space will be severely diminished; Alley traffic. Mr. Byrne said that the addition 0 28 � 9' 8-39y of 10 more cars in alley wi11 be a sa£ety hazard; Property values. Mr. Byrne alleged that due to the wide disparity in property values between the proposed units and the existing homes, that the proposal will decrease the value of existing homes and make them unsalable. No performance bond on the developer. Byrne expressed concern over risk oE development £ailing and spoke of the vibrations that are a factor in the neighborhood and which cause cracks in walls which he believes are due to the poor soils. Mr. Syrne addressed the issue of the meeting with Mr. Mathern being declined by the neighborhood residents. He said that because residents saw no alteration of the conditions which they opposed, they chose not to meet. Byrne addressed the issue of eliminating the ingress/egress from Lexington which he supported. I-Ie reviewed the Fire Department's need for a 90 foot cul- de-sac £or turn-around in conjunction with the Department of Public Work's need of a street for purposes of addressing. Mr. Byrne spoke to Ms. Kimberly's remarks above, and noted that 20 sites may be available in the city but many have issues of contaminated soil and are costly to develop, however he didn�t believe it justified development that is not in character with the existing site. Commissioner Vaught asked how o£ten the Division of Traffic and Accident does speed enforcement on Lexington Parkway. Mr. Byrne responded that his £amily has asked the Police Department to do speeding enforcement along that stretch but Police said that they cannot do it as there is no good place to put a radar unit. With regard to traffic, the Traffic Division of Public Works when doing traffic reviews can only look at two issues: 1) distance from the signalized intersection and 2) line of sight. A1 Shetka, Public Works, Traffic, was requested by the residents to review Mr. Curtner's concerns addressed in his letter, and his only response was regarding the frequency of accidents on St. Clair, which averaged approximately one accident per month, which was found to be acceptable. Aowever, Mr. Byrne disagreed, commenting that it was unacceptable in a residential area. (A copy of Mr. Byrne's prepared remarks are in the case file). Commissioner Vaught noted that such issues as green space, and marketability were not issues relevant to the zoning committee's decision making. He reviewed that although the footprint of the individual units proposed may be somewhat larger than some of the smaller existing homes in the neighborhood that they are not in much variance with the larger homes in the neighborhood_ Commissioner Vaught addressed the alley traffic. He hypothesized that at most the proposal would generate at most a quarter increase in what is a very low traffic pattern, and which pales in comparison to that existing on Lexington, and said that the increase may be a nuisance, but not a hazard as the Lexington traffic issue is. L•] Z9 � 98 3q� Mr. Byrne responded that this would be 2-3 times the city average use oE an a11ey. He noted the fact that it is a two-block long dead-end alley, and there is no on-street parking allowed on Lexington during rush hour. Commissioner Gordon ascertained from Mr. Byrne that is personal there are 8-10 existing homes on the north/south alley currently using the alley, and 9 existing homes using the east/west a11ey. Mr. Byrne said that no hard numbers exist for measurement of the traffic in these alleys, but rather personal observation and impressions. Commissioner Gordon asked whether Mr. Byrne was aware of any other access available to these residents to either Lexington or to St. Clair that the proposed project could use. Mr. Byrne was not. Helene Schultz, 1120 St. Clair Avenue, spoke in opposition. Ms. Schultz spoke to the following issues: Al1ey tra£fic. Ingress/egress from the present alley on to St. Clair Avenue, she indicating that two cars cannot safely pass each other at the entrance at the same time and noted that the residents using the alley have developed a system that works for negotiating around one another. Chair Field noted that the alley would be widened if the project were to proceed. Regarding the traffic flow through the a11ey, she said the question was not the total number of cars passing through it on a daily basis, but at what hours it is most congested, with Ms. Schultz indicating that being during rush hour, both morning and evening. Declined invitation to meet with developer. Ms. Schultz indicated Chat Mr. Mathern notified them in advance of the third Zoning and Land Use Committee meeting as to what his plan would be and asked for neighborhood support. Since they didn't support it, and were not asked to come to discuss their particular concerns, she declined the invitation to meet. Reasonableness factor. She spoke of the negative views the proposed units would have, the backs of the homes on St. Clair and from the other view would be overlooking a railroad, and she questioned their marketability. Ms. Schultz spoke of her neighbor, Bev, who was present at hearing but had to leave. She said that the private road is proposed to go to the edge of her property line, as well as a double-unit at this property line. She requested that the proposal be considered without the home developed on that parcel. Density. Concern that this type of development is very uncharacteristic of the neighborhood, and that the cost of the units and character of development is a significant misfit in the neighborhood. Ms. Schultz would support a single family development on the site with 4-5 homes with adequate green space. Ms. Schultz spoke of a term called In-Rem, which refers to the situation when property Curns out to be unmarketable, and falls into to disrepair, owners don't have the resources to maintain it, and eventually falls to the city without any taxes being paid on it. 5he cautioned against the risk o£ this 10 3� i�- q8-39y property falling within such an In-Rem status in this neighborhood. Chair Field asked that public testinony not include the economics of the project. David Schultz, 1120 Saint Clair Avenue, a professor of political science, with expertise in land use and regulatory takings, and experience in code enforcement, land use, zoning and housing and economic development, spoke in opposition. Mr. Schultz reviewed the letter he submitted Co the commission dated 11./13/97, which summarized his concerns. (A copy of this letter is in the case file). Before doing so he said he disagreed with the. way that staff has characterized the project and found staff's review of the site to be remiss in several areas and noted that he found Ms. Kimberly's comments regarding the Metropolitan Council to be inaccurate, saying he could speak to that as someone who has worked with the metropolitan council on land use development in the metropolitan region. I-Ie agrees that more housing should be built. However, he said Met Council never said to build housing where it doesn't fit and creates safety hazards and seriously impacts on existing housing. Further comments included: Traffic safety. As elaborated above by others. He addressed the issue of shifting the traffic on to the St. Clair alley. While the alley will be widened, he noted that at its narrowest point (12-14 feet), he said that there is almost no room to widen it beyond a couple of additional feet, which will not be significant in order to accommodate additional traffic. Question had been addressed as to the number of accidents which have occurred in the a11ey and he suggested the more appropriate issue to be what is the traffic flow on St. Clair, which he said is exceedingly high, especially during rush hour, which provides for difficulty currently in entering and exiting the alley. He noted that there is currently an average of one accident per month. To add to this traffic he said would not create an inconvenience but a£urther hazard that already exists on the St. Clair alley. Parking. If additional alley area parking is provided it would close up the alley to allow adequate traffic flow to go through, and in addition the project will put additional parking out onto already overcrowded streets, creating further hazards on the streets. Fire Safety issues. Ae said that even with the widening to 16 feet, that the ability to get a hook and ladder down the a11ey at its narrowest point is problematic. He stated that there is an assumption that the entrance to the proposed cul-de-sac�at St. Clair will adequately absorb fire safety vehicles and he proposed that is assuming it's not rush hour traffic and that there is not guest parking in the cul-de-sac, and if not the case there will be signiEicant difficulty. Proposal is inconsistent with integrity of the neighborhood, including aesthetics and lines of the structure. He said it looks different and there are no other cluster developments in the area. Mr. Schultz addressed the fact that the existing units in the neighborhood range in price Erom $60,OOD to $90,000, with the proposed units going from $140,000 to $200,000. He finds this to indicate an incapatability with the 11 3► � �jd'-39�{ existing units. Inconsistent with the comprehensive plan for the neighborhood. The fact that it needs a SCUP alone, he said, indicates its incompatability. Mr. Schultz said he felt attached units, not clustered units would be permissible. He suggested removal of the two units on Lexington, as the two large units next to a small house was not acceptable. I-Ie also suggested the architectural look o£ the building must be changed. John Mathern, the applicant, spoke in rebuttle. He reviewed the communication with the neighborhood on a number of occasions. He said that the district council advised that they meet with the neighborhood and he said that they attempted to do so, and he said that they desired to have an open dialogue. He reviewed that they have over the course of time, reduced their density, changed their roads, changed the way they load on to the alleys. He noted that the units proposed for bordering on Lexington will be one level units. Chair Field questioned the issue that detached homes cannot be placed on the property. Mr. Mathern said this was addressed and at one time they had two detached units proposed, but were told they had to use a common wa11 with attached units. Commissioner Kramer asked i£ certain units couldn't be platted as separate parcels and make them not part of the clusCer development. Mr. Beach responded noting that one of the problems is that the units have frontage on a private street. Given the unusual shape of the lot there might be some question in meeting the minimum lot size reguirements. Mr. Ryan further noted that in R-4 zoning they would need 40 feet of frontage and there is only 180 feet o£ frontage available on Lexington Parkway. Commissioner Kramer asked if the only way to do stand alone units would be under a planned unit development. He agreed, but said that in that case a rezoning would be required. Commissioner Chavez asked whether the developer has a performance bond in place. Mr. Mathern responded that none is required for Chis project. He said that once the project has been approved they would be required to post a completion bond, which they will do. � Commissioner Chavez spoke of the a11ey traffic and asked if a11 alleys aren't pretty similar where two cars cannot pass one another in the alley. Mr. Beach acknowledged that this situation is quite common. Mr. Mathern said that had they had an opportunity to meet with the neighborhood their various concerns could have been addressed, i.e. the additional parking, the aesthetics, etc. Commissioner Gordon asked if the site were zoned properly for free-standing homes he asked if the developer would consider building it that way. Mr. Mathern responded that it would not be free-standing homes on a City street as the property doesn't a11ow for that, and an earlier proposal with attached and 12 32 � 98-39� detached units was turned doom by City staff. Commissioner Gordon asked whether Mr. Mathern was still willing to meet with the neighbors to attempt to work out the problems. Mr. Mathern responded that he did not want to meet with the neighborhood, but wanted to see action taken by the committee. Commissioner Chavez noted through staff that the applicant has already agreed to extension of the 60-day period so that he could continue conversations with the neighbors and work with district 16 and with staff with issues raised in the site plan review process. � Commissioner Wencl said that it appeared that the requirement of having an additional street is the most limiting part of the development. Mr. Mathern responded affirmatively. However, he said it was naive of them initially to believe that they could have all units accessed by the a11ey. It was pointed out at a number o£ meetings that nobody wanted all of the garages to load on St. Clair, nobody wanted them to run through from St. Clair to Lexington. He said that he likes the cul-de-sac. Commissioner Wencl asked if there is any other possible way to configure the development so that the cul-de-sac can be minimized, to position the house more favorably on the site so as to limit the number that have to be accessed £rom the a11ey. Mr. Beach responded that 90 feet is the minimum required by the fire code and despite looking at other designs, in the end a better design could not be identified. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Vaught said that the Lexington traffic significantly bothered him. He said that he understood that the cul-de-sac oEf of Lexington likely represented a compromise between what the original proposal was, which was to use the alley exclusively for access. However, he noted that primary access to the a11ey wi11 remain £or five of the units. He said he had significant concerns and unanswered questions with respect to why Public Works was adamant with respect to the design of this, as he didn't feel it makes sense. Commiasioner Vaught moved a two-week layover, to November 13, 1997, to allow Public Works` representatives to attend the meeting to address this issue. Commissioner Gordon seconded the motion. Commissioner Vaught welcomed the event Chat the neighborhood and the developer might decide to meet to try and reach agreement. Chair Field reviewed that in the event a compromise were arrived at, that the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Vaught included in his motion that the public hearing be reopened in the event a compromise were reached, but would not a11ow for the revisiting of any and all issues outlined at this meeting. Commissioner Gordon supported the motion. Commissioner Gordon also desired input from Public Works and wished to see any 13 33 � q�-39y available data on the use of the a11ey. Commissioner Vaught noted that the motion implies that the public hearing would be opened in the event of a compromise with the Chair framing the discussion and allowing testimony regarding only new issues. The motion £or a layover to November 13 carried on a unanimous voice vote of 6 to 0. Drafted by: ' ltJ�tA-- � ✓ Donna Sanders Recording Secretary S itted Beth Bartz Southwest Quadrant Approved by: ton 'el Chairpers, 14 34 � 98-39�f ZONING COMMITTHS STARF RSPORT FILS # 97-207 1. APPLIC2:N'P: MENDOTA HOMES DATS OF HEARING: 10/30/97 2. CLASSIFICATION: Special Condition Use 3. LOCATION: xxx LEXINGTON PKWY S(southwest quadrant of Lexington and St. Clair) 4. PLA23NI23G DISTRICT: 16 5. LEGAL DESCR2PTION: see file 6. PRESENT ZONING: R-4 ZONING CODS RSFERENCE:§60.413 (13) &§64.300 (d) 7. STAFF INVBSTIGATION P.ND REPORT: DATS: October 17, 1997 BY: Beth Bartz 8. DATE RECEIVSD: 08/04/97 DEADLINE FOR ACTION: 12/02/97 A. PIIRPOSE: A special condition use permit to a11ow a 10 unit cluster development. B. PARCEL SIZE: The development parcel is roughly triangular in shape with 183.93 feet o£ frontage on Lexington Avenue. Total lot area is 107,380.5 square feet. C. EXISTING LAND IISE: One storage building is currently located on the property. Otherwise, it is vacanC. D. SIIRROUNDING LAND IISE: The property is surrounded by single family homes on the north and east, and by the Short Line railroad corridor and Ayd`Mill Road diagonally on the southwest. E. ZONING COnH CITATION: Sections 60.413 (13) and 64.300 (d) of the zoning code permit cluster developments subject to the conditions detailed i.n findings #2 and #3 of this report. F. HISTORY/DISCIISSION: There are no previous zoning cases concerning this property. A site plan review is also required. Initial reviews indicate applicant has meC the site plan requirements; approval is pending on the approval of the special conditional use permit. G. DISTRICT COIINCIL RBCOMMENDAT20N: The Summit Hill AsSOCiation reviewed an earlier proposal for a 12-unit cluster development on October 9, 1997. They reoommended denial of the special conditional use permit for a 12-unit development. The 10-unit proposal will be presented to the Zoning and Land Use Committee of the Summit Hi11 Association on October 28, 1997. Any n� 98 �39`f Zoning file # 97-207 Page 2 £urther recommendations will be presented at the October 30 public hearing by the Planning Commission. H, FINDINGS• 1. The applicant has a purchase agreement for the property proposed for development. Ten dwelling units are proposed, 5 buildings of two units each. Access to the parcel is proposed from Lexington Parkway via private street. Five units wi11 access their garage from the private street; the remaining five garages will be accessed by the existing alley. 2. Chapter 60.413 (13) of the Zoning Code permits cluster developments subject to the £ollowing conditions: a. There shall be a minimum of two (2) units. This condition is met. Ten units are planned. b. The units shall be atCached, common wall, single-family, with no unit iatruding on the vertica2 airspace of any other unit. This condition is met. The units are paired side-by-side, with no unit intruding on the vertical air space of any other unit. c. The parcel sha12 meet the Iot area required per unit in the zoning district. This condition can be met. The 1ot area, including half of the a11ey is 107,380.5 square feet. This allows 10,738.05 square feet per unit, exceeding the 5000 square feet per unit requirement. d. The parcel shall have a minimum frontage of eighty (80) feet on an improved street. This condition is met. The parcel has 183.93 feet o£ frontage on Lexington Parkway. e. The structure shaSl confozm to the schedu2e of regulations for height, lot coverage, setbacks and parking. This condition is met. As proposed, the develoment meets tfie requirements for height, lot coverage and parking prescribed by the zoning district. Twelve visitor parking spaces will be provided in addition to a double garage for each unit. Zoning enforcemenC has determined the £ront yard to be on Lexington, and the rear yard to be the farthest northwest corner of the parcel. The plan appears to meet all setback requires; LIEP will be con£irming conformance will the front yard setback requirement next week. f. The design sha12 be compatibSe with the sssrroundiag aeighborhood. Overall the proposed design is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood which consists o£ a mixture o£ 1, 1-1/2, and 2 story structures with gabled and hipped roofs. Materials used in the surrounding neighborhood include stucco, clapboard, metal siding, and composite shingles. Windows are a mixture of double hung and fixed � 9�-3 5� Zoning file # 97-207 Page 3 "picture" windows. The proposed units are 1 to 2 sCOries in height with interseeting gable roofs. (See drawings attached.) The applicant has not specified which units will be one or two stories, but rather proposes that decision be made with the potential buyer. Exterior material is proposed to be vinyl siding. The overall massing, wtiile larger than the typical home in the neighborhood due to the paired unit design, is broken up by a central gabled bay. Porches and double hung windows provide other design elements similar to houses in the area. g. Individual lots, buildings, street and parkiag areas shall be designed and situated to minimize alteration of the natural features and topograpky. The project would require some grading to provide proper drainage for the site. The grading plan also includes construction of a storm water pond near Lexington. However, the overall topography of the site, including the slope into the railroad corridor, would not be disturbed. Some of the existing trees in the sl.ope area of the site would remain. h. Applications for cluster deve2opment sfia21 ineSude site plans, including landscaping and e2evations and other infozmation the pSanning commissioa may request. This condition is met. The applicant submitted a site plan, landscape plan, and building elevations along with a written description detailing the specifics of the development. 3. Section 64.300 (d) of the zoning code requires that before the planning commission may grant approval of a principal use subject to special conditions. the commission shall find that: a. The extent, location and intensity of the use wi32 be in substantial compliance with the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan and any applicable subarea plans which were approved by the city counciZ. The District 16 Plan does not include any proposals relevant to this matter. The"re are no applicable small area plans for this area. The Saint Paul Housing Policy for the 1990s recommends "expansion of housing opportunities for middle and higher income households where this market is or can be addressed in Saint Paul." The units in this proposal will be priced at $139,900 -$200,000, addressing middle income populations. b. The use will provide adequate ingress and egress to minimize traffic congestioa ia the public streets. A private street wi11 provide primary access to the units and allow emergency vehicle traffic and visitor parking. The Fire Department has determined this access to be sufficient for emergency access. Five of the ten units will access their garage from this private road � 3? �� Zoning file # 97-207 Page 4 as well. The remaining five units will access their units from the alley. The applicant has agreed to make improvements to the alley as part of the project. Initially the applicant proposed extending the alley through to Lexington raising concerns about traf£ic cutting through the alley to avoid the intersection at St. Clair and Lexington. The current proposal does not extend the existing alley and does not aonnect the alley to the private street, eliminating the ability for traffic to cut through. Several residents have expressed concerns about any additional use of the alley due to the proximity of the alley outlet to the St. Clair - Lexington intersection and the width o£ the alley. Public Works has reviewed the pzoposal and found the use of the alley and the proposed curb cut acceptable provided the alley is paved and the entrance to the private street from Lexington appear similar to a driveway curbcut, rather than a street, to minimize confusion. a. The use wi11 uot be detrimeatal to the existing charaeter of development in the immediate neighborhood or endanger the public health, safety and general we2fare. This condition is met. The number of new dwelling units can be accommodated by existing facilities and services provided by the city. The private street will accommodate emergency vehicles and all requirements for water, sewer and storm water have been met. d. The use will not impede the normal aud orderZy development and improvement of the surrounding propesty for uses permitted in tke district. This condition is met. The surrounding property is £ully developed. The new housing will serve as a buffer between the single family homes on St. Clair and Lexington and the railroad - Ayd Mill Road cox'ridor. e. The use sha11, in aIl other respects, coaform to the app2icab2e regulations of the district in which it is located. This condition is met. 2. STAFF RECObIDfEtIDATION: Based on findings 1 through 3 staff,recommends approval of the special conditional use permit. q 3$ 98-39� SPECIAL CONDITION USE PERMIT APPLICATION Department of Planning and Economic Development Zoning Section 31 DO City Hall Annex 25 West Fourth Street Saint Paut, MN SSIO2 266-6589 APPLICANT PROPERTY LOCATION Address� • O. 'P�o� c��lp City�PfS�'�a.�e� St iUJ�-� Zip � Daytime phone (t$8-lv3�2r Name of owner (if different) ��k.�. (�LLk�� Legai „ t-, OV�./ Current Zoning 2` (attach additional sheet if necessary) TYPE O�F PERM : Application is hereby made under the provisions of Chapter , Section �t��' _, Paragraph l�_ of the Zoning Code for a: � Speciai Condition Use Permit ❑ River Corridor Conditional Use Permit ❑ Modification of River Corridor Standards SUPPORTING INFORMATION: in the space below supply information that is applicable to your type of permit (attach additional sheets if necessary) • SPECIAL CONDITION USE: Expiain how the use will meet each of the special conditions. • RIVER CORRIDOR CONDITIONAL USE: Describe how the use will meet the applicable conditions. • MODIFICATION OF RIVER CORRIDOR STANDARDS: Explain why modifications are needed. . .. _� i. . I� site ApplicanYs sig is � City agenf / � �'" ��h/�D %}� 6��vYl'l6� -�?-�, x �� 1 98-39� � «,;�.: ,, s 4 . -= � :�- R?• 207 � � ��: ; �. � � ��_, -_v , - h � �� ; MENDOTA HONIES, WC. P.O. BC�X 416 FORES7 L.AKE, MN 65025 Octb�er 23,1997 ,� ;: 8eth Bartz City of St. Paul P{anning and Economic Development 25 West �ourth Street St. Paul, MN 55102 We are proposing the development of a two-plus aere parcel of land located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Laxington Qaricway South and St. Clair Avenue in St. Paul. The devefopment will be a townhouse community consisting of five fixinhomes. 'fhe property has streetfrontage of approximatoly 184 feet on Lexington Parkway. tt then moves back and widens west of Lexington Parkway South to the front of the altey behind the homes on Lexington Parkway South and St. Ciair Ave. Ouf proposal is to build ten homes (five twinhomes) on this project site of 101,589 square feet. The averaga lot siza wili be 2,87D syuare feet. The reason this tot size is signiftcantly smaller than originally proposed is due to the addition of an outlot of 74,236 square feet labele8 as "Lot 11" on the preliminary plat. in order to provide ac�ess to this properky, we propose a private drive off of Lewngton Ave. that wil� service the garages of five of the townhome units. The remaining ftve units wili have �arages and street access off the existing aileys and St. Clair Avenue. This proposal is in r�sponse to concerns about tra�c increases on Lexington Parkway. We feel that by routing half the traffic of the development onto Lexington Parkway and haif onto St. Clair Ave., we mitigate the problem. In addition, we have agreed to pave ti�e north/south and east/west alleys to provide a hard surface roadvray for residents and neighbors. After much discussion, we have praduced an exterior design that will be easify incorporated into the varied design of the existing neighborhood which consists m�in4y of one and two story structures with detached garages. Our townhomes will'be a mixture of one attd two story units with and without basements. They wili have two or three bedrooms, two or thfee bathrooms, and an attached, two-car garage off the rear of the structure. Twenty covered and 2A uncoveted parking .; � ' z�- Z0'd LSZcggg L£b1b`Z69£9�9 Wd SSCTO f7H1 16-SZ-1D0 9C �,314 ..., �s.a'� ��r. 3 ?� �i; 'u.V, �� a .:� i � . •� �� J — ' ---.- _'._ _.�---�,,. � f '—' spots wi(I be incorporated. maintain the development. A townhome association wi11 be put in place to Much discussion has occurred on this development with The Summit Hill Assocfatian, neigF�bors, and City oi St. Paul stafif. We feel we now have a well ptaiined and designed development. We are hoping for a favorable response. Sincerely, � . Erin �. Mathern for �endota Nomes, inc. 40'd � T6Z£889 41 � i�cWy'Z89£9�'9 Wd 6S= T0 f1Hl L6—£Z-1�� 98-3g�f ; � �:��r:�* 7 ,--� = 7 f ~� ��3_'��'�; y °:' � Q7• � � z = :�� ., _______.__ .^---°^°-..-��..._ 3 MEN[)�TA F10N1ES, ISVC. p.a. Box �.� s FOf2EST LAKE, MN 55025 October 22, 1997 Beth Bartz City of St. Paul Planning and Economic Qevelopment 25 West Fourth Street St. Paui, MN 55102 Dear Beth, This IetEer serves fo Update our tetter of September 25, 1997, regarding pricing and development costs of Lexington Commons Townhomes. We remain committed to price ssnsitivity and providing a townhome product suitable for purchase by r�sidents who already live in tho area of Lexington Parkway and St. Glair Avenue. Ho�vever, due to fewer uniis in the developmant, our prices have been adjusted upward to accomodate allocation of land development costs. The Lexington Commons townhomes will now range in price from $139,900.40 to around $200,000.00. The lower price delivers a rambler with an unfinished basement. Prices then inerease according to number of leveis, square footage, and interior selections. In talking with individuals who are interosted in living in this development, we have discovered that the increase in price has alienated some potential buyers. 4'Vhile this is unfortunate, we have also received new inquiries from potential buyers seeking a slightiy higher price range. Overall, this project remains viable despito changes in price range. lnterest is stili high and we look forvvard to approval and moving forward with construction. Again, thank you very much for your continued support and suggestions on this development. Sincerely, �`� Erin;E, Mathern for f�lendota Homes, Inc. � g'2 � �a•..� S6Zcgg9 Z<'Wb'Z8989�9 Wd SS:ZS f1Hl L6-£Z-1�0 �j8-3y`f � ( � + ',' : :" J ,� :: J:= � Y �� o 011 �y;� I , C � 1 �' °`�� $ . i � , c ;` ? � � - a:3 f � a -j � R �j' / i � �. ,\ � � 1�� '� I I � � � � I I Y� �� ' . � J �� .� ;r �I r - , i ; , �� _ ��,� . � ',',. `'r,l:8ll i ,° "� " +--,i�=:1� '_ : %� j �-'I .II � .; _ \ Y�/ i� �' �i1% J i .: cA 4�i �� ' � I d' :__°= IQ .., - %� �, � � `f /i � . [ ... �� / � :. �� c Y � � , � � i "! �� . yy ` � � ^ � \ � Y � V�� , 'I � �. t i �I ~ -_ �� . ,-/ ` � u � ' � • � I n � r � �%� `, �S�\ . a[ / �( � ''� ' � �•\ i ? � � `\'.\ I � x � 3 � �V � �� =�� C - � � � =s =:< � � _ � ;_ �: v . �' ��z i,,V`� a, �a. . i, 2 2�' � � '^.� �' L3 _".d � � § °:i �� \ = 05: ti' s^ EE$ i o " n ' � C �, i= SI? i ti C pE ega i a �€° i � �n ez3 ; ! b(?. � c � nb �.. .� s , � �l �� I �� tz0� � 9 l � - ,C ' i � e � J T �_ � m 1� z �� O � . r C ^ ` V , � � � e �3 � :// {1 ' ,$ �� 1 , �� s � � �� ..,.�' '4 < ��, �, # � � . y .-i ` J �` l,. .��,��A x � � � ` r � ."�``ti . � �, S s.., 1 h�...�v�'`� �b �� \t7 V• .� / � � /� �t �.,L. \ � t� / ��. I 1 � i �� i t�: � - � � J � � � ,� fl �- i � �� .- I — u -0 z ^ � � i� ' j� �; �� I�' % � �� , � . 9� Z� � ^ � 7-`^ ` , � � � � � � � � � . � �� , � �4 � � y ., s •� � �` IZ � � �X i � W . . 1 � I � �a � I� 3 �-'"�—: �� - - i V �� - � I I � . . ' .�...* {, �I' .. � - �� ' � , ! �� ' i r ,, , � � cz-; _ � � w__� ", ' � -__ _ � ,�.� i , � � ' ! � =xe 1 � _� 1 ' �i I � C�� - • ±� � ` l 4 � \ .� I � � ��{ � +_ /�.� � I � � ;? � 1 +? . V � ♦\ \ \ \ \ V . ,: �� /' �� - P D �,✓• ` .f - � . Hw r i ' - ff• ��4 . k �3 a� y� � ��a i b 's � stw�,�a �5 � 1� � 'V I � \ 1 Y� � . �. �'� � � � � Y I � 1 � \\ � A � i �� . I J 5 �� ` 1 1 1 � � `�� E�F � � t� j! I � t11� �iSlll� E �t � �\� � i . � �� ' �., , �:; �. � . � � � g8-35�t � 0 9 '�3 � �m r� �?a-a � c f. C� a-.eca �'� � .4 � � �� f • P �� "'f � p �� ► -i� � � .�i � � � q5, ' � _'_""";'_""�'�"___'"": 7'c�cacia '••�_._..�..... � L�Wb'Z89£9�'9 Wd 9S-Z0 3f11 L6-bS-1�0 /��V� 1 Sf� .. `�s" s � �� °i9 �, �� i �� ?,.� c�..�- a,.= .a 8 ��8 3 t� �J i I ? � SEP T UE 04=4o PM 6o6568Z-4MO7 i ' r � � �� .�: _ � � � G4.^ � L :.�Y � �=a a .� � � 6880291 P_02 � ' ` `!`8-3�t�f .�� ---. .. . . . . ._. - -----5�= 2�'-�� . �%�- � � �� 6s=+e t� ��9 � �- ` V � O J � �(40 5��,. S�FT._ f8�� 1qR� ----.. � U ----------- - ��c �OR . .. L�x 4N ��N -}- 5 C�-i 1Z .. . _.. . � _.._. � �-------- --� �i', }�i9-UC.. . . . ...--- --------�� -��y �/ � 39`I 1 i 1 � I � � s-�� : �_�. ��; e:�. �� ,_ � �=-� :��j � � V 1'� =♦ � • �.J. � � i ,,., _„ _' . ��I`'4Y��Q� ^`}"•-w/-F�-��L--.... "' _ _.___...�._�_..-_.......- ... . � . � 1.__.�.__....� __ . _._. 7 ' ^�. y� 39`�l �i ; �� ; �' �s � �� '�� ;, �_z i � �� `''� 4 v � � � � � � � � r �Q �� _ � �+ U�1 Q :� �� }; �� .-.1 � i� � _. """"""" _ ";..�"""' .... _ � _._,__ _ �.sa_ rr"c.""--"; ..""' _ -..�-_. "'.•` rc�caa<a � L�'Wb'Z89c9£ � Wd SS=ZO 3f11 t6—bt-17C� 98-39� � � � ��. � � .• � t�cn ' � � � i . ) { 1 � i"� i � ' •N 1 _4 v 9 a e � r� !. � � x \\ ��i1111111' �� 3, s� SEP TUE 04:44 PM 656e682.4M57 6885291 P.Bo .. ' I. 9 `8'.3g`f � � � �� r� �:� ,.�� ..: : ��.� � ��s �:, E : e J � �a :. �,y 52 y�-�9`� �� '., -- ------ ----------�- - -- ---- � . 4 � � I . i .. �� 0 ��\C1J�(o..l�=�`_of�l� �t- = �� 4n � �! � � s � Dti.l �b�(� tzN�, , •l . a i ' ' . . � � I � O. — `� � 'IDl(.• — I ._ K�1T, �o r _ i{ � ( f" - =s �r � I in �n � t : .r� � '� � �� ;.� � � � b ' _ ! —tic�fii —�i�(i2.�(. � � �9 ��--� — - -- -.. . �1- � �{7��eil� o . � �� --}1_l _ — — — N - . 1 � � � � �a . �-�, � °� � 0 e�.''�-_ � . � �� a 1 . � O ' 4 �, � ° : 4 = - ,___.___-= ?�s'�n._.__-.-. -_�+r =_ � � , £� � . ":�" � . __. , � ��E�� ' J � . _ � � _ .__. .. _. � . � • _...__. . _ �_�____. ----�1 -- 803 ��_ _ � .__�.--- ..... . �...5"COR .,_ . --�-�- ----- . .:: __��str�i�-rc�t_�:��t�=--.__.. . � . - �' - r � s ' (�gZ � -----s�� _..-wr�—.--. . .. �53 ...... .�.�-3y`f � � � �� ,.'� . '�a� �� ..z tl'Y� � � N 0 � : �`�: : e �..�_,.�i �irs�:�i�i!�it%+`.��!1*`.y/'.wls�� .�T i;a __� --��-��.�.. 4,�� r � �. �¢ 98-3y5� Summit Hi11 Association District �6 Planning Council Beth B2rtz 86� Saint Clair Avenue Planning and Economic Development saint Paui, Minnesota 5sios 25 West Fourth Street Te�ephone 612-222-1222 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Fax s�2-222-issa e-mail summit.hillC�?stpaul.gov October 29, 1997 RE: Zoning File Number 97-207 .��- =5, _.-�--_�~-�---�- ,.�; q��Z�� Dear Ms. Bartz and Members of the Zoning Committee of the Pianning Commission, The Zoning and Land Use Committee of the Summit Hiil Association/District 16 Planning Council met with Erin and John Mathern of Mendota Homes in August, September and October to discuss their proposal for a ten unit ciuster development southwest of Lexington and St. Clair. Throughout the process, the Matherns have been willing to discuss their proposal and have made changes and adjustments in response to concerns raised at these meetings. However, it is the opinion of the Zoning and Land Use Committee that there are still significant issues which have not been addressed in a satisfactory manner. Briefly, these issues are safety, density, soil conditions and architecture: • The traffic on Lexington is close to its maximum capacity and may actually reach maximum capacity during rush hour. • There is evidence that this site may be a former dumpsite. Yet the developer has little knowledge of the condition of the soil. A soii test shouid be done and should be determined to be acceptab4e for a development of this size. • The multiple concerns of the Canadian Pacific Railroad have not been addressed. A vibration test should be done and should be determined to be acceptable for residential habitation. • The developer has not adequately addressed several issues regarding the aliey; in particular, the actual finished width and assessments. • There remains concern over adequate maneuvering room for emergency vehicles and garbage trucks. • The scale of the townhomes is out of proportion with the adjacent homes. • The character and the aesthetic of the townhome development is inappropriate for this particular site. Therefore, the Zoning and Land Use Committee of the Summit Hill Association/District 16 Pfanning Council recommends denial ofi the requesi by Mendota Homes for a Speciai Condition Use Permit in order to construct a ten unit cluster development southwest of texington and St. Cfair. Sincerely, �,G�vCeh �� K) Charles Skrief, Chair Zoning and Land Use Committee Summit Hili Association/District 16 Planning Council ss` 98 3yY November 5, 1997 Beth .Bartz City of St. Paul Department of Planning and Zoning 1100 City Hail Annex 25 West 4th Street St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Mendota Homes/Lexington and St. Clair Zoning File 97-207 Dear Beth: I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed development of townhomes on the southeast corner of Lexington Parkway and St. Ciair Avenue. { live in a townhome at Wilder Park, direct4y across Ayd Mili Road from this proposed development. The townhouse style of living appeals to those of us who do not want the upkeep of a single family home. �he possibifity of having more townhomes in this area is an exciting one, since it would allow peopfe to have this styie of iiving, but remain in the city. 1 understand that there are serious concerns regarding access to this site. When there are so few lots available in the city for new homes to be built, I think it essential that some sort of compromise be worked out to enable this development to proceed. I encourage all parties to work toward a safe, realistic solution which would aliow these homes to be built. Thank you. Very truly yours, – 1 V\ ------�— Kate cGough 1172 St. Clair Avenue St. Paul, MN 55105 5� 9�-3�5� 1166 St. Clair Ave St Paul, MN 55105 November 5, 1997 Dept. of Planning & Economic Development Att'n: Beth Bartz 1100 City Hall Annex 25 W. 4th St. St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Zoning File 97-207 Mendota Homes Dear DPED: ; -- ------ --'-- ..___:-- �__� � _� .. �:� : ��:� .. ._._ ; s ��..._._�__�.�.�...__..�.�.� We support the modified proposal to build ten townhomes in the southwest quadrant of Lexington & St. Clair. We live in Wilder Park, across Ayd Mill Road from the proposed development. We understand that access remains an issue, and we urge you and the developer to find a suitable compromise that will allow the project to move forwazd. St. Paul needs to encourage these types of developments to provide housing choices, help keep our t� base viable, and to encourage people to remain in--or perhaps move back to—the city. With so littie space available for cluster development in St. Paul, a creative solution must be found that atlows the community to take advantage of this unique opportunity. Si C�72�, > �� 6.�_____ Lauralee GarFieid and Rodney Oisen sJ^'? �-3 5`f ...., _......... .._.. _.. ------ --__.. _ . - ; , a?LZU7 ; October 19, 1997 To: Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission 25 West Fourth Street 100 City Hall Annes Saint Paul, �' S5102 From: Le�ngton & Saint Clair Property Owners prosimate to Subject Development (below) Subject: Special condirion use permit far 10-unit cluster development called Lexington Commons Zoning File Number: 97-207 Zoning File l�iame: MENDOTA HOMES References: • Article; Highland Villager, August 6, 1997; MnDOT foresees uaffic congestion without Ayd Mill Road Connection. • Article; Highland Villager, October 8, 1997; Ciry Council iejeas request fo= MaoGrove townhomes. • Sumaxit Hill Association and Distsict 16 Planning Council; 1997 Goals and Objectices Ladies and Gentlemen: We, the undersigned property owners, are unanimously opposed to the proposed cluster development as wimessed by our signatures on this document. We describe in this letter our reasons why we are opposed to this project. We want the Zoning Committee to deny the proposed cluster development. Our rationale: TRAFFIC DENSITY AND PUBLIC SAFETY I.exington Avenue is a very hi� volume toadway, especially beriveen I-94 and Randolph; we believe that this project will exacexbate the tcaffic density in tlus corridor, zefez to the attached article from Highland Villagez, August 6,1997. Accident frequenry at St. Clair and Lexington is high; we believe that the additional entry/exit traffic to/from the pxoposed duster development will inczease the frequency of accidents due to the very short haffic mixiug length afforded by the available sites for new stieet access to the pzoject. It is very probable that the point of intersection of the proposed street access with Lexington Pazkway coincides with the ma�imum tcaffic velocity in both the north- and south-bound directions; thus making it very difficult foz traffic movements into and out of the proposed development We believe that the pzoposed pxoject will cieate a vauetp of tcaffic aad safety pioblems of significant pxoportions. Private street access for the project onto Lexington Pa:kway will occur at the bottom of the valley betmeen St. Claix and Jeffrxson, just before the bridge (southboun� oveL Apd Mill Road. Two feanues of This geometry combine to form a dangerous set of traffic conditions: (1) this low point is whete traffic will typically have its maximum velocity, (2) drivexs atteniion is drewn to points above the madwap to the traffic lights at the top of the hill (m eithez direction St Qair for northbound tiaffic and Jefferson for southbound ttaffic). Thus, with cacs at maximum velocitp and with daveis looking ahead to see if ihey can make the lights, the traffic will be ill pzepazed foz perpendiculaz uaffic movements enteting/leaving the I.eaiagron madwap at the end of the bridge. Summit F3il1 Association recognizes the tzaffic problems in District 16 and has set polides to promote traffic c lm a pmjects; the pmposed project is in duect conflict mith these traffio-calmuig objectives. PARBING ISSUE Gurmndy it is possible for guests and escess parking in the reaz of zesideats on Leffington Parkway. With the increased traffic and deaease in appazent useable surface, parking will no longez be possible in the alleys. The altemative is pazking on Lexington Pazkmay. Wlule pazking is only restricted there Monday thru Faday and then only during rush hou=s, absolutely none of the residents park thexe during other houts because the huge potential for causing a fatality. This is not just an opinion. We C� -- � i8 3951 _=.=�::�-;�:;�'��`�? {��:,�-4 �t7• Zo�_ have done studies where cus aze parked duzing daylight hours and seen the number of neaz accidents that occuL We have not tried this during night hours on weekends because we aze not prepazed to accept the responsibility for the accident ihat will occua ARCFiITECTURAL HARMONY We find ihe plaaned decelopment m be inconsistent wirh e�sting neighborhood arrhitectuie that is currendy all single-family homes with detached gerages The Rambler styling, walkout basemenrs and cul-de-sac sueet organization w-ill make the pmject look ]ike �X/oodbury-in-Saint- Paul very much out of character for the area. ALLEY ACCESSIBILITY AND TRAFFIC The subject development will place about a 30% increase in alley traffic aboae that esisting today. The alley in quesrion is a tee with dead-end ternrinations and no tumarovnds. An 18-foot opening off of St Clair avenue approximaiely 120 feet west of ihe intexsection of St. Clair and I.esingtoa Pazkway affocds enttance. Figure (ENTER) shows ihis entrance to rhe alley. The increase in alley treffic will deczease properry calues for rhe residents on Lexington Parkway and St. Clair Avenue. Neighbors have successfiilly appealed increased properry valuations by arguing incteased street uaffic causes deteriorating pxopetry values. Figuxe ENTE,R This is the entrance &om St Clair Avenue to ihe dead-end alley rhat sezves 18 neighbors. Note the small access road widch. Its ONE GAR WIDE! Traffic is always very 6eavy at this e�t.� NEIGHBORAOOD CHARACTER Constrvcfion plans call fnz a pavate sixeet to secvice the proposed development Building this srreet will zequice the xemoval of most, if not all, of the trees along the vdge that forms the pzoperty boundary of Reuth's Lot 19. Removing these trees will exacerbate the existing soil ezosion condirions along Ayd Mill Road. Additionally, these nees form a windbxeak and sound barrier for the neighborhood; it would be important to keep tliis function for the pioposed homes due to ihe high levels of uaffic noise (auto and railroad) fiom Lexington, Ayd Mill Road and ihe Soo Line tracks. There is a kind of Gateway to ihe azea of Saint Paul noxth of Ayd Nfill Road which is formed by the uees along ridge of the railroad cut Figure (GA3'E) shows the effect that ihese irees have in prociding the green enu�zcay to the city u one proceeds north on Lexington. Aemoving the tcees to make way for the private stceet access to the ptoposed project will dcastically alter the chazacter of the neighborhood. Summit Hill Association has speufic objectives to ptomote greening of District 16. Tlus proposed development is in direct conflict with these greening objectives. � ��-3gy , '� _ �'� � S � � h'.`x'� x —'_—. V � _ �� Figure GATE This is the view looking north along Lesington Parkway. Notice the Garewaq formed bp the tcees at the top of the adge at the leR These trees will be removed to make puvate street access if the proposed decelopmentgoes forcvazd_ This wrould be a drastic and irrecocable modification of the neighborhood chazacteL FIRE AND SECURITY r' �s �� a `".' m { Fire company access to buildings in the pioposed addition would be severely limited by ihe alley access which has overhead powerlines, restriaed width (single lane) and will require fire rigs to either enter or exit by bac6ing up since rhere is no pzovision foc tumaround of large azticulated vehicles. Curiendy the waste disposal vehicles (considerable shorrer than hook- and-ladder equipment) must back up and rurn azound in the tee of ihe alley ln order to access nelghborhobd waste picb The alley is not designed to serve as a traffic laterat, a role ihat is forced on it now due to pazking limitations and the unique configuration of the site. It is unsafe now, with no additional traffic. You can't say ihat it will get 30% more unsafe; instead there w-ill be a disproportionate, nonlineaz increase in safery threat due to ihis tiaffic loading. STRUCTURAL AND EKVIRONMENTAL ISSUES We believe diat Lot 19 Reuth's Addition will be built on a former waste disposal site. Current residents have recently at[empted modemizadon and expansion pmjects. These piojects have shown tY�at the sod in Reuth's Addition is composed of dischazge material such as coal ash and domestic detatus of verg porous chazactec wtuch in some cases has cequired footings of up to 24 feet in otder to meet consttuction codes of Saint Paul. We believe that soil stabiliry will pose pLOblems during development foz existing homes in the neighbozhood and will affect post-development homes strucnual quality. We believe that Ruerhs Addition Lot 19 is the youngest azea of the waste disposal site and would thecefoxe have ihe least stable soil chatacteristics and greatest potential for hazudous substance entrainment We have concems about the structural integrity of slab-on-grade houses built on soil of dubious stabiliry; espedallp as this affects rhe long-term prospects of our community as a whole. We believe that there is reason to question the environmentai condirion of subsurface soils; i.e. waste disposal fill material will ptobably contain agents wluch would xequise remediation befoze the soil could be dassified as enviionmentally acceptable foz homes. Neighbois hace found cieosote tteated railmad ties, lead pipe, bottle glass, coal ash and other debds. We aze concemed ihat no rigorous and unbiased soil samp3ing has been attempted; we aze not aware of any actual soil resting has been accomplished on a scale which would permit accurate evaluation of the soil strucmral and environmental qualiry of Reuth's I.ot 19. We believe that paor to wnsiderarion of the duster de� the issue of soil condition (structure and encironmental hazazds) should be resolved fhtough soil tesring. ECONO�IIC BEA'EFIT The property, Reuth's Lot 19, has been dassified as having no economic value and has been murimally assessed as such for many years. To the best of our knowledge, Reuth's Lot 19 was purchase under a Saint Paul surplus propertp program. The buyer I:new the state of the piopezt� its access limitations and existing soil condition at the time of purchase. Denying the special condition use perntit will thecefoie not hazm the cuccent ownec The tand is zoned fot Residential developmeat of single family dwellings and can be sold and/or developed for such purposes. t�a , gs-�9y ; s ��&�� ;:,��, � a�� We, the neighbors, should not be placed at risL- by City Council to be unieasonably affected by the monetazy goals of either ihe seller or a developer whose sole purpose is to make monej: We hope that greed of those seeking the special condirion use pexmit dces not tal.e precedence ovex the desiie of our neighborhood to retain its individuality and charactez ECOVOhfICS OF DEVELOPhfE1VT We do not believe there is sufficient marl:et intecest in new construction in a neighborhood w�th home value chazacteristics that e�st in Reurh's Additioa. Ecea ihough Mendota Homes hu indicated there is interest in the development by persons unL-nown; we believe that thete is a significant diffecence in intetest and intent 2o buy. We believe that the detractozs 2o the pmpetry described belom will dampen the interest of the prospective buyes. We believe that there aze significant detraaoxs which will affect the mazketability of the proposed units: pro�miry to railroad right-of-way; tcaffic density and entrance/egLess to Lexington Pazb proximity to aircraft appxoaches at MSP Intemational Airport; un-resolved I-35 Conneaor issues; proximiry to NSP lugh-voltage transmission lines; pending iecreational bike-parh pmject All of these issues would negarively affect an astute potential buye�s decision to pucchase. Mazket prices quoted by Mendota Homes fox the units are up to 5180,000. The average home value in fltis neighborhood is around $8Q000. This means that the proposed uni[s will be valued an mote than 2_times the existing homes We believe that astute home buyecs would not consider such an investment in ielatively over-priced =eal estate; especially given ihe aesthetics of the primary ciew from the pioposed residences. Loo�ng from ihe bxow of the hill bordering on the Aqd Mill Road at the apptosimate location of the ptoposed private sneet access to the project properries is the 14plus story brick Wilder high-rise and NSP high voltage transmission lines which dominate the view CLOSING REQUEST We ask you to please acknowledge our voice as residents of this community and vote to denp any variances to existing ailowed development. Sincerely, `t-e'�Z� �ti4�P�, Keith Gurtner 259 xington Pkwy �', / � �� r� � en umer 6 t. Clur v.A�e 1120 St. Clair Ave St Claii Ave 1134 St. Clair Ave Jdc Patios 1126 St Claic Ave �� "F" "�w Lexington Pkwy erta Binket 263 S Lexington Pkwy �'' � 'Gf��c� o �� ar M 251 S Levngton Pkwy en soa 279 S � / �'/� l� , , . /� ` i�tichael Wigfield 1' St Clair ve I/S6 �'i • CL�..�z-.e ��, � ��' ` Be Dunbaz ^ 283��5.7� xington Pb-wy � � l C`�C� azg � 1142 St. Clair Ave y,,�a e 1�oe' � 1142 St C1air Ave 1' t Byr� 24�gton Pb-wy Ra2he1 Blank 243 S Le�ington Pkwy -�ra,,lav�e.C� �.e�- F� e m 259 S Lesington Pb-my �"t drick� ' E^?`X S I.e�ngton Pb-wy `� Kativ'e M -�51 Lexington Pb-wS Chadotte atcos � 1 t Claiz Ave Helene Schultz 9'120 t C;lauulve Susien�Wag�net 11�� St� aire A e L�SA- 5(n3YrR5/J,�rnES sw`;�S ) icf � � e (.0�+ ) <hl� r � l �c� �v � vV\�� Mt�f:!} �t-t��S Ilsz S� c�Ati2yld� /��,�v1'� l�«�r.�-r.�— �i�y� �lfc�'/�S�/�/ ttYz s ; Ca.�a�r ;�v� �� g�-�5�1 October 24, 1447 : :� �<�, m n v � � �:, �.- ? t 6:_ 5 �y F ,. � . a�"� i x.. $ fi •: .h � � , '�_, .,.. �' �7 Zoning Committee 25 West Fourth St. 1100 City Hall Annex St. Paul, MN. 55102 Dear Commissioners: Re: Zoning file number 97-207: Mendota Homes I am opposed to a speciai condition use pemut to allow a 10 unit cluster development for the reasons of safety, trafTic, and character of the neighborhood. The visitors that now pazk on the side or our garages will no longer be able to park there. They will instead need to pazk on Lexington Parkway thus eliminating one lane on uaffic between St. Clair and the bridge over Ayd Mill Road. This poses a safety problem as the cars going south on Le�ngton Parkway will not be able to cleazly see the park cars. The additional street or road entrance/e�t onto Lexington by the bridge over Ayd Mill Road will cause additional problems. This is because both the northbound and the southbound traffic on Leacington Pazkway has hills. The placement of the opening is at the bottom of both hills. The aliey is not wide enough for two cars to use at the same time. If a car is coming in and a car is going out one of the cars must backup. The means backing up onto to St. Clair on backing down the aliey until you have enough room to stop. The garbage trucks need to back out from the north/south alley to the east/west alley to tum around to leave the alley or vice versa. Our alley in unique in that there is only one entrance/exit. I do not think our alley could handie any additional cars. I am against the tearing down of the trees along Ayd Mill Road side of the property because they act as a sound barrier from the train and traffic noise on Ady Mill Road and the Soo Line railroad tracks. It wili also change the view and the privacy that people have when using the backyards for entertaining. It will change the chazacter of the neighborhood. Sincerely Yours, � ��Ci(�f'/�C�- � ��'�z'' " _ � Alberta L. Binker 263 So. Lexington Pkwy. St. Paul, MN. 55105 42 �-3qy ------------ --------- ---------- -� ._ : _::-- -�� - ��-�o� � �:=:t,� .. �;:-..�; ; .: �__ ! .�r -_ - --- - -- - _... -- - -- � Joan .�?. Vanr.Prbilt 1181 Edgcu*abP Road r; ST. Paul, :+'T; 55105 Zoning Co*.nmittPP ?5 �:/PSt Kellogg Blvd. St. Pa.ul, M1V 55102 DPar Sirs: I am writing regarding a spPCia.l pPrmit for P�Yendota HomPS, to build a 13 unit cluster dPVelopmPrit on thP southwPSt quadrant of Zexington and St, Clair AvenuPS in St. Paul. I am definitPl,y against this zoning change for this small parcel of land. It is a green spacP so badly nPeded in cities nov:. There are Pnough homes in this area nou� plus the railraod tracks and steam lines so near. I certainl,y hope common sense will be used regarding this matter and leave thP area alone: SincerPly, �� .° � ��«GG� 1��.�� ,: � ' c �nc: RECEIVED J '''` � ? �� prbllt SEP Q 3 1997 ZONING �03 �. I a �9 a:��j''=+� : ' � � — v�q7•20� � � f.��:s:.;.,�: �r-;., ,• �� yy� �'� : ..�..�� _ .� �/�.e� �� r�a � 98 �3�f �� ,,�� : ��–�- 9 � –.� �• 7 ��'-.�sL..�.�a� //i� �.a? ��o�� .y ��--��J �..s��-z"�.��-��--�-�-� .��J �� d -��-� ,� � ,`',��c--�� :3,5' / ' f'��-�D ��'`'�'��szy✓� .��'�/ `�{ `� �.-a-Q�.�&'��J�.�� d .��_-�-�/�.�./c.J _� ..�r�-�-�� -��-�=�� °> , �� .� �� .� �.�.� ' � �'<--�,�'��..�.�..�� - .�� ' �-. �� ---� �'��_�t� ��.� .��J.�-� .��° �=��i ��t'%F-�-u�- -a-,'.,-.� ��,��-�� ,� �. � � �z-r`✓.��,iy��Eti�h��/��✓�J �� G' � _ .� ,/'�-,'.��/ .�i.1�,�.� �LC./,�'J.� ✓ ��t��-��, .��!��.� :. �� 'r� .�---� `/�� .1 �- �.��.�/. � 1tr� ��,�• "�� _�� , � ,,� ` r -f�Yi�/��-��/ ..�C'-�d -�C�.�f�G _ . �7_�'.� _�"'�/i��.��'v! ./��--�'� c ��L ��'--� � �� o �' ' �� -� � � . � 4 -� � r �fi ,____ 98-3q�{ � �`�: .y--.� ?-------� __�� "� '_�. --L1'�� `3 �s � 9 5 �l ✓J �/�t�_/..��/'.�,��.�.�C'—l'�.i d��✓��-_� �,��%i�� .��C��u��-J� �� .-%�/.�4:-��E ,��z •✓ / �-,z��,�� r �!��c�� .�1 � �c�/� c�-�� _ — .C��%.�e-L��'� .��/ C�!iL[� ��l�J �c� ��=-��1 �!/�l'c�.h'-- �� .��/__�� .�� ,a��.��c��.✓ ��a �%��.�--�- z� .�-�� -��=o��_.. �� --�.��.�. .�� .��-d�:�-� � ,�� .�lc� .�'/ ��f—��-��".�,t' _,.�t��L�-e-�-�� .�%�� ' " �.��c��J�� r� �-�i�J-� ✓ ��;�,��-w. G �-.� ��c.-��-l��i� _�..�2/��t �T-�-EJ�v�� . / .�.r�_� � c,�� ;y�� /�..J-r-UG-zL_��(�yy��i✓7 - ..��L/y'.�i .�' • �/��.�{-;� ��"�'.�-��--�-�?� G�� -�'-��-� `� � ,�.��C'� ��t� ��:� ��s�.�� _ �. -�� i/�� ✓'.� .ir'. -��i�' � �.�hi' - // �. ��'�� ".�.�� " ��,� �/'--��L!' � )�i"✓n-'�s�� r--o " --� �� .�c�¢J��. C�/��,- � f ,1 ��' �C/�'rtiG�� : /r��-�'.J�.�--i�r �'" �1 :: � r L • �! -y / � �./�'.�—�`^''�--��ilC��?� ��/; � �� ,r..t�-.� /�CL _� --��=�/ �.��-y._'-�-C ,��r-t/,.�=��.�/>'l"�'-�= i � �G��{z-r�Ci�F'� .1.,c��j/ / _�e�E' ✓��C9C� �� .�y��, � ' /i �� ` �[�- �'� ��—G�-t ��.�`-� " �--L `�A � .�-r��.� �..--�'—i�� `�1�'� ,� PJ `% �iF�u��c�„� � � .�i�.�_/ .��2��/' .1� �.1.i �.� � "�i �� y�-3sy� j ! y �.d'tlasd � Ht >:•.''E`%'f ' a �7n # �-- a o�� y:,� �' �?� ,.� _ 7 ' �v i j _""__"'_'_'--- « �...._.J `�� /.�-��"��/ �il�.�—��/✓ �.�i�� Q''�/� ��J�rt ��ti�� L�� _�,�-�-�/ - � • �� - � ��.�"..�-�- _ � �-y�.�.�e .�u�-�-e�/�1�� ' �=[�-�/ '��'�� ! /� / � .�..�- �--2�-�-i� �. ✓�.� �_,�-t-cc-�, �i%yJ . u �� 'B' 105 South Sth St�eet Box 530 Minneapoirs MN 55440-0530 Fax (6f2) 347-8170 Canadian Pacefic P;ailenra�+ RealEstafe Marketing (US) MINNEAPOLIS, M�i t August 27, 1997 Zoning Committee City of St. Paul 25 West Fourth St. I 100 City Hall Annex Saint Paul, MN 55102 9V I� G,., t'•;, ic t� ; 1 '. `„ _ . . � �. �� # i" <' +" : i t.„ °_ �; t 5 %9 L • , L L. __ __'. � RECEIVED AU6 2 9 1997 �ONING RE: Zoning File Number 97-207, Mendota Homes Special conditional use pemut to allow a 13 unit cluster development Southwest quadrant ofLexington and St. Ciair CPR Mileage 414, Merriam Park Subdivision To whom it may concern: We have reviewed the above-mentioned proposal and wish to state our opposition to it. Residential development adjacent to our right-of-way is not compatible with railway operations. The health, safety and welfare of potential residents could be adversely affected by railway activities. . Notwithstandin� our opposition, should the proposed draft plan of subdivision be approved, Canadian Pacific Railway requests that the following conditions be imposed on the development: 1. Berm, or combination berm and noise attenuation fence, havins extensions or retums at the ends, to be erected on adjoining property, parallel to the railway right-of-way with construction accordin� to the following specifications: a) Minimum total heisht of 18 feet above top-of-rail; b) Berm minimum height 8 feet and side slopes not steeper than 2.5:1; c) Fence, or wall, to be constructed without openines and of a durabie material weighing not less than 4 Ib/sq. ft. of surface azea. �� - �...SrPI�.'`vt T �,�� J�__ 1. continued.... I`TO part of berm/noise barrier is to be constructed on railway property. A clause should be inserted in all offers of sale and purchase or lease, and be registered on title or included in the lease for each dwelling affected by any noise and vibration attenuation measures, advisin� that any berm, fencin„ or vibration isolation features implemented are not to be tampered with or altered, and further that the owner shall have the sole responsibility for and shall maintain these features. Dwellings must be constructed such that the interior noise levels meet the criteria of the appropriate authority. A noise study should be cazried out by a professional noise consultant to detemune what impact, if any, railway noise would have on residents of proposed subdivisions and to recommend mitigation measures if required. The recommendations of the sTudy aze to be implemented. - 2. Setback of dwellings from the railway right-of-way to be a minimum of 90 feet. While no dwelling should be closer, an unoccupied building, such as a garage, may be built closer. The 8 feet hi�h earth berm adjacent to the right-of-way must be provided in all instances. 3. Ground vibration transmission to be estimated through site tests. If in excess of the acceptable levels, all dwellings within 225 feet of the nearest track should be protected. The measures employed may be: a) Support the buildin� on rubber pads between the foundation and the occupied structure so that the maximum vertical natural frequency of the stnxcture on the pads is 12 Hz; - b) Insulate the buiiding from the vibration ori�inatin' at the railway tracks by an intervening discontinuity or by installing adequate insulation outside the building, protected from compaction that would reduce its effectiveness so that vibration in the building became unacceptable; or c) Other adequate measures that �vill retain their effectiveness over time 4. A clause should be inserted in all offers to purchase, agreements of sale and purchase or lease and in the title deed or lease of each dwelling, warnine prospective purchasers or tenants of the e�stence of the Railwav's operating right-of-way; the possibility of alterations, including the possibility that the Railway may expand its operations, which expansion may affect the living envuonment of the residents notwithstandin� the inclusion of noise and vibration attenuating measures in the desien of the subdivision and individual units, and that the Railway will not be responsible for complaints or claims arising from use of its facilities and/or operations. �I$ �.a'. '-------____-_ 9 8 � 39 y i ...�`'�`� �'_��;;�_ � �� .. . _.� 9 Z� 5. Any proposed alterations to the e3cisting drainage pattern affecting railway property must receive prior concurrence from the Railway, and be substantiated by a draina�e report. 6. Any proposed utilities under or over railway property to serve the development must be approved prior to their installation and be covered by the Railway's standard a�reement. 7. A 6 foot high chain link fence should be constructed and maintained along the common property line of the Railway and the development by the developer at his expense, and the developer is made aware of the necessity of includin� a covenant running with the lands, in all deeds, obliging the purchasers of the land to maintain the fence in a satisfactory condition at their expense. To ensure the safety and comfort of adjacent residents and to mitigate as much as possible the inherent adverse environmental factors, your assurance that the above conditions witl be imgosed on the developer would be appreciated. We would appreciate being advised of your decision regarding this proposal in due course. Sincerely, c`-��;�� David S. Drach Area Manager 612/347-8354 97239-Oi.ltr � g �- 35 y BEST R. FLAI�TACzAI�T ROBERT L CROSDS" Lco� axn �I_ Anni�cro� Ronattr R. B.+m'x �. ��ALTEH GIUFF jLLE] D. BdR\ARD RICFt{RD A.P£[ERSOS RosElrr J. Cx�usria�so�. Jx. Fa.v�x J. \1:�iz Fa.a�x t'oGt �(exc�cs �ti. �}�.e P�-rras, Jx. D..�'av B. ]IOxsE Joxs A.Bctrro�.Jx. Je>res C.D�u.ccss Rosem' L.SIEi�a,Ja- DIORFIS E.FL\OnF Jcncrx A.RocosxessE SWT[ D. ELL£R C�i{g{ES C. BEF0�15T E..Joserx L.+FacE CiHCGOftY D.$OliL£ CATRY E. GORLIS PAiRICF B. HESSESSY 7180THY d. $iLLSV'A] Bxus F. R�ce D:.�iEi R.H: \EVSO� Trsacz J-�.L� Srea�auxcx Da�-in J- ZcehE ST£\'ES R. F�ALGP-R Jwves P. >trcxaz.s Pntiz E.li xi�stic .IOx� P. Borie Ross C.FOekEic Cwxrs S. Gw�'ER �IARY' E. SHEARES BdRH.aRi X.RO55 CASRERIS£ J. COLA'[SEY Ja.+�-�rcf �I.Rcar.c Ms. Beth Bartz Zoning Office City of St. Paul 1100 Ciry Hall Annex 25 West Fourth Street St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Southwest Quadrant of Lexington and St. Clair Applicant: Mendota Homes Zoning File No. 97-207 Dear Ms. Bartz: liec�� J. Dcvie�-r Jir.� E Lwoars SAgAH CRIFFE\ iS.iDI50V Roa�� D.?fexax D.+� H.Joxssos tL E.�LiL'IHER {�ii.cux J. Mo��s Dt:cxwai H. Pi�x D.i]]EL t�. H{pL1Y Avr J. 5��-Ennsac O� Co�. � {YAR➢ $ I.F'��:� Ancxi�wtu �-= -zrz Roaeer >I �- - Joxs R.Cae.=.,� Ja.ies D- O�- :s Jwvcsl.B=.. ��rrz-��re ftosErzr J. F:...� .:...� �am-�3>> --.._"_,_,_---- _ + '�;� � �' ai� :` ' "s _��,.y.__'""""-- -�. 1f�,, v� k� �? : � " Y Y �, ' " I , p vCd��7�a ,,.:➢.''sa,c. / �.'7a,� 1 .._ GU i _ � i I am enclosing for your reference copies of three court decisions involving John Mathern, a principal in Mendota Homes An Order in mortgage foreclosure action on townhomes built in Washington County; 2. An Order granting United Mortgage Company relief in the bankruptcy of John and Sandra Mathern and denying the Matherns' discharge; An Order confirmine the bankruptcy court's denial of the Matherns' discharge in bankrup[cy. As I no[ed to you on the phone, Mathems did brina an action against their bankruptcy attorney in connection with their bankruptcy filing. In addition to reservations about the developer, I think the site is quite small for the ambitious project proposed. Substan�ial tra�c will be brouoht into the neighborhood. The budszt raises concerns about the project's viabiliry, suggestin� the project should be rejected for a special conditional use permit. Very tmly yours, C - � �,,�} Professional Limited Iiabilit� Partnership 4000 FIRST B?�\"B PLACE 601 SECO�D A1 SoL�'x A'IIA"\E-'+POLIS� NII_\'_\'ESOS2. 5540°-4331 XTTP�// Sl'�1 ti .BESTLI�V.CO�I (612) 339-7121 Fdti �632� 339-38W September 11, 1997 Timothy A. Sullivan �Q dpr:sloaa �+ 5 �-3yY PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE ZONING COMMITEE OF THE SAINT PAUL PLANNING COMMISSION TO property Owners �r��ithin 350 feet; / Representatives of Planning District 16 - �' t�> `��, �o n .',.. / � APPLICANT PURPOSE �. o a=�=: 9� � b Y � � �� 9 ' � MENDOTA HOMES �,_ " �,.: A special condition use permit to allow a 10 unit cluster development. *�i • p ,.� _ • y ,� fa y � a. ' 3. V 'c : _ ��s ";�- . I .n ./ ' ''t_. .... ". . '"�e' -� �:-^h ».rq.,,..-". .. � ... -,. �~ ..F°-� � .�;a , `,_" ..�:.,r'�° ; ... . •' ' _ i .r:.,.�':; .i.: ,.;:.�-M-- $` 5 ,.a.d�:��=::.:i '... _ '` . : > �s..,.-;=.. , . ." - - �._. . �� 'r J ., J _ - ' - yJ'� .%4«�...r� r' � � 4 t^�a ��`..'w�� `� P r ...•� » ... ..., . ...�::yw. ..- ' . x.��,. ...... � ' ..-.� � ,. _..e...&k"�... ,.'r•-..:• ...'_`y-� ..:?z.� �,� , � . f s;....� ,,�;a.� ,. . Y "aK;w - 1s , s n � _,�. LOCATTON OF PROPERTY southwest quadrant of Lexington and St. Clair ,a , r Legal Description: see file .'-"�`4: -%' �: �%.��.<-' �±a p • � , ' 2';',z .�' �� 2,��`�� ,:n� �. . �. _ �.-� <, 4��: -,' - .""` i �� .'i �.�t.'�:.,�,>�,+.1 °�`��..- _ 0. TIME OF HEARING PL ACF OF HEARIl�'G HOW TO PARTICIPATE A1�TI' QUESTIONS Thursday, 10/30/97 at 3:30 p.m. Cit}' Council Chambers, 3rd Floor City� Hall-Cour House 15 West Kelloge Blvd, Saint Paul, ivIIv' S5102 1. You ma�� attend hzarino and testif� . 2. You mav send a letter before the hearina to the Zonine Committee. �: �Vest Fourth St, 1100 City Halt Annex Saint Pau1, M1v » 102. 3. Participation is not required. This is your notice of public hearins. Call Beth Baztz of the South«•est tzam at 266-6�80 or your District C ounc,: Representati��e at 222-1222 �sith the follou information: Zonin� File Number 97-207 Zoning File Iv'ame MENDOTA HONIES Mailing Date i0/17 47 �7 9$ 3 95f David & Helene I,evy Schultz 1120 Saint Clau Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota 5�10� 292-1096 October 20, 1997 Zoning Committee c/o Beth Bartz 25 West Fourth Street 1100 City Hall Annex Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear Zoning Committee Members: Re: Mendota Homes/ file number 97-207 ��`��'=��: ��_,� `�7'�?_ i 3 'r.s5 � __..,.._� r. ..._. _. ....�..,. __ ...��_ -_ ----� We are properiy owners abutting on tbe proposed developed for a ten unit cluster development at the southwest quadrant of Lexington and Saint Clair. We oppose the granting of a special condition use permit to permit this development and we urge members of your committee and the entire Planning Commission to oppose the special use permit. There are several reasons why we oppose the granting of the special use permit. The Mendota Homes project poses a traffic safety problem for the neighboThood. On the one hand, the development will create an egress on to Lexington Avenue next to the bridge crossing Ayd Mill parkway and the railroad tracks. This new eeress will force additional cars and traffic on to a road that MNDOT has alreadv described - as one of the busiest roads in Saint Paul. (see attached Highland Villager article) Already, the traffic con�estion on Lexington makes it difficult to enter this street and the Mendota Homes development would only exacerbate the problem. In addition, unlike other residential streets in the neiahborhood that have altemative egresses besides entering on to Lexington, the Mendota Homes development w�ill not. An eQress at this ]ocation will pose riro additional traffic safetv�roblems. First, the egress �vill come at the base of a slope of an incline that makes it difficult to see oncouung traffic. This slope thus creates a visual hazard that w�il make tums across tbe Vaf6c very difficult. Second, an e�ress here will create a hazard for people wishing to make left tums across the traffic. There is no question that such tums «zli cause traffic backups. additional con�esrion, ' and accidents. In addirion to tbe traffic problems Mendota Homes wil] cause by the creation of a new earess on to Lexinaton, the project also calls for the use of an exisring and small alley off Da�id & Helene L,evy SchulWMendoW Homzs �2 � ----------- i ' �i t'�i i � `:; . � - - r� >. .,., ._ �_. w /_ i of Saint Clair as egress for several of the units. This additional demand on the alley is also a traf6c safety problem for several reasons. First, the alley is very narrow (ZO feet across) and seivice vehicles and passenger cars already have difficulty driving down it Moreover, there is no possibility of widening tbe alley. Second. the allev already enters on to a verv busy intersection where there are many traffic accidents. Those of us �vho already use the alley for our homes have difficulty entering and leaving the alley because of the Saint Clair traffia Third, tlie traffic demand on this alley_is alread�reat and the proposed Mendota Homes development would si�nificantiv increase the number of cars in an allev alreadV overcrowded. Fourth, unlike other alleys that laave two egresses, the Saint Clair alley only has one. This means sib ificant stress on an existing al]ey a3ready overused, placing the additional traffic on to a very busy street. Hence, adding more traffic makes no sense. The Mendota Homes pro,ject should be denied a special condition use permit because similar projects for this property have been turned down in the past. Several times in tl�e past requests for development at this location have been made and the City l�as consistenUy turned tl�e project down citing dwelling density, congestion, and traffic safety issues on Saint Clair. Those decisions were made when the traffic congestion on the street was much less than it is today. The Mendota Homes project will create �re safety problems. Because of the narrowness of the Saint Clair alley and the traffic conQestion on Saint Clair and Lexington. it wil] be verv difficult for public safetv vehicles. e.g., fire, police and ambulance services, to enter the Mendota Homes develo np �ent• While the developer contends that his proposed L,e�ngton egress will be accommodate public safety vehicles, we do not believe that is the case. Especially in situations during rush hours, or when residents have guests over, the additional cars parked in the area will make entrance by service vehicles problematic. The Mendota Homes project is inconsistent with the overall integrity of the neighbor.hood. An important consideration in granting a special use permit is that the project fit in with the overall intearitv of the neighborhood. On several fronts, this development does not. First. it creates a type of unit— cluster development—that is out of character witb tl�e rest of the homes in the neiohborhood. The rest of the houses are single famih� detached units. Second, the architectural stvle of the proposed units is inconsistent �oith the houses in the neishborhood. Third, a cul-de-sac development like Ylendota Homes is inconsistent «ith the type of development �ce have or want in this neiQhborhood. Fourth, the project increases unit densit�� beyond what is compatible ��ith the current neiQhborhood. The Mendota Homes project is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan for the neighborhood. The comprehensive plan for this area of Saint Paul does not call for this t�rpe of development or increase in the unit densiri�. Since zonin? laws. ��ariances, and permits must be consistent �iith the overall comprehensive plan. the cluster development specia] unit permit shou]d be aiewed as a form of spot zonina that is contran� to citv law and the overall development plans for the nei�bborhood. UaviS 8 Heizne Lew Scnul[z"htend�[a Hon��s 73 � qB - 3gy j . , . �.,. r . :. � . ;, , — --------- --------_._ _--- `- _��'�'L��'�:._, v ..:.:..-; ` 1 ?-�� _—_______----- The Mendota Homes request for a special condition use permit to buiid cluster ` units shouid be rejected for the same reasons a similar project on Juliet and I.exington was TejeCted. Law, as well as fairness dictates that equals should be treated the same. Here, the Mendota Homes project is very similar to a special condition use permit for cluster development that you and the City Council rejected recently on Juliet. There, tl�e basis of rejection was traffic safety, emergency vehicle access, a lack of harmony bet�veen the proposed project and the neighborhood, and lack of support by neighbors. (see attached Highland Villager article) T7ie same conditions are present here except to the e�tent that the Mendota Homes project has even less direct access to a main street than did the 7uliet project. Hence, fairness and the ]aw dictate that you reject the special condition use permit. The Mendota Homes request for a spe�ial condition use permit should be denied because none of the neighbors abutting on the project support it. Lacking community support from those who must live near the project, we urge you to oppose the granting of a special condition use perrnit for Mendota Homes. 'I'hank you for considering our letter and viewpoint. Sincerely, �L�r�. �� Helene Levy Schultz - � David Schultz David & Helene Lery Schultz'htendota Homes � ` ��<. : ;; - : -, e V�� G�, '� S �`.� 98- 39 `f u :. -� q7• ZpZ N�nDOZ foreseQS traf�ic car�ges�ia� City Counci) rejects request for Mac-Grove townhomes �1 proposed Macalester-Groveland hous- ing development was dealt another setback on September 2�4 whzn the St. Paut City Council rejected a request by Highland Park dzveloper John Kratz to vacatz a section of Paiace �venue. i:*a:z :can[s to construct a two-building, eisht-uni_ townnome complex on about =9.000 sauazz fzzt ot ��acant land that he ol� ns zast o* Lzx�r.g*.or. Parkwav bem�een Palace and Juiiet a: enues. Hz ��as hoFinQ to a C{� L^.2 'i:iQ2`: E:O: ZC S2CI:OR OS .nZ�dC2 Sd'2.^.112 ?O u.2 rz>: oEni> r:oper,;�.�chxh nz purnaszefrom ,ie \tiar.z�o.a Dzpz:tment ot T: ar.spo:.a- t;c:n-:eczz*sa°^.. ---�- --�=_:_ _� L�� s: Ju: z thz �ir: Cour,cil re;eaed nra:z's reaues: ier a s�eci�I coaditior, usz ee: :ii*. to build a"c:uster dzvz(ovmer.t;' a construc:ion CQRtIEII:niiOR L:ldi d:iZ`I1DC5 LO C7252R'B 2S i[17L`CP Of i'2 SUL:CL' :QI:1� 0�12.1 S�dC2 eS POS- j siSle.The�lacalzste:-G:oazlzn�Com:acnirv � Cuun:il i:ad rzcommznded that t:.z oermi: ' .�?2C2R32CCL'2COIF251Z20iLI12iOWP ; IZ12C10Z1 :J SI1ILOl:P,C:R° 7253�2!1C:5. `t:a�? said the council should not approve the street vacation until Kratz and his neighbors can agree on a development plan for the prooerr.�� witho�� Ayd Mi�l Road conne��ion byJane;�IcClure � tzattheanatysisdidro:zndicateLSa;,. . ,e:szc:ior.sx�ouldzxpe:iencesiga:ficzr.,,,- � Proposedcor:ectionsben+•eenAqdi�tilL_f.cpreolems."Ionl�seesieintzrseccicn>o•, Road and I-91 wiL be o.zser:ted to the Ayd c:-aci.y;'said �iacaiescer-Grove!aac :e��_ �Mi11 Road Task Force aU:00 p.n. �Ionda•r, � se�tatr:° Kac� \.fcGough."bVhv 2re •.re :oe's- Augus:l3, at thz �izrriam Pzr1: Community i:g at milIions aad millions ef dolia: s:e, c Centz:, 2000 SC 3nthor.y A•:e. Thz task force, >iiil Road iP.+�e can hzr.d'tz the t:a�:ic �.: i;.i "e which is composed of rzpresentatives fron 5::2°G`n'e 42 oOCY�� - local commenirr councils,businzss associa- �I:.l Klassen oFthz SL Paul Puoiic �.�or.:; 'tionsandocherne:ghboihood�rouos,hopes Dzpa:tment respondzd tha[ probi�c:> al- to make a recomnendation'on thz future of readv esistir.g at somz intersections cs ;no; thero2dway:n19S3. - rzzdilcberecufiedwithoutdiveCin�::�;c-c Connzctino d.d �[ilf Road's south end is A�'d �Iill Road. No solu;ion has be�a _ou�c simolvamarerofremocingL`�ebarriersnear ferthecapacityproblemsloomin�;;3a::_ JefTerson Avenue and I-3�E. Connzctin� the c'eloh and I-35E or at Selby and Sr.e:;i ,�, j:2 Ayd �.Iill Road's north end to I-94 is another s:�d. matter.Sevzralconnections, Hzreare44ekeyfindin�sfrointhzz::zivsis: and interchange layouts are being studizd, • Snzlling Avenue is expected to >ze .h� and a?I involve 4'�e removal of residential and la:gesc increase in trafric bythe ye;: 30?0. comme:cial propzrties. Strong opposition to Pza: ai,ernoon rush hour traftic ve•._mz i> anyconnectiononthenorthendhasblockzd 'c�*readvat2,375vehidesanhoura*._4-�:ir.� the comple!ion o; Ayd �titl Road since thz - aac Shz:burnz;3,600 at Snzlline and :=_::har; 195Cs. ' � � a: d 2,100 at Snellin� and Lincoi. . i�os: Or.e of the ootions still bzeng e;;zd forAyd r.c.mbers are expectzd to intrease o�: z_ e::: :? Mill is [o do nothing. fioweve:, city and statz perceat-to 2,750, 4, I CO ar.d 2,72=, rzsoec- officizls say iailcrz to connec; the roadtivay to tiszly—if Ayd Mill is r.ot connzet:? :o ta: [he ir.rerstate svstzm i4'i11 result in inc*eased" ?e��vavs4s�e� _��,_____� _._ traficonalreadycon�estzdareastre�s. • T:aftic on Lexing[on Parkecav, e_::�c� Treresultsofat.afficanai/sisofnei�hbor- o-eoithearea'sbusiests.reetsdu*i-=:us� in� st*eets werz reviewed by thz Ayd �fill •'r.eur, is predicted [o increase from _._=J :e RoadTas�ForceonJuly2l:The�tinnesota 2,:�Ovehidesanhourat Deoutme�f of Trznspor.ation (�InDOT) be:ne, from 2,L25 to 2,500 ac Lzxi, �-ca a:c przpa:ed t�5e trz ti.0 ioL2Ca5t5 EOCL'1.°�'ea*?020 ±a doien, frem 2,»0 [0 2,350 at Le:::-g:r.. ' fors::�e:si.^,thza:�abouaczdbvSh.zrburne z.cCar:oll,Fom1,�C0:e1,5��a::z._ce_cc A V2^:X, V :c_oria Stre°t, Raadoi�h Av°au.., r� ii,coln. =_r.d F:o^ SCC to 9CG z: =e��-a- and�_:in�:en..�. �c �te�z�>ei.�.., ,�� ., � , - « �Ce!eoi:e_at i�:=_r.z:;oonc_ -:c:aces 'r:.-....�� °'s3 �e�:'s::-c.r=---_ be:acse�ha,;:c�z:_:r.es.c�a':re:oclzr.:sco- �..;_c'�zfei:z:RarceL^ .w::zr� _.r--= cu., saic' S:_. _ " c: \I.^.J.�.O.�. r ' 7" .=i."._ :O:_-;2 S 8 ?2C,.... ._ ' ] "_c lec::__-:_�:..;cce� -c:c:,:•.�zex�z=--:co :r......;: ��, �:_-icesa..-._r.=r..=._r b eL._:nC�:..�_c_. .r_:-___�=._zn, __- . _:,.-_.-. :.-_- ii �•:e �[i:i Bozc:er..�.::s as:_ is.5 :�.. --- :_ --_. =.nco.... fr,._....` ._ - . --- �':_.._.iP.:2'S2C;:CLS.-.....A'CP.CC{CJLI_' _.:_:.,_.::Z.--..-J�O=J dia.Se:o�: r.cG:_�c�..w�[c_c .._._..c_ ..._..-...rse_:iec- -= -- —.- I'i'v':L� =LJ'.'_� "'"":'l:r,.:_C.�:E:12II �C""._. 3S:'�5:-'� ..:_._ '._ EC{, v�.:iSQG R3CCC:^ �....._� i...�CSE�- C LCe.- C�i:: �C2G3LC 1:C3::C?::'-C"' "_ i10.^.5:'_Si�� __: C'n°S:C: t'_"Z�cpttiCCCC'_ . _. .., . ��.� .�...C:2> 2.... _:..,C_G- -'.- Oi"°"_372C:C , _�-' .:�_^9�t�iCa,.]�;�c::::'-".._n'G' $r.-2C35(::OLC_^2:^J::Stv2.:5i1:7::i:_ _"'..:-. " ` � � ii� 7� � y �-3S�f 1. SUNRAY-BATTT,ECREEK•HIGHWOOD 2. fIAZEL PARK HADEN-PROSPERITY HILLCREST 3. WEST SIDE 4. DAYTON'S BLLJFF 5. PAYNE-PHAI.EN 6. NORTH END 7. THOMAS-DALE 8. SUMMIT-iJNIVERSPTI' 9. WEST SEVENT�I 10. COMO 11. HAMLINE-MTDWAY 12. ST. ANT'HONY PARK 13. MERRIAM PARK-LEXINGTON HAMLINE-SNELLING HAMLINE 14. MACALESTEJ2 GROVELAND 15 16. SUMMIT 17. OWN ZONiNG FILF �?� � 76 CTTIZEN PARTICIPATION PLANNING DISTRICTS 9 � 3q�! � . d . . �...:__� . . S I �� r � •.., . .� � , t'' . � , . � Z �_. :.:,;.^� fn t , . :_;� i � � i ::. .. � :' : `.%t:.., � , _��'.`�'. `, \ I` \ 4' � ��.'`" .!,\ } ) � � 0 ., � �— , :� �^%�E1�J �� . �t� � �; � • � � � hfs � � i �Y -� � t.. ,> • • w • � � � �� !�. ��,+�^�� ' v � './ ;. � 3 �c.� + z^";��(l �A� _� ^ :� ' �� '+ ' ,_;) • j �, j, ' �?� �� r � �� , � �:�3 � � ':� � � �'+� .� � � � � � ,� �, '�' � .;� ^ 3 � i � '�P �'.� `.� t AVE. _ m �1� � �� • • •••�••••••• • t�� • � . � � L� G � 0 � •� I ��!�� • � � l- . . �� I� � �C'� . e•.e. . � � r � � � � �, � ; � , l '<. -�� ' -'1 � �, � Y • • �.�ra�.�...�. �� •� � � • • •�� - � ;� fl • • • � � t �� :� �ao��Q�� _ -.... 0�� eeeed��. ... 0 r ; \ �` i� _ _ Q � v � V V �• �"�'�"�=�� ' � '""' "-- APPLICANT +�E��1'• �� LEGEND PURPOSE �W � � zoning district boundary FILE # �� ( DATE�_��_ � subject property n� orthi PLNG. DIST.� _ MAP # Y o one family •♦� commercial � � two family � � � industrial SCALE 1" = 400' � v __,. s ...,_ �-� Q multiple family V vacant � .,.�v.�... , �� . . . . . . . � .� �� • c ' �g �.�. � �� :1� �� i •�'�Jaa�'-13-98 10:22A Sewer Utility 298 5621 P.Ol y8 3�� i �� Et�� rA`L JR'� � �'�� The Lexington St. Clair Neighborhood �ro: FAX: �FROM Ella Thaver 266-8574 Pat Byme VOICE: 266-617i OF: VO(CE: Address DATE: Councilmember Benanav's Of 266-8643 243 S. Lexington Parkway Tuesdav, Januarv 13. 1998 TOTAL NUMBER t?F SHEETS (including this one): �a REMARKS Conceminp "lexinqton Commons proposal (�Lexinpton and St. Clair' � .. . .- -�- , - . -. ,. �_ .�-� - .� . . .��- . u .��. - Also. I was sur�ised to hear that anv residents su000rted the oroaosed develooement But then 1 look�d u� their addresses f 1166 and f 172 St. Clair) and nofed thev are not in our neiqhborhood but across the freeway from the or000sed developemerrt T hank vou for distnbutina this �AX SENT BY: ob TIME: io:25 AM DATE: i�i3/ss Jar.i13-98 10:23A Sewer Utility 298 5621 � To the Councilmembers of the City Council of St. Paui, Good Afternoon . P_02 9�-��y I'm here to read a letter signed by ail af my neighbors. I'd like to note that aimost all of these neighbors have shown up for at least one and sometimes all of the five public meetings already scheduled to discuss this issue. Most have shown up for at least one of the five private meetings held in various neighbor's homes or rented community center meeting rooms. It is a very concerned group of neighbors and a very united group of neighbors. It consists of 100% of the people living next to the site and includes neighbors on the other side of Lexington Parkway We think there were a number of errors and omissions in the process performed by both Staff and Planning Commission Members. In the tollowing list of comments however you will note that we address both those errors and omissions and repeat a number of comments we have made in the last five public meetings held discussing this issue. • ProperEy Acquisition The property consists of two loes. One on Lexington Parkway and one landlocked � lot behind everyone's houses. It was acquired by Roger Vik as surplus county property for hundreds of dollars. It was deemed valueless or near so then because of it's unsuitability for development. We are not saying you can't develop properey because it was deemed valueless at some point in its history. We just want to be clear that there is no mayor investment or livelihood that we are threatening with denial of this development. This is not a situation of depriving a property owner of value of their property. It has accurately been described as valueless in past, peopie have moved into the neighborhood aware that it was valueless, it was acquired under that status, and continues to exist under that status unless you decide to award it a variance thru this special use permit. � • Minimum Requirements It is our understanding that the owner needs to demonstrate an inability to deveiop the property under the existing zoning before issuing a speciai use permit. The owner has not done this. 'Fhere has never been a discussion of developing the site as zoned_ The site is zoned single family residential, and the owner has not tried to put singie family residential there. This can happen with no changes, to the property fronting Lexington Parkway now, and can happen, with some changes, to the second, bigger lot. We would like to explore this 1 of i 3 Jan=13-98 10:23A Sewer Utility � � � concept later. 298 5621 P.03 9$-34�{ Ostensibly one of the other reasons for having a special use permit for a cluster development is to preserve and increase green space, to cluster the structures in such a manner as to increase green space within the City. As you view the proposal, note this does not happen. • Aliey Use The alley use has been a major item for most of residents and others. It is two, not one, dead end alleys that furthermore combine into one outlet. Everyone involved has already reached a minimum proposal to not allow major increased traffic on the alley. AlI the residents agree this would be insanity to allow. Accidents have happened already due to combination of density of existing traffic and proximity of the alley (125'} to an intersection that has 24,000 ADT. Any increased use of the aliey would require a paved surface 16' wide_ This would require removal of the trees in the ailey and supporting of existing structures. • Existing Property Values Initially some of the neighbors thought property values would suffer. it was thought that if you put new housing woxth $150,000 to $200,000 right next to an existing oId house worth $60,000 that the contrast between the two would actually devalue the existing house. However at one of our private meetings we invited a number of real estate professionats to speak to us. Two of them inform us this would not be the case. However both were very emphatic that amenities to the neighborhood are indeed lost, and that their statements on property value were very much contingent on the proposal being completed and completed correctly. However even with this assurance sume are still fearful. This concern was listed in this letter for this reason. And to lead into the next matter. One agent made this disclaimer only when made awaxe of who the developer is. I'd like to return to this issue a bit later. • Viability of the Proposal There are strong doubts as to viability of this project. 1) The developer has already gone thru bankruptcy procedures in past 2of13 Jan-13-98 10:24A Sewer Utility i � 298 5621 P_04 98 2) The developer has indicated he will ignore the wamings issued by the railraad company as to the vibrations generated by the tracks at the bottom of the hill from the development. The owner of the furthest house away on this block has indicated that you feel the trains far in advance of hearing them. There are a minimum of two schedule trains everyday right now plus commercial routings. developments. 3) There has been indications of the possibility of contaminated soils or at the very least an abandoned dump site. However after months of questioning this, no soil barings have been performed. Instead, slab on grade construction has been proposed. 4)The site proposal calls for removal of the hundreds of trees on site, leaving a barren exposure to both the railroad and the freeway. And the future of that particular freeway is uncertain; wiil it be turned into renovated four lane expressway or into a linear park? 5) Because of the limited investment in the property acquisition there are fears that if the development does not produce, the developer will walk away leaving a mess behind. With the resulting mess, the City will then allow even more deviation or variances, because there will be a need to restore the site inio something usable. In 1978 Roger Vik pr�posed apartment buildings with underground garages. Will this proposal come back? • Compatibility The requirements include, and the staff report states "The design will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood". The comment is made that overall the proposed design is compatible with surrounding neighborhood which consists of a mixture of 1, 1.5 and 2 story stnzctures with gabled and hipped roofs. We think there is a mistake here. The anly really compatib2e item will be that they house people. You go from a 64' or 9Q+' by 25' structures with attached garages of 800 sq feet for a total of 24Q0 to 3600 square feet structures to the existing structures ranging from 600 square feet to 900 square feet. You go Erom a mixEure over SQ years of construction of stucco, clapboard, metal sliding, wood to one of uniform vinyl siding. � 3of13 Jan=13-98 10:24A Sewer Utility 298 5621 P_O5 ��-�y � The obvious incompatibility is you go from single family housing to multiple family housing. You go from fenced or treed lots fronting a pubiic street with yards and boulevards to a cul-de-sac with almost no yard space and most of the trees removed. You go from a developed St. Paul Community with its own unique characterizations to a Woodbury house farm. Another obvious incompatibility is that you go from homes valued at $25,000 to $100,00 and now add homes valued at $140,000 to �200,000 Again the requirement is far granting a special use permit that compatibility exists. Stating that compatibility exists solely because there are 1 and 2 story structures with gabled and hipped roofs is an extreme, very liberal, interpretation of the word compatible. Almost to the point of making that requirement a non existent one. We believe of the envelope of possible interpretations of the word `compatible' is being stretched, and stretched in the wrong direction. • Safety � r� � We feel staff and P1aruling Commission inadequately addressed the issue of safety, either thru a mistaken assessment or no assessment at all. Having the ptoposal be safe is another requirement in granting variances thru a special use permit. Traffic We have had two professionals in municipal traffic and municipal engineering testify that the proposed outlet to Lexington Parkway is unsafe. Their comments are on public record. There has been no conflicEing testimony from City Staff, engineering or otherwise. The best response we have is that it meets standards as to distance from a signalized intersection, that it meets line of sight requirements, and that it is as safe as a driveway on Maryland Avenue. The last statement, that it is as safe as a driveway on Maryland Avenue, carne from staff in response to a direct question by a member of the planning commission. Later at another public meeting the same planning commission member, when quizzed on how informative Public Works was, stated his disappointment in them. While he did not elaborate as to why, it is our opinion he was disappointed because staff would not say directly 'it is safe'. We, the neighbors, are equally disappointed because staff would not say directly 'it is unsafe'. We'd like to come back to this issue later. Again, there has been comments from two professionals on municipal engineering and municipal traffic that it is unsafe in their professional opinions. One was very descriptive as to why, citing speed at the bottom of two hills, 4 of 13 .Jan�13-98 10:25A Sewer Utility 298 5621 P_06 98-3��{ . distracting characteristics, camouflage appearances, ADT, distance of alleys from intersections, etc. When a copy of that was submitted to the Public Works staff and they were questioned as to whether they would say he was wrong, they could or would not do so. There was an attempt to attenuate one of these safery hazards by requiring a no le£t turn during rush hour traffic sign as you leave the development. This inadequately address the issue as speed is still the greatest on the bottom of the two hills Iocated right at the point. Also the entrance and exit are designed to look like a driveway, not a street that requires more attention. And, there was no corresponding effort to regulate left turns into the site from north bound Lexington Parkway, again causing an unexpected road blockage for norEh bound traffic and crossing over south bound traffic. The existence of other, possibly more unsafe situations, does not create a reason to condone this type of planning now. Those other situations evolved over decades and correcting them may not be practical now. Storm Water Mana� ment There is a requirement that calls for the inclusion of a detention pond on the proposed developed site. This is due to storm water management requirements � that are part of city ordinances. In most cases you will find this requirement being applied or incorporated into a parking lot or on the site of induscrial or business expansions. Staff has found these ponds to be intrinsically unsafe in residential areas or in park areas due to the presence of children. However it is the policy to let the developer seek a variance rather then to selectively urge a variance based upon this particular safety issue. Parking On Lexington If a proposal takes away guest parking for existing residents on Lexington Parkway, on any type of property, whether it be the existing alley or the existing private property, with the end resuit be3ng that guest of residents on Lexington end up parking on Lexington, you will almost for sure be causing a tatality. Residents have done studies, parking cars on Lexington during broad daylight and observing the number of near accidents that occur. The near accidents occurred almost every signal light cycle. Night time experiments could not be __ conducted_ This issue has not been addressed at all by staff because it is a- --- seconctary effect of the proposal. But without this proposal it would not happen at all. � 5of13 Jan-13-98 10:25A Sewer Utility � • Not In My Neighborhood! 298 5621 P_07 �J8-3� This is not a'not in my neighborhood you don't' issue. Yes, we like the open space. Yes, when we moved into this neighborhood we were assured this land locked lot could not be developed and that it had no value. And yes as we look out at the 24,000 ADT in the front of our houses we would prefer to have the back remain palatable. It's kind of a`no brainer' that we do not want this here. But this isn't a halt way house moving in, or a]ibrary, and there are no social movements being hindered here. Also this is not depriving the awner the right to access the lots on Lexington Parkway or development of his property as single family housing. This does seek to deny development of a land locked lot that appropriately has had no value or development over the decades. We offer alternatives later. We are offering real acceptable reasons for denying this proposal and they are usable by you the decision makers. • Metropolitan Council Policy On Urban Development We are all aware of the Metropolitan Council Policy on Urban Development where the stopping of urban sprawl out further and further is to be discouraged � and deveiopment within existing highly dense sites is to beencourage. There are plenty of sites within the City of Saint Paul that can be developed for residential use. You have the old Amhoist site between Robert and Wabasha, you have river front sites in conjunction with Shepard Road Development, ,you have the Phalen Corridor with it's accompanyuig light industrial. These alone offer the opportunities for 1000's of residential units. And if you want to continue coping with this particular policy and think it worth an investment by the community at large, you can mave on to cleaning up contaminated sites suitable for light industrial and moving the pieces around a little bet#er, again opening up sites for thousands of residential units. They will be coordinated with the community and there will be little or no problems with compaYibility, safety, access, property values. These sites will be planned sites. They exist now. Wilder Homes just across the Freeway is a good example. � The Summit Hill Zoning Committee strongly endorse the Met Councit Policy. 'They have also turned down on three different public meeting a number of variations of deveioping this site including one not significantly different then what you are iooking at now. As an aside the executive director also appeared at an earlier public hearing to recommend denial. 6 of S 3 Jan�13-98 10:26A Sewer Utility 298 5621 � The process of developing a coordinated or planned community to help with this policy is a much better process then the one being suggested for this neighborhood. We don't view filling in every little empty space as the right way of complying with the Met Council. Furthermore, the process we have been subjected to appears to be somewhat willy nilly. The developer has offered many variations of basically the same problem proposal but changing it enough at the last minute to make it a difficult moving target. For the last change, offered 5 minutes before the zoning committee meeting, no prepared comments from the residents were possible. Even complete staff apgroval had to be estimated by the staff present at the meeting. This did not appear to be the way to decide a community's future. • Tough Questions, Tough Answers � � We have some real serious concerns about this process. There doesn't seem to be a lack o€ tough questions but there does seen to be a lack of tough answers. Take the issue of the Met Council Policy. No where in staff's answers or approach is there a discussion or a recommendation as to whether or not the City's professional staff feels this is a good example of complying or meeting expectations set by that policy. However they are willing to state off the record they do not think so, and in fact think this is a bad example of compiying with that policy. But there is no departmental procedure for getting that opinion to you. There is no where an avenue for expressing that opinion to you. There is a vacuum from the City on what appears to be the majar impetus for granting approval. And going back to the safety issue. Why can't a citizen get an answez to the question 'is this a good idea? Is this safe?' Do we get the response that safety is a relative word because we have an official stance of neutrality and we can't risk having a Iawyer sue us because our professionai opinion may make it hard for them to engage in a business? Staff however is sometimes limited in how they can present an issue. Look at the storm water management requirements. Those are mandated by ordinance_ However also note that variances exist for them. But it is the responsibility of the developer to request that variance. There was a situation where Division of Parks was going to put a pond next to the children's playground. Staff couldn't make the decision to grant a variance. They had to call Parks staff and ask Park staff to ask them for a variance which was then granted. If staff starts issuing them without being requested they run into problems with setting precedence, etc. and that isn't easy to explain or deal with. Is staEf really supposed to answer that a vinyl sided 24Q0 square foot townhouse 7 of 13 P.08 !�+ �� 7� . Jan•-13-98 10:26A Sewer Utility 298 5621 P.09 98 •.�5� � with attached garages on a cul-de-sac surrounded by bituminous surfacing and no trees worth $200,000 is compatible with an 85 year old neighborhood of siucco, and wood housing with 600 to 900 square feet foot prints, treed and shrubbed yards off set from public streets and Blvd? The easy answer appears to be yes. Is staff to be blamed for this lack of hard answers? We don't think so. It is the policy makers in the departments that have gradually edged toward this direction. We are aware that there is a pluralistic society of tax payers and citizens out there and that they all have their concerns and needs. But we also feel tough answers to tough questions is a route that leads to better conditions. And we with our 400 yearsof invesYment in this community, are members of that society aiso. We have indicated our differences with staff statements; and where and why we think errors or omissions were made. One suggestion we would like to have you entertain is to have Mr. Shetka, traffic engineer, come and make a definitive statement on whether or not he thinks this is a good idea and whether ar not he thinks it is safe; to have Mr. Puchreiter come over and make a definite statement that ponding sites in residentiai neighborhoods are needed and safe; to have Ms. Wheelock make the statement that Ehis is a good example of complying with Met Council Policy. � As an aside, this issue of complying with Met Council Policy is the only one the residents have heard thru� all the various puhlic hearings cited by advocates of this proposal, both at the District Council and at the Planning Commission. If you do approve this proposal piease tell the residents that you have determined it to be safe for traffic, parking, children; have indeed determined that it is compatible with their neighborhood; have determined that there is no possibility of developing these sites as zoned; and have determined that the cluster development does preserve and/or increase green space. • Community Involvement The community has met with the Summit Hill District Council three times on this issue, each time to address a variation of the proposal, and as noted earlier, sometimes multiple variations that were not viewed ahead of time. In each case the neighborhood was united in it's opposition to the proposals. In each case the Summit Hill District Council agreed with the community, and even citing the developers inability to address the issues presented to him earlier. • 8of13 Jan=13-98 10=27A Sewer Utility 298 5621 P.10 9� 39y � Along with a lack of response at the formal meetings, the developer made no sincere effort to communicate with the neighborhood and negotiate with them. The first we heard about his willingness to do so was in front of the zoning committee where, while stating he had been willing all along to discuss and negotiate, he no longer was willing to do so. � • However after members of the zoning commission stated they wouid view favorably the attempt at communication, neighborhood members did gather, did discuss alternatives amongst themselves, and did set up a meeting with the developer. An agreement was reached with those who attended on some issues, mainly the alIey access, but nowhere near all issues. Before the neighborhood coordinator could get all the responses from the rest of the neighborhood, the developer had called back and said there were problems. It was with this information we attended the zoning committee's second meeting. When the issue went to the full Planning Commission, Mr. Field, Chairperson of the Zoning Committee appeared to inaccurately portrayed the proposa] as having neighborhood support. He repeated this position a number of times to the fulI commission. The only part of the proposal that had neighborhood support was the issue of not using the alley outletting to St. Clair Avenue by future owners or guests ot future owners of the town homes. Public record from the second of the two dates for the public hearing in front of the zoning committee show that the Matherns never came to an agreement on any other issue, that they found problem with the proposed agreement before it could be presented to the remaining neighbor. The final result of all this is that we are united yet in our opposition to all of the proposals we have seen presented so far. The existing residents of this area with a total of 400 years ot time invested in their neighborhood are requesting that you, the City Council, pay attention to these findings and find Ehem cause for denying what many in the area feel will lead to the degradation if not destruetion of our neighborhood. • EarYier Comments on Viability and Fears Earlier we mentioned fears about the viability and about property values and the real estate agents comments that the project needs to be done right. As part of the information submitted during this whole process there was some information submitted bya Timothy Sullivan, an attorney. Upon review of that information it appears that John and Sandra Mathern, referred to in the documents as 'The Matherns' were found to be in debt to United Mortgage Corporations for two lots they purchased and that the debt was a Iittle over half a million. This occurred in October of 1989. Not so bad and it happens to a lot of 9 of 13 Jan=13-98 10:27A Sewer Utility 298 5621 P.11 98 �'f � people. However in 1992 there was a claim that the Matherns had hindered or delayed their creditors, failed to produce adequate financial records, and knowingly made false oaths. It appears that it was further found that the courts held that substantial evidence to support an inference of fraudulent intent bythe Mathems. An appeal court found the Matherns failed to set forth affirmative admissible evidence to rebut the considerable circumstantial evidence of fraudulent intent and ruled against them. We are aware this is a sensitive issue. We are also aware that the City Attorney chose to not have the fulf material released in a package to planning commission members, deeming it not relevant or not to be considered in their decision making capacity. Instead just the cover letter from the presenting attorney was included. Most of the neighbors do not have a problem with this decision by the City Attorney. As noted abave staff and now commission members are limited as to what they can say or do. . . However it is a significant contributor to the reasons we tear this proposal. And because of this we feel it may be inappropriate to simply ignore it. In other communities when the professional capabilities of a developer are questioned and evidence is provided to support that questioning, provisions do exist for calming those questions. While we are not suggesting it as an alternative as we have other ideas, we are suggesting that if the proposal does get approved that the performance bond for complying with alt the provisions of the site plan review be expanded to require completion of the whatever the final proposal is within a 18 month time period, that all grading be completed in the 18 month time table, and that maintenance of the entire site be accomplished by either the developer or the owners. We would like the City to explore this or something similar. Again we are not offering this as an alternative, just something to be done in case our alternatives are rejected. • Alternatives We reatize we can't stop at just say no and that there is a need to offer alternatives or compromises. VVhy has there been so much problem with the existing proposal? Why the repetitive redoing and reshaping of it? Why have Planning Commission members noted for public record 'they wouId never buy it'? Why has it required so much effort and supposed creative thinking? Because in its current rendition and in alt past renditions it is simply a bad idea. It carries too much baggage. As noted in the first paragraph, there has not been a proposal to develop just as is now allowed - single family housing on an accessible street. Our first alternative is to do just fhaE on the lot on Lexington Parkway, just like everyone else in the neighborhood has. 10 of i 3 Jan=13-98 10:28A Sewer Utility � �_� I HELEN H CURRIER I 1 t 16 ST. C�AIR AVENUE I LOT 9, RUETH'S ADDITION I DAVID A& HELEN L SCHULTZ I t 120 ST. CLAIR AVENUE 1 LOT 10, RUETH'S ADDiTION I JOEL M& CHARLOTTE PATROS I 1126 ST. CLA1R AVENUE I LOT 11, RUETH'S ADQITION I ALICE L PETERSON I 113� ST. CLAIR AVENUE I LOT 12, RUETH'S ADDITION I MARGARET H MARKS I 1134 ST. CLAIR AVENUE i LOT i3, RUETH'S ADDITION I SUSAN E WAGNER 1 1138 ST. CLAIR AVENUE I LOT 14, RUETH'S ADDITION f CRAIG & BERYL P BOE I 1142 ST. Cl1aIR AVENUE -- I LOT 15, RUETH'S ADDITIOI�I _ I JAMES W& LISA R SWYERS I 1146 ST. CLAIR AVENUE 29S 5621 Our second alternative would be to have a Public Road built onto the site, not a driveway. And then to canstruct single family housing fronting that public road. While this does not satisfy all of the complaints it does deal with some. The approach so far as been too narrow and too focused on us versus them. Movement has gone on with too little input during the public hearing phase (for whatever reason) until now and too little response to the neighbor`s concerns and statements. Please slow down, please respond to all of the concerns, please make sure you have asked all the questions and received alt the answers. This is our petition to the City Council of St. Paui from the following residents: P.12 9� � 11 of 13 JanLL13-98 10:28A Sewer Utility • � � 298 5621 f LOT 16, RUETI-t'S ADDITIQIV I MII.KA P& TODD THORESEN I 1152 ST. CLAtR AYENUE I LOT 17, RUETH'S ADDITiON I SETH M ANDERSON I 1156 ST. CLAIR AVENUE I E 40 FT OF LOT 18, RUETH'S ADDITION i MICHAEL R WIGFIELD I 1160 ST. CLAIR AVENUE f WITH AND SUBJ TO ESMTS AND EX THE I E 40 FT LOT 18, RUETH'S ADDITION I PAT BYRNE & RACHEL BI.ANK I 243 S. I.EXIIVGTON PARKWAY I N 1 O FT OF LOT 2 AND ALL OF LOT i, I RUETH'S ADDITION I CHARLES W& KATHLEEN MARKS I 251 S. LEXINGTON PARKWAY { EX N 1 O FT, LOT 2, RUETH'S ADD{TION I KEIYH LANE CURTNER 1 259 S. LEXINGTON PARKWAY I LOT 3, RUETH'S ADDITION I ALBERTA L 81NKER I 263 S. LEXINGTON PARKWAY I EX S 7 FT, LOT 4, RUETH'S ADDITION I HEI.ENE G OSTROW I 269 S. LEXINGTON PARKWAY I S 7 FT OF LOT 4 AND ALL OF LOT 5, 1 RUETH'S ADDtTION I CHRlSTOPHER WALKER I 273 S. LEXINGTON PARKWAY I LOT 6, RUE7H'S ADDITION I ROBERT E& KATHLEEN A HENDRICKSON I 279 S. LEXINGTON PARKWAY I EX S 2 FT, LOT 7, RUETH'S ADD�TION 12 of 13 P.13 9� :�4 �Jan-13-98 10:29A Sewer Utility �� 298 5621 f BEVERLY Y DUNBAR I 283 S. LEXINGTON PARKWAY I S 2 FT OF LOT 7 AND ALL OF LOT 8, I RUETH'S ADDITION Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, The above signed residents. 13 of 13 P.14 98-3y4 �18 39� To the Councilmembers of the City Council of St. Paul, Good Aftemoon. My name is Pat Byrne and I reside at 243 S. Lexington Parkway. I'm here to read a letter signed by all of my neighbors. However as a courtesy, the letter was provide to you before hand and Its been indicated that it has been read by the Council Members. It is important to the signers of that letter that it is read or listened to as this is their first opportunity to speak to a public representative in this process. Anyway I'm going to summarize that letter instead of reading it. However I will read the summary. (I'm not sure if it is the reading or the length that bores people and puts them to sleep). I'd like to note it is a very concemed group of neighbors and a very united group of neighbors that share in this appeal. It consists of 100% of the people living next to the site and incfudes neighbors on the other side of Lexington Parkway. If possible I'd like to have those neighbors stand up, especially those who do not like to speak in public. We think there were a number of errors and omissions in the process pertormed by both Staff and Planning Commission Members. In the following list of comments however you will note that we address both those errors and omissions and repeat a number of comments we have made in the fast five public meetings held discussing this issue. I apologize to the signers if this seems briefer then it should, and I apologize to the Council if it seems longer then it should. ! Property Acquisition The site was acquired for very little money back in the 70's. It was deemed worthless then and has been deemed almost worthfess since then by both ihe owner and Ramsey County property taxing system. We are not depriving someone from their livelihood. I'd like to note at this time an error in the letter sent out. It was not acquired as surplus county property. ! Minimum Requirements There has never been a discussion of developing the site as a single family residential site and therefore not requiring anyone to go thru this process. Ostensibly one of the reasons for having a special use permit for a cluster development is to preserve and increase green space, to cluster the structures in such a manner as to increase green space within the City. As you view the proposal, note this does not happen. I'd note that one of the requirements is to minimize alterations of the natural features and topography. The plan proposes the removal of most if not a�l of the 9�- 35 �{ trees on this site. ! Alley Use The alley use has been a major item for most of residents and others. It is two, not one, dead end alleys that furthermore combine into one outlet Everyone involved has already reached a minimum proposal to not allow major increased traffic on the alley. All the residents agree this would not be good to ailow. Accidents have happened already due to cambination af density of existing traffic and proximity of the alley (125') to an intersection that has 24,000 ADT. Any increased use of the alley would require a paved surtace 16' wide. This wouid require removai of the trees in the alley and supporting of existing structures. ! Existing Property Values As noted those people right next to the proposed 150,000 units feel their 60,000 would not sell due to contrast. However two real estate agents, while acknowledging that amenities are reduced, property values should not be affected. However they noted this is only true if done right and if done completely as the plan indicates. However even with this assurance some are still fearful. This concern was listed in this letter for this reason. And to lead into the next matter. One agent made this disclaimer only when made aware of who the developer is. ! Viability of the Proposal There are strong doubts as to viabiiity of this project. 1) The developer has already gone thru bankruptcy procedures in past developments. 2) The developer has indicated he will ignore the warnings issued by the railroad company as to the vibrations generated by the tracks at the bottom of the hill from the development. 3) There has been indications of the possibility of contaminated soils or at the very least an abandoned dump site. 4)The site proposal calis for removal of the hundreds of trees on site, leaving a barren exposure to both the railroad and the freeway. And the future of that particular freeway is uncertain; will it be turned into renovated four lane expressway or into a linear park? 9 �-3g� 5) There are fears the developer wili walk if the units don't seil even though he has assured us they will sell like hotcakes. And then what will the City allow to happen on the site to salvage it ! Compatibility The requirements include, and the staff report states AThe design wili be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood@. We think there is a mistake here. And this is one of the major issues to everyone in the neighborhood. The only really compatible item will be that they house people. You go from a 90' by 25' structures with attached garage of 800 sq feet for a total 3600 square feet structures to the existing structures ranging from 600 square feet to 900 square feet. The attached garage is bigger then some of the houses You go from a mixture over 80 years of construction of stucco, clapboard, metaf sliding, wood to one of uniform vinyl siding. The obvious incompatibility is you go from single family housing to multiple family housing. You go from fenced or treed lots fronting a public street with yards and boulevards to a cul-de-sac with almost no yard space and most of the trees removed. You go from a developed St. Paul Community with its own unique characterizations to a Woodbury house farm. Another obvious incompatibility is that you go from homes valued at $25,000 to $100,00 and now add homes valued at $140,000 to $200,000 Again the requirement is for granting a special use permit that compatibility exists. Stating that compatibility exists solely because there are 1 and 2 story structures with gabled and hipped roofs is an extreme, very liberal, interpretation of the word compatible. Almost to the point of making that requirement a non existent one. We believe of the envelope ofi possibie interpretations of the word `compatible' is being stretched, and stretched in the wrong direction. ! Safety Another requirement is that `The use will not be detrimental to the existing character of the development in the immediate neighborhood or endanger public health, safety, and general welfare' We feel staff and Planning Commission inadequately addressed the issue of safety, either thru a mistaken assessment or no assessment at all. This is the second major issue with the neighborhood. 98-39� Traffic The pubVic record contains assessments by engineering professionals that the proposed outlet to Lexington Parkway is unsafe, and there has been no conflicting testimony from City Staff. In fact when asked directly if they could say the neighbor's assessment was incorrect we got a negative answer. The best response we have is that it meets standards as to distance from a signalized intersection, that it meets line of sight requirements, and that it is as safe as a driveway on Maryland Avenue. The last statement, that it is as safe as a driveway on Maryland Avenue, came from staff in response to a direct question by a member of the planning commission who fater expressed unhappiness with the response level, as we have though 1 suspect for different reasons. He was fooking for a clear statement that is was safe and we were looking for a clear statement that it was unsafe. As an aside to the letter I'd like to point out that surviving the review process is not a statement from City Staff that it is safe. It is a statement from staff that it met distance from signalized intersection standards and it met line of sight standards. That is all. There was an attempt to attenuate one of these safety hazards by requiring a no left turn during rush hour traffic sign as you leave the development. This at best addresses about 20°l0 ofi the traffic safety issue and was done with no consultation at sll with traSfic professionals. Storm Water Manaaement There is a requirement that calls for the inclusion of a detention pond on the proposed developed site. As a Water resource professionaf I have found this to be intrinsically unsafe in residential areas where chifdren are or in areas where their existence is a surprise. Parkina On Lexinqton One end result of the proposal, whether directly or indirectly, will be a definite increase in Parking on Lexington Parkway. Parking on Lexington will lead to many traffic accidents and I will easily state, traffic fatalities. There has been no comment or review or contribution to discussion on this item from anyone within the City. In the list of major accident areas throughout the city, Lexington Parkway already occupies 1t8 of that list. 9�-3s4 ! Not In My Neighborhood! This is not a`not in my neighborhood you don'Y issue. Yes, we like the open space. Yes, when we moved into this neighborhood we were assured this land focked lot couid not be developed and that it had no value. And yes as we look out at the 24,000 ADT in the front of our houses we would prefer to have the back remain patatabie. It's kind of a`no brainer' that we do not want this here. But this isn't a half way house moving in, or a library, and there are no social movements being hindered here. Also this is not depriving the owner the right to access the lots on Lexington Parkway or development of his property as single famity housing. This does seek to deny development of a land locked lot that appropriately has had no value or development over the decades. We ofEer alternatives later. As you review the permitted uses in the zoning law you will note that all non single family residential uses are all socially benefiting items fike churches, schools, libraries, transitional housing, battered women and children residences, hospices, etc. Even Cluster development was there to provide more green space. But as noted elsewhere that also required compatibility and safety. We are offering reaf acceptable reasons for denying this proposal and they are usable by you the decision makers. ! Metropolitan Council Policy On Urban Development Our community council is on record as strongly agreeing with the principles espoused in the Metropolitan councils regional blueprint cal{ing for decrease in urban sprawl and an increase in redevelopment of St. Paul sites. This community councii is also on record as opposing this particular development This proposal is not a good example of complying with that policy. We feel the pressure is misplaced. We know the Mayor's office wants development of over 600 sites within the City. In off record comments we know that PED has been `nice' to this developer. There is a push to get this redevelopment process going. But I listed possible examples in the letter. Those sites �end themselves to a coordinated planned community with no one to complain. They exist now. Just Iook across the freeway to the Wiider Site. I woufd also like to say as a manager of various programs that I feel the best way to a successful program is early simpfe successes, to make sure in your very first implementations to have everything well thought out, with special attention, to not use the easier method o4 seeing what happens and then make corrections as you get into the bulk of a program. No one in the neigh6orhood or community council is 9� arguing with the policy. Just that this is the wrong way to start it, whether in our neighborhood or anyone eise's neighborhood. With over 400 years of investment in this City we deserve better then this. The City deserves better then this. ! Tough Questions, Tough Answers We have some reai serious concems about this process. There doesn't seem to be a lack of tough questions but there does seen to be a lack of tough answers. Take the issue of the Met Council Policy. No where in staff's answers or approach is there a discussion or a recommendation as to whether or not the City's professional staff feels this is a good example of complying or meeting expectations set by that policy. And going back to the safety issue. Why can't a citizen get an answer to the question `is this a good idea? Is this safe?' Why do we get vague answers like it as safe as a driveway to Maryland Avenue, or safety is a relative thing? Why can't the city address the Parking issue before someone gets killed. Why can't Staff suggest a variance before a developer asks for it? How do we manage to get the statement that a vinyl sided 3000 square foot structure on a cul-de-sac surrounded by bituminous surfacing and no trees worth $200,000 is compatible with an 85 year old neighborhood of stucco, and wood housing with 600 to 900 square feet foot prints, treed and shrubbed yards off set from public streets and Bivd? We have indicated our differences with staff statements; and where and why we think errors or omissions were made. One suggestion we would like to have you entertain is to have Ms Becker have staff come and make a definitive statement on whether or not they thinks this is a good idea and whether or not they thinks it is safe; whether it be traffic, parking or ponds. to have Ms. Wheelock or staff make the statement that this is a good example of compfying with Met Council Policy. If you do approve this proposal please tefl the residents that you have determined i to be safe for traffic, parking, children; have indeed determined that it is compatible with their neighborhood; have determined that there is no possibility of developing these sites as zoned; and have determined that the cluster development does preserve and/or increase green space. ! Community Involvement The community has met many times with Summit Hill Council, with themselves, with 9�-.�'� pianning commission people. We have been asked to give our opinions on plans that have been changed on us at the last minute. We have sent {etters with issues. We have asked quest+ons. One of the main reasons cited by the community council for not approving the the plan was the developers unwillingness to answer our questions. However we have met with the developer after he was severely prompted to by the planning commission. However no agreement was ever reached with the developer. A partial agreement was reached about the alley. However this agreement was blown up to the extent that Mr. Field, Chairperson of the Zoning Committee appeared to inaccurately portrayed the proposal as having neighborhood support. He repeated this position a number of times to the fufl commission. The final result of all this is that we are united yet in our opposition to al{ of the proposals we have seen presented so far. The existing residents of this area with a total of 400 years of time invested in their neighborhood are requesting that you, the City Council address these concerns find them cause for denying what many in the area feel will lead to the degradation if not destruction of our neighborhood. ! Earlier Comments on Viability and Fears Earlier we mentioned fears about the viability and about property values and the real estate agents comments that the project needs to be done right. In our letter we addressed this issue. It basicalfy was that, because of public records brought to our attention we have strong doubts as the suitability and ability of Mendota Homes to develop this site. This was not due to the bankruptcy issues as much as to the findings by the court that there was substantial evidence of know+ngly making false oaths and inference of fraudulent intent. An appeals court also found against them. We are aware this is a sensitive issue. However it is a significant contributor to the reasons we fear this proposal. And because of this we feel it may be inappropriate to simply ignore it. In other communities when the professionai capabilities of a developer are questioned and evidence is provided to support that questioning, provisions do exist for calming those questions. While we are not suggesting it as an altemative as we have other ideas, we are suggesting that if the proposal does get approved that the performance bond for complying with all the provisions of the site plan review be expanded to require completion of the whatever the final proposal is within a 18 month time period, that all grading be completed in the 18 month time table, and that maintenance of the entire site be accomplished by either the developer or the owners. We would like the City to explore this or something similar. Again we are not offering this as an alternative, just something to be done in case our alternatives are rejected. 98-35'f ! Alternatives We realize we can't stop at just say no and that there is a need to ofEer altematives or compromises. Why has there been so much problem with the existing proposal? Why the repetitive redoing and reshaping of it? Why have Planning Commission members noted for public record `they would never buy it'? Why has it required so much effort and supposed creative thinking? Because in its current rendition and in all past renditions it is simply a bad idea. It carries too much baggage. As noted earlier, there has not been a proposal to develop as a single family housing on an accessible street. Our first alternative is to do just that on the lot on Lexington Par4cway, just like everyone eise in the neighborhood has. Our second alternative would be to have a Public Road built onto the site, not a driveway. And then to construct single family housing fronting that public road. While this does not satisfy all of the complaints it does deal with some. The approach so far as been too narrow and too focused on us versus them. Movement has gone on with too little input during the public hearing phase (for whatever reason) until now and too little response to the neighbor's concerns and statements. Please slow down, please respond to alt of the concerns, please make sure you have asked all the questio�s and received all the answers. Before I summarize I like to show this tape prepared by some residents; it was prepared for one of the initial discussion with the community council. Tape We had proposed another video but I'm going to have to ask you to use your imagination on this one. The video was going to go back and forth between a picture of the houses in our community, which you have seen, and a picture of a suburban cul-de-sac with double and triple townhouses all in uniform color and vinyl and no or little trees, again which I assume most of you have seen before. In Summary (of a summary) We feef a major issues is compatibility with the neighborhood. We feel the envelope of possible interpretations of that requirement has been extremely enlarge and furthermore pushed in the wrong direction We feel a major issue is safety in traffic, in parking, and in ponding requirements. We also feel that the City has not responded adequately or at all to these concerns, and that you cannot site passing a review process as an adequate addressing of 98 direct concerns, especiaNy if those questions are not part of the review process. We feel issues of alley use is a major safery issue. We feel a major issue is that cluster deve{opments should lead to increased green space. We feei the issues of property vatue, ofi viability of the project, ofi proper management are important. We feel there are more acceptable alternatives, development alternative and they should be the only ones ailowed. t8 -3�� To the Councilmembers of the City Council of St. Paul, Good Aftemoon . I'm here to read a letter signed by all of my neighbors. I'd like to note that almost ali of these neighbors have shown up for at least one and sometimes all of the five public meetings already scheduled to discuss this issue. Most have shown up for at least one of the five private meetings he�d in various neighbor's homes or rented community center meeting rooms. It is a very concerned group of �eighbors and a very united group of neighbors. It consists of 100% of the people living next to the site and includes neighbors on the other side of Lexington Parkway We think there were a number of errors and omissions in the process performed by both Staff and Planning Commission Members. In the foliowing list of comments however you wili note that we address both those errors and omissions and repeat a number of comments we have made in the last five public meetings held discussing ihis issue. ! Property Acquisition The property consists of finro lots. One on Lexington Parkway and one landlocked lot behind everyone's houses. It was acquired by Roger Vik as surpius county property for hundreds of dollars. ft was deemed valuefess or near so then because of iYs unsuitability for development. We are not saying you can't develop property because it was deemed valusless at some point in its history. We just want to be clear that there is no major investment or livelihood that we are threatening with denial of this development. This is not a situation of depriving a property owner of va{ue of their property. It has accurately been described as valueless in past, people have moved into the neighborhood aware that it was valueless, it was acquired under that status, and continues to exist under that status unless you decide to award it a variance thru this special use permit. ! Minimum Requirements It is our understanding that the owner needs to demonstrate an inability to develop the p�oQerty under the existing zoning before issuing a special use permit. The owner has not done this. There has never been a discussion of developing the site as zoned. The site is zoned single family residential, and the owner has not tried to put single family residential there. This can happen with no changes, to the property fronting Lexington Parkway now, and can happen, with some changes, to the second, bigger lot. We would like to explore this concept later. Ostensibly one of the other reasons for having a special use permit for a cluster 98 -�yy development is to preserve and increase green space, to c�uster the structures in such a manner as to increase green space within the City. As you view the proposal, note this does not happen. I Alley Use The alley use has been a major item for most of residents and others. It is two, not one, dead end alleys that furthermore combine into one outlet. Everyone involved has aiready reached a minimum proposal to not aliow major increased traffic on the alley. All the residents agree this would be insanity to allow. Accidents have happened already due to combination of densiry of existing traffic and proximity of the alley (125') to an intersection that has 24,000 ADT. Any increased use of the alley would require a paved surface 16' wide. This wou{d require removal of the trees in the alley and supporting of existing structures. ! Existing Property Values Initiafly some of the neighbors thought property values would suffer. It was thought that if you put new housing worth $150,000 to $200,000 right next to an existing old house worth $60,000 that the contrast between the two would actually devalue the existing house. However at one of our private meetings we invited a number of real estate professionals to speak to us. Two of them inform us this wouid not be the case. However both were very emphatic that amenities to the neighborhood are indeed fost, and that their statements on property value were very much contingent on the proposal being completed and completed correct�y. However even with this assurance some are stiil fearful. This concern was listed in this letter for this reason. And to lead into the next matter. One agent made this disclaimer only when made aware of who the developer is. I'd like io return to this issue a bit later. ! Viability of the Proposal There are strong doubts as to viability of this project. 1) The developer has already gone thru bankruptcy procedures in past developments. 2) The developer has indicated he will ignore the warnings issued by the railroad company as to the vibrations generated by the tracks at the bottom of the hiil from the deve{opment. The owner of the furthest house away on this block has indicated that you feel the trains far in advance of hearing them. There are a minimum of two 98-34Y schedule trains everyday right now plus commercial routings. 3) There has been indications of the possibility of contaminated soils or at the very least an abandoned dump site. However after months of questioning this, no soii borings have been performed. Instead, siab on grade consiruction has been p�aposed. 4)The site proposal cails for removal of the hundreds of trees on site, leaving a barren exposure to both the railroad and the freeway. And the future of that particular freeway is uncertain; will it be turned into renovated four lane expressway or into a linear park? 5) Because of the limited investment in the property acquisition there are fears that if the development does not produce, the developer will walk away leaving a mess behind. With the resulting mess, the City will then allow even more deviation or variances, because there will be a need to restore the site into something usable. In 1978 Roger Vik proposed apartment buildings with underground garages. Wil1 this proposal come back? ! Compatibility The requirements include, and the staff report states AThe design will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood@. The comment is made that overall the proposed design is compatible with surrounding neighborhood which consists of a mixture of 1, 1.5 and 2 story structures with gabled and hipped roofs. We think there is a mistake here. 7he onfy reafly compatible item wilf be that they house people. You go from a 64' or 90+' by 25' structures with attached garages of 800 sq feet for a total of 2400 to 3600 square feet structures to the existing structures ranging from 600 square feet to 900 square feet. You go from a mixture over 80 years of construction of stucco, clapboard, metal sliding, wood to one of uniform vinyl siding. The obvious incompatibility is you go from single family housing to multiple family housing. You go from fenced or treed lots fronting a public street with yards and boulevards to a cuf-de-sac with afmost no yard space and most of the trees removed. You go from a developed St. Paul Community with its own unique characterizations to a Woodbury house farm. Another obvious incompatibility is that you go from homes valued at $25,000 to 9�-��y $100,00 and now add homes valued at $140,000 to $200,000 Again the requirement is for granting a specia! use Qermit that compatibility exists. Stating that compatibility exists solely because there are 1 and 2 story structures with gabled and hipped roofs is an extreme, very liberal, interpretation of the word compatible. Almost to the point of making that requirement a non existent one. We believe of the envelope of possible interpretations of the word `compatible' is being stretched, and stretched in the wrong direction. ! Safety We feel staff and Planning Commission inadequately addressed the issue of safety, either thru a mistaken assessment or no assessment at all. Having the proposal be safe is another requirement in granting variances thru a special use permit. Traffic We have had two professionals in municipal tra�c and municipal engineering testify that the proposed outlet to Lexington Parkway is unsafe. Their comments are on public record. There has been no conflicting testimony from City Staff, engineering or otherwise. The best response we have is that it meets standards as to distance from a signa4ized intersection, that it meets Iine of sight requirements, and that it is as safe as a driveway on Maryland Avenue. The last statement, that it is as safe as a driveway on Maryland Avenue, came from staff in response to a direct question by a member of the planning commission. Later at another public meeting the same planning commission member, when quizzed on how informative Public Works was, stated his disappointment in them. While he did not elaborate as to why, it is our opinion he was disappointed because staff would not say directly `it is safe'. We, the neighbors, are equally disappointed because staff would not say directly `it is unsafe'. We'd like to come back to this issue later. /�qain, there has been comments from two professionals on municipal engineering and municipal traffic that it is unsafe in their professional opinions. One was very descriptive as to why, citing speed at the bottom of two hills, distracting characteristics, camouflage appearances, ADT, distance of alleys from intersections, etc. When a copy of that was submitted to the Public Works staff and they were questioned as to whether they would say he was wrong, they could or woufd not do so. There was an attempt to attenuate ane of these safety hazards by requiring a no left turn during rush hour traffic sign as you Ieave the development. This inadequately address the issue as speed is still the greatest on the bottom of the two hills located right at the point. Also the entrance and exit are designed to look like a driveway, 9� �sy� not a street that requires more attention. And, there was no corrssponding effort to regulate left turns into the site from north bound Lexington Parkway, again causing an unexpected road blockage for north bound traffic and crossing over south bound traffic. The existence of other, possibly more unsafe situations, does not create a reason to condone this type of planning now. Those other situations evolved over decades and correcting them may not be practicai now. Storm Water Manaqement There is a requirement that calis for the inclusion of a detention pond on the proposed developed site. This is due to storm water management requirements that are part of city ordinances. In most cases you will find this requirement being applied or incorporated into a parking lot or on the site of industrial or business expansions. Staff has found these ponds to be intrinsicaily unsafe in residential areas or in park areas due to the presence of children. However it is the policy to let the developer seek a variance rather then to selectively urge a variance based upon this particular safety issue. Parkinq On Lexinqton If a proposal takes away guest parking for existing residents on Lexington Parkway, on any type of property, whether it be the existing alley or the existing private property, with the end result being that guest of residents on Lexington end up parking on Lexington, you wifl afmost for sure be causing a fatafity. Residents have done studies, parking cars on Lexington during broad daylight and observing the number of near accidents that occur. The near accidents occurred almost every signal light cycle. Night time experiments could not be conducted. This issue has not been addressed at all by staff because it is a secondary effect of the proposal. But without this proposal it would not happen at all. ! Not In My Neighborhood! This is not a`not in my neighborhood you don't' issue. Yes, we like the open space. Yes, when we moved into this neighborhood we were assured this land focked lot could not be developed and that it had no value. And yes as we look out at the 24,000 ADT in the front of our houses we would prefer to have the back remain palatable. IYs kind of a`no brainer' that we do not want this here. But this isn't a half way house moving in, or a library, and there are no social movements being hindered here. Also this is not depriving the owner the right to access the lots on Lexington Parkway or development of his property as single � family housing. This does seek to deny development of a land locked lot that appropriatefy has had no value or development over the decades. We offer altematives later. We are offering real acceptable reasons for denying this proposal and they are usabie by you the decision makers. ! Metropolitan Council Policy On Urban Development We are all aware of the Metropolitan Council Policy on Urban Development where the stopping of urban sprawl out further and further is to be discouraged and development within existing highly dense sites is to be encourage. There are plenty of sites within the City of Saint Paul that can be developed for residential use. You have the old Amhoist site between Robert and Wabasha, you have river front sites in conjunction with Shepard Road Development, you have the Phalen Corridor with iYs accompanying light industrial. These alone offer the opportunities for 1000's of residential units. And if you want to continue coping with this particular policy and think it worth an investment by the community at large, you can move on to cleaning up contaminated sites suitable for light industrial and moving the pieces around a little better, again opening up sites for thousands of residential units. They will be coordinated with the community and there will be little or no problems with compatibility, safety, access, property values. These sites will be planned sites. They exist now. Wilder Homes just across the Freeway is a good example. The Summit Hill Zoning Committee strongly endorse the Met Council Policy. They have also turned down on three different public meeting a number of variations of developing this site including one not significantly different then what you are looking at now. As an aside the executive director also appeared at an earlier public hearing to recommend denial. The process of developing a coordinated or planned community to help with this policy is a much better process then the one being suggested for this neighborhood. We don't view filling in every little empty space as the right way of complying with the Met Councit. Furthermore, the process we have been subjected to appears to be somewhat willy nilly. Tne deve►oper has offered many variations of basicafly the same probfem proposaf but changing it enough at the last minute to make it a difficult moving target. For the �ast change, offered 5 minutes before the zoning committee meeting, no prepared comments from the residents were possible. Even complete staff approval had to be estimated by the staff present at the meeting. This did not appear to be the way to decide a community's future. ! Tough Questions, Tough Answers �8 �9� We have some real serious concerns about this process. There doesn't seem to be a lack of tough questions but there does seen to be a lack of tough answers. Take the issue ofi the Met Councii Policy. No where in staff's answers or approach is there a discussion or a recommendation as to whether or not the City's professional staff feels this is a good example of complying or meeting expectations set by that poficy. However they are willing to state off the record they do not think so, and in fact think this is a bad example of complying with that policy. But there is no departmental procedure for getting that opinion to you. There is no where an avenue for expressing that opinion to you. There is a vacuum from the City on what appears to be the major impetus for granting approval. And going back to the safety issue. Why can't a citizen get an answer to the question `is this a good idea? Is this safe?' Do we get the response that safety is a relative word because we have an official stance of neutrality and we can't risk having a lawyer sue us because our professional opinion may make it hard for them to engage in a business? Staff however is sometimes limited in how they can present an issue. Look at the storm water management requirements. Those are mandated by ordinance. However aiso note that variances exist for them. But it is the responsibifity of the developer to request that variance. There was a situation where Division of Parks was going to put a pond next to the children's playground. Staff couldn't make the decision to grant a variance. They had to call Parks staff and ask Park staff to ask them for a variance which was then granted. If staff starts issuing them without being requested they run into problems with setting precedence, etc. and that isn't easy to explain or deal with. Is staff really supposed to answer that a vinyl sided 2400 square foot townhouse with attached garages on a cul-de-sac surrounded by bituminous surfacing and no trees worth $200,000 is compatible with an 85 year old neighborhood of stucco, and wood housing with 600 to 900 square feet foot prints, treed and shrubbed yards off set from public streets and Blvd? The easy answer appears to be yes. Is staff to be blamed for this lack of hard answers? We don't think so. It is the policy makers in the departments that have gradually edged toward this direction. We are aware that there is a pluralistic society of tax payers and citizens out there and that they all have their concerns and needs, But we also feel tough answers to tough questions is a route that leads to better conditions. And we with our 400 years of investment in this community, are members of that society also. We have indicated our differences with staff statements; and where and why we think errors or omissions were made. One suggestion we would like to have you entertain is to have Mr. Shetka, traffic 9��gy engineer, come and make a definitive statement on whether or not he thinks this is a good idea and whetfier or not he thinks it is safe; to have Mr. Puchreiter come over and make a defnite statement that ponding sites in residential neighborhoods are needed and safe; to have Ms. Wheelock make the statement that this is a good example of compfying with Met Councif Policy. As an aside, this issue of complying with Met Council Policy is the only one the residents have heard thru all the various public hearings cited by advocates of this proposal, both at the District Council and at the Planning Commission. If you do approve this proposal please tell the residents that you have determined it to be safe for traffc, parking, children; have indeed determined that it is compatible with their neighborhood; have determined that there is no possibility of developing these sites as zoned; and have determined that the cluster development does preserve and/or increase green space. ! Community Involvement The community has met with the Summit Hill District Councif three times on this issue, each time to address a variation of the proposal, and as noted earlier, sometimes multipte variations that were not viewed ahead ofi time. In each case the neighborhood was united in it's opposition to the proposals. In each case the Summit Hill District Council agreed with the community, and even citing the developers inability to address the issues presented to him earlier. Along with a lack of response at the format meetings, the developer made no sincere effort to communicate with the neighborhood and negotiate with them. The first we heard about his willingness to do so was in front of the zoning committee where, while stating he had been willing all along to discuss and negotiate, he no longer was willi�g to do so. However after members of the zoning commission stated they would view favorably the attempt at communication, neighborhood members did gather, did discuss alternatives amongst themselves, and did set up a meeting with the developer. An agreement was reached with those who attended on some issues, mainly the alley access, but nowhere near all issues. Betore the neighborhood coordinator could get alf the responses firom the rest of the neighborhood, the developer had called back and said there were problems. It was with this information we attended the zoning committee's second meeting. When the issue went to the fufl Planning Commission, Mr. Field, Chairperson of the Zoning Committee appeared to inaccurately portrayed the proposal as having neighborhood support. He repeated this position a number of times to the full commission. The only part of the proposal that had neighborhood support was the 98-�� issue of not using the a11ey outletting to St. Clair Avenue by future owners or guests af future owners of the town homes. Pub{ic record from the second of the two dates for the public hearing in front of the zoning committee show that the Matherns never came to an agreement on any other issue, that they found problem with the proposed agreement before it could be presented to the remaining neighbor. The final result of all this is that we are united yet in our opposition to all of the proposals we have seen presented so far. The existing residents of this area with a total of 400 years of time invested in their neighborhood are requesting that you, the Ciry Council, pay attention to these findings and find them cause for denying what many in the area feef will lead to the degradation 'rf not destruction of our neighborhood. ! Earlier Comments on Viability and Fears Earlier we mentioned fears about the viabi�ity and about property values and the rea� estate agents comments that the project needs to be done right. As part of the information submitted during this whole process there was some information submitted by a Timothy Sullivan, an attorney. Upon review of that information it appears that John and Sandra Mathern, referred to in the documents as `The Matherns' were found to be in debt to United Mortgage Corporations for two lots they purchased and that the debt was a IittVe over half a milfion. This occurred in October of 1989. Not so bad and it happens to a lot o4 people. However in 1992 there was a claim that the Matherns had hindered or delayed their creditors, failed to produce adequate financial records, and knowingly made false oaths. It appears that it was further found that the courts held that substantia� evidence to support an inference of fraudulent intent by the Matherns. An appeal court found the Matherns failed to set forth affirmative admissible evidence to rebut the considerable circumstantial evidence of fraudulent intent and ruled against them. We are aware this is a sensitive issue. We are also aware that the City Attomey chose to not have the full material released in a package to planning commission members, deeming it not relevant or not to be considered in their decision making capacity. Instead just the cover letter from the presenting attorney was included. Most of the neighbors do not have a problem with this decision by the City Attorney. As noted above staff and now commission members are Iimited as to what they can say or do. However it is a significant contributor to the reasons we fear this proposal. And because of this we feel it may be inappropriate to simply ignore it. In other communities when the professional capabilities of a developer are questioned and evidence is provided to support that questioning, provisions do exist for calming those questions. While we are not suggesting it as an alternative as we have other ideas, we are suggesting that if the proposal does get approved that the q�� perFormance bond for compiying with all the provisions of the site plan review be expanded to require completion of the whatever the final proposal is within a 18 month time period, that all grading be completed in the 18 month time table, and that maintenance of the entire site be accomplished by eitfier the developer or the owners. We would like the City to explore this or something similar. Again we are not offering this as an altemative, just something to be done in case our alternatives are rejected. ! Altematives We realize we can't stop at just say no and that there is a need to offer alternatives or compromises. Why has there been so much problem with the existing proposal? Why the repetitive redoing and reshaping of it? Why have Planning Commission members noted for public record `they wauld never buy iY? Why has it required so much effort and supposed creative thinking? Because in its current rendition and in all past renditions it is simply a bad idea. It carries too much baggage. As noted in the first paragraph, there has not been a proposal to develop just as is now allowed - single family housing on an accessible street. Our first alternative is to do just that on the lot on Lexington Parkway, just like everyone else in the neighborhood has. Our second alternative would be to have a Public Road built onto the site, not a driveway. And then to construct single family housing fronting that public road. While this does not satisfy all of the complaints it does deal with some. The approach so far as been too narrow and too focused on us versus them. Movement has gone on with too little input during the public hearing phase (for whatever reason) until now and too little response to the neighbor's concerns and statements. Please slow down, please respond to all of the concerns, please make sure you have asked all the questions and received all the answers. This is our petition to the C'ity Council of St. Paul from the following residents: HELEN H CURRIER 1116 ST. CLAIR Avenue LOT 9, Rueth's Addition DAVID A& HELEN L SCHULTZ 1120 ST. CLAIR Avenue LOT 10, Rueth's Addition � JOEL M& Charlotte PATROS 9�-3g� � 1126 ST. CLAIR Avenue � LOT 11, Rueth's Addition � A�ICE L PETERSON � 1130 ST. CLAIR Avenue � LOT 12, Rueth's Addition � MARGARET H MARKS � 1134 ST. CLAIR Avenue � LOT 13, Rueth's Addition � SUSAN E WAGNER � 1138 ST. CLAIR Avenue � LOT 14, Rueth's Addition � Craig & BERYL P BOE � 1142 ST. CLAIR Avenue � LOT 15, Rueth's Addition � JAMES W& LISA R SWYERS � 1146 ST. CLAIR Avenue � LOT 16, Rueth's Addition � Milka P& Todd Thoresen � 1152 ST. CLAIR Avenue � LOT 17, Rueth's Addition � SETH M ANDERSON � 1156 ST. CLAIR Avenue � E 40 FT OF LOT 18, Rueth's Addition � MICHAEL R WIGFIELD � 1160 ST. CLAIR Avenue � WfTH AND SUBJ TO ESMTS AND EX THE � E 40 FT LOT 18, Rueth's Addition � PAT BYRNE & RACHEL BLANK � 243 S. Lexington Parkway j N 1 O FT OF LOT 2 AND ALL OF LOT 1, � Rueth's Addition � CHARLES W& KATHLEEN MARKS � 251 S. Lexington Parkway � EX N 1 O FT, LOT 2, Rueth's Addition 9�- 3y5� KEITH LANE CURTNER 259 S. Lexington Parkway LOT 3, Rueth's Addition � ALBERTA L BINKER � 263 S. Lexington Parkway � EX S 7 FT, LOT 4, Rueth's Addition � HELENE G OSTROW � 269 S. Lexington Parkway � S 7 FT OF LOT 4 AND ALL OF LOT 5, � Rueth's Addition � Christopher WALKER � 273 S. Lexington Parkway � LOT 6, Rueth's Addition ROBERT E& KATHLEEN A HENDRICKSON 279 S. Lexington Parkway EX S 2 FT, LOT 7, Rueth's Addition BEVERLY Y DUNBAR 283 S. Lexington Parkway S 2 FT OF LOT 7 AND ALL OF LOT 8, Rueth's Addition 9� Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, The above signed residents. 9� �9y K To the Councilmembers of the City Council ot St. Paul, Good Afternoon . � Z �� -�� I'm here to read a letter signed by all of my neighbors. I'd like to note that almost all of these neighbors have shown up for at least one and sometimes all of the five public meetings already scheduled to discuss this issue. Most have shown up for at least one of the five private meetings held in various neighbor's homes or rented community center meeting rooms. It is a very concerned group of neighbors and a very united group of neighbors. It consists of 100% of the people living next to the site and includes neighbors on the other side of Lexington Parkway We think there were a number of errors and omissions in the process performed by both Staff and Planning Commission Members. In the following list of comments however you will note that we address both those errors and omissions and repeat a number of comments we have made in the last five public meetings held discussing this issue. • Property Acquisition The property consists of two lots. One on Lexington Parkway and one landlocked lot behind everyone's houses. It was acquired by Roger Vik as surplus county property for hundreds of dollars. It was deemed valueless or near so then because of it's unsuitability for development. We are not saying you cari t develop property because it was deemed valueless at some point in its history. We just want to be clear that there is no major investment or livelihood that we are threatening with denial of this development. This is not a situation of depriving a property owner of value of their property. It has accurately been described as valueless in past, people have moved into the neighborhood aware that it was valueless, it was acquired under that status, and continues to exist under that status unless you decide to award it a variance thru this special use permit. • Minimum Requirements It is our understanding that the owner needs to demonstrate an inability to develop the property under the existing zoning before issuing a special use permit. The owner has not done this. There has never been a discussion of developing the site as zoned. The site is zoned single family residential, and the owner has not tried to put single family residential there. This can happen with no changes, to the property fronting Lexington Parkway now, and can happen, with some changes, to the second, bigger lot. We would like to explore this 1 of 13 i concept Iater. Ostensibly one of the other reasons for having a special use permit for a cluster development is to preserve and increase green space, to cluster the structures in such a manner as to increase gxeen space within the City. As you view the proposal, note this does not happen. • Alley Use The alley use has been a major item for most of residents and others. It is two, not one, dead end alleys that #urthermore combine into one outlet. Everyone involved has already reached a minimum proposal to not allow major increased traffic on the alley. All the residents agree this would be insanity to allow. Accidents have happened already due to combination of density of e�cisting traffic and proximity of the alley (125') to an intersection that has 24,000 ADT. Any increased use of the alley would require a paved surface 16' wide. This would require removal of the trees in the alley and supporting of existing structures. • Existing Property Values Initially some of the neighbors thought property values would suffer. It was thought that it you put new housing worth $150,000 to $200,000 right next to an existing old house worth $60,000 that the contrast between the two would actually devalue the existing house. However at one of our private meetings we invited a number of real estate professionals to speak to us. Two of them inform us this would not be the case. However both were very emphatic that amenities to the neighborhood are indeed tost, and that their statements on pmperty value were very much contingent on the proposal being completed and completed correctly. However even with this assurance some are still fearfizL This concern was listed in this leiter for this reason. And to lead into 4he next matter. One agent made this disclaimer only when made aware of who the developer is. I'd like to return to this issue a bit later. • Viability of the Pmposal There are strong doubts as to viability of this project. 1) The developer has already gone thru bankruptcy procedures in past . 2of13 V � `�8�39� developments. 2) The developer has indicated he will ignore the warnings issued by the railroad company as to the vibrations generated by the tracks at the bottom of the hill from the development. The owner of the furthest house away on this block has indicated that you feel the trains far in advance of hearing them. There are a minimum of two schedule trains everyday right now plus commercial routings. 3) There has been indications of the possibility of contaminated soils or at the very least an abandoned dump site. However after months of questioning this, no soil borings have been performed. Instead, slab on grade construction has been proposed. 4)The site proposal calls for removal of the hundreds of trees on site, leaving a barren exposure to both the railroad and the freeway. And the future of that particular freeway is uncertain; will it be turned into renovated four lane expressway or into a linear park? 5) Because of the limited investment in the property acquisition there are fears that if the development does not produce, the developer will walk away leaving a mess behind. With the resulting mess, the City will then allow even more deviation or variances, because there will be a need to restore the site into something usable. In 1978 Roger Vik proposed apartment buildings with underground garages. Will this proposal come back? • Compatibility The requirements include, and the staff report states "The design will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood". The comment is made that overall the proposed design is compatible with surrounding neighborhood which consists of a mixture of 1, 1.5 and 2 story structures with gabled and hipped roofs. We think there is a mistake here. The only really compatibie item will be that they house people. You go from a 64' or 90+' by25'structures with attached garages of 800 sqfeet for a total of 2400 to 3600 square feet structures to the existing structures ranging from 600 square feet to 900 square feet. You go from a mixture over 80 years of construction of stucco, clapboard, metal sliding, wood to one of uniform vinyl siding. 3of13 The obvious incompatibility is you go from single family housing to multiple family housing. You go from fenced or treed lots fronting a public street with yards and boulevards to a cul-de-sac with almost no yard space and most of tfie trees removed. You go from a developed St. Paul Community with its own unique characterizations to a Woodbury house tarm. Another obvious incompatibility is that you go from homes valued at $25,OOQ to $I00,00 and now add homes valued at $140,000 to $200,000 Again the requirement is for granting a special use permit that compatibility exists. Stating that compatibility exists solely because there are 1 and 2 story structures with gabled and hipped roofs is an extreme, very liberal, interpretation of the word compatible. Almost to the point of making that requirement a non existent one. We believe of the envelope of possible interpretations of the word 'compatible' is being stretched, and stretched in the wrong direction. • Safety We feel staff and Planning Commission inadequately addressed the issue of safety, either thru a mistaken assessment or no assessment at all. Having the proposal be safe is another requirement in granting variances thru a special use permit. Traffic We have had two professionats in municipal traffic and municipal engineering testify that the proposed outlet to Lexington Parkway is unsafe. Their comments are on public recard. 'There has been no conflicting testimony from City Staff, engineering or otherwise. The best response we have is that it meets standards as to distance from a signalized intersection, that it meets line of sight requirements, and that it is as safe as a driveway on Maryland Avenue. The last statement, that it is as safe as a driveway on Maryland Avenue, came from staff in response to a direct question by a member of the planning commission. Later at another public meeting the same planning commission member, when quizzed on how informative Public Works was, statea his disappointment in them. Whi1e he did not elaborate as to why, it is our opinion he was disappointed because staff would not say directly 'it is safe'. We, the neighbors, are equally disappointed because staff would not say directly `it is unsafe'. We'd like to come back to this issue later. Again, there has been comments from two professionals on municipal engineering and municipai traffic that it is unsafe in their professional opinions. One was very descriptive as to why, citing speed at the bottom of two hills, 4of13 �8-39y distracting characteristics, camouflage appearances, ADT, distance of alleys from intersections, etc. When a copy of that was submitted to the Public Works staff and they were questioned as to whether they would say he was wrong, they could or would not do so. There was an attempt to attenuate one of these safety hazards by requiring a n o left turn during rush hour traffic sign as you leave the development_ This inadequately address the issue as speed is still the greatest on the bottom of the Ywo hills located right at the point. Also the entrance and exit are designed to look like a driveway, not a street that requires more attention. And, there was no corresponding effort to regulate left turns into the site from north bound Lexington Parkway, again causing an unexpected road blockage for north bound traffic and crossing over south bound traffic. The existence of other, possibly more unsafe situations, does not create a reason to condone this type of planning now. Those other situations evolved over decades and correcting them may not be practical now. Storm Water Management There is a requirement that calls for the inclusion of a detention pond on the proposed developed site. This is due to storm water management requirements that are part of city ordinances. In most cases you will find this requirement being applied or incorporated into a parking lot or on the site of industrial or business expansions. Staff has found these ponds to be intrinsically unsafe in residential areas or in park areas due to the presence of children. However it is the policy to let the developer seek a variance rather then to selectively urge a variance based upon this particular safety issue. Parking On Lexin�ton If a proposal takes away guest parking for existing residents on Lexington Parkway, on any type of property, whether it be the existing alley or the existing private property, with the end result being that guest of residents on Lexington end up parking on Lexington, you will almost for sure be causing a fatality. Residents have done studies, parking cars on Lexington during broad daylight and observing the number of near accidents that occur. The near accidents occurred almost every signal light cycle. Night time experiments could not be conducted. This issue has not been addressed at ail by staff because it is a secondary effect of the proposal. But without this proposal it would not happen at all. 5of13 • Not In My Neighborhood! This is not a'not in my neighborhood you don t' issue. Yes, we like the open space. Yes, when we moved into this neighborhood we were assured this land locked lot could not be developed and that it had no value. And yes as we look out at the 24,000 ADT in the front of our houses we would prefer to have the back remain palatable. It's kind of a'no brainer' that we do not want this here. But this isn't a half way house moving in, or a library, and there are no social movements being hindered here. ALso this is not depriving the owner the right to access the lots on Lexington Parkway or development of his property as single family housing. This does seek to deny development of a land locked lot that appropriately has had no value or development over the decades. We offer alternatives later. We are offering real acceptable reasons tor denying this proposal and they are usable by you the decision makers. • Metropolitan Council Policy On Urban Development We are all aware of the Metropolitan Council Policy on Urban Development where the stopping of urban sprawl out further and further is to be discouraged and development within existing highly dense sites is to be encourage. There are plenty of sites wifhin the City of Saint Paul that can be developed for residential use. You have the old Amhoist site befween Robert and Wabasha, you have river front sites in conjunction with Shepard Road Development, you have the Phalen Corridor with it's accompanying Iight industrial. These alone offer the opportunities for 1000's of residential units. And if you want to continue coping with this particular policy and think it worth an investment by the community at large, you can move on to cleaning up contaminated sites suitable for light industrial and moving the pieces around a little better, again opening up sites for thousands of residential units. 'They will be coordinated with the community and there will be little or no problems with compatibility, safety, access, property values. These sites will be planned sites. They exist now. Wilder Homes just across the Freeway is a good example. The Summit Hill Zoning Committee strongly endorse the Met Council Policy. They have also turned down on three different public meeting a number of variations of developing this site including one not significantly different then what you are looking at now. As an aside the executive director also appeared at an earlier public hearing to recommend denial. 6of13 � r 9'� 39y The process of developing a coordinated or planned community to help with this policy is a much better process then the one being suggested for this neighborhood. We don't view filling in every little empty space as the right way of complying with the Met Council. Furthermore, the process we have been subjected to appears to be somewhat willy nilly. The developer has offered many variations of basically fihe same problem proposal but changing it enough at the last minute to make it a difficult moving target. For the last change, offered 5 minutes before the zoning committee meeting, no prepared comments from the residents were possibie. Even complete staff approval had to be estimated by the staff present at the meeting. This did not appear to be the way to decide a community's future. • Tough Questions, Tough Answers We have some real serious concerns about this process. There doesn't seem to be a lack of tough questions but there does seen to be a lack of tough answers. Take the issue of the Met Council Policy. No where in staff's answers or approach is there a discussion or a recommendation as to whether or not the City's professional staff feels this is a good exampie of complying or meeting expectations set by that policy. However they are willing to state off the record they do not think so, and in fact think this is a bad example of complying with that policy. But there is no departmental procedure for getting that opinion to you. There is no where an avenue for expressing that opinion to you. There is a vacuum from the City on what appears to be the majar impetus for granting approval. And going back to the safety issue. Why cari t a citizen get an answer to the question 'is this a good idea? Is this safe?' Do we get the response that safety is a relative ward because we have an official stance of neutrality and we cari t risk having a lawyer sue us because our professional opinion may make it hard for them to engage in a business? Staff however is sometimes limited in how they can present an issue. Look at the storm water management requirements. Those are mandated by ordinance. However also note that variances exist for them. But it is the responsibility of the developer to request that variance. There was a situation where Division of Parks was going to put a pond next to the children's playground. Staff couldn't make the decision to grant a variance. They had to call Parks staff and ask Park staff to ask them for a variance which was then granted. If staff starts issuing them without being requested they run into problems with setting precedence, etc. and that isn t easy to explain or dea] with. Is staff really supposed to answer that a vinyl sided 2406 square foot townhouse 7 of 13 with attached garages on a cul-de-sac surrounded by bituminous surfacing and no trees worth $200,000 is compatible with an 85 year old neighborhood of stucco, and wood housing with 600 to 900 square feet foot prints, treed and shrubbed yards off set from public streets and Blvd? The easy answer appears to be yes. Is staff to be blamed for this lack of hard answers? We don't think so. It is the policy makers in the departments that have gradually edged toward this direction. We are aware that there is a pluralisiic society of tax payers and citizens out there and Ehat Ehey all have their concerns and needs. But we also feel tough answers to tough questions is a route that leads to better conditions. And we with our 400 years of investment in this community, are members of that society aIso. We have indicated our differences with staff statements; and where and why we think errors or omissions were made. dne suggestion we would Iike to have you entertain is to have Mr. Shetka, traffic engineer, come and make a definitive statement on whether or not he thinks this is a good idea and whether or not he thinks it is safe; to have Mr. Puchreiter come over and make a definite statement that ponding sites in residential neighborhoods are needed and safe; to have Ms. Wheelock make the statement that this is a good example of complying with Met Council Policy. As an aside, this issue of complying with Met Council Policy is the only one the residents have heard thru all the various public hearings cited by advocates of this proposal, both at the District Councii and at the Planning Commission. If you do approve this proposal please te11 the residents that you have determined it to be safe for traffic, parking, children; have indeed determined that it is compatible with their neighborhood; have determined that there is no possibility of developing these sites as zoned; and have determined that the cluster development does preserve and/or increase green space. • Community Involvement The community has met with the Summit Hill District Council three times on this issue, each time to address a variation of the proposal, and as noted earlier, sometimes multiple variations that were not viewed ahead of time. In each case the neighborhood was united in it's opposition to the proposals. In each case the Summit Hill District Council agreed with the community, and even citing the developers inability to address the issues presented to him earlier� 8of13 � : 9 8-39�} Along with a lack of response at the formal meetings, the developer made no sincere effort to communicate with the neighborhood and negotiate with them. The first we heard about his willingness to do so was in front of the zoning committee where, while stating he had been willing all along to discuss and negotiate, he no longer was willing to do so. However after members of the zoning commission stated they would view favorably the attempt at communication, neighborhood members did gather, did discuss alternatives amongst themselves, and did set up a meeting with the developer. An agreement was reached with those who attended on some issues, mainly the alley access, but nowhere near all issues. Before the neighborhood coordinator could get all the responses from the rest of the neighborhood, the developer had called back and said there were problems. It was with this information we attended the zoning committee's second meeting. When the issue went to the full Planning Commission, Mr. Field, Chairperson of the Zoning Committee appeared to inaccurately portrayed the proposal as having neighborhood support. He repeated this position a number of times to the full commission. The only part of the proposal that had neighborhood support was the issue of not using the alley outletting to St. Clair Avenue by future owners or guests of future owners of the town homes. Public record from the second of the two dates for the public hearing in front of the zoning committee show that the Matherns never came to an agreement on any other issue, that they found problem with the proposed agreement before it could be presented to the remaining neighbor. The final result of all this is that we are united yet in our opposition to all of the proposals we have seen presented so far. The existing residents of this area with a total of 400 years of time invested in their neighborhood are requesting that you, the City Council, pay attention to these findings and find them cause for denying what many in the area feel will lead to the degradation if not destruction of our neighborhood. • Earlier Comments on Viability and Fears Eariier we mentioned fears about the viability and about property values and the real estate agents comments that the project needs to be done right. As part of the information submitted during this whole process there was some information submitted by a Timothy Sullivan, an attorney. Upon review of that information it appears that John and Sandra Mathern, referred to in the documents as 'The Matherns' were found to be in debt to United Mortgage Corporations for two lots they purchased and that the debtwas a little over half a million. This occurred in October of 1989. Not so bad and it happens to a lot of 9of13 people. However in 1992 there was a claim that the Matherns had hindered or delayed their creditors, failed to produce adequate financial records, and knowingly made false oaths. It appears that it was further found that the courts held that substantial evidence to support an inference of fraudu�ent intent bythe Matherns. An appeal court found the Matherns failed to set forth affirmative admissible evidence to rebnt the considerable circumstantial evidence of fraudulent intent and ruled against them. We are aware this is a sensitive issue. We are also aware that the City Attorney chose to not have the full material released in a package to planning commission members, deeming it not relevant or not to be considered in their decision making capacity. Instead just the cover letter from the presenting attorney was included. Most of the neighbors do not have a problem with this decision by the City Attorney. As noted above staff and now commission members are lunited as to what they can say or do. However it is a significant contributor to the reasons we fear this proposal. And because of this we feel it may be inappropriate to simply ignore it. In other communities when the professional capabilities of a developer are questioned and evidence is provided to support that questioning, provisions do exist for calming those questions. While we are not suggesting it as an alternative as we have other ideas, we are suggesting that if the proposal does get approved that the performance bond for complying with all the provisions of the site plan review be expanded to require completion of the whatever the final proposal is within a 18 month time period, that all grading be completed in the 18 month time table, and that maintenance of the entire site be accomplished by either the developer or the owners. We would like the City to explore this or something similar. Again we are not offering this as an alternative, just something to be done in case our altematives are rejected. • Alternatives We realize we can't stop at just say no and that there is a need to offer alternatives or compromises. Why has there been so much problem with the existing proposal? Why the repetitive redoing and reshaping of it? Why have Planning Commission members noted for pubIic record 'they would never buy it'? Why has it required so much effort and supposed creative thinking? Because in its current rendition and in all past renditions it is simply a bad idea. It carries too much baggage. As noted in the first paragraph, there has not been a proposal to develop just as is now allowed - single family housing on an accessible street. Our first alternative is to do just that on the tot on Lexington Parkway, just like everyone else in the neighborhood has. 70of13 . , . 9 8-39�f Our second alternative would be to have a Public Road built onto the site, not a driveway. And then to construct single family housing fronting that public road_ While this does not satisfy all of the complaints it does deal with some. The approach so far as been too narzow and too focused on us versus them. Movement has gone on with too little input during the public hearing phase (for whatever reason) until now and too little response to the neighbor's concerns and statements. Please slow down, please respond to all of the concerns, please make sure you have asked all the questions and received all the answers. This is our petition to the City Council of St. Paul from the following residents: ..�� o �� I DAVID A& HELEN L SCHULTZ I 1120 ST. CLAIR AVENUE I LOT 10, RUETH'S ADDITION I HELEN H CURRIER , I 1116 ST. CLAIR AVENUE �: ,� ,,� J� LOT 9, RUETH'S ADDITION I JOEL M& CHARLOTTE PATROS I 1126 ST. CLAIR AVENUE I LOT 11, RUETH'S ADDITION � \ � ) �� / " � � �.�%�-��-- I ALICE L PETERSON I 1130 ST. CLAIR AVENUE I LOT 12, RUETH'S ADDITION I MARGARET H MARKS ,,� I� 1134 ST. CLAIR AVENUE ' ^ � ��l'�2'�, 13, RUETH'S ADDITION �� : � : "' ' �~✓ z, a,. � Z:. � T '� I SUSAN E WAGNER �-��'�'�----,_ . I 1138 ST. CLAIR AVENUE r � �� l LOT 14, RUETH'S ADDITION �..•° ,, � p� � Z/� Jy > r�t.rc � - sr��,p � CRAIG & BERYL P BOE �`��'u�� s'�"` �`�� v� I 1142 ST. GLAIR AVENUE 0-��-� �� —` ��/ I LOT 15, RUETH'S ADDITION _ s� �� - ---------------------------- - ----------- ��t7 �C `7 �CSO -,�/�c I JAMES W& LISA R SWYERS S'i��erinv-, />�°f �- /�«��.� ,�, I 1146 ST. CLAIR AVENUE `��i �y� �..�� : I LOT 16, RUETH'S ADDlTION 11 of 13 ------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ , , , ----�-;, ----------------------------- r� '' '' '��'ti,--,.✓�` f MILKA P& TODD THORESEN F� '� ' i ( 1152 ST. CLAIR AVENUE I LOT 17, RUETH'S ADDITION S , f^�l . ��,,__-- � i �-�� I SETH M ANDERSON I 1156 ST. CLAIR AVENUE I E 40 FT OF LOT 18, RUETH'S ADDITION I MICHAEL R WIGFIELD �I 1160 ST. CLAIR AVENUE I WITH AND SUBJ TO ESMTS AND EX THE ,�E 40 FT LOT 18, RUETH'S ADDITION PAT BYRNE & RACHEL BLANK 243 S. LEXINGTON PARKWAY N 1 O FT OF LOT 2 AND ALL OF LOT 1, RUETH'S ADDITION I CHARLES W& KATHLEEN MARKS I 251 S. LEXINGTON PARKWAY � I EX N 1 O FT, LOT 2, RUETH'S ADDITION �.��.� G�.� _------------------------------------------------ ��.,�.-�-�'�--�--� }�4,t�.rv- �S�CZ. i.,� I KEITH l.ANE CURTNER I 259 S. LEXINGTON PARKWAY I LOT 3, RUETN'S ADDITION I ALBERTA L 81NKER I 263 S. LEXINGTON PARKWAY EX S 7 FT, LOT 4, RUETH'S ADDITION 1 HELENE G OSTROW I 269 S. LEXINGTON PARKWAY I S 7 FT OF LOT 4 AND ALL OF LOT 5, i RUETH'S ADDITION z� �Z/��v, I CHRISTOPHER WALKER f 273 S. LEXINGTON PARKWAY I LOT 6, RUETH'S ADDITION I ROBERT E& KATHLEEN A HENDRICKSON � 279 S. LEXINGTON PARKWAY I EX S 2 FT, LOT 7, RUETH'S ADD�TION 12 of 13 . ..y.: y �-39`� I BEVERLY Y DUNBAR I 283 S. LEXINGTON PARKWAY I S 2 FT OF LOT 7 AND ALL OF LOT 8, I RUETH'S ADDITION a a� � � D�Lo�� Il��w" ��.� 2'�� i � n�� .�. �-� �� 1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------=------ - ;��'�"�-'�- ��'lt�''�lkS�vV � J � � �t �i �e Il�� -�"�� nsov� ---�------------------------------------------------ �--� 5'o x�� x tn� f k�� ----------------------------------------------------- ►� � ��-rn�S �S , �� —`°� � ��y� S� Q,� a.-�'. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, The above signed residents. 13 of 13 � �j �-39�1 To the Councilmembers of the City Council of St. Paul, Good Afternoon. My name is Pat Byrne and I reside at 243 S. Lexington Parkway. I'm here to read a letter signed by all of my neighbors. However as a courtesy, /� the letter was provide to yot�ef re hand and Its been indicated that it has been d�ii,/�, JYL read by the Council Members.�mportant to the signers of that letter that it is read or listened to as this is their first opportunity to speak to a public �.�C representative in this process. Anyway I'm going to summarize that letter t��"' instead of reading it. However I will read the summary. (I'm not sure if it is the �4 ll reading or the length that bores people and puts them to sleep). I'd like to note it is a very concerned group of neighbors and a very united group of neighbors that ��,� / share in this appeal. It consists of 100°lo of the people living ext to the site and � � J'' �� .�(� includes neighbors on the other side of Lexington Parkway.��es°��^��T'� '—'�o � •�� el� ^a�••�' itn� ri�ll�t�lOS2 w -��-Sr7��C-lri ��' p � V We think there were a number of errors and omissions in the process performed by both Staff and Pianning Commission Members. In the following list of comments however you will note that we address both those errors and omissions and repeat a number of comments we have made in the last five public meetings held discussing this issue. I apologize to the signers if this seems briefer then it should, and I apologize to the Council if it seems longer then it should. • Property Acquisition, The site was acquired for very little money back in the 70's. It was deemed worthless then and has been deemed almost worthless since then by both the owner and Ramsey County property taxing system. ' g � p f* �n'-��:-_�'�•�, I'd like to note at this time an error in the letter sent out. It was not acquired as surplus county property. • Minirnum Requirements There has never been a discussion of developing the site as a single family residential site and therefore not requiring anyone to go thru this process. Ostensibly one of the reasons for having a special use permit for a cluster development is to preserve and increase green space, to cluster the structures in such a manner as to increase green space within the City. As you view the proposal, note this does not happen. 1 of 9 y 8-39y I'd note that one of the requirements is to minimize alterations of the natural features and topography. The plan proposes the removai of most if not all of the trees on this site. • Alley Use The alley use has been a major item for mos of residents �. It is two, n 3n�-�vrs� — ir -- n"` "'' Everyone involved has already reached a minimum proposal to not allow major increased traffic on the alley. � � �P-; e �a �` '- a ^�� a. Accidents have happened already due to combination of density of existing traffic and proximity of the alley (125') to an intersection that has 24,000 ADT. As noted those people right next to the proposed 150,OQQ units feel their 6�,�0� would not sell due to contrast. However two real estate agents, while acknowledging that amenities are reduced, property values should not be affected. However they noted this is only true if done right and if done compietely as the plan indicates. However even with this assurance some are still fearful. This concern was listed in this letter for this reason. And to lead into the next matter. One agent made this disclaimer only when made aware of who the developer is. • Viability of the Proposal There are strong doubts as to viability of this project. 1) The developer has already gone thru bankruptcy procedures in past developments. 2) The developer has indicated he will ignore the warnings issued bythe railroad company as to the vibrations generated by the tracks at the bottom of the hill from the development. 3) T`here has been indications of the possibility of contaminated soiis or at the very least an abandoned dump site. 2 of 9 • Existing Property Values 9�-39`f 4)The site proposal calls for removal of the hundreds of trees on site, leaving a barren exposure to both the railroad and the freeway. And the future of that particular freeway is uncertain; will it be turned into renovated four lane expressway or into a linear park? 5) There are fears the developer will walk if the units don't sell even though he has assured us they will sell like hotcakes. And then what will the City allow to happen on the site to salvage it • Compatibility The requirements include, and the staff report states "The design will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood". We think there is a mistake here. And this is one of the major issues to everyone in the neighborhood. The only really compatible item will be that they house people. You go from a 90' by 25' structures with attached garage of 800 sq feet for a total 3�0 square feet structures to the existing structures ranging from 600 square feet to 900 square feet. The attached garage is bigger then some of the houses You go from a mixture over 80 years of construction of stucco, clapboard, metal sliding, wood to one of uniform vinyl siding. The obvious incompatibility is you go from single family housing to multiple family housing. You go from fenced or treed lots fronting a public street with yards and boulevards to a cul-de-sac with almost no yard space and most of the trees removed. You go from a developed St. Paul Community with its own unique characterizations to a Woodbury house farm. • Safety 3 of 9 Another obvious incompatibility is that you go from homes valued at $25,000 to $100,00 and now add homes valued at $140,000 to $200,000 9�'3g�f \ � r/ "V �� Yv ��f Another requirement is that 'The use will not be detrimentai to the existing character of the development in the immediate neighborhood or endanger public health, safety, and general welfare' We feel staff and Planning Commission inadequately addressed the issue of safety, either thru a mistaken assessment or no assessment at ail. This is the second major issue with the neighborhood. Traffic The public record contains assessments by engineering professionals that the proposed outlet to Lexington Parkway is unsafe, and there has been no conflicting testimony from City Staff. In fact when asked directly if they could say the neighbor's assessment was incorrect we got a negative answer. The best response we have is that it meets standards as to distance from a signalized intersection, that it meets line of sight requirements, and that it is as safe as a driveway on Maryland Avenue. The last statement, that it i�, a�s safe on au n t mu sp� cti Y r i T�r t asoy��. ' e a� 1� in ro a lea st e�ite�[t is ` s e dUw�ver loo in�for a cie r s� t t that it s safe. �� l� � � ✓�c�c v�. �a�"tv tks an aside to the letter I'd like to point out t�at surviving the review process is not a statement from City Staff that�� is safe. It is a statement from staff that it met distance from signalized intersection standards and it met line of sight standards. That is all. There was an attempt to attenuate one of these safety hazards by requiring a no left turn during rush hour traffic sign as you leave the development. This�a�t addresses about 20°fo of the traffic safety issue and was done with no consuitation at all with traffic professionals. Storm Water Mana ement There is a requirement that calls for the inclusion of a detention pond on the p\�proposed developed site. As a Water resource professional I have found this to ��' be intrinsically unsafe in residential areas where children are�or in axeas where �� t�gi� existence is a surprise. �` Parking On Lexi�ton 4 of 9 q8-39� One end result of the proposal, whether directiy or indirectly, will be a definite increase in Parking on Lexington Parkway. Parking on Lexington will lead to � j many traffic accidents and I will easily state, traffic fatalities. There has been no � comment or review or contribution to discussion on this item from anyone within the City. In the list of major accident areas throughout the city, Lexington Parkway already occupies 1/8 of that list. • Not Itt My Neighborhood! This is not a'not in my neighborhood you don't' issue. Yes, we like the open space. Yes, when we moved into this neighborhood we were assured this land locked lot could not be developed and that it had no value. And yes as we look out at the 24,000 ADT in the front of our houses we would prefer to have the back remain palatable. It's kind of a'no brainer' that we do not want this here. But this isn t a half way house moving in, or a library, and there are no social movements being hindered here. Also this is not depriving the owner the right to access the lots on Lexington Parkway or development of his property as single family housing. This does seek to deny development of a land locked lot that appropriately has had no value or development over the decades. We offer alternatives later. As you review the permitted uses in the zoning law you will note that all non �,, � single family residential uses are ail socially benefiting items like churches, �`• i, schools, libraries, transitional housing, battered women and children residences, �v �� hospices, etc. Even Cluster development was there to provide more green space. �� But as noted elsewhere that also required compatibility and safety. i� t � 4 \� We are offering real acceptable reasons for denying this proposal and they are usable by you the decision makers_ Council Policy On Urban Development Our community council is on record as strongly agreeing with the principles espoused in the Metropolitan councils regional blueprint calling for decrease in urban sprawl and an increase in redevelopment of St. Paul sites. This community council is also on recard as opposing this particular development This proposal is not a good example of complying with that policy. We feel the pressure is mispiaced. We know the Mayor's office wants development of over 600 sites within the City. In off record comments we know that PED has been �� 9�-395f 'nice' to this developer. There is a push to get this redevelopment process going. ,�ut I listed possible examples in the letter. Those sites lend themselves to a / coordinated planned community with no one to complain. They exist now. Just `� look across the freeway to the Wilder Site. / I would also like to say as a manager of various programs that I feel the best way to a successful program is early simple successes, to make sure in your very first implementations to have everything weil thought out, with special attention, to � not use the easier method of seeing what happens and then make corrections as � you get into the bulk of a program. No one in the neighborhood or community � council is arguing with the policy. Just that this is the wrong way to start it, whether in our neighborhood or anyone else's neighborhood. With over 400 years of investment in this City we deserve better then this. The City deserves better then this. • Tough Questions, Tough Answers We have some reai serious concerns about this process. There doesn't seem to be a lack of tough questions but there does seen to be a lack of tough answers. Take the issue of the Met Council Policy. No where in staff's answers or approach is there a discussion or a recommendation as to whether or not the City's professional staff feels this is a good example of complying or meeting expectations set by that policy. And going back to the safety issue. Why can't a citizen get an answer to the question 'is this a good idea? Is this safe?' Why do we get vague answers like it as safe as a driveway to Maryland Avenue, or safety is a relative thing? Why cari t the city address the Parking issue before someone gets killed. Why cari t Staff suggest a variance before a developer asks for it? How do we manage to get the statement thaX a vinyl sided 3000 square foot structure on a cul-de-sac surrounded by bituminous surfacing and no trees worth $200,000 is compatible with an 85 year old neighborhood of stucco, and wood housing with 60� to 900 square feet foot prints, treed and shrubbed yards off set from public streets and Bivd? We have indicated our differences with staff statements; and where and why we think errors or omissions were made. One suggestion we would like to have you entertain is to have Ms Becker have staff come and make a definitive statement on whether or not they thinks this is a good idea and whether or not they thinks it is safe; whether it be traffic, parking 6 of 9 g � 394� or ponds. to have Ms. Wheelock or staff make the statement that this is a good example of complying with Met Council Policy. If you do approve this proposal please tell the residents that you have determined it to be safe for traffic, parking, children; have indeed determined that it is compatible with their neighborhood; have determined that there is no possibility of developing these sites as zoned; and have determined that the � cluster development does preserve and/or increase green space. • _Community Involvement The com unity has met many times with Summit Hill Council, with � themselves, with planning commission people. We have been asked to give our � opinions on plans that have been changed on us at the last minute. We have sent letters with issues. We have asked questions. One of the main reasons cited by the community council for not approving the the plan was the � developers unwillingness to answer our questions. However we have met with the developer after he was severely prompted to by the planning commission. � However no agreement was ever reached with the developer. A partial agreement was reached about the alley. However this agreement was � blown up to the extent that Mr. Field, Chairperson of the Zoning Committee appeared to inaccurately portrayed the proposal as having neighborhood support. He repeated this position a number of times to the full commission. i result of ali this is that we are united yet in our opposition to ail of the proposals we have seen presented so far. The existing residents of this area with a total of 400 years of time invested in their neighborhood are requesting that you, the City Council address these concerns find them cause far denying what many in the area feel will lead to the degradation if not destruction of our neighborhood. • Earlier Comments on Viability and Fears Earlier we mentioned fears about the viability and about property values and the real estate agents comments that the project needs to be done right. In our letter we addressed this issue. It basically was that, because of public records brought to our attention we have strong doubts as the suitability and ability of Mendota Homes to develop this site. This was not due to the bankruptcy issues as much as to the findings by the court that there was substantial evidence of knowingly making false oaths and inference of fraudulent intent. An appeals court also found against them. We are aware this is a sensitive issue. 7of9 �18-3y`l We had proposed another video but I'm going to have to ask you to use your imagination on this one. The video was going to go back and forth between a picture of the houses in our community, which you have seen, and a pictuxe of a suburban cul-de-sac with double and triple townhouses all in uniform color and vinyl and no or little trees, again which I assume most of you have seen before. In Summary (of a summary) We feel a major issues is compatibility with the neighborhood. We feel the envelope of possible interpretations of that requirement has been extremely enlarge and furthermore pushed in the wrong direction We feel a major issue is safety in traffic, in parking, and in ponding requirements. We also feel that the City has not responded adequately or at all to these concerns, and that you cannot site passing a review process as an adequate addressing of direct concerns, especially if those questions are not part of the review process. We feel issues of alley use is a major safety issue. We feel a major issue is that cluster developments should lead to increased green space. We feel the issues of property value, of viability of the project, of proper management are important. We feel there are more acceptable alternatives, development alternative� and they should be the only ones allowed. ' 9of9 y�-3y�{ , � � i � However it is a significant contributor to the reasons we fear this proposal. And because of this we feel it may be inappropriate to simply ignore it. In other communities when the professional capabilities of a developer are questioned and evidence is provided to support that questioning, provisions do exist for calming those questions. While we are not suggesting it as an alternative as we have other ideas, we are suggesting that if the proposal does get approved that the performance bond fox complying with all the provisions of the site plan review be expanded to require completion of the whatever the final proposal is within a 18 month time period, that all grading be completed in the 18 month time table, and that maintenance of the entire site be accomplished byeither the developer or the owners. We would like the City to expiore this or something similar. Again we are not offering this as an alternative, just something to be done in case our alternatives are rejected. • Alternatives We realize we can`t stop at just say no and that there is a need to offer alternatives or compromises. Why has there been so much probiem with the existing proposal? Why the repetitive redoing and reshaping of it? Why have Planning Commission members noted for public recard 'they would never buy it'? Why has it required so much effort and supposed creative thinking? Secause in its current rendition and in all past renditions it is simply a bad idea. It carries too much baggage. As noted earlier, there has not been a proposal to develop as a single £amily housing on an accessible street. Our first alternative is to do just that on the lot on Lexington Parkway, just like everyone else in the neighborhood has. Our second alternative would be to have a Public Road built onto the site, not a driveway. And then to construct single family housing fronting that public road. While this does not satisfy all of the complaints it does deal with some. The approach so far as been too narxow and too focused on us versus them. Movement has gone on with too little input during the pubiic hearing phase (for whatever reason) until now and too little response to the neighbor's concerns and statements. Please slow down, please respond to all of the concerns, please make sure you have asked all the questions and received all the answers. Before I summarize I like to show this tape prepared by some residents; it was prepared for one of the initial discussion with the community council. Tape :. • 9 �-3�Y TO APPLICANT . � . . �ZJ� LOCATION OF PROPERTY TIME OF HEARING PLACE OF HEARING PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE SAINT PAUL CTTY COUNCIL ZONTNG Properry Owners within 350 feet; I Representatives of Planning District 16 � BYRNE, PATRICK Appeal the Planning Commission approval of a 10 unit cluster development. / City Council Chambers, 3rd Floor City Hall-Court House 15 West Keliogg Blvd; Saint Paul, MN 55102 HOW TO PARTICIPATE 1. You may attend hearing and testify. 2. You may send a letter before the hearing to the Zoning Section of the Planning and Economic Development Department, 25 West Fourth St, 1100 City Ha11 Annex, Saint Paul, MN 55102. . 3.. Participation is not required. This is your notice of public hearine. ANY QUESTIONS Call Kady Dadlez of the Zoning o�ce at 266-6582 or your District Council Representative at 222-1222 with the following information: Zoning File Nutnber 97-313 Zoning File Name MENDOTA HOMES APPEAL Mailing Date 12/10/97 5�8-3S�f David & Helene Schultz 1120 Saint Clau Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota 55105 612-292-1096 January 13, 1998 St. Paul City Council c/o Zoning Section of PED 25 West Fourth Street 1100 City Hall Annex Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear City Council Members: Re: Mendota Homes Appeal Zoning File Number 97-313 We are adjoining property owners to the proposed Mendota Homes project and we are sending this letter to oppose the special use permit that was granted by the Planning Commission. We hope that this letter will be given all the weight that oral testimony would haue received. We oppose the granting of the special use permit for all of the reasons stated in the letter endorsed by all of the adjoining property owners in the area. However, we do wish to reinforce several points. We believe that the Planning Commission erred in failing Yo give sufficient attention to both the traffic safety problems and the incompatibility of the proposed project with the current architecture and land use of the neighborhood. First, placing additional traffic on either Lexington or Saint Clair Avenues will be a safety hazard that should be considered. Second, the proposed development, with large two and three unit structures, will be significantly larger than any of the eusting units in the area. Hence, the new Mendota Homes units will dwarf and hover over the e�sting houses. Overall, it is our believe that the Planning Commission failed to give due regard to these factors. Second, we believe that the Planning Commission erred in failing to permit certain testimony to be placed on the record for their consideration. By that, neighbors repeatedly sought to enter into the record their concern about the soil conditions on the land upon which this proposed development might be erected. The neighbors have legitimate concerns that because of the soil conditions construction of buildings on this property would perhaps endanger the public health or othenvise damage or be detrimental to neighboring property. In effect, because the Commission refused to allow testimony on this subject the Commission abused its discretion and failed to consider facts that may be critical to a fu11 and proper evaluation of the application of a special use permit for this project. Third, we believe that the Planning Commission erred in failing to consider all of the information submitted to them as a matter of public record. By that, Tim Sullivan had submitted court information to Beth Bartz regarding John Mathern's financial difficulties with other similar housing projects. Ms. Bartz failed to pass along to the Planning Commission this information. We believe that the Planning Commission should have reviewed this information and made its own decision to its relevancy. The failure to consider information submitted for public record, as well as the failure to pass this information along to the Planning Commission is an error of law. In sum, we hope that City Council considers this information when it reviews the Mendota January 13, 1998 (5:57pm) David Schultz 5�-3sy Homes project since it may speak to the capacity of the developer to execute and complete this project. Fourth, we believe that the Planning Commission erred in giving weight to facts and testimony that are not relevant to the statutory requirements specific to the granting of a special use permit. By that, during the public hearing Susan Kimberly testified to a Metropolitan Council determination that St. Paul needed to intensify its Iand use and increase the number of housing units in the city over the ne� iwenry years. Similarly, in its deliberations, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission referred to her testimony_ While Ms. Kimberl�s testimony may have some merit, neither the Met Council's report nor overall housing needs in the city are relevant to the granting of a special use permit for this property. Specifically, no where in §64.300 of the St. Paul I,egislative Code does it permit a regional or general concern for land development to count as a factor for allowing a special use permit for a specific property. Instead, one must look only to the applicable statutory conditions of the code as they apply to a specific parcel of property. To the e�ent that the Planning Commission considered irrelevant information such as this in its decision the Commission erred, and we urge you to consider the request for a special use permit for this project based solely upon the statutory relevant factors and facts considering this property. Fifth, at no point did the Planning Commission consider other alternative and less intensive uses than the proposed development. Instead of considering a ten unit cluster development some regard should be given to a less intense but otherwise compatible use for the property, e.g., several single family units. Overall, for the reasons specified above, as well as for those listed in the joint letter by all the neighbors, we believe that City Council should overturn the Planning Commission decision and vote to deny a special use permit for this project. However, were City Council disposed to supporting this project, we would ask that you modify the current special use permit in several ways. First, the overall number of units should be reduced to eight or nine units such that there will not be either a double unit directly on I.exington or a triple unit located anyv✓here in the project. A triple unit is clearly incompatible with the existing neighborhood and would be very out of size and character with the neighborhood. Second, by allowing only one unit on I.exington it will protect the house ne� to it. Third, by reducing the number of units to eight or nine it will less the intensification of use, preserve green space, and make the project less of a traffic safety problem. Fourth, we would like to see the developer post a bond guaranteeing that the project will be completed as specified. What the neighbors fear most is a project that is started and never completed, leaving a partially undeveloped hazard in the neighborhood. Please note, in making this request for a reduction in the number of units the developer will claim that he has already compromised from his initial plan of fifteen units. However, the original proposal for the plan was twelve units and subsequently the developer increased his request to fifteen. Hence, a compromise of eight or nine units to preseroe the neighborhood does not seem unreasonable. Thank you very much for considering our concerns. Sincerely, c� �_� Helene and David Schultz Jauuary 13, 1998 (S:S7pm) David Schultz ORIGINAL Presented By Referred To Council File � $- y Green Sheet # � O `� � ` RESOLUT ON SAINT,F' L, MINNESOTA Committee: Date WHEREAS, Mendota Homes, in Zoning File No. 97-207, made application to the Saint Paul Plauniug Commission for a special condition use permit under the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code Section 60.413(13) and 64300(d) for the purpose of constnxcting a 10 unit cluster development on undeveloped property located on Lexington Pazkway south of St. Clair, and legally described as and; WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Plamiing Commission on October 30, 1997, and on November 13, 1997, after having provided nofice to afFected property owners, held public hearings at which all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard and submitted it recommendafion to the commission. The commission, by its Resolution No.97-78, adopted on November 21, 1997, decided to grant the applica6on based upon the following findings and conclusions: 1. The applicant has a purchase agreement for the property proposed for development. Ten dwelling units are proposed: 3 buildings of two units, 1 building of three units, and 1 building of one unit. Access to the homes and gazages is proposed to be entirely from Lexington Parkway via a private street. There is no alley access. 2. Chapter 60.413(13) of the Zoning Code permits cluster developments subject to the following conditions: � � There shall be a minimum of two (2) units. This condition is met. Ten units are planned. The units shall be attached, common wall, single family, with no unit intruding on the vertical airspace of any other unit. This condition is partially met. Nine of the units are attached, common wall, single-family, with no unit intruding on the vertical air space of any other unit. One unit is a single-family home and this condition (b) is modified for that home in finding 4, below. c. The parcel shall meet the lot area required per unit in the zoning dish-ict. This condition can be met. The lot azea, including half of the alley is 107,380.5 square feet. This allows 10,738.05 square feet per unit, exceeding the 5,000 squaze feet per unit requirement. 11 qg -39"�! z a. 3 4 5 6 7 8 e. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 f � The parcel shall have a minimum frontage of eighty (80) feet on an improved street. This condition is met. The parcel has 183.93 feet of frontage on Le�ngton pazkway. The structure shall conform to the schedule of regulations for height, lot coverage, setbacks and parking. This condifion is met. As proposed, the development meets the requirements for height, lot coverage and pazking prescribed by the zoning district. Eight visitor parldng spaces will be provided in addition to a double garage for each unit. Zoning enforcement has deternuned the front yazd to be on Lexington, and the rear yazd to be the farthest northwest corner of the pazcel. The plan appears to meet all setback requirements. The design shall be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Overall the proposed design is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood which consists of a mixture of 1, 1-1/2, and 2 story shuctures with gabled and hipped roofs. Materials used in the surrounding neighborhood include stucco, clapboazd, metal siding, and composite shingles. Windows are a mixture of double hung and fixed "picture" windows. The proposed units are 1 and 2 stories in height with intersecting gable roofs. (See drawings attached.) The applicant has not specified which units will be one or two stories, but rather proposes that decision be made with the potential buyer. Exterior material is proposed to be vinyl siding. The overall massing, while larger than the typical home in the neighborhood due to the paired unit design, is broken up by a central gabled bay. Porches and double hung windows provide other design elements similar to houses in the azea. Individual lots, buildings, sireet and parking areas shall be designed and situated to minimize alteration of the natural features and topography. The project would require some grading to provide proper drainage for the site. The grading plan also includes construction of a storm water pond near Le�ngton. However, the overall topography of the site, including the slope into the railroad corridor, would not be disturbed. Some of the existing trees in the slope azea of the site would remain. h. Applications for cluster deveZopment shall include site plans, including landscaping and elevations and other fnformation the planning commission may request. This condition is met. The applicant submitted a site plan, landscape plan, and building elevations along with a written descripfion detailing the specifics of the development. 2 q$•3�y 2 3. Section 64300(d) of the zoning code requires that before the plauning coxnxnission may 3 grant approval of a principal use subject to special conditions, the commission shall find 4 that: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 � � c. � The extent, Zocation and intensity of the use wi11 be in substantial compliance with the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan and any applicable subarea pZans which were approved by the city council. The District 16 Plan does not include any proposals relevant to flus matter. There aze no applicable small area plans for this azea. The Saint Paul Housing Policy for the 1990's recotnmends "expansion of housing opportunities for middle and higher income households where this mazket is or can be addressed in Saint Paul." The units in this proposal will be priced at $139,900 - $200,000, addressing middle income populations. The use will provide adequate ingress and egress to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. A private street will provide access to the units and a11ow emergency vehicle traffic and visitor pazking. The Fire Deparhnent has determined this access to be sufficient for emergency access. Initially the applicant proposed extending the alley through to Lexington raising concerns about traffic cutting through the alley to avoid the intersection at St. Clair and Lexington. The current proposal does not ea�tend the existing alley and does not connect the alley to the private street, eluninating the ability far traffic to cut through. The use will not be detrimental to the existing character of development in the immediate neighborhood or endanger the public health, safety and general welfare. This condition is met. The nuxnber of new dwelling units can be accommodated by exisring facilities and services provided by the city. The private street will accommodate emergency vehicles and all requirements for water, sewer and storm water have been met. The use will note impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. This condition is met. The surrounding property is fully developed. The new housing will serve as a buffer between the single family homes on St. Clair and Lexington and the raikoad - Ayd Mill Road corridor. q�-�°t�l � � The use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is Zocated. � This condition is met. 6 7 4. Section 64300( fl of the zoning code states: "The planning commission, after public 8 hearing, may modify any or all special conditions, when strict application of such speeial 9 conditions would unreasonably limit or prevent otherwise lawful use of a piece of 10 property or an e�sting structure and would result in exceptional undue hardship to the 11 owner of such property or structure; provided, that such modificafion will not impair the 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 intent and purpose of such special condifion and is consistent with health, morals and general welfaze of the community and is consistent with reasonable enjoyment of adjacent property." The building fronting on Lexington Pazkway is a stand alone single-family home that does not meet the common wall condition of (c) above and is hereby modified. Siting a single-fanuly home rather than a two-fanvly home is more in keeping with the single- family homes adjoining and to the north along Lexington Parkway. Including the single family home in the cluster development adds the hazdship of sepazate description and easements for a single-family lot. WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislarive Code § 64.206, Pat Byrne, duly filed with the City Clerk an appeal from the determination made by the plauning commission, requesting that a hearing be held before the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the said commission; and WHEREAS, acting pursuant to § 64.206 through § 64.208, and upon norice to affected parties a public heazing was duly conducted by the City Council on January�; 1998, where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and �Y WIIEREAS, the Council, hauing heazd the statements made, and having considered the application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the zoning committee and of the planning commission, does hereby; RESOLVE, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby reverse the decision of the planning commission in this matter, based on the following findings of the Council: The Council finds that the planning commission erred with respect to fmding 2( fl and 2(b) in that: (1) the proposed design is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood as the exterior design characteristics of the units aze out of character with the neighborhood; and (2) the overall design of the proposal is more like a suburban Woodbury styled development which is not in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. The Council fiu•ther finds with respect to finding 3(b) that the ingress and egress to Lexington Avenue does not minimize traffic congestion in the public street and, in fact, adds to traffic congestion; and n °1$ "3�`t � 2 BE IT FURTAER RESOLVED, that the appeal of Pat Byrne be and is hereby granted; 3 and 4 5 BE TT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolufion 6 to Pat Byrne, the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission. 7 Reguested by Department of: By: 1 \ — Approved by By: Form Appro d by City Attorney sy: � �C✓aiYY�' �� l7- �,7 Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: By: Adopted by Conncil: Date �\V\�� \�� Adoptio� Certified by Council Se r ary 1 Citv Council Offices DATE 4/2� GREEN SHEET �$-3q� No 608$1 Mike Harris, 266-8630 � �� — dUST eE ON COUNCIL AGk7JDA BY (Q4TEa AsslGx NUYBERFOR ❑tlIV�iTOR1ET tlIVGiRK ROIRING � ❑HYUICMLiFRYKFSOW. NMIKMLiERVIICCT¢ ❑wrwe(aewsm,urtl ❑ TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CL1P ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Finalizing the decision of the Saint Paul City Council in granting the appeal oE Pat Byrne for property located at Lexington Parkway and St. Clair. PLANNING COMMISSION CIB COMMITTEE CIVIL SERVICE CAMMISSION Has tnis P��n everworketl under a conhact far this dePaNnenl? VES NO Fias thie P�Nfirm ever been a citY emWuYee9 YES NO Does this P��m P�s a sltlti not �wrmallYP�� M ar�Y cuneM citY �W�'ee? YES NO !s 1Ma pe�soMfifm a fatgeted vendcYt YES NO arM atqch to areen sheet IF AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION S 'k��tti��;��5, �,?vnni:•!-d �`',��,eh�p � APR 2 4 199� COST/REVRlUE BUDf3ETED (GRCLE ONE) ACTNIN NUMBER YES NO INFORMAiION(EXPWM OFFICE OF TE� CITY ATTORNEY �� PegBir75 CiryAnomey CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Co7emme, Mayar Civi[ Division 400 City H¢!L IS West KelZogg Blvd Saint Paul, Mi�n+esota 55702 Telephone: 612 266-87Z0 Facsimile: 612 298-5619 Apri121, 1998 Nancy Anderson Council Secretary 31Q City Hall 15 West Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Appeal by Pat Byrne Zoning File No. 97-207 January 27, 1998 Dear Ms. Anderson: Attached please fmd a s3gned resolution memorializing the decision of the Saint Paul City Council in the above-entitled matter. Would you please place this matter on the Council Consent Agenda at your earliest convenience. If you haue any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, ��/�� Peter W. VJarner Assistant City Attorney PW Wfrmb Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF PLFvNYING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT crrY oF sanvr Pavz. Norm Calemarz, Mayor December 8, 1997 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: Divirion of P(mviing 25 A'estFau�th Street Saint Pau1, MNSSIO2 y8 3 y5� � '' . Telephone: 6I2-266-6565 Facsimi[e: 612-228-3374 I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Monday, December 22, 1997 for the following appeal of a Planning Commission decision approving a special condition use permit: Appellant: PAT BY12NE File Number: #97-207 Purpose: Appeal a Planning Commission decision approving a special condition use permit to allow cluster development with ten (10) dwelling units. (Applicant: Mendota Homes) Address: x� Lexington Parkway South (southwest quadreant of Lexington and St. Clair) Legal Description of Property: See Survey in File Previous Action: Planning Commission Action: Approval with conditions; vote: 16-1, November 21, 1997 Zoning Committee Recommendation: Approval with conditions; vote: 4-0, November 13, 1997 My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda for the December 1�, 1997 City Council meeting and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Please call me at 266-6580 if you have any questions. Sincere Beth Bartz City Planner cc: File #97-207 Mike Kraemer Donna Sanders — , xcfa'ics.� PoauC �aanrc The Satnt Paul �1ty Counctf wi11 mnduct a public hearing on Monday, December 22, 1997 at 4:39 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Third Floot. � City Hall-Court Hous� W consider ihe appeat of Pat Byme, to a dectsion of ihe Planning Commission approving a spectal conditlon use pernvt to allow ciuster development with ten dweliing nnits (applicant: Menddta Hoates) at ao�c Ix�dngYOn Parkway South [southwest quadrant of Lerrtc�gton and St. Clair Avenues). - � � - Daked: December 9. 1997 � . - - �� NANCYANDERSON � ' - AsSistant CYLS Coundl Setxetazy " . - - ' � e., ,. . = , �(D_ceember i I. 1997j - DEPARTMENT OF PT.ANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CTTY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Co[eman, Mayor Dec i2- Prfaq 2i, 1997 Ms. Nancy Anderson Secretary to the City Council Room 310 CiTy Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Division af PlanrrLtg 25 West Fowth Street SaintPaul, MN55102 i� Te[epharze: 6I &26Cr6565 Facsimile: 612-228-33I4 RE: Zoning File #97-207: Appellant: PAT BYRNE City Council Hearing: December 22, 1997 430 p.m. City Council Chambers PURPOSE: Appeal a planning commission decision approving a special condition use permit to allow a cluster development with ten (10) dwelling units on property located at the southwest quadrant of Lexington Pazkway South and St. Clair Ave. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS, 16-1 ZONRVG COMNIITTEE RECOn�IIV1ENDATION: APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS, 4-0 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL SUPPORT: One person spoke. Two letters received in support. OPPOSITTON: Six persons spoke. Eight letters were received in opposition. The Summit Hill Association voted to oppose the special condition use permit. Dear Ms. Anderson: PAT BI'RNE has appealed the decision of the Saint Paul Planning Commission to approve a special condition use permit to allow a cluster development with ten (10) dwelling units on properry located at the southwest quadrant of Lexington Parkway South and St. Clair Avenue. The Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission held a public hearing on the request on October 30, 1997 and November 13, 1997. The applicant addressed the committee on both occassions. At the close of the public hearing on November 13 the committee voted 4-0 to recommend approval of the permit with conditions. The Planning Commission upheld the Zoning Committee's recommendation for approval on a 16-1 vote on November 21, 1997. This appeal is scheduled to be heard by the City Counci] on December 22, 1997. Please notify me if any member of the CiTy Council wishes to have slides of the site presented at the public hearing. Sincerely, �[,�p- - wvt�, Ken Ford Planning Administrator Attachments cc: City Council members c I �'��t� APPLICATtON FOR APPEAL Department ojPlanning and Economic Development Zoning Section II00 Cit}� Hall Annex 15 West Fourth Street Sainr Paul, Mh' S5102 266-6589 APPELLANT Address �-4 3 t�/ L�.x`,�U�rv�� n�,e��J City S�r«.� �./ St.1>t Zip SS�/�SDaytime phone.,266 PROPERTY Zoning File LOCATION . , , ., C�il./> - /��.�,Ps' . �/P 57-Zp7 f , f< TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the: i� Soard of Zoning Appeals City Council under the prov'tsions of Chapter 64, Section 2�? Paragraph � of the Zoning Code, to appeai a decision made by the �L�`�J�Ji �C_ C�runi iSI� � on ! t � 2 1� 9 7 , 19� File number. j�7 — Z� � (date o decis on) GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative o�cia{, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission. /�� /l � S � z �" Attach additional sheet if ApplicanYs /f �� C �7r f� Date /02 S �'�City agent� t2��'� 2 9�-3g� Attachment to Application For Appeal Appellant Patrick Byrne 243 S. Lexington Parkway St. Paul, Minn 55105 266-6171 Property Mendota Homes, File 97-207 Location Southwest quadrant of Lexington and St. Clair Lot 19 Rueths Addition This is an appeai to the City Council of a decision made by the Planning Commission on Friday, November2lst, 1997, #97-207 Grounds for Appeal: The Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission and City Staff within PED and Public Works made errors in facts, procedures and findings in assessing the safety issues involved with traffic, parking, and storm water management. There is sufficient unrefuted public testimony to indicated different from their findings. The Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission and City Staff within PED made errors in facts, procedures and findings in assessing the compatibility of the project with the surrounding neighborhood. There is sufficient unrefuted public testimony to indicated different from their findings. The Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission and City Staff within PED and Pubiic Works made errors in facts, procedures and findings in assessing whether or not the project complied with ali provisions of granting a special use permit for a"cluster development". Signature: � Date: 1215 7 City Agent: 3 1�-�u.�z- �� 9 � city of saint paul pianning commission resolution file number 97-�$ �te November 21, 1997 _ WHEREAS, MENDOTA HOMES, file #'t 97-207, has applied for a Special Condition Use under the provisions of Section 60.413 (li) and 64300 (d) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code for the purpose of constructing a 10 unit cluster development on undeveloped property located on Lexington Parkway south of St. Clair, as legally described in the file; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission on 10l30l97 and i ll13l97 held public heazings at which all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to said application in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.300 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and WHEREAS, Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zoning Committee at the public hearing as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact: The applicant has a purchase a�reement for the property proposed for development. Ten dwelling units are proposed: 3 buildings of two units, 1 building of three units, and 1 building of one unit. Access to the homes and garages is proposed to be entirely from Lexington Parkway via a private street. There is no vehicular access from the alley to the site. 2. Chapter 60.413 (13) of the Zoning Code permits cluster developments subject to the following conditions: a. There shall be a minimum of hvo (2) units. This condition is met. Ten units aze planned. b. Tlze units shall be attnche�t, common wall, single family, with no unit iniruding on the vertica! airspace of any other unit. This condition is partially met. Nine of the units are attached, common wall, single- family, with no unit intruding on the vertical air space of any other unit. One unit is a single-family home and this condition (b) is modified for that home in finding 4, below. moved by Field seconded by in favor 16 $��# 1 (Nordin) � / f./ r � �� Zoning File #.97-207 Page Two c. TJze parcel slzall meet t/te lot area required per ur:it in tJ:e zoning rlistrict. This condition can be met. The lot azea, including half of the alley is 107,380.5 square feet. This allows 10,738.05 square feet per unit, exceedin� the 5000 square feet per unit requirement. d. T/ze parcel s/zallltave a mi�aitsutm frontage of eigl:ty (80) feet o�r an improved street. This condition is met. The parcel has 183.93 feet of frontage on Lexington Parkway. e. The structure shall confortn to the schedtde of regulatio�:s for I:ei;kt, !ot coverage, setbacks and parking. This condition is met. As proposed, the development meets the requirements for height, lot coverage and parking prescribed by the zoning district. Eight visitor parking spaces will be provided in addition to a double garage for each unit. Zonin� enforcement has determined the front yard to be on Lexington, and the rear yard to be the farthest northwest corner of the parcel. The pian appears to meet all setback requirements. f. TI:e design skall be compatible witle tlee srerrour:ding neigltborltood Overall the proposed design is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood which consists of a mixture of I, 1-1/2, and 2 story structures with gabled and hipped roofs. Materials used in the surrounding neighborhood include stucco, clapboard, metal siding, and composite shingles. Windows are a mixrizre of double hung and fixed "picture" windows. The proposed units aze 1 to 2 stories in height with intersecting gable roofs. (See drawings attached.) The applicant has not specified which units will be one or two stories, but rather proposes that decision be made with the potential buyer. Exterior material is proposed to be vinyl siding. The overall massing, while larger than the typical home in the neighborhood due to the paired unit design, is broken up by a central gabled bay. Porches and double hung windows provide other design elements similaz to houses in the area. g. Individua! lots, bui[dings, street and parking areas shall be designed and situated to minimize alteration ofthe natnrt�7features anrl topograplzy. The project would require some grading to provide proper drainage for the site. The grading plan also includes construction of a storm water pond near Lexington. However, the overall topography of the site, including the slope into the railroad corridor, wouid not be disturbed. Some of the existing trees in the slope azea of the site would remain. h. Applicafons for c[uster clevelopment shall include site plans, including Inndscaping and elevations and other informtztion t{ze planning commission may reqzcest. This condition is met. The applicant submitted a site plan, landscape plan, and building elevations along with a written description detailing the specifics of the development. � 98-39� Zoning File #�97-207 Pa�e Three 3. Section 64300 (d) of the zoning code requires that before the planning commission may grant approval of a principal use subject to special conditions, the commission shall find that: a. Tlze extetzt, Zocatiorz atttl intetzsity of tF:e use tvi11 be in substaritial compliarxce witk the Saint Pau! Comprelzensive Plan and any applicable si[barea plans w{zicJz were approved by t/te city cot�ncil. The District 16 Plan does not include any proposals relevant to this matter. There are no applicable small area plans for this area. The Saint Paul Housing Policy for the 1990s recommends "expansion of housing opportunities for middle and higher income households where this market is or can be addressed in Saint Paul." The units in this proposal will be priced at $139,400 - $200,000, addressing middle income populations. b. Tlte use wilt provide adequate ingress and egress to minimize traffic congestion in the pttblic streets. A private street will provide access to the units and allow emergency vehicle traffic and visitor parking. The Fire Department has determined this access to be sufficient for emergency access. Initially the applicant proposed extending the alley through to Lexington raising concerns about traffic cuttin� through the alley to avoid the intersection at St. Clair and Lexington. The current proposal does not extend the existing alley and does not connect the alley to the private street, eliminating the ability for traffic to cut through. c. The use wi![ not be detrimental to t/te existing cJiaracter of development in the immediafe neighbor/:ood or endanger t1:e public healt/i, safety and genera[ wetfare. This condition is met. The number of new dwelling units can be accommodated by existing facilities and services provided by the city. The private street will accominodate emergency vehicles and all requirements for water, sewer and storm water have been met. d Tlze use will not impede the norn:al an�l orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district This condition is met. The surrounding property is fuliy developed. The new housing will serve as a buffer between the single family homes on St. Clair and Lexinb on and the railroad - Ayd Mill Road corridor. e. The use shall, in all otJzer respects, conform to t1:e applicab[e regulatians of t)te district in which it is located This condition is met. � 98�39y Zoning File �97-207 Page Four (4) Section 64300 (t� of the zoning code states: "The plannin� commission, after public hearing, may modify any or all special conditions, when strict application of such special conditions would unreasonably limit or prevent otherwise lawful use of a piece of property or an existing structure and would result in exceptional undue hardship to the owner of such proper[y or structure; provided, that such modification will not impair the intent and purpose of such special condition and is consistent with health, morals and general �n�elfare of the community and is consistent with reasonable enjoyment of adjacent properiy °' The building fronting on Lexington Parkway is a stand alone single-family home that does not meet the common wall condition of (2) c, above, and is hereby modified. Siting a single- family home rather than a two-family home is more in keeping with the singie-family homes adjoining and to the north along Lexington Parkway. Including the single family home in the cluster development avoids the hardship of separate description and easements for a singie-family lot. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commission, that under the authoriTy of the City's Legislative Code, the application for a Special Condition Use to allow a 10 unit cluster development on the undeveloped pzoperty located on Lexington Parkway south of St. Clair is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the cluster development be constructed in conformance with the plan dated 11/13/97, a part of the file; 2. That there be provided a physical barrier to prevent vehiculaz access from the alley to the site, as determined by site plan review staff; 3. That the area between the alley and the cluster development be landscaped to buffer nearby residences, as determined by site plan review staff; 4. That the applicant grant an easement of sufficient size that allows emergency and service vehicles to cross the corner where the rivo aileys meet; 5. That a no left turn sign be posted by the applicant, prohibiting left turns onto Lexington Park�vay northbound. 7 �, ��.� 98 -39`/ '� \ � �. ��.,� �-.,., ., -.�; .. , �. ��, I, �; , y � �.� `.. .. �� C -��,_-. - ;,;' � ,. '� '� � �. � ; � �, �. ' �` �� ' '• �`___ . .,. ,- .�t �� . °� , '� � \ �'tr,t i z � K , t � . , `�. � <"- :t �"'' ._.. k t, 'u,' �n ;..... v...�' % .�� Z;:•,�'� . s :. ,�%; �. �; �, �� ,,. � �` ;�<�{ _ _ , ; , :.' � � � _. ��. �_ •., _ �-- � j � ': r+ , ' � � /" t / -� s�\ '_ I � �1 '_ =' �`-� � f3 � f :} _ � .., ° . '- .,_ � _ ' , t � J � ,.; �, .,� " `�\. ^ • �` .,, '` 1 ��, i i � � `� \ �i'� ` � ...� = ` .^ - ' � \�„ : "� _ >_ �� .` � . � �,� :F� ,s ;: '�-: � `Z �/ 1� .., �� { � �•. � /^ ;�' e • • � ; � :� • i. 1' . 1 ��`l�� / l ' r � �l . � � -___ � ^-- ' t � � . •; � . �.., � , � � '� �� 9` �� ( � ` �:; 1 \ \ ; � / '� ` �� %' i %�' r�:. i, �. ; � �� i � ��;., ' ti ; ' ! :� f r � fii `r ,�• � � (/�� • � � ' � ) L j `i. ��) � \ � ' / �"C..: L" ��7, i �✓ /.�.. � � ' .� '' �\� '�CS �' -�: ,i 5 � c..; �� i _ '"_ � kti � / � S:-� / � : �„ � i � r �:�y � ,,,a•:. �\ \ 1�' , �.�! R' �•,'�. • tt '` ��' �..�^ �� j ( / .�.. + � _ ` �^�' , �Y . ' i � ` ��i ,} \ . �:/`t!� f = r 1 � % : �. / . � ' `' �' J� � � , JJ 1 / ! �' ..""t i,.Z,.! :t\TP� �� ' I'`�.1"'.3�'. j� �. J � t ' % i o � ` � „ t � \ , / � � ..a ,, �i., � � � � � :C: � � � ^ '�' t .` :, � � % i ,�� V il ; �ll ` ` ; i >, � � �� '� '�_`. ' k \ �r' f 3 �. � r�/ �. }� / �Z C; �\ � ��:I�� r �.Q7 `L t N � �i !� i� ` � / F� ys �� . , .; ,.. .. l.Y' ? �• �• � � i • t � ' Ri,�4:. � 1� L,_�� ' � . �. \ ��t I � � •� �r,�'��i� . �.. . 9 -^- ,� ,:�, , � 1 �� ' �� ;,r ` 1 :',� i ., 1� � , � ..�.. , �/�<, \ � r ``• 'i` ` i ,'' � � [4 �� , '�''\• Y ` L \ �+ / 7 � �� '��•\ eh�'Z1J �` ,. , 1 �� Y Up'.V.� .` ��\ ` r..,�`�•ti� f� ' .-' i \� • . .,Sy ��` �.t l �'.� :, i� ''�.�, `� ��J { �'� � � .� � ' i ( \`� � �• •`5'=' �,\', r �, � ..,� � ` / t � [ r / 7r f � �� F ��, �, . �,� ` � � �'� '. :z ` `i.. �'r. i 4. .� ��' � �.. ,� .,� �; / , � ti � r � �k �' '��`'- �f {� � � a �. �� `�°�` � •� ` { �`. !' yFy , `� � �� } /� �q"" C �,'� ' ?� . I ''• ! '�. i:{ ' ,,\ aii a` i :('j x � `� � t;! '�'. a r� �r� �' 70 � 6 � �.;�.;$ �� . r . ._�'�t �:\ ' ; '-� `f ` o �,.. ,� ,; 1 j i . - � � �. •i\ r i j � / : V� C� �� ..�n.A �. � � i � � � `: !n� n / i� � , G ..� � � �� n�.'« �l / ! ZO'd 06£L-'b8L (2I9) uos�aN .,�atiob d8t=Z0 L6-2i-^°N V � �c�t � g�'"� Saint Paul Plannina Commission City Hall Conference Center 15 Kellogg Boulevard West A meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, November 21, 1997, at 830 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall. Commissioners Mmes. Duarte, Engh, Faricy, Geisser, Nordin, Treichel, and Wenct, and Messrs. Present: Chavez,. Field Jr., Gordon, Kong, Kramer, Mazdell, Nowlin, Sharpe, Vaught and Wilson Commissioners Ms. *Maddox and Messrs. *Johnson and *McDonell Absent: *Excused Also Present: Ken Ford, Planning Administrator; Jean Birkholz, Beth Bartz, Kady Dadlez, Nancy Frick, Tom Harren, Nancy Homans, Patricia James, Roger Ryan, and Lucy Thompson, Department of Planning and Economic Development staff. T. Approval of Minutes of November 7, 1997 MOTION: Commissioner Field moved fo approve the minutes of November 7, 1997; Commissioner Gordon seconded the moiion which carried unanimously on a voice vote. II. Chair's Announcements First Vice Chair Goxdon officiated the meeting in Chair McDonell's absence. First Vice Chair Gordon announced that Commissioner Maddox' mother passed away; her funeral was yesterday. III. Planning Administrator's Announcements Mr. Ford announced that on Wednesday, November 19, the City Council passed a resolution requesting that the Planning Commission advise the City Council within 120 days of its intentions with respect to updating the Fire and Medical Emergency Services Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff will be working on recommendations to bring to the Commission. N. Zoning Committee #97-207 Mendota Homes - Special condition use permit to allow a 10-unit cluster development at the southwest quadrant of Lexina on and St. Clair. Beth Bartz, Southwest Team. MOTION: Commissioner Field moved approval of the requested special condition use permit to allow a 1 D-unit cluster development at the southwest quadrant of Lerington and St Clair subjeet to conditions: � I. ThaL the cluster development be constructed in conformance with ihe plan dafed II/13/97, a part of the ftle; 2. That ikere be provided a plrysical barrier to prevent vehicutar access from the atley to the site, ar determined by tlte site plan review staff,• 3. That the area between the alley and the cluster development be landreaped to buffer nearby residences, as determined by the site plan review staff,• 4. That the applicant grant an easement of sufficient size that allows emergency and service ve/:icles to eross tlze corner where the two aZleys meet; 5. That a no left turn sign to posted by the applicant, prolzibiting left turns onto Lexington Parkway northbourxd. Commissioner Field informed the Commission that the Zoning and Land Use Committee of the Summit Hill Association and the District 16 Planning Council recommended denial of this request, but it was based on an eazlier proposal than the one viewed last Thursday. There was numerous testimony in opposition to the project presented at the Zoning Committee meeting. The developer and the neighborhood met several times to try to compromise. Commissioner Nordin asked to hear more about the discussion that took place at the Zoning Committee meeting. She said that she feels this is a good use of land and would like to vote in favor of it, but the amount of pavement on the site disturbs her as well as no use of the alley which would eliminate three driveways and a few turn arounds. Commissioner Vaught noted that he had the same concerns as well as a safety concem going into the Zoning Committee meeting. He assured Commissioners that what they see before them represents a compromise after listening to all of the various positions. Even though this plan is not particularly perfect, the Committee felt that it could get the job done. First Vice Chair Gordon asked if the Department of Public Works took a position on this plan? Commissioner Vaught replied that they spoke about the issues, but were not particularly helpful. Commissioner Nordin stated that she could not vote in favor of this case. She believes that the Commission should stand their ground more firmly. Although she said she thinks iYs a wonderful use of land, no alley access is not a good use. Commissioner Field said that he also sits on the Housing Task Force with Commissioner Nordin and he understands her concems and support of the project. However, he feels that this issue is one that may have to be dealt with more often in the future. In filling up the City's green space with housing, there's a need to be sensitive to the surrounding neighbors, and compromises will have to be made. Commissioner Nordin commented that this neighborhood knew that it was always a possibility that this open land would be developed. This plan is inconsistent with any existing planning within the City. She feels that this is not a legitimate compromise to be made for housing. Commissioner Vaught noted that at the Zoning Committee meeting, Susan Kimberly made the I� �18-�9N comment that in looking to try to meet the needs for new housing in this City, compromises will have to be made. Commissioner Nordin stated that she understands why the road and the cul-de-sac are there because taking tfiat out would tum the alley into a street. She said she is having a hard time accepting is the four driveways off of it that add all the pavement and all the little turn arounds you need to get back to that driveway. She stated that those four driveways can be eliminated with just the alley access; that would leave green space between the houses. Commissioner Field repeated that the result here is a compromise that is trying to accommodate all of the conflicting interests of the parties. The motion on the floor to approve fhe reques[ed special condition use permit to allow a IO- unit cluster development at the southwest quadrant ofLe.rington and St. Clair carried on a vote of I6 to I(Nordi�r). #97-258 US West Communications - Special condition use permit to allow a 90' cellular telephone antenna at 426 Fairview Avenue North. Nancy Homans, Northwest Team. MOTION: Commissioner Field moved approval of the requested special condition use persnit to allow a 90' cellular telephone anlenna at 426 Fairview Avenue Nortl:. Commissioner Field noted that the Merriam Park Community Council voted to not support the special condition use permit. Commissioner Field referred to a memo dated November 20, 1997, which states that the switching gear will be housed in structures near the antenna. This makes it a different situation than we the Zoning Committee understood at the time of the vote. It is not viewed as germane to the actual height of the antenna itself. In addition, there were documents provided in connection with the pole itself that showed certain landscaping around the antenna and other structures related to this. There was some concern expressed as to whether that landscaping would be there in view of the change. MOTION: Commissdoner Yaught moved to amend the original motion to include a site plan review; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Wencl which carried unanimously on a voice vote. The amended motion on the floor to approve the requested special condition use permit to allow a 90' cellular telephone antenna af 426 Fairview Avenue North carried unanimously on a voice vote. #97-259 US West Communications - Specia] condition use permit to altow a 90' cellular telephone antenna at 1669 Arcade Street. Patricia James, Northeast Team. MOTION: Commissioner Fie1d moved approval of the requested special condition use permit fo allow a 90' celiula� telephone anienna ai I669 Arcade Street, subject to appropriate screening approved by site plan review staff, carried unanimously on a voice vote. �� 98-3q y MINUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE CITY COUNCTI, CHAMBERS, SAZNT PAUL, MINNESOTA OI3 NOVEMBER 13, 1997 PRESENT: Mmes. Faricy and Wencl; Messrs. Field, Kramer and Vaught of the Zoning Committee; Mr. Warner, Assistant City Attorney; Mmes. Bartz, Frick, Homans, James and Sanders and Mr. Ryan of PED. ASSENT: Chavez Gordon, excused Time: 4:20 - 5:45 p.m. The meeting was chaired by Litton Field, Chairperson. MENDOTA HOMES• southwest quadrant of Lexington and St C1aiY• #97-207• Snecial Condition Use Permit: To allow a 10 unit cluster development. Beth Bartz, PED, Southwest Quadrant, reviewed that this matter was heard on Oc[ober 30 and laid over for two weeks to this meeting to allow a Department of Public Works representative to attend this meeting to respond to concerns. Tom Kuhfeld from Public Works was present at the meeting to respond to questions. Ms. Bartz reported that the applicant and representatives of the neighborhood aonvened and discussed the proposal during the interim. The neighborhood presented the applicant with two options: A� To have the units exclusively use the private drive and not be accessed via the alley; or B) If the units were to be accessed from the alley, that the applicant agree to improve and maintain the alley in perpetuity. There were also additional conditions which were outlined in the November 13 letter from David Schultz who represented the neighbors, as well as correspondence and a revised site plan from the applicant. The revised site plan is not the applicant's preferred site plan, however they will do it if they need to. These items were distributed at the meeting and are included in the case file. Commissioner Vaught asked for confirmation that the Mathern reaction to Options A& B was the proposal which includes on the western most part of the site, a 3-unit building as opposed to a 2-unit building, and includes a single unit building on the Lexington end of the site and still includes 10 units. Ms. Bartz responded that was the Mathern response to one of the neighbors' requests that there only be a single unit on Lexington Avenue, as opposed to�a duplex. The neighborhood was requesting then, that the total number of units included in the development be reduced to 9 units, and Ms. Bartz reported the Matherns' wish to keep the number of units at 10, and to accommodate that a third unit was added to one of the buildings on the site. Ms. Bartz noted that staff has had some concern with the proposed site plan about the additional driveways and how the revised site plan cuts up the siCe. Tom Beach, LIEP, site plan review, has reviewed the site and feels there is an alternative to access to the site that would access all of the units off of Lexington Parkway, but would e3iminate some of the need for a driveway. Ms. Bartz distributed a copy o£ these comments. !Z q8-395� Tom Kuhfeld, Department of Public Works, was available to respond to questions. Commissioner Vaught reviewed concern with a proposal that provides ingress and egress primary to all or some o£ the units, onto Lexington, has to do with the topography of Lexington from St. Clair to Ayd Mill Road. He noted speed of traffic in this location, and said that although there is a signal intersection on St. C1air that as you cross St. C1air you can't see the ingress/egress point. Noting concern over the amount o£ tra£Eic on Lexington and the safety concerns of an additional access road, he asked Mr. Kuhfeld to elaborate on the thinking of Public works as it related to the. possibility of using alleys, which he noted is not unprecedented in the city. Mr. Kuhfeld, Department of Public Works, noted that he had discussed this matter with the trafEic engineer and recognized the valid concerns. However, he noted that the situation is not that different from many other similar situations in Saint Paul, i.e. driveways and unsignalled streets, e.g., Maryland Avenue. Mr. Kuhfeld reviwed that the Lexington Street frontage is the only street frontage that the proposed property has, and said that until and unless the City were to purchase the right-of-access that the applicant could not be denied that access. Further, it was his position that where a property has both alley and street frontage that they ought to have access to both. Commissioner Vaught noted that access to Lexington initially was not what the applicants were seeking, but that their first choice was to primarily use the alley for access, but were told by Public Works staff that was not possible. FIe asked iE the proposed site were looked at as two parcels, it being subdivided, with the front parcel including just the £rontage on Lexington Pkwy., the back parcel wouldn't have any right or access to Lexington Pkwy. Vaught contended that other than the fact that the alley doesn't have a name and does not allow for address numbers off of the alley, he asked what rationale the Department has beyond that the department has for not having the primary access to the proposed site being the alley, as opposed to Lexington. Mr. Kuhfeld responded that their primary responsibility is to fulfill the Legislative Code that is given to them through ordinances of the City Council, and he noted that one such ordinance requires an improved street, sewer and water, or a house number is not issued. He said that a waiver may be granted to those conditions, with the order of importance being: 1) the sanitary sewer, 2) water and 3) street frontage. It was noted that the first two are in place, and Kuhfeld said that the private road gives them something which is comparable to street frontage and addresses would be given off of Lexington. He said that in putting in the private road, they would be doing something allowed in other areas and does not place an added burden on the City for maintenance, i.e. plowing. Commissioner Vaught asked that if the point of ingress/egress to the property was not on Lexington Parkway, that the safety concerns that he raised above would not be an issue. Mr. Kuhfeld responded that those concerns would be eliminated, however it would affect the safety concerns in the alley and direct its access to St. Clair. 2 !J 98-3 / y Commissioner Vaught reviewed that exceptions do exist to the general rule o£ not having an address off o£ an unimproved street or an alley to indicate that - this situation is not unique. He asked what tests Public works uses in order to a11ow such an exception, and name the alley and assign street numbers to it. Mr. Kuh£eld responded that the alley is not a platted street. He said he believed the City could turn the proposed alley into aa of£icial street with all o£ the rights and responsibilities, however he said that would be a different matter than what is before the committee, and would require a process o£ its own. Commissioner vaught established from Mr. Kuhfeld that he was aware of places where egress and ingress was off of an a11ey. John Mathern, Mendota Homes, the applicant, spoke. Mr. Mathern reviewed that since the October 30 meeting that time has been spent reviewing the site plan and a meeting was held with the neighborhood. He reviewed that the neighborhood presented them with Options A& B. He noted that concerns raised at the meeting which the applicant tried to address, were that two units would be built on Lexington Pkwy. next to a single-family one-level house, with their primary concern thaC the proposal be reduced to one unit. Mr. Mathern agreed that if he could do that by revising their plan that he would. Secondly, there was concern of the alley, and that if the alley were improved that Mendota Homes would plow and maintain the alley. Mr. Mathern said that on behalf of Mendota Homes and the townhouse association that he could not obligate the association to maintaining the entire alley and plowing the entire alley with no cost to the neighborhood in perpetuity. Mendota Homes did agree a£ter meeting with the neighborhood that they would put a proposal together to see if the goals that they wished to accomplish could be achieved. This being reducing the density on Lexingtan by allowing only one unit to be built on Lexington; and could all ingress/egress be on Lexington and not share the alley with the neighborhood at all. Mr. Mathern reviewed that a proposal was put together quickly and given to the neighborhood, and after having had a chance to review it themselves, Mendota Homes has decided that it is not a proposal that Mendota would be in favor of because of the amount of asphalt in both the cul-de-sac and the private driveways necessary. A copy of this site plan was distributed. Mr. Mathern reviewed that their preferred plan is the plan reviewed on October 30, with part of the traffic load onto the alley; part onto Lexington; and the bringing of the cul-de-sac off of Lexington. He reviewed that they received an additional alternative from Mr. Beach, LIEP, which shows coming in with their road off of Lexington and then paralleling the alley with their own private road. Their concerns with proposal were that the private road would be right next to the public alley and the difficulty in keeping maintenance separate. Mendota Homes could not support that proposal. Mr. Mathern asked £or the committee to support the plan with 10 units, with half of the traffic on Lexington and half the traffic on the alley. If committee support of their preferred plan wasn't possible, Mendota Homes had their engineer take Che plan that had all of the traffic on Lexington and revise that to something with less parking and asphalt on it. This revision 3 � 98 �39 y was circulated at the meeting. Mr. Mathern said that as a compromise they would accept this proposal which loads all of the traf£ic onto Lexington, does not share the a11ey with the neighbors, and also has one unit on Lexington and keeps the proposal at 10 units. Mr. Mathern briefly reviewed the alternative site plan proposal. There was some discussion regarding other possible scenarios to configuration which were ruled out as infeasible. Commissioner Vaught said he would be hesitant to cut off access to residences that back onto an alley, to that alley, as he didn�t see the sense, £airness or equity in it. The problem he saw was to go so far as to establish the primary or only access to those properties to be off of the alley, but given the alternative proposal by Mendota Homes, he could accept that. Commissioner Faricy said she felt that units 8, 9 and 10 as laid ou[ in the preferred alternative was too congested and asked whether Mr. Mathern would consider reducing the number of townhouses to 9 units. Mr. Mathern responded that they are firm with the number 10, and noted that their original proposal called for 14 or 15 units, and this represents a compromise on density. He said it is the only 3-unit on site and said that with respect to townhouses it is rather low in density as most townhouses go 4-6 units attached. Commissioner Vaught said he believed the trade-off, that being one unit on Lexington and the 3-Unit discussed above, was a superior plan, given the relationship to the existing home on Lexington. Mr. Mathern noted that by putting only one unit on Lexington it will likely enable them to widen the roadway at its entrance/exit point. Commissioner Vaught expressed concern that left turns both on to Lexington and off of Lexington into the development, materially increases the safety hazard that exists there, and asked if the applicant would be agreeable to prohibiting that. Mr. Mathern responded that if restrictions were to be made that he would prefer that they be limited to certain hours of the day of heavy traffic. Pat Byrne, 243 S. Lexington Pkwy., reviewed his prepared comments, a copy of which are in the case file. Mr. Byrne addressed the most recent proposal with Che one unit on Lexington Pkwy. He expressed concern that given the change in the proposal at this meeting, that the community council and those present with comments at the last meeting were being bypassed in the decisionmaking as they have not seen the latest information. Chair Field responded that Peter Warner, Assistant Attorney, advised that it may be left to the discretion of the committee revisited on those issues, and that notice was given. He said that frequently there are cases that during tke course of discussion compromises may be reached. Commissioner Vaught noted that upon layover at the October 30 meeting that it was never the intent to go back to the Summit Hill Association, but suggestion was made, and the opportunity provided to those most immediately a£fected to take part in the process, and he said he suspected that those who could participate were able to do that. 4 �s 98-3Sy Mr. Byrne asked £or the staff position on the pre£erred proposal of the applicant. Ms. Bartz responded that there is no staft response to the new proposal. She indicated that one piece o£ the preferred proposal is not in compliance with the SCUP, with that being the single unit on Lexington. I£ the preferred proposal were considered for approval by the committee an added condition would be necessary that that single unit on Lexington be split off from the rest of the development, as a single, unattached unit is not allowed as part of a cluster development, and there£ore any revised platting there would need to be reviewed to ensure that there is an 80 foot frontage maintained on Lexington Avenue for the rest o£ the development. Commissioner Vaught asked whether the zoning code allows the committee to vary that requirement. Mr. Warner responded that Eor the purposes of the SCUP application that variances can also be taken into consideration. He noted that section 64.300 subd. f(27 of the Legislative Code, indicates tkat the planning commission may act as the board of zoning appeals and grant variances for any regulations of the code related to permits or site plan approval; which gives them the authority. Chair Field said that putting that issue aside, and having seen the applicant's revised proposed plan, whether staff noted any consistencies with the original staff report that would be impacted by the revision. Ms. Bartz said that the original stafE report conclusions stand, and that Public Works stafE has provided input noting that it is not substantively different enough to affect the sta£f recommendation. Mr. Byrne spoke to finding 2(f), compatibility to the surrounding neighborhood, and disagreed with staff and found the revised proposal to be incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. He also spoke to the issue ingress and egress and reviewed that staff has not been able to find that these are safe conditions and finds the access to Lexington to be unsafe. Byrne opposed the revised proposal and requested Che committee deny the request until the neighborhood had an opportunity to review the latest proposal. Commissioner Vaught ascertained £rom Mr. Byrne that given a choice oE two versus one units located on Lexington, that he preferred one unit on Lexington. oP Mr. David Schultz, 1120 St. Clair Avenue, spoke in opposition. Mr. Schultz reviewed that the neighborhood did attempt to arrive at a compromise and came up with two options, Options A and S. Ae reviewed that a neighborhood meeting did take place with the developer and that they did work out what appeared to be a compromise, however uneasy, as it wasn't acceptable to a11. Aowever, Mr. Mathern was to later inform them that he couldn't agree to it. Mr. Schultz said the "preferred alternative" was new to him and he addressed it. Mr. Schultz' concerns were addressed in his November 13 letter that was distributed, which he reviewed, and a copy of which is in the case file. Concerns included a desire for a good bufEer of trees between the development and the alley. Concern remains that there be sufficient alley easement for emergency vehicles and for neighborhood parking. Mr. Schultz noted that the neighbors who did agree to the compromise liked the proposal of where the triplex was located on the proposal that was presented to them, and liked the 5 �� q8-39 y� idea that it be located further away from other residential structures. One of the neighbors asked that it be written into the association bylaws that residents and visitors to Lexington Commons wouldn't use the alley. In looking at the current proposal, Mr. Schultz said he could not speak £or the neighbors due to the changes. He expressed concern that the preferred proposal pushes the triplex closer to the existing homes on the St. Clair side. He noted that the concerns addressed towards the proposal they considered over the weekend, the adequate buffer, questions about easements Eor safety vehicles, etc, still pertain. Mr. Schultz agreed with the single unit on Lexington and found it to be an improvement. Mr. Schultz spoke of concern on where the triplex units would be located. Ae said that when the neighUors compromised that they originally wanted to go for four double units and a single unit on Lexington. He asked that the triplex be reduced Co a duplex and the overall units be reduced to nine units. Commissioner Vaught asked Mr. Schultz to elaborate on the point made by Mr. Schultz about easements for safety vehicles. Mr. Schultz said that there are two concerns that the neighborhood had discussed that were agreed upon by the developer and he said he wished to make sure were konored: 1) he noted the entrance to the alley and proceeding to where a right hand turn is made to the east/west portion of the alley Chat goes on Co St. Clair, that it is a very narrow alley, and the concern is to make sure that there is enough room, which means to cut into the developer's property a bit for an easement to allow adequate space for service trucks to get through; and 2) That there be enough space on the alley to accommodate reasonable parking by residents was also an issue addressed by the neighborhood that he said Mr. Mathern appeared sympathetic to. Commissioner Vaught asked what Mr. Schultz was looking for in terms of what they don't have currently, in terms of parking in the alley. Mr. Schultz said the primary issue is the easement for service vehicles. The secondary issue is that currently some residents do park in parts of the alley because of the types of garages they have, and the developer seemed to indicate a willingness to accommodate some kind of room on his property to address both issues. He noted that residents have concern that the development would make it difficult for residents to park where Chey have been parking in the back, and that they would be forced to go out onto the street, and is an attempt to address what they see as a safety issue. Commissioner VaughC asked what Mr. Schultz suggested with respect to bu£fering. Mr. Schultz said that the neighborhood discussion originally proposed it as a privacy fence. Upon speaking with the developer, it was his estimation that it would be approximately $20,000 to do, however he did agree at that time to do a good buffer in terms of a tree landscape buffer to separate the project from the alley. Commissioner Vaught received agreement from Mr. Schultz that he would prefer to see one unit on Lexington instead of two. 6 l� 98 9N Chair Field requested that Mr. Schultz elaborate on the nature of his complaints regarding the administrative due process issues he alleged at the end o£ his letter. Mr. Schultz reviewed his concerns related to two issues: 1) He reviewed that Tim Sullivan had submitted information for public record which included a letter and attachments, and he understood that only the letter and not the attachments, were forwarded to the zoning committee for its review; and 2) He noted concern that Commissioner Vaught at the October 30 meeting engaged in what he thought was an ex parte discussion with city staff on some material. He said that as the zoning committee is a formal adjudicative administrative hearing that the in£ormation is supposed to be on the record, with decisions based upon it. Commissioner Vaught responded that he is not prohibited from making ex parte comments. He further commented that Mr. Schultz had attempted to draw him into ex parte comments after that October 30 discussion and that he refused to be engaged. Mr. Schultz responded that he had approached Commissioner Vaught only to inquire as to whether or not public testimony would be accepted at this meeting. Keith Curtner, 259 So. Lexington Parkway, spoke in opposition. He expressed concern over traffic filtering off of St. Clair through the development and out onto Lexington. He said that it appears that the preferred proposal has parking or driveway pads in significantly short proximity to the alleyways that would allow that to happen relatively easily, and asked that be considered in the committee's recommendations. Mr. Mathern, Mendota Homes, the applicant, spoke in rebuttle. Mr. Mathern said that in the meeting held with the neighborhood they did agree that tkey would allow a widening beyond the extent o£ the a11ey at the corner because that is where the trucks make the turn and it is difficult. He said that this could be worked out with staff as to rededicating and widening the alley. Ae said that they do not agree to provide any parking spaces at that location for the neighborhood. He noted that the location of the triplex, he believes, is a matter of preference and that Mendota Homes prefers it as shown in the preferred proposal. He said that a landscape plan wi11 be provided to the City which will include trees and shrubs on the site. Commissioner Vaught asked for clarification as to what is intended with the widening o£ the alley, deeding the property or providing an easement. Mr. Mathern noted it is just giving the neighborhood the ability to make the turn. The public hearing was closed. 7 �V 9�- �iy Commissioner Vaught moved approval of the special coadition use permit with the £ollowing conditions: 1) That it be conditioned upon the specific plan that was presented at this meeting which includes the triplex and it includes less asphalt then the preceding proposal that included the triplex; 2) That there be no vehicular access from the alley to the site itsel£; (the intent is that there actually be physical barriers) 3) That there be a suitable landscaping plan £os the area between the existing asphalt and the alley; 4j That there be some speci£ic resolution o£ the issue o£ the passage o£ safety vehicles and/or other service vehicles acrosa the corner of the alley; 5) There be required to be posted by the applicant (if appropriate) at egress £rom the property, a prohibition on left turns onto Lexington northbound; and 6) That the requirements be varied in line with the code provisions sited earlier by Mr. Warner, to allow the single unit on Lexington as a parC of this development without requiring that it be broken off as a second development. Commissioner Kramer seconded the motion. The motion carried on a unanimous voice vote of 4 to �. Commissioner Wencl was not present for the vote. Commissioner Vaught noted that he believed that Susan Kimberly's testimony at the October 30 meeting was valuable. He noted that i£ the proposed property hadn't been an unusual piece of land that it would have been built on a long time ago. Vaught said he had some difficulty retricting alley access to property that's across the alley and has alley access, but was willing Co do so if the developer was agreeable to it. He reiterated his concern over the traffic on Lexington. He said he preferred this as to the proposal presented earlier to the neighborhood, and liked the fact that there is less asphalt and he finds units 6 and 7 to be closer to the houses on St. Clair then 8, 9 and 10 are in either proposal. He noted that he believes one unit on Lexington is appropriate. 8 /9 9�-3s� Commissioner Vaught, after a recess, revisited the complaint by Mr. Schultz. He said he believed his behavior to be inappropriately characterized as ex parte. He said that the allegation that the committee is sitting in some manor o£ quasi-judicial capacity is incorrect, and said it is an administrative hearing, which is a recommendation to the planning commission which either makes the decision in terms of SCUPS or advises the city council in the case of rezonings. He reviewed that those decisions that are made finally by the planning commission are subject to appeal to the city council and that it is at that point that the city council sits in a quasi-judicial capacity. Ae said that a conversation that he has with a staff person is never an ex parte contact and he said it was inappropriately categorized as such, and even if it were it is not prohibited and the only prohibition that he's aware of in the legislative code dealing with ex parte contacts is that which prohibits a member of the city council sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity reviewing an appeal oE a decision of the planning commission from having contact with the parties. Drafted by: ' /Mln�� 0�'� � � Donna Sanders Recording Secretary Sub ' ted b. Approved by: �� Beth Bartz ' on Fi d Southwest Quadrant Chairpe son 0 � 98-ag`f MINUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA ON OCTOSER 30, 1997 PRESENT: Mme. Wencl; Messrs_ Chavez, Field, Gordon, Kramer and Vaught of the Zoning Committee; Mr. Warner, Assistant City Attorney; Mmes. Bartz, Homans, James and Sanders and Mr. Ryan o£ PED. ARSENT- Fa, excused Time: 3:37 - 6:20 p.m. _ The meeting was chaired by Litton Field, Chairperson. MENDOTA HOMES• xxx Lexinaton Pkwv S(southwest auadrant of Lexinaton and St Clair: #97-207; Special Condition Use Permit. To allow a 10 unit cluster development. Beth Bartz, PED, Southwest Quadrant, reviewed the staff report and presented slides. Staf£ recommended approval of the special condition use permit based on findings 1 through 3 of the staff report. Tom Beach, LIEP, site plan review staff, was present to respond�to questions. The Zoning and Land Use Committee of the Summit Hill Association/District 16 Planning Council recommended denial of the request for a special condition use permit to allow a 10 unit cluster development. A letter stating their position was distributed. Seven letters of opposition were received, plus one letter signed by numerous residents of the community in opposition. Reference was made to a letter of opposition received from Mr. Sullivan by Commissioner Vaught, and there was agreement by staff and by the commiCtee's legal counsel that its contents regarding the applicant's previous history related to bankruptcy and the like was not relevant to the discussion. Commissioner Gordon spoke to the width of the alley and asked staff's opinion with respect to whether the alley would be wide enough to accommodate two cars at the same time. Mr. Beach responded that presently there is an unpaved alley and noted that it is quite narrow in a few locations. Ae said that the platted right-of-way is 20 feet, with the narrowest point when approaching St. Clair there being a fence on one side and a power pole and trees on the other side, and he noted that the paved area currently is only about 10-12 feet. Public Works, A11eys staff, reviewed these measurements, and it was deCermined that with some modification and paving of the alley it would be possible to get a 15-16 foot paved strip through the location, where a 16 foot paved alley is standard and it is not uncommon to have a power pole sticking out a foot into that area. That would be wide enough for two cars in the summer, and in the winter months it might just have a single track through there. The applicant has agreed to pave the a11ey. Commissioner Gordon asked whether staff has reviewed the concerns addressed by the Canadian Pacific Railway in their letter of opposition dated, August 27, 1997. Ms. Bartz responded that those concerns have been reviewed. In regards �� / � 7 � to the noise barriers that they are requesting the City does not require that of any developments along railroad corridors. What the railroad is suggesting in terms of a berm and a fence, has been reviewed by Mr. Beach and found them to be inappropriate for the site. Regarding the noise vibrations, this is something that is also not typically required during City review. If the committee would choose to do so, staff from LZEP sta£E could examine that further. Commissioner Gordon asked whether the committee would have the authority to deal with the various issues addressed by the railroad, i.e. noise, vibration and insulation from the vibration, and warnings to prospective purchasers about the associated problems. Ms. Bartz responded that staff has reviewed the letter from the railroad as protection for the railroad that in the case they either choose to increase their use of the railroad track that they would have issued some public statement that potential buyers and the developer should have been forewarned. Commissioner Gordon asked whether any meetings have been held with Mr. Mathern, the developer, and the citizens in the area with concerns to attempt to reconcile the issues. Ms. Bartz responded that Mr. Mathern has met with the Zoning Committee of District 16 on three occasions and has o£fered to meet with a groups of residents of the immediate area which was declined by those neighbors. Peter warner, Assistant City Attorney, responded to the question £rom Commissioner Gordon whether the committee had the authority to deal with any or all of the issues set forth in the letter from the railroad as stated above. He said that the committee did not have the authority, and noted that in reviewing the specific requirements set £orth in the code, that the types of concerns in the letter are not those concerns that can easily be read into the language of the two applicable provisions of the code. Commissioner Gordon further asked whether other City agencies would. Mr. Warner responded that LIEP, in its site plan review, and the issues looked at in that process, would likely not get to the noise and vibration issues. Commissioner vaught asked Mr. Beach whether the issues raised by the railroad that are relevant considerations are being dealt with at the site plan review process. Mr. Beach responded affirmatively, and he noted that the issue regarding the vibration he will discuss with the building code staff to determine whether there are any rules there. Commissioner Gordon asked whether the applicant has offered to take any actions with respect to any of these issues. Staff was not aware that they have. Chair Field questioned whether steps were taken in the site plan review process to address potential erosion issues. Mr. Beach responded that as part of the site plan the applicant will be required to take the standard precautions for erosion, i.e. silt fences, reseeding the hills on the embankment that comes up from the railroad track, which is likely the only place where there are substantial grades where erosion would be an issue. 2 22 � 98-.�� John Mathern, the applicant, 23920 Hawthorne Avenue North, Forest Lake, spoke. He reviewed design renderings that were part of the staff packet. Mr. Mathern reviewed his first proposal was Eor 15 units on the site and had intended to come in off of the a11ey on St. Clair. However they were unable to obtain staff approval on that proposal and revised the proposal, putting in a private road, a cul-de-sac, which accesses their property off of Lexington Avenue. The cul-de-sac he said has been reviewed by City staff and found to be sufficient to a11ow ingress and egress of emergency vehicles, as we11 as the residential traffic on that property. In addition, he said that in order to minimize the amount of road traffic on any one particular road they split [he accessibility to the garages for these residences between the.alley on St. Clair and Lexington and on the Street o£ Lexington as well. He reviewed that Lexington Avenue is an extremely busy avenue and accessibility to the property has been one of the concerns of the neighborhood. However, he made the point that it is the only road they have and is the access to the property and they intend to use it. He reviewed that 10 one and two-story townhome units would be built on the site which he finds to be in fitting with the neighborhood as the neighborhood consists of a mixture of two-story and one level homes. Mr. Mathern acknowledged the letter from Canadian Pacific Railway and cited examples of other townhouse developments they have built adjacent to extremely noisy roads which have all sold and have had resales as well. He reviewed that the proposed site is above the Canadian Pacific Railway and are 18-20 feet above the railroad bed itself. It is a tiered site with a major storm sewer artery along the Canadian Pacific Road which is elevated about i0 feet above the railroad itself and they come up another 10 feet to the plateau of their site. He said their road has been staged to be between their development and the railroad, leaving the units backed away from the railroad area and back up to the a11ey, which disCances them as far away Erom the site as possible. Mr. Mathern said that the houses will be built on virgin soils so the shaking in that area should be minimized. Regarding soil borings he said that they had yet to be done. The fill that exists on the site is where their road bed would be along the edge of the ridge. He said that the sites themselves seem to be sandy soil down about 4 to 6£eet. As they intend for basements on many of the town homes he said it poses no problem for them. Upon some rudimentary exploration of the site they found their virgin soil where the houses would be. He addressed an issue by some of the neighbors that this site was once a dump site. He said that he was awaiting a call back from the MPCA, however he said he understood that within Ramsey County there is a list of between 70-90 closed unlisted dump sites but said that this doesn't seem to be on it. He said that they have been unable to find that any contamination ever existed on the site, however such issues have been raised as we11. Mr. Mathern spoke to issues related to the alley. Mendota Homes has agreed to pave the a11ey as a means of ingress/egress £or their residents. He noted that they have asked for some discussion with the neighborhood to discuss this matter, however the neighborhood declined. At the last meeCing with the district council some opposition was raised by the neighborhood over improvements to the alley for fear that it may increase the level of service on the alley and it may incur a cost for maintaining the alley in the future. Mendota Homes however does object to maintaining the a11ey indefinitely at no cost to the entire neighborhood. He said that they would use an upgraded 3 23 � 98 gravel alley if acceptable to staff and to the neighborhood i£ that is more acceptable to the neighborhood. Mr. Mathern reviewed that their proposed site has been used as a parking area for the residents for some time, which has raised concerns in the neighborhood about future parking availability. He said that had they met with the neighborhood the neighborhood might have Eound that they could have provided some parking spaces in the back on the curve where the alley will likely have to be widened, which would also accommodate the garbage truck�s accessibility. He summarized that they desire to be flexible, have dropped their density from 15 to 10. He spoke of a number of individuals who had given them reservation agreements already for the site, who are from the neighboring area who would like to reside in a townhouse and remain in that neighborhood and he said he sees their development as compatible with the long-term residential development o£ the City of Saint Pau1. He said that the town homes would be in a mid-price range of $139 to $200,000 range, most of them likely being between $139 -$179,000 range, which seems to be compatible with Saint Paul's long-term plan for housing in the City of Saint Paul. Traffic on Lexington. This was another large issue which Mr. Mathern addressed as having been raised by the neighbors in all of their district council meetings. He said that the traffic is probably between 15-20,000 cars per day. However, he said if he adds 10 units with an average of 10 trips per day with two cars, he didn't feel that those 80 trips per day will significantly increase the traffic load on that road. He acknowledged that it will be a problem with access, as Lexington is a rather fast trafficking street, but no different than what the current residents must deal with as there are a number o£ driveways currently on Lexington. Mr. Mathern noted that staff has required that a catch basin at the end of the alley be included so that the water that is there can drain into their pond, which they will do. He reviewed the aesthetics of the exterior of the buildings and their relationship to the neighborhood. Mr. Mathern circulated a chart which showed the exteriors o£ the existing one and two-1eve1 homes in the neighborhood and he said that they feel that their one and two-level town homes fit the neighborhood. He summarized that they believe it to be a fairly compatible use for the property, and that it is generally in keeping with the neighborhood as there are town homes on the other side of Ayd Mill Road. They believe that the 10 unit development allows for a very nice area with a lot of green space to it. Commissioner Gordon asked for the current conditions of the two alleys. Mr. Mathern reviewed that the surface of the north/south a11ey is currently gravel, however they would asphalt it. They would also pave the east/west alley. When complete there would be a paved surface of approximately 16 feet wide and he said that is what would be allowed on a 20 foot wide alley easement, but he was unable to guarantee that two cars could be next to each other in passing. He pointed out that in the area entering St. Clair that there is somewhat of a bottle neck with large trees there, fences and garages that are an existing condition. He said that the possibility would exist for 4 " � 98 :�y all o£ their traffic to be loaded onto Lexington with nobody on the alley, however splitting the load appears to them to be sufficient. Commissioner Gordon asked for Mr. Mathern to respond to a proposal for no access to Lexington, with all access from the alleys. Mr. Mathern responded that the City has said that £or them to have addresses that they need a street and they will not allow the alley to be used as their street. Commissioner Gordon asked Mr. Mathern to respond to the Railway's suggestion of a fence or a berm. Mr. Mathern said he was not in favor o£ a fence or a berm. He noted that they sit 20 £eet above the railroad. He.anticipated that his residents will consist primarily of single individuals andJor married couples between 40 to 70 with few children, and no minor children that they would have to guard against. Commissioner Vaught noted that the unusual topography raises some particular questions. He noted that the difference between units 6 thru 10 and the abutting residential property either on St. C1air or on Lexington, is that the only means of vehicular access is through the alley as there is no access to any of those units from either Lexington, St. Clair or the private road, which in effect turns the alley into a public street. Given that, and that it wouldn't need to be done to service the vehicular needs of any of the other abutting properties in that area, he doesn't see the reason why having once paved the alley that Mr. Mathern doesn't think it ought to be the obligation of the people who created the need to do that because it is the only vehicular access to their property, why that ought not to be a continuing obligation. Mr. Mathern responded that the units that do not have their garages exiting on to the private road, but on to the alley have a sidewalk that takes them down to the private road, where they can park on the private road. Commissioner Wencl asked how much guest parking would be provided. Mr. Mathern responded that there are 8 parking spaces, with 4 on the end of the cul-de-sac and 4 where you drive past units one and two. He noted that for the units on the alley that two cars could be parked in front of each double garage. Commissioner Wencl asked Eor the width of the private road. Mr. Mathern responded that the road will be 2� feet wide, with the a11ey easement being 2� feet wide with a 16 foot wide asphalt surface. Commissioner Wencl asked staff what width is required when the Fire Department issues their regulations for the width of a street, allowing for their trucks to get in and turn-around. Mr. Beach responded that the Fire Department typically likes a 20 foot access for emergency vehicles. He said that in this case the 20 foot street out in front with the cul-de-sac was reviewed by them and determined to be sufficient. He noted Chat the Fire Department was at the meeting of this project and the plan presented at this meeting meets the Fire Department approval. Commissioner Gordon asked whether the Fire Department's approval would be withdrawn if there was no private road with a 20 foot width and there were only the alleys to access the homes. Ms. Bartz reviewed that just using the alleys as they were would not have been sufficient. 6" .� �5 98 3qy Commissioner Gordon asked whether Mr. Mathern had looked at the possibility of a regulation that would prohibit right turns only to exit and enter the development. Mr. Mathern said that those things dealing with health and safety issues they would take guidance from the City on. Susan Kimberly, PED, Southwest Team Leader, spoke. Ms. Kimberly noted that over the past few years there has been an ongoing discussion at the Metropolitan Council about how to deal with the issue of urban growth and what the impacts of that growth and those policies were on our community. She reviewed that the Saint Paul Planning Commission and the City Council took positions on those issues and made a strong case to limit the overall growth of the region, and need to take the steps necessary to see that sprawl is diminished. The Metropolitan Council took a position that limited growth to some extent, and as a result of that Saint Paul is forecasting an approximate increase of 500 housing units per year £or the next 20 years. She reviewed as a point of re£erence, that there was some debate about putting housing on the Koch Mobil site, and the City Council has instructed PED to develop that 65 acre site for housing, and is currently being proposed to be developed in a fairly intense fashion with 456 units proposed. If there were 20 sites of that site available all of the new housing could be put on sites that have little or no impact on any existing neighborhood, however that is not possible. When looking at how the City would meet the housing goal it was realized that it is going to happen in increments as being considered with this proposal. Ms. Kimberly noted that over time these conversations must be resolved in favor of additional housing in Saint Paul if the City is to meet these housing goals. Chair Field recalled the related discussion by the Planning Commission about housing and their response to the Metropolitan Council, and asked whether the proposed site was identified at that time as one of the potential housing sites. Ms. Bartz responded a map was presented at the Planning Commission discussion which showed some of the larger sites, as we11 as smaller undeveloped sites, particularly along the Ayd Mill Road corridor and the 2-35E corridor which have some potential for development and that the proposed site would have been included among those. Commissioner Gordon received confirmation £rom staff that the Department of Public Works has stipulated that the alleys in question may not be used to provide a street address for the proposed units, but that access to a City street must be provided for this purpose. Ms. Bartz reviewed that the only frontage that the proposed site has is on Lexington Parkway and that during the site plan review process that Public Works determined that the applicant could not address all of the properties off of Lexington and required that they develop a private street. Mr. Beach further reviewed that in order to build a house in Saint Paul it must have £rontage on an approved street which has to do with public safety issues and response to calls. In response to an inquiry, Mr. Beach said that the Department o£ Public Works has said no to an option to name the alley so thaC it may be used as a street address to eliminate access to Lexington. There was some discussion about the different configurations looked at. Chair Fie1d noted that the cul-de-sac basically constitutes the Fire Department 6 !� } g�- 39�f access aad is critical in such a discussion. Commissioner Vaught questioned the rationale that was used by Public works £or requiring the private road £or the sole purpose of providing the buildings with addresses, as opposed to,-and juxtaposed with, the obvious hazard o£ dumping that traffic onto Lexington Avenue, either right or 1e£t, given the hazards. Mr. Beach said that upon review Public Works determined that the ingress/egress situation was not ideal, but acceptable. He noted that an option might be to keep the private road to meet the technical requirements £or addresses and fire access and to have all the cars come in off of the alley. Commissioner Vaught asked what the reason was for not allowing the access off the alley. Mr. Beach said that one of the main considerations was the impact on the neighborhood, and that this was an alley and shouldn't be the main access for every unit in the development. Commissioner Vaught commented that all of the properties using the alley for access is an inconvenience, however he felt that five of the properties using Lexington to egress is a hazard. Ms. Bartz pointed out that if the committee would desire some direct input from the Department of Public Works that time would allow for this item to be postponed for two weeks. Chris Trost, Executive Director, Summit Hill Association, DistricC 16 Planning Council, spoke in opposition. Ms. Trost read in as testimony, the letter from District 16 dated October 29, 1997. In summary, the Zoning and Land Use Committee of the Summit Hill Association/District 16 Planning Council recommended denial of the request by Mendota Homes for a Special Condition Use permit. (A copy of this letter is in the case file). Commissioner Wencl asked for further explanation of the statement that "The scale of the town homes is out of proportion with the adjacent homes.° Ms. Trost responded that the size of the individual unit, hal£ of the footprint of the unit, is approximately twice the size of many, if not most, oE the homes that surround the townhome development on both Lexington and on St. Clair. Commissioner Gordon asked whether District 16 made a proposal that would resolve each of those issues to the applicant with respect to the issues as they related to the soil tests, the vibration, the finished widths and the scale. Ms. Trost said that the issues were raised at each of the meetings over a 3-month period. She suggested that the overall issue and concern is that there is a lack of confidence because there are so many details le£t unanswered. Ms. Trost comments are as follows: Scale. Units should be smaller. Finished width of the alle� Problem with finished width of alley is related to the density of the proposal. Finished width might be fine the way proposed if there were fewer units and fewer people using the alley. 7 � 27 ss-��y Soil. Looking Eor evidence or confirmation that it is not polluted and that it is buildable. Vibration. Concerned about establishing that it would not be unacceptable vibration as addressed by the Canadian Pacific Railway. Commissioner Gordon asked if there are existing homes as close to the railroad tracks as any of the proposed homes would be located. Ms. Trost said that srie was not aware of any that are. Commissioner Gordon asked why the citizens declined having a meeting with the applicant. Ms. Trost was unable to answer that. Charlotte Patros, 1126 St. Clair Avenue, spoke in opposition. Ms. Patros expressed concern that the townhouse development would substantially devalue her home. She said that although access from Lexington is all that is available to the site, that it does not make it a safe solution. Commissioner Gordon commented that typically higher valued homes built nearby lower valued homes tend to increase the costs of nearby homes and asked for clarification on this point, with Ms. Patros deferring to another person who would be testifying. He asked whether Ms. Patros saw any solution to the development which would accommodate the concerns of the neighborhood and the applicant's desire to do the project. Ms. Patros said her greatest concerns relate to the soil conditions and the buildability on the soil and the stability of the structures when built and their subsequent marketability, and iE these concerns can be met she believes that a solution can be reached. Chair Field asked staff who is responsible for the oversight of the suitability of soils for construction. Mr. Seach responded that would typically be handled by LIEP when building plans are reviewed by LIEP for compliance with the building code. If staff had reason to believe there to be soil issues they would ask for soil tests. Chair Field noted that as the soil issues are not in the purview of the committee, but rather by LIEP, that they not be included in the committee discussion. Keith Curtner, 259 Lexington, a registered professional engineer, spoke in opposition. Mr. Curtner identified his primary concerns as those of tra£fic, soil conditions and commented on faetors he believes will impede project realization. With respect to traffic he expressed concern that the proposed project wi11 create a variety of traffic and safety problems of significant proportions. (Please see a copy o£ Mr. Curtner's prepared testimony in the case file. A set o£ photos was distributed for review and are also part of the case file.) Pat Byrne, 243 S. Lexington Parkway, a registered civil engineer, spoke in opposition. He noted 100� of resident land owners oppose the project. The issues addressed in decisionmaking included: Trees. Now serve as a sound and visual barrier to Ayd Mill Road and railroad to be removed, which also serve as an introduction to neighborhood traveling north on Lexington; Green space will be severely diminished; Alley traffic. Mr. Byrne said that the addition 0 28 � 9' 8-39y of 10 more cars in alley wi11 be a sa£ety hazard; Property values. Mr. Byrne alleged that due to the wide disparity in property values between the proposed units and the existing homes, that the proposal will decrease the value of existing homes and make them unsalable. No performance bond on the developer. Byrne expressed concern over risk oE development £ailing and spoke of the vibrations that are a factor in the neighborhood and which cause cracks in walls which he believes are due to the poor soils. Mr. Syrne addressed the issue of the meeting with Mr. Mathern being declined by the neighborhood residents. He said that because residents saw no alteration of the conditions which they opposed, they chose not to meet. Byrne addressed the issue of eliminating the ingress/egress from Lexington which he supported. I-Ie reviewed the Fire Department's need for a 90 foot cul- de-sac £or turn-around in conjunction with the Department of Public Work's need of a street for purposes of addressing. Mr. Byrne spoke to Ms. Kimberly's remarks above, and noted that 20 sites may be available in the city but many have issues of contaminated soil and are costly to develop, however he didn�t believe it justified development that is not in character with the existing site. Commissioner Vaught asked how o£ten the Division of Traffic and Accident does speed enforcement on Lexington Parkway. Mr. Byrne responded that his £amily has asked the Police Department to do speeding enforcement along that stretch but Police said that they cannot do it as there is no good place to put a radar unit. With regard to traffic, the Traffic Division of Public Works when doing traffic reviews can only look at two issues: 1) distance from the signalized intersection and 2) line of sight. A1 Shetka, Public Works, Traffic, was requested by the residents to review Mr. Curtner's concerns addressed in his letter, and his only response was regarding the frequency of accidents on St. Clair, which averaged approximately one accident per month, which was found to be acceptable. Aowever, Mr. Byrne disagreed, commenting that it was unacceptable in a residential area. (A copy of Mr. Byrne's prepared remarks are in the case file). Commissioner Vaught noted that such issues as green space, and marketability were not issues relevant to the zoning committee's decision making. He reviewed that although the footprint of the individual units proposed may be somewhat larger than some of the smaller existing homes in the neighborhood that they are not in much variance with the larger homes in the neighborhood_ Commissioner Vaught addressed the alley traffic. He hypothesized that at most the proposal would generate at most a quarter increase in what is a very low traffic pattern, and which pales in comparison to that existing on Lexington, and said that the increase may be a nuisance, but not a hazard as the Lexington traffic issue is. L•] Z9 � 98 3q� Mr. Byrne responded that this would be 2-3 times the city average use oE an a11ey. He noted the fact that it is a two-block long dead-end alley, and there is no on-street parking allowed on Lexington during rush hour. Commissioner Gordon ascertained from Mr. Byrne that is personal there are 8-10 existing homes on the north/south alley currently using the alley, and 9 existing homes using the east/west a11ey. Mr. Byrne said that no hard numbers exist for measurement of the traffic in these alleys, but rather personal observation and impressions. Commissioner Gordon asked whether Mr. Byrne was aware of any other access available to these residents to either Lexington or to St. Clair that the proposed project could use. Mr. Byrne was not. Helene Schultz, 1120 St. Clair Avenue, spoke in opposition. Ms. Schultz spoke to the following issues: Al1ey tra£fic. Ingress/egress from the present alley on to St. Clair Avenue, she indicating that two cars cannot safely pass each other at the entrance at the same time and noted that the residents using the alley have developed a system that works for negotiating around one another. Chair Field noted that the alley would be widened if the project were to proceed. Regarding the traffic flow through the a11ey, she said the question was not the total number of cars passing through it on a daily basis, but at what hours it is most congested, with Ms. Schultz indicating that being during rush hour, both morning and evening. Declined invitation to meet with developer. Ms. Schultz indicated Chat Mr. Mathern notified them in advance of the third Zoning and Land Use Committee meeting as to what his plan would be and asked for neighborhood support. Since they didn't support it, and were not asked to come to discuss their particular concerns, she declined the invitation to meet. Reasonableness factor. She spoke of the negative views the proposed units would have, the backs of the homes on St. Clair and from the other view would be overlooking a railroad, and she questioned their marketability. Ms. Schultz spoke of her neighbor, Bev, who was present at hearing but had to leave. She said that the private road is proposed to go to the edge of her property line, as well as a double-unit at this property line. She requested that the proposal be considered without the home developed on that parcel. Density. Concern that this type of development is very uncharacteristic of the neighborhood, and that the cost of the units and character of development is a significant misfit in the neighborhood. Ms. Schultz would support a single family development on the site with 4-5 homes with adequate green space. Ms. Schultz spoke of a term called In-Rem, which refers to the situation when property Curns out to be unmarketable, and falls into to disrepair, owners don't have the resources to maintain it, and eventually falls to the city without any taxes being paid on it. 5he cautioned against the risk o£ this 10 3� i�- q8-39y property falling within such an In-Rem status in this neighborhood. Chair Field asked that public testinony not include the economics of the project. David Schultz, 1120 Saint Clair Avenue, a professor of political science, with expertise in land use and regulatory takings, and experience in code enforcement, land use, zoning and housing and economic development, spoke in opposition. Mr. Schultz reviewed the letter he submitted Co the commission dated 11./13/97, which summarized his concerns. (A copy of this letter is in the case file). Before doing so he said he disagreed with the. way that staff has characterized the project and found staff's review of the site to be remiss in several areas and noted that he found Ms. Kimberly's comments regarding the Metropolitan Council to be inaccurate, saying he could speak to that as someone who has worked with the metropolitan council on land use development in the metropolitan region. I-Ie agrees that more housing should be built. However, he said Met Council never said to build housing where it doesn't fit and creates safety hazards and seriously impacts on existing housing. Further comments included: Traffic safety. As elaborated above by others. He addressed the issue of shifting the traffic on to the St. Clair alley. While the alley will be widened, he noted that at its narrowest point (12-14 feet), he said that there is almost no room to widen it beyond a couple of additional feet, which will not be significant in order to accommodate additional traffic. Question had been addressed as to the number of accidents which have occurred in the a11ey and he suggested the more appropriate issue to be what is the traffic flow on St. Clair, which he said is exceedingly high, especially during rush hour, which provides for difficulty currently in entering and exiting the alley. He noted that there is currently an average of one accident per month. To add to this traffic he said would not create an inconvenience but a£urther hazard that already exists on the St. Clair alley. Parking. If additional alley area parking is provided it would close up the alley to allow adequate traffic flow to go through, and in addition the project will put additional parking out onto already overcrowded streets, creating further hazards on the streets. Fire Safety issues. Ae said that even with the widening to 16 feet, that the ability to get a hook and ladder down the a11ey at its narrowest point is problematic. He stated that there is an assumption that the entrance to the proposed cul-de-sac�at St. Clair will adequately absorb fire safety vehicles and he proposed that is assuming it's not rush hour traffic and that there is not guest parking in the cul-de-sac, and if not the case there will be signiEicant difficulty. Proposal is inconsistent with integrity of the neighborhood, including aesthetics and lines of the structure. He said it looks different and there are no other cluster developments in the area. Mr. Schultz addressed the fact that the existing units in the neighborhood range in price Erom $60,OOD to $90,000, with the proposed units going from $140,000 to $200,000. He finds this to indicate an incapatability with the 11 3► � �jd'-39�{ existing units. Inconsistent with the comprehensive plan for the neighborhood. The fact that it needs a SCUP alone, he said, indicates its incompatability. Mr. Schultz said he felt attached units, not clustered units would be permissible. He suggested removal of the two units on Lexington, as the two large units next to a small house was not acceptable. I-Ie also suggested the architectural look o£ the building must be changed. John Mathern, the applicant, spoke in rebuttle. He reviewed the communication with the neighborhood on a number of occasions. He said that the district council advised that they meet with the neighborhood and he said that they attempted to do so, and he said that they desired to have an open dialogue. He reviewed that they have over the course of time, reduced their density, changed their roads, changed the way they load on to the alleys. He noted that the units proposed for bordering on Lexington will be one level units. Chair Field questioned the issue that detached homes cannot be placed on the property. Mr. Mathern said this was addressed and at one time they had two detached units proposed, but were told they had to use a common wa11 with attached units. Commissioner Kramer asked i£ certain units couldn't be platted as separate parcels and make them not part of the clusCer development. Mr. Beach responded noting that one of the problems is that the units have frontage on a private street. Given the unusual shape of the lot there might be some question in meeting the minimum lot size reguirements. Mr. Ryan further noted that in R-4 zoning they would need 40 feet of frontage and there is only 180 feet o£ frontage available on Lexington Parkway. Commissioner Kramer asked if the only way to do stand alone units would be under a planned unit development. He agreed, but said that in that case a rezoning would be required. Commissioner Chavez asked whether the developer has a performance bond in place. Mr. Mathern responded that none is required for Chis project. He said that once the project has been approved they would be required to post a completion bond, which they will do. � Commissioner Chavez spoke of the a11ey traffic and asked if a11 alleys aren't pretty similar where two cars cannot pass one another in the alley. Mr. Beach acknowledged that this situation is quite common. Mr. Mathern said that had they had an opportunity to meet with the neighborhood their various concerns could have been addressed, i.e. the additional parking, the aesthetics, etc. Commissioner Gordon asked if the site were zoned properly for free-standing homes he asked if the developer would consider building it that way. Mr. Mathern responded that it would not be free-standing homes on a City street as the property doesn't a11ow for that, and an earlier proposal with attached and 12 32 � 98-39� detached units was turned doom by City staff. Commissioner Gordon asked whether Mr. Mathern was still willing to meet with the neighbors to attempt to work out the problems. Mr. Mathern responded that he did not want to meet with the neighborhood, but wanted to see action taken by the committee. Commissioner Chavez noted through staff that the applicant has already agreed to extension of the 60-day period so that he could continue conversations with the neighbors and work with district 16 and with staff with issues raised in the site plan review process. � Commissioner Wencl said that it appeared that the requirement of having an additional street is the most limiting part of the development. Mr. Mathern responded affirmatively. However, he said it was naive of them initially to believe that they could have all units accessed by the a11ey. It was pointed out at a number o£ meetings that nobody wanted all of the garages to load on St. Clair, nobody wanted them to run through from St. Clair to Lexington. He said that he likes the cul-de-sac. Commissioner Wencl asked if there is any other possible way to configure the development so that the cul-de-sac can be minimized, to position the house more favorably on the site so as to limit the number that have to be accessed £rom the a11ey. Mr. Beach responded that 90 feet is the minimum required by the fire code and despite looking at other designs, in the end a better design could not be identified. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Vaught said that the Lexington traffic significantly bothered him. He said that he understood that the cul-de-sac oEf of Lexington likely represented a compromise between what the original proposal was, which was to use the alley exclusively for access. However, he noted that primary access to the a11ey wi11 remain £or five of the units. He said he had significant concerns and unanswered questions with respect to why Public Works was adamant with respect to the design of this, as he didn't feel it makes sense. Commiasioner Vaught moved a two-week layover, to November 13, 1997, to allow Public Works` representatives to attend the meeting to address this issue. Commissioner Gordon seconded the motion. Commissioner Vaught welcomed the event Chat the neighborhood and the developer might decide to meet to try and reach agreement. Chair Field reviewed that in the event a compromise were arrived at, that the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Vaught included in his motion that the public hearing be reopened in the event a compromise were reached, but would not a11ow for the revisiting of any and all issues outlined at this meeting. Commissioner Gordon supported the motion. Commissioner Gordon also desired input from Public Works and wished to see any 13 33 � q�-39y available data on the use of the a11ey. Commissioner Vaught noted that the motion implies that the public hearing would be opened in the event of a compromise with the Chair framing the discussion and allowing testimony regarding only new issues. The motion £or a layover to November 13 carried on a unanimous voice vote of 6 to 0. Drafted by: ' ltJ�tA-- � ✓ Donna Sanders Recording Secretary S itted Beth Bartz Southwest Quadrant Approved by: ton 'el Chairpers, 14 34 � 98-39�f ZONING COMMITTHS STARF RSPORT FILS # 97-207 1. APPLIC2:N'P: MENDOTA HOMES DATS OF HEARING: 10/30/97 2. CLASSIFICATION: Special Condition Use 3. LOCATION: xxx LEXINGTON PKWY S(southwest quadrant of Lexington and St. Clair) 4. PLA23NI23G DISTRICT: 16 5. LEGAL DESCR2PTION: see file 6. PRESENT ZONING: R-4 ZONING CODS RSFERENCE:§60.413 (13) &§64.300 (d) 7. STAFF INVBSTIGATION P.ND REPORT: DATS: October 17, 1997 BY: Beth Bartz 8. DATE RECEIVSD: 08/04/97 DEADLINE FOR ACTION: 12/02/97 A. PIIRPOSE: A special condition use permit to a11ow a 10 unit cluster development. B. PARCEL SIZE: The development parcel is roughly triangular in shape with 183.93 feet o£ frontage on Lexington Avenue. Total lot area is 107,380.5 square feet. C. EXISTING LAND IISE: One storage building is currently located on the property. Otherwise, it is vacanC. D. SIIRROUNDING LAND IISE: The property is surrounded by single family homes on the north and east, and by the Short Line railroad corridor and Ayd`Mill Road diagonally on the southwest. E. ZONING COnH CITATION: Sections 60.413 (13) and 64.300 (d) of the zoning code permit cluster developments subject to the conditions detailed i.n findings #2 and #3 of this report. F. HISTORY/DISCIISSION: There are no previous zoning cases concerning this property. A site plan review is also required. Initial reviews indicate applicant has meC the site plan requirements; approval is pending on the approval of the special conditional use permit. G. DISTRICT COIINCIL RBCOMMENDAT20N: The Summit Hill AsSOCiation reviewed an earlier proposal for a 12-unit cluster development on October 9, 1997. They reoommended denial of the special conditional use permit for a 12-unit development. The 10-unit proposal will be presented to the Zoning and Land Use Committee of the Summit Hi11 Association on October 28, 1997. Any n� 98 �39`f Zoning file # 97-207 Page 2 £urther recommendations will be presented at the October 30 public hearing by the Planning Commission. H, FINDINGS• 1. The applicant has a purchase agreement for the property proposed for development. Ten dwelling units are proposed, 5 buildings of two units each. Access to the parcel is proposed from Lexington Parkway via private street. Five units wi11 access their garage from the private street; the remaining five garages will be accessed by the existing alley. 2. Chapter 60.413 (13) of the Zoning Code permits cluster developments subject to the £ollowing conditions: a. There shall be a minimum of two (2) units. This condition is met. Ten units are planned. b. The units shall be atCached, common wall, single-family, with no unit iatruding on the vertica2 airspace of any other unit. This condition is met. The units are paired side-by-side, with no unit intruding on the vertical air space of any other unit. c. The parcel sha12 meet the Iot area required per unit in the zoning district. This condition can be met. The 1ot area, including half of the a11ey is 107,380.5 square feet. This allows 10,738.05 square feet per unit, exceeding the 5000 square feet per unit requirement. d. The parcel shall have a minimum frontage of eighty (80) feet on an improved street. This condition is met. The parcel has 183.93 feet o£ frontage on Lexington Parkway. e. The structure shaSl confozm to the schedu2e of regulations for height, lot coverage, setbacks and parking. This condition is met. As proposed, the develoment meets tfie requirements for height, lot coverage and parking prescribed by the zoning district. Twelve visitor parking spaces will be provided in addition to a double garage for each unit. Zoning enforcemenC has determined the £ront yard to be on Lexington, and the rear yard to be the farthest northwest corner of the parcel. The plan appears to meet all setback requires; LIEP will be con£irming conformance will the front yard setback requirement next week. f. The design sha12 be compatibSe with the sssrroundiag aeighborhood. Overall the proposed design is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood which consists o£ a mixture o£ 1, 1-1/2, and 2 story structures with gabled and hipped roofs. Materials used in the surrounding neighborhood include stucco, clapboard, metal siding, and composite shingles. Windows are a mixture of double hung and fixed � 9�-3 5� Zoning file # 97-207 Page 3 "picture" windows. The proposed units are 1 to 2 sCOries in height with interseeting gable roofs. (See drawings attached.) The applicant has not specified which units will be one or two stories, but rather proposes that decision be made with the potential buyer. Exterior material is proposed to be vinyl siding. The overall massing, wtiile larger than the typical home in the neighborhood due to the paired unit design, is broken up by a central gabled bay. Porches and double hung windows provide other design elements similar to houses in the area. g. Individual lots, buildings, street and parkiag areas shall be designed and situated to minimize alteration of the natural features and topograpky. The project would require some grading to provide proper drainage for the site. The grading plan also includes construction of a storm water pond near Lexington. However, the overall topography of the site, including the slope into the railroad corridor, would not be disturbed. Some of the existing trees in the sl.ope area of the site would remain. h. Applications for cluster deve2opment sfia21 ineSude site plans, including landscaping and e2evations and other infozmation the pSanning commissioa may request. This condition is met. The applicant submitted a site plan, landscape plan, and building elevations along with a written description detailing the specifics of the development. 3. Section 64.300 (d) of the zoning code requires that before the planning commission may grant approval of a principal use subject to special conditions. the commission shall find that: a. The extent, location and intensity of the use wi32 be in substantial compliance with the Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan and any applicable subarea plans which were approved by the city counciZ. The District 16 Plan does not include any proposals relevant to this matter. The"re are no applicable small area plans for this area. The Saint Paul Housing Policy for the 1990s recommends "expansion of housing opportunities for middle and higher income households where this market is or can be addressed in Saint Paul." The units in this proposal will be priced at $139,900 -$200,000, addressing middle income populations. b. The use will provide adequate ingress and egress to minimize traffic congestioa ia the public streets. A private street wi11 provide primary access to the units and allow emergency vehicle traffic and visitor parking. The Fire Department has determined this access to be sufficient for emergency access. Five of the ten units will access their garage from this private road � 3? �� Zoning file # 97-207 Page 4 as well. The remaining five units will access their units from the alley. The applicant has agreed to make improvements to the alley as part of the project. Initially the applicant proposed extending the alley through to Lexington raising concerns about traf£ic cutting through the alley to avoid the intersection at St. Clair and Lexington. The current proposal does not extend the existing alley and does not aonnect the alley to the private street, eliminating the ability for traffic to cut through. Several residents have expressed concerns about any additional use of the alley due to the proximity of the alley outlet to the St. Clair - Lexington intersection and the width o£ the alley. Public Works has reviewed the pzoposal and found the use of the alley and the proposed curb cut acceptable provided the alley is paved and the entrance to the private street from Lexington appear similar to a driveway curbcut, rather than a street, to minimize confusion. a. The use wi11 uot be detrimeatal to the existing charaeter of development in the immediate neighborhood or endanger the public health, safety and general we2fare. This condition is met. The number of new dwelling units can be accommodated by existing facilities and services provided by the city. The private street will accommodate emergency vehicles and all requirements for water, sewer and storm water have been met. d. The use will not impede the normal aud orderZy development and improvement of the surrounding propesty for uses permitted in tke district. This condition is met. The surrounding property is £ully developed. The new housing will serve as a buffer between the single family homes on St. Clair and Lexington and the railroad - Ayd Mill Road cox'ridor. e. The use sha11, in aIl other respects, coaform to the app2icab2e regulations of the district in which it is located. This condition is met. 2. STAFF RECObIDfEtIDATION: Based on findings 1 through 3 staff,recommends approval of the special conditional use permit. q 3$ 98-39� SPECIAL CONDITION USE PERMIT APPLICATION Department of Planning and Economic Development Zoning Section 31 DO City Hall Annex 25 West Fourth Street Saint Paut, MN SSIO2 266-6589 APPLICANT PROPERTY LOCATION Address� • O. 'P�o� c��lp City�PfS�'�a.�e� St iUJ�-� Zip � Daytime phone (t$8-lv3�2r Name of owner (if different) ��k.�. (�LLk�� Legai „ t-, OV�./ Current Zoning 2` (attach additional sheet if necessary) TYPE O�F PERM : Application is hereby made under the provisions of Chapter , Section �t��' _, Paragraph l�_ of the Zoning Code for a: � Speciai Condition Use Permit ❑ River Corridor Conditional Use Permit ❑ Modification of River Corridor Standards SUPPORTING INFORMATION: in the space below supply information that is applicable to your type of permit (attach additional sheets if necessary) • SPECIAL CONDITION USE: Expiain how the use will meet each of the special conditions. • RIVER CORRIDOR CONDITIONAL USE: Describe how the use will meet the applicable conditions. • MODIFICATION OF RIVER CORRIDOR STANDARDS: Explain why modifications are needed. . .. _� i. . I� site ApplicanYs sig is � City agenf / � �'" ��h/�D %}� 6��vYl'l6� -�?-�, x �� 1 98-39� � «,;�.: ,, s 4 . -= � :�- R?• 207 � � ��: ; �. � � ��_, -_v , - h � �� ; MENDOTA HONIES, WC. P.O. BC�X 416 FORES7 L.AKE, MN 65025 Octb�er 23,1997 ,� ;: 8eth Bartz City of St. Paul P{anning and Economic Development 25 West �ourth Street St. Paul, MN 55102 We are proposing the development of a two-plus aere parcel of land located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Laxington Qaricway South and St. Clair Avenue in St. Paul. The devefopment will be a townhouse community consisting of five fixinhomes. 'fhe property has streetfrontage of approximatoly 184 feet on Lexington Parkway. tt then moves back and widens west of Lexington Parkway South to the front of the altey behind the homes on Lexington Parkway South and St. Ciair Ave. Ouf proposal is to build ten homes (five twinhomes) on this project site of 101,589 square feet. The averaga lot siza wili be 2,87D syuare feet. The reason this tot size is signiftcantly smaller than originally proposed is due to the addition of an outlot of 74,236 square feet labele8 as "Lot 11" on the preliminary plat. in order to provide ac�ess to this properky, we propose a private drive off of Lewngton Ave. that wil� service the garages of five of the townhome units. The remaining ftve units wili have �arages and street access off the existing aileys and St. Clair Avenue. This proposal is in r�sponse to concerns about tra�c increases on Lexington Parkway. We feel that by routing half the traffic of the development onto Lexington Parkway and haif onto St. Clair Ave., we mitigate the problem. In addition, we have agreed to pave ti�e north/south and east/west alleys to provide a hard surface roadvray for residents and neighbors. After much discussion, we have praduced an exterior design that will be easify incorporated into the varied design of the existing neighborhood which consists m�in4y of one and two story structures with detached garages. Our townhomes will'be a mixture of one attd two story units with and without basements. They wili have two or three bedrooms, two or thfee bathrooms, and an attached, two-car garage off the rear of the structure. Twenty covered and 2A uncoveted parking .; � ' z�- Z0'd LSZcggg L£b1b`Z69£9�9 Wd SSCTO f7H1 16-SZ-1D0 9C �,314 ..., �s.a'� ��r. 3 ?� �i; 'u.V, �� a .:� i � . •� �� J — ' ---.- _'._ _.�---�,,. � f '—' spots wi(I be incorporated. maintain the development. A townhome association wi11 be put in place to Much discussion has occurred on this development with The Summit Hill Assocfatian, neigF�bors, and City oi St. Paul stafif. We feel we now have a well ptaiined and designed development. We are hoping for a favorable response. Sincerely, � . Erin �. Mathern for �endota Nomes, inc. 40'd � T6Z£889 41 � i�cWy'Z89£9�'9 Wd 6S= T0 f1Hl L6—£Z-1�� 98-3g�f ; � �:��r:�* 7 ,--� = 7 f ~� ��3_'��'�; y °:' � Q7• � � z = :�� ., _______.__ .^---°^°-..-��..._ 3 MEN[)�TA F10N1ES, ISVC. p.a. Box �.� s FOf2EST LAKE, MN 55025 October 22, 1997 Beth Bartz City of St. Paul Planning and Economic Qevelopment 25 West Fourth Street St. Paui, MN 55102 Dear Beth, This IetEer serves fo Update our tetter of September 25, 1997, regarding pricing and development costs of Lexington Commons Townhomes. We remain committed to price ssnsitivity and providing a townhome product suitable for purchase by r�sidents who already live in tho area of Lexington Parkway and St. Glair Avenue. Ho�vever, due to fewer uniis in the developmant, our prices have been adjusted upward to accomodate allocation of land development costs. The Lexington Commons townhomes will now range in price from $139,900.40 to around $200,000.00. The lower price delivers a rambler with an unfinished basement. Prices then inerease according to number of leveis, square footage, and interior selections. In talking with individuals who are interosted in living in this development, we have discovered that the increase in price has alienated some potential buyers. 4'Vhile this is unfortunate, we have also received new inquiries from potential buyers seeking a slightiy higher price range. Overall, this project remains viable despito changes in price range. lnterest is stili high and we look forvvard to approval and moving forward with construction. Again, thank you very much for your continued support and suggestions on this development. Sincerely, �`� Erin;E, Mathern for f�lendota Homes, Inc. � g'2 � �a•..� S6Zcgg9 Z<'Wb'Z8989�9 Wd SS:ZS f1Hl L6-£Z-1�0 �j8-3y`f � ( � + ',' : :" J ,� :: J:= � Y �� o 011 �y;� I , C � 1 �' °`�� $ . i � , c ;` ? � � - a:3 f � a -j � R �j' / i � �. ,\ � � 1�� '� I I � � � � I I Y� �� ' . � J �� .� ;r �I r - , i ; , �� _ ��,� . � ',',. `'r,l:8ll i ,° "� " +--,i�=:1� '_ : %� j �-'I .II � .; _ \ Y�/ i� �' �i1% J i .: cA 4�i �� ' � I d' :__°= IQ .., - %� �, � � `f /i � . [ ... �� / � :. �� c Y � � , � � i "! �� . yy ` � � ^ � \ � Y � V�� , 'I � �. t i �I ~ -_ �� . ,-/ ` � u � ' � • � I n � r � �%� `, �S�\ . a[ / �( � ''� ' � �•\ i ? � � `\'.\ I � x � 3 � �V � �� =�� C - � � � =s =:< � � _ � ;_ �: v . �' ��z i,,V`� a, �a. . i, 2 2�' � � '^.� �' L3 _".d � � § °:i �� \ = 05: ti' s^ EE$ i o " n ' � C �, i= SI? i ti C pE ega i a �€° i � �n ez3 ; ! b(?. � c � nb �.. .� s , � �l �� I �� tz0� � 9 l � - ,C ' i � e � J T �_ � m 1� z �� O � . r C ^ ` V , � � � e �3 � :// {1 ' ,$ �� 1 , �� s � � �� ..,.�' '4 < ��, �, # � � . y .-i ` J �` l,. .��,��A x � � � ` r � ."�``ti . � �, S s.., 1 h�...�v�'`� �b �� \t7 V• .� / � � /� �t �.,L. \ � t� / ��. I 1 � i �� i t�: � - � � J � � � ,� fl �- i � �� .- I — u -0 z ^ � � i� ' j� �; �� I�' % � �� , � . 9� Z� � ^ � 7-`^ ` , � � � � � � � � � . � �� , � �4 � � y ., s •� � �` IZ � � �X i � W . . 1 � I � �a � I� 3 �-'"�—: �� - - i V �� - � I I � . . ' .�...* {, �I' .. � - �� ' � , ! �� ' i r ,, , � � cz-; _ � � w__� ", ' � -__ _ � ,�.� i , � � ' ! � =xe 1 � _� 1 ' �i I � C�� - • ±� � ` l 4 � \ .� I � � ��{ � +_ /�.� � I � � ;? � 1 +? . V � ♦\ \ \ \ \ V . ,: �� /' �� - P D �,✓• ` .f - � . Hw r i ' - ff• ��4 . k �3 a� y� � ��a i b 's � stw�,�a �5 � 1� � 'V I � \ 1 Y� � . �. �'� � � � � Y I � 1 � \\ � A � i �� . I J 5 �� ` 1 1 1 � � `�� E�F � � t� j! I � t11� �iSlll� E �t � �\� � i . � �� ' �., , �:; �. � . � � � g8-35�t � 0 9 '�3 � �m r� �?a-a � c f. C� a-.eca �'� � .4 � � �� f • P �� "'f � p �� ► -i� � � .�i � � � q5, ' � _'_""";'_""�'�"___'"": 7'c�cacia '••�_._..�..... � L�Wb'Z89£9�'9 Wd 9S-Z0 3f11 L6-bS-1�0 /��V� 1 Sf� .. `�s" s � �� °i9 �, �� i �� ?,.� c�..�- a,.= .a 8 ��8 3 t� �J i I ? � SEP T UE 04=4o PM 6o6568Z-4MO7 i ' r � � �� .�: _ � � � G4.^ � L :.�Y � �=a a .� � � 6880291 P_02 � ' ` `!`8-3�t�f .�� ---. .. . . . . ._. - -----5�= 2�'-�� . �%�- � � �� 6s=+e t� ��9 � �- ` V � O J � �(40 5��,. S�FT._ f8�� 1qR� ----.. � U ----------- - ��c �OR . .. L�x 4N ��N -}- 5 C�-i 1Z .. . _.. . � _.._. � �-------- --� �i', }�i9-UC.. . . . ...--- --------�� -��y �/ � 39`I 1 i 1 � I � � s-�� : �_�. ��; e:�. �� ,_ � �=-� :��j � � V 1'� =♦ � • �.J. � � i ,,., _„ _' . ��I`'4Y��Q� ^`}"•-w/-F�-��L--.... "' _ _.___...�._�_..-_.......- ... . � . � 1.__.�.__....� __ . _._. 7 ' ^�. y� 39`�l �i ; �� ; �' �s � �� '�� ;, �_z i � �� `''� 4 v � � � � � � � � r �Q �� _ � �+ U�1 Q :� �� }; �� .-.1 � i� � _. """"""" _ ";..�"""' .... _ � _._,__ _ �.sa_ rr"c.""--"; ..""' _ -..�-_. "'.•` rc�caa<a � L�'Wb'Z89c9£ � Wd SS=ZO 3f11 t6—bt-17C� 98-39� � � � ��. � � .• � t�cn ' � � � i . ) { 1 � i"� i � ' •N 1 _4 v 9 a e � r� !. � � x \\ ��i1111111' �� 3, s� SEP TUE 04:44 PM 656e682.4M57 6885291 P.Bo .. ' I. 9 `8'.3g`f � � � �� r� �:� ,.�� ..: : ��.� � ��s �:, E : e J � �a :. �,y 52 y�-�9`� �� '., -- ------ ----------�- - -- ---- � . 4 � � I . i .. �� 0 ��\C1J�(o..l�=�`_of�l� �t- = �� 4n � �! � � s � Dti.l �b�(� tzN�, , •l . a i ' ' . . � � I � O. — `� � 'IDl(.• — I ._ K�1T, �o r _ i{ � ( f" - =s �r � I in �n � t : .r� � '� � �� ;.� � � � b ' _ ! —tic�fii —�i�(i2.�(. � � �9 ��--� — - -- -.. . �1- � �{7��eil� o . � �� --}1_l _ — — — N - . 1 � � � � �a . �-�, � °� � 0 e�.''�-_ � . � �� a 1 . � O ' 4 �, � ° : 4 = - ,___.___-= ?�s'�n._.__-.-. -_�+r =_ � � , £� � . ":�" � . __. , � ��E�� ' J � . _ � � _ .__. .. _. � . � • _...__. . _ �_�____. ----�1 -- 803 ��_ _ � .__�.--- ..... . �...5"COR .,_ . --�-�- ----- . .:: __��str�i�-rc�t_�:��t�=--.__.. . � . - �' - r � s ' (�gZ � -----s�� _..-wr�—.--. . .. �53 ...... .�.�-3y`f � � � �� ,.'� . '�a� �� ..z tl'Y� � � N 0 � : �`�: : e �..�_,.�i �irs�:�i�i!�it%+`.��!1*`.y/'.wls�� .�T i;a __� --��-��.�.. 4,�� r � �. �¢ 98-3y5� Summit Hi11 Association District �6 Planning Council Beth B2rtz 86� Saint Clair Avenue Planning and Economic Development saint Paui, Minnesota 5sios 25 West Fourth Street Te�ephone 612-222-1222 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Fax s�2-222-issa e-mail summit.hillC�?stpaul.gov October 29, 1997 RE: Zoning File Number 97-207 .��- =5, _.-�--_�~-�---�- ,.�; q��Z�� Dear Ms. Bartz and Members of the Zoning Committee of the Pianning Commission, The Zoning and Land Use Committee of the Summit Hiil Association/District 16 Planning Council met with Erin and John Mathern of Mendota Homes in August, September and October to discuss their proposal for a ten unit ciuster development southwest of Lexington and St. Clair. Throughout the process, the Matherns have been willing to discuss their proposal and have made changes and adjustments in response to concerns raised at these meetings. However, it is the opinion of the Zoning and Land Use Committee that there are still significant issues which have not been addressed in a satisfactory manner. Briefly, these issues are safety, density, soil conditions and architecture: • The traffic on Lexington is close to its maximum capacity and may actually reach maximum capacity during rush hour. • There is evidence that this site may be a former dumpsite. Yet the developer has little knowledge of the condition of the soil. A soii test shouid be done and should be determined to be acceptab4e for a development of this size. • The multiple concerns of the Canadian Pacific Railroad have not been addressed. A vibration test should be done and should be determined to be acceptable for residential habitation. • The developer has not adequately addressed several issues regarding the aliey; in particular, the actual finished width and assessments. • There remains concern over adequate maneuvering room for emergency vehicles and garbage trucks. • The scale of the townhomes is out of proportion with the adjacent homes. • The character and the aesthetic of the townhome development is inappropriate for this particular site. Therefore, the Zoning and Land Use Committee of the Summit Hill Association/District 16 Pfanning Council recommends denial ofi the requesi by Mendota Homes for a Speciai Condition Use Permit in order to construct a ten unit cluster development southwest of texington and St. Cfair. Sincerely, �,G�vCeh �� K) Charles Skrief, Chair Zoning and Land Use Committee Summit Hili Association/District 16 Planning Council ss` 98 3yY November 5, 1997 Beth .Bartz City of St. Paul Department of Planning and Zoning 1100 City Hail Annex 25 West 4th Street St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Mendota Homes/Lexington and St. Clair Zoning File 97-207 Dear Beth: I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for the proposed development of townhomes on the southeast corner of Lexington Parkway and St. Ciair Avenue. { live in a townhome at Wilder Park, direct4y across Ayd Mili Road from this proposed development. The townhouse style of living appeals to those of us who do not want the upkeep of a single family home. �he possibifity of having more townhomes in this area is an exciting one, since it would allow peopfe to have this styie of iiving, but remain in the city. 1 understand that there are serious concerns regarding access to this site. When there are so few lots available in the city for new homes to be built, I think it essential that some sort of compromise be worked out to enable this development to proceed. I encourage all parties to work toward a safe, realistic solution which would aliow these homes to be built. Thank you. Very truly yours, – 1 V\ ------�— Kate cGough 1172 St. Clair Avenue St. Paul, MN 55105 5� 9�-3�5� 1166 St. Clair Ave St Paul, MN 55105 November 5, 1997 Dept. of Planning & Economic Development Att'n: Beth Bartz 1100 City Hall Annex 25 W. 4th St. St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Zoning File 97-207 Mendota Homes Dear DPED: ; -- ------ --'-- ..___:-- �__� � _� .. �:� : ��:� .. ._._ ; s ��..._._�__�.�.�...__..�.�.� We support the modified proposal to build ten townhomes in the southwest quadrant of Lexington & St. Clair. We live in Wilder Park, across Ayd Mill Road from the proposed development. We understand that access remains an issue, and we urge you and the developer to find a suitable compromise that will allow the project to move forwazd. St. Paul needs to encourage these types of developments to provide housing choices, help keep our t� base viable, and to encourage people to remain in--or perhaps move back to—the city. With so littie space available for cluster development in St. Paul, a creative solution must be found that atlows the community to take advantage of this unique opportunity. Si C�72�, > �� 6.�_____ Lauralee GarFieid and Rodney Oisen sJ^'? �-3 5`f ...., _......... .._.. _.. ------ --__.. _ . - ; , a?LZU7 ; October 19, 1997 To: Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission 25 West Fourth Street 100 City Hall Annes Saint Paul, �' S5102 From: Le�ngton & Saint Clair Property Owners prosimate to Subject Development (below) Subject: Special condirion use permit far 10-unit cluster development called Lexington Commons Zoning File Number: 97-207 Zoning File l�iame: MENDOTA HOMES References: • Article; Highland Villager, August 6, 1997; MnDOT foresees uaffic congestion without Ayd Mill Road Connection. • Article; Highland Villager, October 8, 1997; Ciry Council iejeas request fo= MaoGrove townhomes. • Sumaxit Hill Association and Distsict 16 Planning Council; 1997 Goals and Objectices Ladies and Gentlemen: We, the undersigned property owners, are unanimously opposed to the proposed cluster development as wimessed by our signatures on this document. We describe in this letter our reasons why we are opposed to this project. We want the Zoning Committee to deny the proposed cluster development. Our rationale: TRAFFIC DENSITY AND PUBLIC SAFETY I.exington Avenue is a very hi� volume toadway, especially beriveen I-94 and Randolph; we believe that this project will exacexbate the tcaffic density in tlus corridor, zefez to the attached article from Highland Villagez, August 6,1997. Accident frequenry at St. Clair and Lexington is high; we believe that the additional entry/exit traffic to/from the pxoposed duster development will inczease the frequency of accidents due to the very short haffic mixiug length afforded by the available sites for new stieet access to the pzoject. It is very probable that the point of intersection of the proposed street access with Lexington Pazkway coincides with the ma�imum tcaffic velocity in both the north- and south-bound directions; thus making it very difficult foz traffic movements into and out of the proposed development We believe that the pzoposed pxoject will cieate a vauetp of tcaffic aad safety pioblems of significant pxoportions. Private street access for the project onto Lexington Pa:kway will occur at the bottom of the valley betmeen St. Claix and Jeffrxson, just before the bridge (southboun� oveL Apd Mill Road. Two feanues of This geometry combine to form a dangerous set of traffic conditions: (1) this low point is whete traffic will typically have its maximum velocity, (2) drivexs atteniion is drewn to points above the madwap to the traffic lights at the top of the hill (m eithez direction St Qair for northbound tiaffic and Jefferson for southbound ttaffic). Thus, with cacs at maximum velocitp and with daveis looking ahead to see if ihey can make the lights, the traffic will be ill pzepazed foz perpendiculaz uaffic movements enteting/leaving the I.eaiagron madwap at the end of the bridge. Summit F3il1 Association recognizes the tzaffic problems in District 16 and has set polides to promote traffic c lm a pmjects; the pmposed project is in duect conflict mith these traffio-calmuig objectives. PARBING ISSUE Gurmndy it is possible for guests and escess parking in the reaz of zesideats on Leffington Parkway. With the increased traffic and deaease in appazent useable surface, parking will no longez be possible in the alleys. The altemative is pazking on Lexington Pazkmay. Wlule pazking is only restricted there Monday thru Faday and then only during rush hou=s, absolutely none of the residents park thexe during other houts because the huge potential for causing a fatality. This is not just an opinion. We C� -- � i8 3951 _=.=�::�-;�:;�'��`�? {��:,�-4 �t7• Zo�_ have done studies where cus aze parked duzing daylight hours and seen the number of neaz accidents that occuL We have not tried this during night hours on weekends because we aze not prepazed to accept the responsibility for the accident ihat will occua ARCFiITECTURAL HARMONY We find ihe plaaned decelopment m be inconsistent wirh e�sting neighborhood arrhitectuie that is currendy all single-family homes with detached gerages The Rambler styling, walkout basemenrs and cul-de-sac sueet organization w-ill make the pmject look ]ike �X/oodbury-in-Saint- Paul very much out of character for the area. ALLEY ACCESSIBILITY AND TRAFFIC The subject development will place about a 30% increase in alley traffic aboae that esisting today. The alley in quesrion is a tee with dead-end ternrinations and no tumarovnds. An 18-foot opening off of St Clair avenue approximaiely 120 feet west of ihe intexsection of St. Clair and I.esingtoa Pazkway affocds enttance. Figure (ENTER) shows ihis entrance to rhe alley. The increase in alley treffic will deczease properry calues for rhe residents on Lexington Parkway and St. Clair Avenue. Neighbors have successfiilly appealed increased properry valuations by arguing incteased street uaffic causes deteriorating pxopetry values. Figuxe ENTE,R This is the entrance &om St Clair Avenue to ihe dead-end alley rhat sezves 18 neighbors. Note the small access road widch. Its ONE GAR WIDE! Traffic is always very 6eavy at this e�t.� NEIGHBORAOOD CHARACTER Constrvcfion plans call fnz a pavate sixeet to secvice the proposed development Building this srreet will zequice the xemoval of most, if not all, of the trees along the vdge that forms the pzoperty boundary of Reuth's Lot 19. Removing these trees will exacerbate the existing soil ezosion condirions along Ayd Mill Road. Additionally, these nees form a windbxeak and sound barrier for the neighborhood; it would be important to keep tliis function for the pioposed homes due to ihe high levels of uaffic noise (auto and railroad) fiom Lexington, Ayd Mill Road and ihe Soo Line tracks. There is a kind of Gateway to ihe azea of Saint Paul noxth of Ayd Nfill Road which is formed by the uees along ridge of the railroad cut Figure (GA3'E) shows the effect that ihese irees have in prociding the green enu�zcay to the city u one proceeds north on Lexington. Aemoving the tcees to make way for the private stceet access to the ptoposed project will dcastically alter the chazacter of the neighborhood. Summit Hill Association has speufic objectives to ptomote greening of District 16. Tlus proposed development is in direct conflict with these greening objectives. � ��-3gy , '� _ �'� � S � � h'.`x'� x —'_—. V � _ �� Figure GATE This is the view looking north along Lesington Parkway. Notice the Garewaq formed bp the tcees at the top of the adge at the leR These trees will be removed to make puvate street access if the proposed decelopmentgoes forcvazd_ This wrould be a drastic and irrecocable modification of the neighborhood chazacteL FIRE AND SECURITY r' �s �� a `".' m { Fire company access to buildings in the pioposed addition would be severely limited by ihe alley access which has overhead powerlines, restriaed width (single lane) and will require fire rigs to either enter or exit by bac6ing up since rhere is no pzovision foc tumaround of large azticulated vehicles. Curiendy the waste disposal vehicles (considerable shorrer than hook- and-ladder equipment) must back up and rurn azound in the tee of ihe alley ln order to access nelghborhobd waste picb The alley is not designed to serve as a traffic laterat, a role ihat is forced on it now due to pazking limitations and the unique configuration of the site. It is unsafe now, with no additional traffic. You can't say ihat it will get 30% more unsafe; instead there w-ill be a disproportionate, nonlineaz increase in safery threat due to ihis tiaffic loading. STRUCTURAL AND EKVIRONMENTAL ISSUES We believe diat Lot 19 Reuth's Addition will be built on a former waste disposal site. Current residents have recently at[empted modemizadon and expansion pmjects. These piojects have shown tY�at the sod in Reuth's Addition is composed of dischazge material such as coal ash and domestic detatus of verg porous chazactec wtuch in some cases has cequired footings of up to 24 feet in otder to meet consttuction codes of Saint Paul. We believe that soil stabiliry will pose pLOblems during development foz existing homes in the neighbozhood and will affect post-development homes strucnual quality. We believe that Ruerhs Addition Lot 19 is the youngest azea of the waste disposal site and would thecefoxe have ihe least stable soil chatacteristics and greatest potential for hazudous substance entrainment We have concems about the structural integrity of slab-on-grade houses built on soil of dubious stabiliry; espedallp as this affects rhe long-term prospects of our community as a whole. We believe that there is reason to question the environmentai condirion of subsurface soils; i.e. waste disposal fill material will ptobably contain agents wluch would xequise remediation befoze the soil could be dassified as enviionmentally acceptable foz homes. Neighbois hace found cieosote tteated railmad ties, lead pipe, bottle glass, coal ash and other debds. We aze concemed ihat no rigorous and unbiased soil samp3ing has been attempted; we aze not aware of any actual soil resting has been accomplished on a scale which would permit accurate evaluation of the soil strucmral and environmental qualiry of Reuth's I.ot 19. We believe that paor to wnsiderarion of the duster de� the issue of soil condition (structure and encironmental hazazds) should be resolved fhtough soil tesring. ECONO�IIC BEA'EFIT The property, Reuth's Lot 19, has been dassified as having no economic value and has been murimally assessed as such for many years. To the best of our knowledge, Reuth's Lot 19 was purchase under a Saint Paul surplus propertp program. The buyer I:new the state of the piopezt� its access limitations and existing soil condition at the time of purchase. Denying the special condition use perntit will thecefoie not hazm the cuccent ownec The tand is zoned fot Residential developmeat of single family dwellings and can be sold and/or developed for such purposes. t�a , gs-�9y ; s ��&�� ;:,��, � a�� We, the neighbors, should not be placed at risL- by City Council to be unieasonably affected by the monetazy goals of either ihe seller or a developer whose sole purpose is to make monej: We hope that greed of those seeking the special condirion use pexmit dces not tal.e precedence ovex the desiie of our neighborhood to retain its individuality and charactez ECOVOhfICS OF DEVELOPhfE1VT We do not believe there is sufficient marl:et intecest in new construction in a neighborhood w�th home value chazacteristics that e�st in Reurh's Additioa. Ecea ihough Mendota Homes hu indicated there is interest in the development by persons unL-nown; we believe that thete is a significant diffecence in intetest and intent 2o buy. We believe that the detractozs 2o the pmpetry described belom will dampen the interest of the prospective buyes. We believe that there aze significant detraaoxs which will affect the mazketability of the proposed units: pro�miry to railroad right-of-way; tcaffic density and entrance/egLess to Lexington Pazb proximity to aircraft appxoaches at MSP Intemational Airport; un-resolved I-35 Conneaor issues; proximiry to NSP lugh-voltage transmission lines; pending iecreational bike-parh pmject All of these issues would negarively affect an astute potential buye�s decision to pucchase. Mazket prices quoted by Mendota Homes fox the units are up to 5180,000. The average home value in fltis neighborhood is around $8Q000. This means that the proposed uni[s will be valued an mote than 2_times the existing homes We believe that astute home buyecs would not consider such an investment in ielatively over-priced =eal estate; especially given ihe aesthetics of the primary ciew from the pioposed residences. Loo�ng from ihe bxow of the hill bordering on the Aqd Mill Road at the apptosimate location of the ptoposed private sneet access to the project properries is the 14plus story brick Wilder high-rise and NSP high voltage transmission lines which dominate the view CLOSING REQUEST We ask you to please acknowledge our voice as residents of this community and vote to denp any variances to existing ailowed development. Sincerely, `t-e'�Z� �ti4�P�, Keith Gurtner 259 xington Pkwy �', / � �� r� � en umer 6 t. Clur v.A�e 1120 St. Clair Ave St Claii Ave 1134 St. Clair Ave Jdc Patios 1126 St Claic Ave �� "F" "�w Lexington Pkwy erta Binket 263 S Lexington Pkwy �'' � 'Gf��c� o �� ar M 251 S Levngton Pkwy en soa 279 S � / �'/� l� , , . /� ` i�tichael Wigfield 1' St Clair ve I/S6 �'i • CL�..�z-.e ��, � ��' ` Be Dunbaz ^ 283��5.7� xington Pb-wy � � l C`�C� azg � 1142 St. Clair Ave y,,�a e 1�oe' � 1142 St C1air Ave 1' t Byr� 24�gton Pb-wy Ra2he1 Blank 243 S Le�ington Pkwy -�ra,,lav�e.C� �.e�- F� e m 259 S Lesington Pb-my �"t drick� ' E^?`X S I.e�ngton Pb-wy `� Kativ'e M -�51 Lexington Pb-wS Chadotte atcos � 1 t Claiz Ave Helene Schultz 9'120 t C;lauulve Susien�Wag�net 11�� St� aire A e L�SA- 5(n3YrR5/J,�rnES sw`;�S ) icf � � e (.0�+ ) <hl� r � l �c� �v � vV\�� Mt�f:!} �t-t��S Ilsz S� c�Ati2yld� /��,�v1'� l�«�r.�-r.�— �i�y� �lfc�'/�S�/�/ ttYz s ; Ca.�a�r ;�v� �� g�-�5�1 October 24, 1447 : :� �<�, m n v � � �:, �.- ? t 6:_ 5 �y F ,. � . a�"� i x.. $ fi •: .h � � , '�_, .,.. �' �7 Zoning Committee 25 West Fourth St. 1100 City Hall Annex St. Paul, MN. 55102 Dear Commissioners: Re: Zoning file number 97-207: Mendota Homes I am opposed to a speciai condition use pemut to allow a 10 unit cluster development for the reasons of safety, trafTic, and character of the neighborhood. The visitors that now pazk on the side or our garages will no longer be able to park there. They will instead need to pazk on Lexington Parkway thus eliminating one lane on uaffic between St. Clair and the bridge over Ayd Mill Road. This poses a safety problem as the cars going south on Le�ngton Parkway will not be able to cleazly see the park cars. The additional street or road entrance/e�t onto Lexington by the bridge over Ayd Mill Road will cause additional problems. This is because both the northbound and the southbound traffic on Leacington Pazkway has hills. The placement of the opening is at the bottom of both hills. The aliey is not wide enough for two cars to use at the same time. If a car is coming in and a car is going out one of the cars must backup. The means backing up onto to St. Clair on backing down the aliey until you have enough room to stop. The garbage trucks need to back out from the north/south alley to the east/west alley to tum around to leave the alley or vice versa. Our alley in unique in that there is only one entrance/exit. I do not think our alley could handie any additional cars. I am against the tearing down of the trees along Ayd Mill Road side of the property because they act as a sound barrier from the train and traffic noise on Ady Mill Road and the Soo Line railroad tracks. It wili also change the view and the privacy that people have when using the backyards for entertaining. It will change the chazacter of the neighborhood. Sincerely Yours, � ��Ci(�f'/�C�- � ��'�z'' " _ � Alberta L. Binker 263 So. Lexington Pkwy. St. Paul, MN. 55105 42 �-3qy ------------ --------- ---------- -� ._ : _::-- -�� - ��-�o� � �:=:t,� .. �;:-..�; ; .: �__ ! .�r -_ - --- - -- - _... -- - -- � Joan .�?. Vanr.Prbilt 1181 Edgcu*abP Road r; ST. Paul, :+'T; 55105 Zoning Co*.nmittPP ?5 �:/PSt Kellogg Blvd. St. Pa.ul, M1V 55102 DPar Sirs: I am writing regarding a spPCia.l pPrmit for P�Yendota HomPS, to build a 13 unit cluster dPVelopmPrit on thP southwPSt quadrant of Zexington and St, Clair AvenuPS in St. Paul. I am definitPl,y against this zoning change for this small parcel of land. It is a green spacP so badly nPeded in cities nov:. There are Pnough homes in this area nou� plus the railraod tracks and steam lines so near. I certainl,y hope common sense will be used regarding this matter and leave thP area alone: SincerPly, �� .° � ��«GG� 1��.�� ,: � ' c �nc: RECEIVED J '''` � ? �� prbllt SEP Q 3 1997 ZONING �03 �. I a �9 a:��j''=+� : ' � � — v�q7•20� � � f.��:s:.;.,�: �r-;., ,• �� yy� �'� : ..�..�� _ .� �/�.e� �� r�a � 98 �3�f �� ,,�� : ��–�- 9 � –.� �• 7 ��'-.�sL..�.�a� //i� �.a? ��o�� .y ��--��J �..s��-z"�.��-��--�-�-� .��J �� d -��-� ,� � ,`',��c--�� :3,5' / ' f'��-�D ��'`'�'��szy✓� .��'�/ `�{ `� �.-a-Q�.�&'��J�.�� d .��_-�-�/�.�./c.J _� ..�r�-�-�� -��-�=�� °> , �� .� �� .� �.�.� ' � �'<--�,�'��..�.�..�� - .�� ' �-. �� ---� �'��_�t� ��.� .��J.�-� .��° �=��i ��t'%F-�-u�- -a-,'.,-.� ��,��-�� ,� �. � � �z-r`✓.��,iy��Eti�h��/��✓�J �� G' � _ .� ,/'�-,'.��/ .�i.1�,�.� �LC./,�'J.� ✓ ��t��-��, .��!��.� :. �� 'r� .�---� `/�� .1 �- �.��.�/. � 1tr� ��,�• "�� _�� , � ,,� ` r -f�Yi�/��-��/ ..�C'-�d -�C�.�f�G _ . �7_�'.� _�"'�/i��.��'v! ./��--�'� c ��L ��'--� � �� o �' ' �� -� � � . � 4 -� � r �fi ,____ 98-3q�{ � �`�: .y--.� ?-------� __�� "� '_�. --L1'�� `3 �s � 9 5 �l ✓J �/�t�_/..��/'.�,��.�.�C'—l'�.i d��✓��-_� �,��%i�� .��C��u��-J� �� .-%�/.�4:-��E ,��z •✓ / �-,z��,�� r �!��c�� .�1 � �c�/� c�-�� _ — .C��%.�e-L��'� .��/ C�!iL[� ��l�J �c� ��=-��1 �!/�l'c�.h'-- �� .��/__�� .�� ,a��.��c��.✓ ��a �%��.�--�- z� .�-�� -��=o��_.. �� --�.��.�. .�� .��-d�:�-� � ,�� .�lc� .�'/ ��f—��-��".�,t' _,.�t��L�-e-�-�� .�%�� ' " �.��c��J�� r� �-�i�J-� ✓ ��;�,��-w. G �-.� ��c.-��-l��i� _�..�2/��t �T-�-EJ�v�� . / .�.r�_� � c,�� ;y�� /�..J-r-UG-zL_��(�yy��i✓7 - ..��L/y'.�i .�' • �/��.�{-;� ��"�'.�-��--�-�?� G�� -�'-��-� `� � ,�.��C'� ��t� ��:� ��s�.�� _ �. -�� i/�� ✓'.� .ir'. -��i�' � �.�hi' - // �. ��'�� ".�.�� " ��,� �/'--��L!' � )�i"✓n-'�s�� r--o " --� �� .�c�¢J��. C�/��,- � f ,1 ��' �C/�'rtiG�� : /r��-�'.J�.�--i�r �'" �1 :: � r L • �! -y / � �./�'.�—�`^''�--��ilC��?� ��/; � �� ,r..t�-.� /�CL _� --��=�/ �.��-y._'-�-C ,��r-t/,.�=��.�/>'l"�'-�= i � �G��{z-r�Ci�F'� .1.,c��j/ / _�e�E' ✓��C9C� �� .�y��, � ' /i �� ` �[�- �'� ��—G�-t ��.�`-� " �--L `�A � .�-r��.� �..--�'—i�� `�1�'� ,� PJ `% �iF�u��c�„� � � .�i�.�_/ .��2��/' .1� �.1.i �.� � "�i �� y�-3sy� j ! y �.d'tlasd � Ht >:•.''E`%'f ' a �7n # �-- a o�� y:,� �' �?� ,.� _ 7 ' �v i j _""__"'_'_'--- « �...._.J `�� /.�-��"��/ �il�.�—��/✓ �.�i�� Q''�/� ��J�rt ��ti�� L�� _�,�-�-�/ - � • �� - � ��.�"..�-�- _ � �-y�.�.�e .�u�-�-e�/�1�� ' �=[�-�/ '��'�� ! /� / � .�..�- �--2�-�-i� �. ✓�.� �_,�-t-cc-�, �i%yJ . u �� 'B' 105 South Sth St�eet Box 530 Minneapoirs MN 55440-0530 Fax (6f2) 347-8170 Canadian Pacefic P;ailenra�+ RealEstafe Marketing (US) MINNEAPOLIS, M�i t August 27, 1997 Zoning Committee City of St. Paul 25 West Fourth St. I 100 City Hall Annex Saint Paul, MN 55102 9V I� G,., t'•;, ic t� ; 1 '. `„ _ . . � �. �� # i" <' +" : i t.„ °_ �; t 5 %9 L • , L L. __ __'. � RECEIVED AU6 2 9 1997 �ONING RE: Zoning File Number 97-207, Mendota Homes Special conditional use pemut to allow a 13 unit cluster development Southwest quadrant ofLexington and St. Ciair CPR Mileage 414, Merriam Park Subdivision To whom it may concern: We have reviewed the above-mentioned proposal and wish to state our opposition to it. Residential development adjacent to our right-of-way is not compatible with railway operations. The health, safety and welfare of potential residents could be adversely affected by railway activities. . Notwithstandin� our opposition, should the proposed draft plan of subdivision be approved, Canadian Pacific Railway requests that the following conditions be imposed on the development: 1. Berm, or combination berm and noise attenuation fence, havins extensions or retums at the ends, to be erected on adjoining property, parallel to the railway right-of-way with construction accordin� to the following specifications: a) Minimum total heisht of 18 feet above top-of-rail; b) Berm minimum height 8 feet and side slopes not steeper than 2.5:1; c) Fence, or wall, to be constructed without openines and of a durabie material weighing not less than 4 Ib/sq. ft. of surface azea. �� - �...SrPI�.'`vt T �,�� J�__ 1. continued.... I`TO part of berm/noise barrier is to be constructed on railway property. A clause should be inserted in all offers of sale and purchase or lease, and be registered on title or included in the lease for each dwelling affected by any noise and vibration attenuation measures, advisin� that any berm, fencin„ or vibration isolation features implemented are not to be tampered with or altered, and further that the owner shall have the sole responsibility for and shall maintain these features. Dwellings must be constructed such that the interior noise levels meet the criteria of the appropriate authority. A noise study should be cazried out by a professional noise consultant to detemune what impact, if any, railway noise would have on residents of proposed subdivisions and to recommend mitigation measures if required. The recommendations of the sTudy aze to be implemented. - 2. Setback of dwellings from the railway right-of-way to be a minimum of 90 feet. While no dwelling should be closer, an unoccupied building, such as a garage, may be built closer. The 8 feet hi�h earth berm adjacent to the right-of-way must be provided in all instances. 3. Ground vibration transmission to be estimated through site tests. If in excess of the acceptable levels, all dwellings within 225 feet of the nearest track should be protected. The measures employed may be: a) Support the buildin� on rubber pads between the foundation and the occupied structure so that the maximum vertical natural frequency of the stnxcture on the pads is 12 Hz; - b) Insulate the buiiding from the vibration ori�inatin' at the railway tracks by an intervening discontinuity or by installing adequate insulation outside the building, protected from compaction that would reduce its effectiveness so that vibration in the building became unacceptable; or c) Other adequate measures that �vill retain their effectiveness over time 4. A clause should be inserted in all offers to purchase, agreements of sale and purchase or lease and in the title deed or lease of each dwelling, warnine prospective purchasers or tenants of the e�stence of the Railwav's operating right-of-way; the possibility of alterations, including the possibility that the Railway may expand its operations, which expansion may affect the living envuonment of the residents notwithstandin� the inclusion of noise and vibration attenuating measures in the desien of the subdivision and individual units, and that the Railway will not be responsible for complaints or claims arising from use of its facilities and/or operations. �I$ �.a'. '-------____-_ 9 8 � 39 y i ...�`'�`� �'_��;;�_ � �� .. . _.� 9 Z� 5. Any proposed alterations to the e3cisting drainage pattern affecting railway property must receive prior concurrence from the Railway, and be substantiated by a draina�e report. 6. Any proposed utilities under or over railway property to serve the development must be approved prior to their installation and be covered by the Railway's standard a�reement. 7. A 6 foot high chain link fence should be constructed and maintained along the common property line of the Railway and the development by the developer at his expense, and the developer is made aware of the necessity of includin� a covenant running with the lands, in all deeds, obliging the purchasers of the land to maintain the fence in a satisfactory condition at their expense. To ensure the safety and comfort of adjacent residents and to mitigate as much as possible the inherent adverse environmental factors, your assurance that the above conditions witl be imgosed on the developer would be appreciated. We would appreciate being advised of your decision regarding this proposal in due course. Sincerely, c`-��;�� David S. Drach Area Manager 612/347-8354 97239-Oi.ltr � g �- 35 y BEST R. FLAI�TACzAI�T ROBERT L CROSDS" Lco� axn �I_ Anni�cro� Ronattr R. B.+m'x �. ��ALTEH GIUFF jLLE] D. BdR\ARD RICFt{RD A.P£[ERSOS RosElrr J. Cx�usria�so�. Jx. Fa.v�x J. \1:�iz Fa.a�x t'oGt �(exc�cs �ti. �}�.e P�-rras, Jx. D..�'av B. ]IOxsE Joxs A.Bctrro�.Jx. Je>res C.D�u.ccss Rosem' L.SIEi�a,Ja- DIORFIS E.FL\OnF Jcncrx A.RocosxessE SWT[ D. ELL£R C�i{g{ES C. BEF0�15T E..Joserx L.+FacE CiHCGOftY D.$OliL£ CATRY E. GORLIS PAiRICF B. HESSESSY 7180THY d. $iLLSV'A] Bxus F. R�ce D:.�iEi R.H: \EVSO� Trsacz J-�.L� Srea�auxcx Da�-in J- ZcehE ST£\'ES R. F�ALGP-R Jwves P. >trcxaz.s Pntiz E.li xi�stic .IOx� P. Borie Ross C.FOekEic Cwxrs S. Gw�'ER �IARY' E. SHEARES BdRH.aRi X.RO55 CASRERIS£ J. COLA'[SEY Ja.+�-�rcf �I.Rcar.c Ms. Beth Bartz Zoning Office City of St. Paul 1100 Ciry Hall Annex 25 West Fourth Street St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Southwest Quadrant of Lexington and St. Clair Applicant: Mendota Homes Zoning File No. 97-207 Dear Ms. Bartz: liec�� J. Dcvie�-r Jir.� E Lwoars SAgAH CRIFFE\ iS.iDI50V Roa�� D.?fexax D.+� H.Joxssos tL E.�LiL'IHER {�ii.cux J. Mo��s Dt:cxwai H. Pi�x D.i]]EL t�. H{pL1Y Avr J. 5��-Ennsac O� Co�. � {YAR➢ $ I.F'��:� Ancxi�wtu �-= -zrz Roaeer >I �- - Joxs R.Cae.=.,� Ja.ies D- O�- :s Jwvcsl.B=.. ��rrz-��re ftosErzr J. F:...� .:...� �am-�3>> --.._"_,_,_---- _ + '�;� � �' ai� :` ' "s _��,.y.__'""""-- -�. 1f�,, v� k� �? : � " Y Y �, ' " I , p vCd��7�a ,,.:➢.''sa,c. / �.'7a,� 1 .._ GU i _ � i I am enclosing for your reference copies of three court decisions involving John Mathern, a principal in Mendota Homes An Order in mortgage foreclosure action on townhomes built in Washington County; 2. An Order granting United Mortgage Company relief in the bankruptcy of John and Sandra Mathern and denying the Matherns' discharge; An Order confirmine the bankruptcy court's denial of the Matherns' discharge in bankrup[cy. As I no[ed to you on the phone, Mathems did brina an action against their bankruptcy attorney in connection with their bankruptcy filing. In addition to reservations about the developer, I think the site is quite small for the ambitious project proposed. Substan�ial tra�c will be brouoht into the neighborhood. The budszt raises concerns about the project's viabiliry, suggestin� the project should be rejected for a special conditional use permit. Very tmly yours, C - � �,,�} Professional Limited Iiabilit� Partnership 4000 FIRST B?�\"B PLACE 601 SECO�D A1 SoL�'x A'IIA"\E-'+POLIS� NII_\'_\'ESOS2. 5540°-4331 XTTP�// Sl'�1 ti .BESTLI�V.CO�I (612) 339-7121 Fdti �632� 339-38W September 11, 1997 Timothy A. Sullivan �Q dpr:sloaa �+ 5 �-3yY PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE ZONING COMMITEE OF THE SAINT PAUL PLANNING COMMISSION TO property Owners �r��ithin 350 feet; / Representatives of Planning District 16 - �' t�> `��, �o n .',.. / � APPLICANT PURPOSE �. o a=�=: 9� � b Y � � �� 9 ' � MENDOTA HOMES �,_ " �,.: A special condition use permit to allow a 10 unit cluster development. *�i • p ,.� _ • y ,� fa y � a. ' 3. V 'c : _ ��s ";�- . I .n ./ ' ''t_. .... ". . '"�e' -� �:-^h ».rq.,,..-". .. � ... -,. �~ ..F°-� � .�;a , `,_" ..�:.,r'�° ; ... . •' ' _ i .r:.,.�':; .i.: ,.;:.�-M-- $` 5 ,.a.d�:��=::.:i '... _ '` . : > �s..,.-;=.. , . ." - - �._. . �� 'r J ., J _ - ' - yJ'� .%4«�...r� r' � � 4 t^�a ��`..'w�� `� P r ...•� » ... ..., . ...�::yw. ..- ' . x.��,. ...... � ' ..-.� � ,. _..e...&k"�... ,.'r•-..:• ...'_`y-� ..:?z.� �,� , � . f s;....� ,,�;a.� ,. . Y "aK;w - 1s , s n � _,�. LOCATTON OF PROPERTY southwest quadrant of Lexington and St. Clair ,a , r Legal Description: see file .'-"�`4: -%' �: �%.��.<-' �±a p • � , ' 2';',z .�' �� 2,��`�� ,:n� �. . �. _ �.-� <, 4��: -,' - .""` i �� .'i �.�t.'�:.,�,>�,+.1 °�`��..- _ 0. TIME OF HEARING PL ACF OF HEARIl�'G HOW TO PARTICIPATE A1�TI' QUESTIONS Thursday, 10/30/97 at 3:30 p.m. Cit}' Council Chambers, 3rd Floor City� Hall-Cour House 15 West Kelloge Blvd, Saint Paul, ivIIv' S5102 1. You ma�� attend hzarino and testif� . 2. You mav send a letter before the hearina to the Zonine Committee. �: �Vest Fourth St, 1100 City Halt Annex Saint Pau1, M1v » 102. 3. Participation is not required. This is your notice of public hearins. Call Beth Baztz of the South«•est tzam at 266-6�80 or your District C ounc,: Representati��e at 222-1222 �sith the follou information: Zonin� File Number 97-207 Zoning File Iv'ame MENDOTA HONIES Mailing Date i0/17 47 �7 9$ 3 95f David & Helene I,evy Schultz 1120 Saint Clau Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota 5�10� 292-1096 October 20, 1997 Zoning Committee c/o Beth Bartz 25 West Fourth Street 1100 City Hall Annex Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear Zoning Committee Members: Re: Mendota Homes/ file number 97-207 ��`��'=��: ��_,� `�7'�?_ i 3 'r.s5 � __..,.._� r. ..._. _. ....�..,. __ ...��_ -_ ----� We are properiy owners abutting on tbe proposed developed for a ten unit cluster development at the southwest quadrant of Lexington and Saint Clair. We oppose the granting of a special condition use permit to permit this development and we urge members of your committee and the entire Planning Commission to oppose the special use permit. There are several reasons why we oppose the granting of the special use permit. The Mendota Homes project poses a traffic safety problem for the neighboThood. On the one hand, the development will create an egress on to Lexington Avenue next to the bridge crossing Ayd Mill parkway and the railroad tracks. This new eeress will force additional cars and traffic on to a road that MNDOT has alreadv described - as one of the busiest roads in Saint Paul. (see attached Highland Villager article) Already, the traffic con�estion on Lexington makes it difficult to enter this street and the Mendota Homes development would only exacerbate the problem. In addition, unlike other residential streets in the neiahborhood that have altemative egresses besides entering on to Lexington, the Mendota Homes development w�ill not. An eQress at this ]ocation will pose riro additional traffic safetv�roblems. First, the egress �vill come at the base of a slope of an incline that makes it difficult to see oncouung traffic. This slope thus creates a visual hazard that w�il make tums across tbe Vaf6c very difficult. Second, an e�ress here will create a hazard for people wishing to make left tums across the traffic. There is no question that such tums «zli cause traffic backups. additional con�esrion, ' and accidents. In addirion to tbe traffic problems Mendota Homes wil] cause by the creation of a new earess on to Lexinaton, the project also calls for the use of an exisring and small alley off Da�id & Helene L,evy SchulWMendoW Homzs �2 � ----------- i ' �i t'�i i � `:; . � - - r� >. .,., ._ �_. w /_ i of Saint Clair as egress for several of the units. This additional demand on the alley is also a traf6c safety problem for several reasons. First, the alley is very narrow (ZO feet across) and seivice vehicles and passenger cars already have difficulty driving down it Moreover, there is no possibility of widening tbe alley. Second. the allev already enters on to a verv busy intersection where there are many traffic accidents. Those of us �vho already use the alley for our homes have difficulty entering and leaving the alley because of the Saint Clair traffia Third, tlie traffic demand on this alley_is alread�reat and the proposed Mendota Homes development would si�nificantiv increase the number of cars in an allev alreadV overcrowded. Fourth, unlike other alleys that laave two egresses, the Saint Clair alley only has one. This means sib ificant stress on an existing al]ey a3ready overused, placing the additional traffic on to a very busy street. Hence, adding more traffic makes no sense. The Mendota Homes pro,ject should be denied a special condition use permit because similar projects for this property have been turned down in the past. Several times in tl�e past requests for development at this location have been made and the City l�as consistenUy turned tl�e project down citing dwelling density, congestion, and traffic safety issues on Saint Clair. Those decisions were made when the traffic congestion on the street was much less than it is today. The Mendota Homes project will create �re safety problems. Because of the narrowness of the Saint Clair alley and the traffic conQestion on Saint Clair and Lexington. it wil] be verv difficult for public safetv vehicles. e.g., fire, police and ambulance services, to enter the Mendota Homes develo np �ent• While the developer contends that his proposed L,e�ngton egress will be accommodate public safety vehicles, we do not believe that is the case. Especially in situations during rush hours, or when residents have guests over, the additional cars parked in the area will make entrance by service vehicles problematic. The Mendota Homes project is inconsistent with the overall integrity of the neighbor.hood. An important consideration in granting a special use permit is that the project fit in with the overall intearitv of the neighborhood. On several fronts, this development does not. First. it creates a type of unit— cluster development—that is out of character witb tl�e rest of the homes in the neiohborhood. The rest of the houses are single famih� detached units. Second, the architectural stvle of the proposed units is inconsistent �oith the houses in the neishborhood. Third, a cul-de-sac development like Ylendota Homes is inconsistent «ith the type of development �ce have or want in this neiQhborhood. Fourth, the project increases unit densit�� beyond what is compatible ��ith the current neiQhborhood. The Mendota Homes project is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan for the neighborhood. The comprehensive plan for this area of Saint Paul does not call for this t�rpe of development or increase in the unit densiri�. Since zonin? laws. ��ariances, and permits must be consistent �iith the overall comprehensive plan. the cluster development specia] unit permit shou]d be aiewed as a form of spot zonina that is contran� to citv law and the overall development plans for the nei�bborhood. UaviS 8 Heizne Lew Scnul[z"htend�[a Hon��s 73 � qB - 3gy j . , . �.,. r . :. � . ;, , — --------- --------_._ _--- `- _��'�'L��'�:._, v ..:.:..-; ` 1 ?-�� _—_______----- The Mendota Homes request for a special condition use permit to buiid cluster ` units shouid be rejected for the same reasons a similar project on Juliet and I.exington was TejeCted. Law, as well as fairness dictates that equals should be treated the same. Here, the Mendota Homes project is very similar to a special condition use permit for cluster development that you and the City Council rejected recently on Juliet. There, tl�e basis of rejection was traffic safety, emergency vehicle access, a lack of harmony bet�veen the proposed project and the neighborhood, and lack of support by neighbors. (see attached Highland Villager article) T7ie same conditions are present here except to the e�tent that the Mendota Homes project has even less direct access to a main street than did the 7uliet project. Hence, fairness and the ]aw dictate that you reject the special condition use permit. The Mendota Homes request for a spe�ial condition use permit should be denied because none of the neighbors abutting on the project support it. Lacking community support from those who must live near the project, we urge you to oppose the granting of a special condition use perrnit for Mendota Homes. 'I'hank you for considering our letter and viewpoint. Sincerely, �L�r�. �� Helene Levy Schultz - � David Schultz David & Helene Lery Schultz'htendota Homes � ` ��<. : ;; - : -, e V�� G�, '� S �`.� 98- 39 `f u :. -� q7• ZpZ N�nDOZ foreseQS traf�ic car�ges�ia� City Counci) rejects request for Mac-Grove townhomes �1 proposed Macalester-Groveland hous- ing development was dealt another setback on September 2�4 whzn the St. Paut City Council rejected a request by Highland Park dzveloper John Kratz to vacatz a section of Paiace �venue. i:*a:z :can[s to construct a two-building, eisht-uni_ townnome complex on about =9.000 sauazz fzzt ot ��acant land that he ol� ns zast o* Lzx�r.g*.or. Parkwav bem�een Palace and Juiiet a: enues. Hz ��as hoFinQ to a C{� L^.2 'i:iQ2`: E:O: ZC S2CI:OR OS .nZ�dC2 Sd'2.^.112 ?O u.2 rz>: oEni> r:oper,;�.�chxh nz purnaszefrom ,ie \tiar.z�o.a Dzpz:tment ot T: ar.spo:.a- t;c:n-:eczz*sa°^.. ---�- --�=_:_ _� L�� s: Ju: z thz �ir: Cour,cil re;eaed nra:z's reaues: ier a s�eci�I coaditior, usz ee: :ii*. to build a"c:uster dzvz(ovmer.t;' a construc:ion CQRtIEII:niiOR L:ldi d:iZ`I1DC5 LO C7252R'B 2S i[17L`CP Of i'2 SUL:CL' :QI:1� 0�12.1 S�dC2 eS POS- j siSle.The�lacalzste:-G:oazlzn�Com:acnirv � Cuun:il i:ad rzcommznded that t:.z oermi: ' .�?2C2R32CCL'2COIF251Z20iLI12iOWP ; IZ12C10Z1 :J SI1ILOl:P,C:R° 7253�2!1C:5. `t:a�? said the council should not approve the street vacation until Kratz and his neighbors can agree on a development plan for the prooerr.�� witho�� Ayd Mi�l Road conne��ion byJane;�IcClure � tzattheanatysisdidro:zndicateLSa;,. . ,e:szc:ior.sx�ouldzxpe:iencesiga:ficzr.,,,- � Proposedcor:ectionsben+•eenAqdi�tilL_f.cpreolems."Ionl�seesieintzrseccicn>o•, Road and I-91 wiL be o.zser:ted to the Ayd c:-aci.y;'said �iacaiescer-Grove!aac :e��_ �Mi11 Road Task Force aU:00 p.n. �Ionda•r, � se�tatr:° Kac� \.fcGough."bVhv 2re •.re :oe's- Augus:l3, at thz �izrriam Pzr1: Community i:g at milIions aad millions ef dolia: s:e, c Centz:, 2000 SC 3nthor.y A•:e. Thz task force, >iiil Road iP.+�e can hzr.d'tz the t:a�:ic �.: i;.i "e which is composed of rzpresentatives fron 5::2°G`n'e 42 oOCY�� - local commenirr councils,businzss associa- �I:.l Klassen oFthz SL Paul Puoiic �.�or.:; 'tionsandocherne:ghboihood�rouos,hopes Dzpa:tment respondzd tha[ probi�c:> al- to make a recomnendation'on thz future of readv esistir.g at somz intersections cs ;no; thero2dway:n19S3. - rzzdilcberecufiedwithoutdiveCin�::�;c-c Connzctino d.d �[ilf Road's south end is A�'d �Iill Road. No solu;ion has be�a _ou�c simolvamarerofremocingL`�ebarriersnear ferthecapacityproblemsloomin�;;3a::_ JefTerson Avenue and I-3�E. Connzctin� the c'eloh and I-35E or at Selby and Sr.e:;i ,�, j:2 Ayd �.Iill Road's north end to I-94 is another s:�d. matter.Sevzralconnections, Hzreare44ekeyfindin�sfrointhzz::zivsis: and interchange layouts are being studizd, • Snzlling Avenue is expected to >ze .h� and a?I involve 4'�e removal of residential and la:gesc increase in trafric bythe ye;: 30?0. comme:cial propzrties. Strong opposition to Pza: ai,ernoon rush hour traftic ve•._mz i> anyconnectiononthenorthendhasblockzd 'c�*readvat2,375vehidesanhoura*._4-�:ir.� the comple!ion o; Ayd �titl Road since thz - aac Shz:burnz;3,600 at Snzlline and :=_::har; 195Cs. ' � � a: d 2,100 at Snellin� and Lincoi. . i�os: Or.e of the ootions still bzeng e;;zd forAyd r.c.mbers are expectzd to intrease o�: z_ e::: :? Mill is [o do nothing. fioweve:, city and statz perceat-to 2,750, 4, I CO ar.d 2,72=, rzsoec- officizls say iailcrz to connec; the roadtivay to tiszly—if Ayd Mill is r.ot connzet:? :o ta: [he ir.rerstate svstzm i4'i11 result in inc*eased" ?e��vavs4s�e� _��,_____� _._ traficonalreadycon�estzdareastre�s. • T:aftic on Lexing[on Parkecav, e_::�c� Treresultsofat.afficanai/sisofnei�hbor- o-eoithearea'sbusiests.reetsdu*i-=:us� in� st*eets werz reviewed by thz Ayd �fill •'r.eur, is predicted [o increase from _._=J :e RoadTas�ForceonJuly2l:The�tinnesota 2,:�Ovehidesanhourat Deoutme�f of Trznspor.ation (�InDOT) be:ne, from 2,L25 to 2,500 ac Lzxi, �-ca a:c przpa:ed t�5e trz ti.0 ioL2Ca5t5 EOCL'1.°�'ea*?020 ±a doien, frem 2,»0 [0 2,350 at Le:::-g:r.. ' fors::�e:si.^,thza:�abouaczdbvSh.zrburne z.cCar:oll,Fom1,�C0:e1,5��a::z._ce_cc A V2^:X, V :c_oria Stre°t, Raadoi�h Av°au.., r� ii,coln. =_r.d F:o^ SCC to 9CG z: =e��-a- and�_:in�:en..�. �c �te�z�>ei.�.., ,�� ., � , - « �Ce!eoi:e_at i�:=_r.z:;oonc_ -:c:aces 'r:.-....�� °'s3 �e�:'s::-c.r=---_ be:acse�ha,;:c�z:_:r.es.c�a':re:oclzr.:sco- �..;_c'�zfei:z:RarceL^ .w::zr� _.r--= cu., saic' S:_. _ " c: \I.^.J.�.O.�. r ' 7" .=i."._ :O:_-;2 S 8 ?2C,.... ._ ' ] "_c lec::__-:_�:..;cce� -c:c:,:•.�zex�z=--:co :r......;: ��, �:_-icesa..-._r.=r..=._r b eL._:nC�:..�_c_. .r_:-___�=._zn, __- . _:,.-_.-. :.-_- ii �•:e �[i:i Bozc:er..�.::s as:_ is.5 :�.. --- :_ --_. =.nco.... fr,._....` ._ - . --- �':_.._.iP.:2'S2C;:CLS.-.....A'CP.CC{CJLI_' _.:_:.,_.::Z.--..-J�O=J dia.Se:o�: r.cG:_�c�..w�[c_c .._._..c_ ..._..-...rse_:iec- -= -- —.- I'i'v':L� =LJ'.'_� "'"":'l:r,.:_C.�:E:12II �C""._. 3S:'�5:-'� ..:_._ '._ EC{, v�.:iSQG R3CCC:^ �....._� i...�CSE�- C LCe.- C�i:: �C2G3LC 1:C3::C?::'-C"' "_ i10.^.5:'_Si�� __: C'n°S:C: t'_"Z�cpttiCCCC'_ . _. .., . ��.� .�...C:2> 2.... _:..,C_G- -'.- Oi"°"_372C:C , _�-' .:�_^9�t�iCa,.]�;�c::::'-".._n'G' $r.-2C35(::OLC_^2:^J::Stv2.:5i1:7::i:_ _"'..:-. " ` � � ii� 7� � y �-3S�f 1. SUNRAY-BATTT,ECREEK•HIGHWOOD 2. fIAZEL PARK HADEN-PROSPERITY HILLCREST 3. WEST SIDE 4. DAYTON'S BLLJFF 5. PAYNE-PHAI.EN 6. NORTH END 7. THOMAS-DALE 8. SUMMIT-iJNIVERSPTI' 9. WEST SEVENT�I 10. COMO 11. HAMLINE-MTDWAY 12. ST. ANT'HONY PARK 13. MERRIAM PARK-LEXINGTON HAMLINE-SNELLING HAMLINE 14. MACALESTEJ2 GROVELAND 15 16. SUMMIT 17. OWN ZONiNG FILF �?� � 76 CTTIZEN PARTICIPATION PLANNING DISTRICTS 9 � 3q�! � . d . . �...:__� . . S I �� r � •.., . .� � , t'' . � , . � Z �_. :.:,;.^� fn t , . :_;� i � � i ::. .. � :' : `.%t:.., � , _��'.`�'. `, \ I` \ 4' � ��.'`" .!,\ } ) � � 0 ., � �— , :� �^%�E1�J �� . �t� � �; � • � � � hfs � � i �Y -� � t.. ,> • • w • � � � �� !�. ��,+�^�� ' v � './ ;. � 3 �c.� + z^";��(l �A� _� ^ :� ' �� '+ ' ,_;) • j �, j, ' �?� �� r � �� , � �:�3 � � ':� � � �'+� .� � � � � � ,� �, '�' � .;� ^ 3 � i � '�P �'.� `.� t AVE. _ m �1� � �� • • •••�••••••• • t�� • � . � � L� G � 0 � •� I ��!�� • � � l- . . �� I� � �C'� . e•.e. . � � r � � � � �, � ; � , l '<. -�� ' -'1 � �, � Y • • �.�ra�.�...�. �� •� � � • • •�� - � ;� fl • • • � � t �� :� �ao��Q�� _ -.... 0�� eeeed��. ... 0 r ; \ �` i� _ _ Q � v � V V �• �"�'�"�=�� ' � '""' "-- APPLICANT +�E��1'• �� LEGEND PURPOSE �W � � zoning district boundary FILE # �� ( DATE�_��_ � subject property n� orthi PLNG. DIST.� _ MAP # Y o one family •♦� commercial � � two family � � � industrial SCALE 1" = 400' � v __,. s ...,_ �-� Q multiple family V vacant � .,.�v.�... , �� . . . . . . . � .� �� • c ' �g �.�. � �� :1� �� i •�'�Jaa�'-13-98 10:22A Sewer Utility 298 5621 P.Ol y8 3�� i �� Et�� rA`L JR'� � �'�� The Lexington St. Clair Neighborhood �ro: FAX: �FROM Ella Thaver 266-8574 Pat Byme VOICE: 266-617i OF: VO(CE: Address DATE: Councilmember Benanav's Of 266-8643 243 S. Lexington Parkway Tuesdav, Januarv 13. 1998 TOTAL NUMBER t?F SHEETS (including this one): �a REMARKS Conceminp "lexinqton Commons proposal (�Lexinpton and St. Clair' � .. . .- -�- , - . -. ,. �_ .�-� - .� . . .��- . u .��. - Also. I was sur�ised to hear that anv residents su000rted the oroaosed develooement But then 1 look�d u� their addresses f 1166 and f 172 St. Clair) and nofed thev are not in our neiqhborhood but across the freeway from the or000sed developemerrt T hank vou for distnbutina this �AX SENT BY: ob TIME: io:25 AM DATE: i�i3/ss Jar.i13-98 10:23A Sewer Utility 298 5621 � To the Councilmembers of the City Council of St. Paui, Good Afternoon . P_02 9�-��y I'm here to read a letter signed by ail af my neighbors. I'd like to note that aimost all of these neighbors have shown up for at least one and sometimes all of the five public meetings already scheduled to discuss this issue. Most have shown up for at least one of the five private meetings held in various neighbor's homes or rented community center meeting rooms. It is a very concerned group of neighbors and a very united group of neighbors. It consists of 100% of the people living next to the site and includes neighbors on the other side of Lexington Parkway We think there were a number of errors and omissions in the process performed by both Staff and Planning Commission Members. In the tollowing list of comments however you will note that we address both those errors and omissions and repeat a number of comments we have made in the last five public meetings held discussing this issue. • ProperEy Acquisition The property consists of two loes. One on Lexington Parkway and one landlocked � lot behind everyone's houses. It was acquired by Roger Vik as surplus county property for hundreds of dollars. It was deemed valueless or near so then because of it's unsuitability for development. We are not saying you can't develop properey because it was deemed valueless at some point in its history. We just want to be clear that there is no mayor investment or livelihood that we are threatening with denial of this development. This is not a situation of depriving a property owner of value of their property. It has accurately been described as valueless in past, peopie have moved into the neighborhood aware that it was valueless, it was acquired under that status, and continues to exist under that status unless you decide to award it a variance thru this special use permit. � • Minimum Requirements It is our understanding that the owner needs to demonstrate an inability to deveiop the property under the existing zoning before issuing a speciai use permit. The owner has not done this. 'Fhere has never been a discussion of developing the site as zoned_ The site is zoned single family residential, and the owner has not tried to put singie family residential there. This can happen with no changes, to the property fronting Lexington Parkway now, and can happen, with some changes, to the second, bigger lot. We would like to explore this 1 of i 3 Jan=13-98 10:23A Sewer Utility � � � concept later. 298 5621 P.03 9$-34�{ Ostensibly one of the other reasons for having a special use permit for a cluster development is to preserve and increase green space, to cluster the structures in such a manner as to increase green space within the City. As you view the proposal, note this does not happen. • Aliey Use The alley use has been a major item for most of residents and others. It is two, not one, dead end alleys that furthermore combine into one outlet. Everyone involved has already reached a minimum proposal to not allow major increased traffic on the alley. AlI the residents agree this would be insanity to allow. Accidents have happened already due to combination of density of existing traffic and proximity of the alley (125'} to an intersection that has 24,000 ADT. Any increased use of the aliey would require a paved surface 16' wide_ This would require removal of the trees in the ailey and supporting of existing structures. • Existing Property Values Initially some of the neighbors thought property values would suffer. it was thought that if you put new housing woxth $150,000 to $200,000 right next to an existing oId house worth $60,000 that the contrast between the two would actually devalue the existing house. However at one of our private meetings we invited a number of real estate professionats to speak to us. Two of them inform us this would not be the case. However both were very emphatic that amenities to the neighborhood are indeed lost, and that their statements on property value were very much contingent on the proposal being completed and completed correctly. However even with this assurance sume are still fearful. This concern was listed in this letter for this reason. And to lead into the next matter. One agent made this disclaimer only when made awaxe of who the developer is. I'd like to return to this issue a bit later. • Viability of the Proposal There are strong doubts as to viability of this project. 1) The developer has already gone thru bankruptcy procedures in past 2of13 Jan-13-98 10:24A Sewer Utility i � 298 5621 P_04 98 2) The developer has indicated he will ignore the wamings issued by the railraad company as to the vibrations generated by the tracks at the bottom of the hill from the development. The owner of the furthest house away on this block has indicated that you feel the trains far in advance of hearing them. There are a minimum of two schedule trains everyday right now plus commercial routings. developments. 3) There has been indications of the possibility of contaminated soils or at the very least an abandoned dump site. However after months of questioning this, no soil barings have been performed. Instead, slab on grade construction has been proposed. 4)The site proposal calls for removal of the hundreds of trees on site, leaving a barren exposure to both the railroad and the freeway. And the future of that particular freeway is uncertain; wiil it be turned into renovated four lane expressway or into a linear park? 5) Because of the limited investment in the property acquisition there are fears that if the development does not produce, the developer will walk away leaving a mess behind. With the resulting mess, the City will then allow even more deviation or variances, because there will be a need to restore the site inio something usable. In 1978 Roger Vik pr�posed apartment buildings with underground garages. Will this proposal come back? • Compatibility The requirements include, and the staff report states "The design will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood". The comment is made that overall the proposed design is compatible with surrounding neighborhood which consists of a mixture of 1, 1.5 and 2 story stnzctures with gabled and hipped roofs. We think there is a mistake here. The anly really compatib2e item will be that they house people. You go from a 64' or 9Q+' by 25' structures with attached garages of 800 sq feet for a total of 24Q0 to 3600 square feet structures to the existing structures ranging from 600 square feet to 900 square feet. You go Erom a mixEure over SQ years of construction of stucco, clapboard, metal sliding, wood to one of uniform vinyl siding. � 3of13 Jan=13-98 10:24A Sewer Utility 298 5621 P_O5 ��-�y � The obvious incompatibility is you go from single family housing to multiple family housing. You go from fenced or treed lots fronting a pubiic street with yards and boulevards to a cul-de-sac with almost no yard space and most of the trees removed. You go from a developed St. Paul Community with its own unique characterizations to a Woodbury house farm. Another obvious incompatibility is that you go from homes valued at $25,000 to $100,00 and now add homes valued at $140,000 to �200,000 Again the requirement is far granting a special use permit that compatibility exists. Stating that compatibility exists solely because there are 1 and 2 story structures with gabled and hipped roofs is an extreme, very liberal, interpretation of the word compatible. Almost to the point of making that requirement a non existent one. We believe of the envelope of possible interpretations of the word `compatible' is being stretched, and stretched in the wrong direction. • Safety � r� � We feel staff and P1aruling Commission inadequately addressed the issue of safety, either thru a mistaken assessment or no assessment at all. Having the ptoposal be safe is another requirement in granting variances thru a special use permit. Traffic We have had two professionals in municipal traffic and municipal engineering testify that the proposed outlet to Lexington Parkway is unsafe. Their comments are on public record. There has been no conflicEing testimony from City Staff, engineering or otherwise. The best response we have is that it meets standards as to distance from a signalized intersection, that it meets line of sight requirements, and that it is as safe as a driveway on Maryland Avenue. The last statement, that it is as safe as a driveway on Maryland Avenue, carne from staff in response to a direct question by a member of the planning commission. Later at another public meeting the same planning commission member, when quizzed on how informative Public Works was, stated his disappointment in them. While he did not elaborate as to why, it is our opinion he was disappointed because staff would not say directly 'it is safe'. We, the neighbors, are equally disappointed because staff would not say directly 'it is unsafe'. We'd like to come back to this issue later. Again, there has been comments from two professionals on municipal engineering and municipal traffic that it is unsafe in their professional opinions. One was very descriptive as to why, citing speed at the bottom of two hills, 4 of 13 .Jan�13-98 10:25A Sewer Utility 298 5621 P_06 98-3��{ . distracting characteristics, camouflage appearances, ADT, distance of alleys from intersections, etc. When a copy of that was submitted to the Public Works staff and they were questioned as to whether they would say he was wrong, they could or would not do so. There was an attempt to attenuate one of these safery hazards by requiring a no le£t turn during rush hour traffic sign as you leave the development. This inadequately address the issue as speed is still the greatest on the bottom of the two hills Iocated right at the point. Also the entrance and exit are designed to look like a driveway, not a street that requires more attention. And, there was no corresponding effort to regulate left turns into the site from north bound Lexington Parkway, again causing an unexpected road blockage for norEh bound traffic and crossing over south bound traffic. The existence of other, possibly more unsafe situations, does not create a reason to condone this type of planning now. Those other situations evolved over decades and correcting them may not be practical now. Storm Water Mana� ment There is a requirement that calls for the inclusion of a detention pond on the proposed developed site. This is due to storm water management requirements � that are part of city ordinances. In most cases you will find this requirement being applied or incorporated into a parking lot or on the site of induscrial or business expansions. Staff has found these ponds to be intrinsically unsafe in residential areas or in park areas due to the presence of children. However it is the policy to let the developer seek a variance rather then to selectively urge a variance based upon this particular safety issue. Parking On Lexington If a proposal takes away guest parking for existing residents on Lexington Parkway, on any type of property, whether it be the existing alley or the existing private property, with the end resuit be3ng that guest of residents on Lexington end up parking on Lexington, you will almost for sure be causing a tatality. Residents have done studies, parking cars on Lexington during broad daylight and observing the number of near accidents that occur. The near accidents occurred almost every signal light cycle. Night time experiments could not be __ conducted_ This issue has not been addressed at all by staff because it is a- --- seconctary effect of the proposal. But without this proposal it would not happen at all. � 5of13 Jan-13-98 10:25A Sewer Utility � • Not In My Neighborhood! 298 5621 P_07 �J8-3� This is not a'not in my neighborhood you don't' issue. Yes, we like the open space. Yes, when we moved into this neighborhood we were assured this land locked lot could not be developed and that it had no value. And yes as we look out at the 24,000 ADT in the front of our houses we would prefer to have the back remain palatable. It's kind of a`no brainer' that we do not want this here. But this isn't a halt way house moving in, or a]ibrary, and there are no social movements being hindered here. Also this is not depriving the awner the right to access the lots on Lexington Parkway or development of his property as single family housing. This does seek to deny development of a land locked lot that appropriately has had no value or development over the decades. We offer alternatives later. We are offering real acceptable reasons for denying this proposal and they are usable by you the decision makers. • Metropolitan Council Policy On Urban Development We are all aware of the Metropolitan Council Policy on Urban Development where the stopping of urban sprawl out further and further is to be discouraged � and deveiopment within existing highly dense sites is to beencourage. There are plenty of sites within the City of Saint Paul that can be developed for residential use. You have the old Amhoist site between Robert and Wabasha, you have river front sites in conjunction with Shepard Road Development, ,you have the Phalen Corridor with it's accompanyuig light industrial. These alone offer the opportunities for 1000's of residential units. And if you want to continue coping with this particular policy and think it worth an investment by the community at large, you can mave on to cleaning up contaminated sites suitable for light industrial and moving the pieces around a little bet#er, again opening up sites for thousands of residential units. They will be coordinated with the community and there will be little or no problems with compaYibility, safety, access, property values. These sites will be planned sites. They exist now. Wilder Homes just across the Freeway is a good example. � The Summit Hill Zoning Committee strongly endorse the Met Councit Policy. 'They have also turned down on three different public meeting a number of variations of deveioping this site including one not significantly different then what you are iooking at now. As an aside the executive director also appeared at an earlier public hearing to recommend denial. 6 of S 3 Jan�13-98 10:26A Sewer Utility 298 5621 � The process of developing a coordinated or planned community to help with this policy is a much better process then the one being suggested for this neighborhood. We don't view filling in every little empty space as the right way of complying with the Met Council. Furthermore, the process we have been subjected to appears to be somewhat willy nilly. The developer has offered many variations of basically the same problem proposal but changing it enough at the last minute to make it a difficult moving target. For the last change, offered 5 minutes before the zoning committee meeting, no prepared comments from the residents were possible. Even complete staff apgroval had to be estimated by the staff present at the meeting. This did not appear to be the way to decide a community's future. • Tough Questions, Tough Answers � � We have some real serious concerns about this process. There doesn't seem to be a lack o€ tough questions but there does seen to be a lack of tough answers. Take the issue of the Met Council Policy. No where in staff's answers or approach is there a discussion or a recommendation as to whether or not the City's professional staff feels this is a good example of complying or meeting expectations set by that policy. However they are willing to state off the record they do not think so, and in fact think this is a bad example of compiying with that policy. But there is no departmental procedure for getting that opinion to you. There is no where an avenue for expressing that opinion to you. There is a vacuum from the City on what appears to be the majar impetus for granting approval. And going back to the safety issue. Why can't a citizen get an answez to the question 'is this a good idea? Is this safe?' Do we get the response that safety is a relative word because we have an official stance of neutrality and we can't risk having a Iawyer sue us because our professionai opinion may make it hard for them to engage in a business? Staff however is sometimes limited in how they can present an issue. Look at the storm water management requirements. Those are mandated by ordinance_ However also note that variances exist for them. But it is the responsibility of the developer to request that variance. There was a situation where Division of Parks was going to put a pond next to the children's playground. Staff couldn't make the decision to grant a variance. They had to call Parks staff and ask Park staff to ask them for a variance which was then granted. If staff starts issuing them without being requested they run into problems with setting precedence, etc. and that isn't easy to explain or deal with. Is staEf really supposed to answer that a vinyl sided 24Q0 square foot townhouse 7 of 13 P.08 !�+ �� 7� . Jan•-13-98 10:26A Sewer Utility 298 5621 P.09 98 •.�5� � with attached garages on a cul-de-sac surrounded by bituminous surfacing and no trees worth $200,000 is compatible with an 85 year old neighborhood of siucco, and wood housing with 600 to 900 square feet foot prints, treed and shrubbed yards off set from public streets and Blvd? The easy answer appears to be yes. Is staff to be blamed for this lack of hard answers? We don't think so. It is the policy makers in the departments that have gradually edged toward this direction. We are aware that there is a pluralistic society of tax payers and citizens out there and that they all have their concerns and needs. But we also feel tough answers to tough questions is a route that leads to better conditions. And we with our 400 yearsof invesYment in this community, are members of that society aiso. We have indicated our differences with staff statements; and where and why we think errors or omissions were made. One suggestion we would like to have you entertain is to have Mr. Shetka, traffic engineer, come and make a definitive statement on whether or not he thinks this is a good idea and whether ar not he thinks it is safe; to have Mr. Puchreiter come over and make a definite statement that ponding sites in residentiai neighborhoods are needed and safe; to have Ms. Wheelock make the statement that Ehis is a good example of complying with Met Council Policy. � As an aside, this issue of complying with Met Council Policy is the only one the residents have heard thru� all the various puhlic hearings cited by advocates of this proposal, both at the District Council and at the Planning Commission. If you do approve this proposal piease tell the residents that you have determined it to be safe for traffic, parking, children; have indeed determined that it is compatible with their neighborhood; have determined that there is no possibility of developing these sites as zoned; and have determined that the cluster development does preserve and/or increase green space. • Community Involvement The community has met with the Summit Hill District Council three times on this issue, each time to address a variation of the proposal, and as noted earlier, sometimes multiple variations that were not viewed ahead of time. In each case the neighborhood was united in it's opposition to the proposals. In each case the Summit Hill District Council agreed with the community, and even citing the developers inability to address the issues presented to him earlier. • 8of13 Jan=13-98 10=27A Sewer Utility 298 5621 P.10 9� 39y � Along with a lack of response at the formal meetings, the developer made no sincere effort to communicate with the neighborhood and negotiate with them. The first we heard about his willingness to do so was in front of the zoning committee where, while stating he had been willing all along to discuss and negotiate, he no longer was willing to do so. � • However after members of the zoning commission stated they wouid view favorably the attempt at communication, neighborhood members did gather, did discuss alternatives amongst themselves, and did set up a meeting with the developer. An agreement was reached with those who attended on some issues, mainly the alIey access, but nowhere near all issues. Before the neighborhood coordinator could get all the responses from the rest of the neighborhood, the developer had called back and said there were problems. It was with this information we attended the zoning committee's second meeting. When the issue went to the full Planning Commission, Mr. Field, Chairperson of the Zoning Committee appeared to inaccurately portrayed the proposa] as having neighborhood support. He repeated this position a number of times to the fulI commission. The only part of the proposal that had neighborhood support was the issue of not using the alley outletting to St. Clair Avenue by future owners or guests ot future owners of the town homes. Public record from the second of the two dates for the public hearing in front of the zoning committee show that the Matherns never came to an agreement on any other issue, that they found problem with the proposed agreement before it could be presented to the remaining neighbor. The final result of all this is that we are united yet in our opposition to all of the proposals we have seen presented so far. The existing residents of this area with a total of 400 years ot time invested in their neighborhood are requesting that you, the City Council, pay attention to these findings and find Ehem cause for denying what many in the area feel will lead to the degradation if not destruetion of our neighborhood. • EarYier Comments on Viability and Fears Earlier we mentioned fears about the viability and about property values and the real estate agents comments that the project needs to be done right. As part of the information submitted during this whole process there was some information submitted bya Timothy Sullivan, an attorney. Upon review of that information it appears that John and Sandra Mathern, referred to in the documents as 'The Matherns' were found to be in debt to United Mortgage Corporations for two lots they purchased and that the debt was a Iittle over half a million. This occurred in October of 1989. Not so bad and it happens to a lot of 9 of 13 Jan=13-98 10:27A Sewer Utility 298 5621 P.11 98 �'f � people. However in 1992 there was a claim that the Matherns had hindered or delayed their creditors, failed to produce adequate financial records, and knowingly made false oaths. It appears that it was further found that the courts held that substantial evidence to support an inference of fraudulent intent bythe Mathems. An appeal court found the Matherns failed to set forth affirmative admissible evidence to rebut the considerable circumstantial evidence of fraudulent intent and ruled against them. We are aware this is a sensitive issue. We are also aware that the City Attorney chose to not have the fulf material released in a package to planning commission members, deeming it not relevant or not to be considered in their decision making capacity. Instead just the cover letter from the presenting attorney was included. Most of the neighbors do not have a problem with this decision by the City Attorney. As noted abave staff and now commission members are limited as to what they can say or do. . . However it is a significant contributor to the reasons we tear this proposal. And because of this we feel it may be inappropriate to simply ignore it. In other communities when the professional capabilities of a developer are questioned and evidence is provided to support that questioning, provisions do exist for calming those questions. While we are not suggesting it as an alternative as we have other ideas, we are suggesting that if the proposal does get approved that the performance bond for complying with alt the provisions of the site plan review be expanded to require completion of the whatever the final proposal is within a 18 month time period, that all grading be completed in the 18 month time table, and that maintenance of the entire site be accomplished by either the developer or the owners. We would like the City to explore this or something similar. Again we are not offering this as an alternative, just something to be done in case our alternatives are rejected. • Alternatives We reatize we can't stop at just say no and that there is a need to offer alternatives or compromises. VVhy has there been so much problem with the existing proposal? Why the repetitive redoing and reshaping of it? Why have Planning Commission members noted for public record 'they wouId never buy it'? Why has it required so much effort and supposed creative thinking? Because in its current rendition and in alt past renditions it is simply a bad idea. It carries too much baggage. As noted in the first paragraph, there has not been a proposal to develop just as is now allowed - single family housing on an accessible street. Our first alternative is to do just fhaE on the lot on Lexington Parkway, just like everyone else in the neighborhood has. 10 of i 3 Jan=13-98 10:28A Sewer Utility � �_� I HELEN H CURRIER I 1 t 16 ST. C�AIR AVENUE I LOT 9, RUETH'S ADDITION I DAVID A& HELEN L SCHULTZ I t 120 ST. CLAIR AVENUE 1 LOT 10, RUETH'S ADDiTION I JOEL M& CHARLOTTE PATROS I 1126 ST. CLA1R AVENUE I LOT 11, RUETH'S ADQITION I ALICE L PETERSON I 113� ST. CLAIR AVENUE I LOT 12, RUETH'S ADDITION I MARGARET H MARKS I 1134 ST. CLAIR AVENUE i LOT i3, RUETH'S ADDITION I SUSAN E WAGNER 1 1138 ST. CLAIR AVENUE I LOT 14, RUETH'S ADDITION f CRAIG & BERYL P BOE I 1142 ST. Cl1aIR AVENUE -- I LOT 15, RUETH'S ADDITIOI�I _ I JAMES W& LISA R SWYERS I 1146 ST. CLAIR AVENUE 29S 5621 Our second alternative would be to have a Public Road built onto the site, not a driveway. And then to canstruct single family housing fronting that public road. While this does not satisfy all of the complaints it does deal with some. The approach so far as been too narrow and too focused on us versus them. Movement has gone on with too little input during the public hearing phase (for whatever reason) until now and too little response to the neighbor`s concerns and statements. Please slow down, please respond to all of the concerns, please make sure you have asked all the questions and received alt the answers. This is our petition to the City Council of St. Paui from the following residents: P.12 9� � 11 of 13 JanLL13-98 10:28A Sewer Utility • � � 298 5621 f LOT 16, RUETI-t'S ADDITIQIV I MII.KA P& TODD THORESEN I 1152 ST. CLAtR AYENUE I LOT 17, RUETH'S ADDITiON I SETH M ANDERSON I 1156 ST. CLAIR AVENUE I E 40 FT OF LOT 18, RUETH'S ADDITION i MICHAEL R WIGFIELD I 1160 ST. CLAIR AVENUE f WITH AND SUBJ TO ESMTS AND EX THE I E 40 FT LOT 18, RUETH'S ADDITION I PAT BYRNE & RACHEL BI.ANK I 243 S. I.EXIIVGTON PARKWAY I N 1 O FT OF LOT 2 AND ALL OF LOT i, I RUETH'S ADDITION I CHARLES W& KATHLEEN MARKS I 251 S. LEXINGTON PARKWAY { EX N 1 O FT, LOT 2, RUETH'S ADD{TION I KEIYH LANE CURTNER 1 259 S. LEXINGTON PARKWAY I LOT 3, RUETH'S ADDITION I ALBERTA L 81NKER I 263 S. LEXINGTON PARKWAY I EX S 7 FT, LOT 4, RUETH'S ADDITION I HEI.ENE G OSTROW I 269 S. LEXINGTON PARKWAY I S 7 FT OF LOT 4 AND ALL OF LOT 5, 1 RUETH'S ADDtTION I CHRlSTOPHER WALKER I 273 S. LEXINGTON PARKWAY I LOT 6, RUE7H'S ADDITION I ROBERT E& KATHLEEN A HENDRICKSON I 279 S. LEXINGTON PARKWAY I EX S 2 FT, LOT 7, RUETH'S ADD�TION 12 of 13 P.13 9� :�4 �Jan-13-98 10:29A Sewer Utility �� 298 5621 f BEVERLY Y DUNBAR I 283 S. LEXINGTON PARKWAY I S 2 FT OF LOT 7 AND ALL OF LOT 8, I RUETH'S ADDITION Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, The above signed residents. 13 of 13 P.14 98-3y4 �18 39� To the Councilmembers of the City Council of St. Paul, Good Aftemoon. My name is Pat Byrne and I reside at 243 S. Lexington Parkway. I'm here to read a letter signed by all of my neighbors. However as a courtesy, the letter was provide to you before hand and Its been indicated that it has been read by the Council Members. It is important to the signers of that letter that it is read or listened to as this is their first opportunity to speak to a public representative in this process. Anyway I'm going to summarize that letter instead of reading it. However I will read the summary. (I'm not sure if it is the reading or the length that bores people and puts them to sleep). I'd like to note it is a very concemed group of neighbors and a very united group of neighbors that share in this appeal. It consists of 100% of the people living next to the site and incfudes neighbors on the other side of Lexington Parkway. If possible I'd like to have those neighbors stand up, especially those who do not like to speak in public. We think there were a number of errors and omissions in the process pertormed by both Staff and Planning Commission Members. In the following list of comments however you will note that we address both those errors and omissions and repeat a number of comments we have made in the fast five public meetings held discussing this issue. I apologize to the signers if this seems briefer then it should, and I apologize to the Council if it seems longer then it should. ! Property Acquisition The site was acquired for very little money back in the 70's. It was deemed worthless then and has been deemed almost worthfess since then by both ihe owner and Ramsey County property taxing system. We are not depriving someone from their livelihood. I'd like to note at this time an error in the letter sent out. It was not acquired as surplus county property. ! Minimum Requirements There has never been a discussion of developing the site as a single family residential site and therefore not requiring anyone to go thru this process. Ostensibly one of the reasons for having a special use permit for a cluster development is to preserve and increase green space, to cluster the structures in such a manner as to increase green space within the City. As you view the proposal, note this does not happen. I'd note that one of the requirements is to minimize alterations of the natural features and topography. The plan proposes the removal of most if not a�l of the 9�- 35 �{ trees on this site. ! Alley Use The alley use has been a major item for most of residents and others. It is two, not one, dead end alleys that furthermore combine into one outlet Everyone involved has already reached a minimum proposal to not allow major increased traffic on the alley. All the residents agree this would not be good to ailow. Accidents have happened already due to cambination af density of existing traffic and proximity of the alley (125') to an intersection that has 24,000 ADT. Any increased use of the alley would require a paved surtace 16' wide. This wouid require removai of the trees in the alley and supporting of existing structures. ! Existing Property Values As noted those people right next to the proposed 150,000 units feel their 60,000 would not sell due to contrast. However two real estate agents, while acknowledging that amenities are reduced, property values should not be affected. However they noted this is only true if done right and if done completely as the plan indicates. However even with this assurance some are still fearful. This concern was listed in this letter for this reason. And to lead into the next matter. One agent made this disclaimer only when made aware of who the developer is. ! Viability of the Proposal There are strong doubts as to viabiiity of this project. 1) The developer has already gone thru bankruptcy procedures in past developments. 2) The developer has indicated he will ignore the warnings issued by the railroad company as to the vibrations generated by the tracks at the bottom of the hill from the development. 3) There has been indications of the possibility of contaminated soils or at the very least an abandoned dump site. 4)The site proposal calis for removal of the hundreds of trees on site, leaving a barren exposure to both the railroad and the freeway. And the future of that particular freeway is uncertain; will it be turned into renovated four lane expressway or into a linear park? 9 �-3g� 5) There are fears the developer wili walk if the units don't seil even though he has assured us they will sell like hotcakes. And then what will the City allow to happen on the site to salvage it ! Compatibility The requirements include, and the staff report states AThe design wili be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood@. We think there is a mistake here. And this is one of the major issues to everyone in the neighborhood. The only really compatible item will be that they house people. You go from a 90' by 25' structures with attached garage of 800 sq feet for a total 3600 square feet structures to the existing structures ranging from 600 square feet to 900 square feet. The attached garage is bigger then some of the houses You go from a mixture over 80 years of construction of stucco, clapboard, metaf sliding, wood to one of uniform vinyl siding. The obvious incompatibility is you go from single family housing to multiple family housing. You go from fenced or treed lots fronting a public street with yards and boulevards to a cul-de-sac with almost no yard space and most of the trees removed. You go from a developed St. Paul Community with its own unique characterizations to a Woodbury house farm. Another obvious incompatibility is that you go from homes valued at $25,000 to $100,00 and now add homes valued at $140,000 to $200,000 Again the requirement is for granting a special use permit that compatibility exists. Stating that compatibility exists solely because there are 1 and 2 story structures with gabled and hipped roofs is an extreme, very liberal, interpretation of the word compatible. Almost to the point of making that requirement a non existent one. We believe of the envelope ofi possibie interpretations of the word `compatible' is being stretched, and stretched in the wrong direction. ! Safety Another requirement is that `The use will not be detrimental to the existing character of the development in the immediate neighborhood or endanger public health, safety, and general welfare' We feel staff and Planning Commission inadequately addressed the issue of safety, either thru a mistaken assessment or no assessment at all. This is the second major issue with the neighborhood. 98-39� Traffic The pubVic record contains assessments by engineering professionals that the proposed outlet to Lexington Parkway is unsafe, and there has been no conflicting testimony from City Staff. In fact when asked directly if they could say the neighbor's assessment was incorrect we got a negative answer. The best response we have is that it meets standards as to distance from a signalized intersection, that it meets line of sight requirements, and that it is as safe as a driveway on Maryland Avenue. The last statement, that it is as safe as a driveway on Maryland Avenue, came from staff in response to a direct question by a member of the planning commission who fater expressed unhappiness with the response level, as we have though 1 suspect for different reasons. He was fooking for a clear statement that is was safe and we were looking for a clear statement that it was unsafe. As an aside to the letter I'd like to point out that surviving the review process is not a statement from City Staff that it is safe. It is a statement from staff that it met distance from signalized intersection standards and it met line of sight standards. That is all. There was an attempt to attenuate one of these safety hazards by requiring a no left turn during rush hour traffic sign as you leave the development. This at best addresses about 20°l0 ofi the traffic safety issue and was done with no consultation at sll with traSfic professionals. Storm Water Manaaement There is a requirement that calls for the inclusion of a detention pond on the proposed developed site. As a Water resource professionaf I have found this to be intrinsically unsafe in residential areas where chifdren are or in areas where their existence is a surprise. Parkina On Lexinqton One end result of the proposal, whether directly or indirectly, will be a definite increase in Parking on Lexington Parkway. Parking on Lexington will lead to many traffic accidents and I will easily state, traffic fatalities. There has been no comment or review or contribution to discussion on this item from anyone within the City. In the list of major accident areas throughout the city, Lexington Parkway already occupies 1t8 of that list. 9�-3s4 ! Not In My Neighborhood! This is not a`not in my neighborhood you don'Y issue. Yes, we like the open space. Yes, when we moved into this neighborhood we were assured this land focked lot couid not be developed and that it had no value. And yes as we look out at the 24,000 ADT in the front of our houses we would prefer to have the back remain patatabie. It's kind of a`no brainer' that we do not want this here. But this isn't a half way house moving in, or a library, and there are no social movements being hindered here. Also this is not depriving the owner the right to access the lots on Lexington Parkway or development of his property as single famity housing. This does seek to deny development of a land locked lot that appropriately has had no value or development over the decades. We ofEer alternatives later. As you review the permitted uses in the zoning law you will note that all non single family residential uses are all socially benefiting items fike churches, schools, libraries, transitional housing, battered women and children residences, hospices, etc. Even Cluster development was there to provide more green space. But as noted elsewhere that also required compatibility and safety. We are offering reaf acceptable reasons for denying this proposal and they are usable by you the decision makers. ! Metropolitan Council Policy On Urban Development Our community council is on record as strongly agreeing with the principles espoused in the Metropolitan councils regional blueprint cal{ing for decrease in urban sprawl and an increase in redevelopment of St. Paul sites. This community councii is also on record as opposing this particular development This proposal is not a good example of complying with that policy. We feel the pressure is misplaced. We know the Mayor's office wants development of over 600 sites within the City. In off record comments we know that PED has been `nice' to this developer. There is a push to get this redevelopment process going. But I listed possible examples in the letter. Those sites �end themselves to a coordinated planned community with no one to complain. They exist now. Just Iook across the freeway to the Wiider Site. I woufd also like to say as a manager of various programs that I feel the best way to a successful program is early simpfe successes, to make sure in your very first implementations to have everything well thought out, with special attention, to not use the easier method o4 seeing what happens and then make corrections as you get into the bulk of a program. No one in the neigh6orhood or community council is 9� arguing with the policy. Just that this is the wrong way to start it, whether in our neighborhood or anyone eise's neighborhood. With over 400 years of investment in this City we deserve better then this. The City deserves better then this. ! Tough Questions, Tough Answers We have some reai serious concems about this process. There doesn't seem to be a lack of tough questions but there does seen to be a lack of tough answers. Take the issue of the Met Council Policy. No where in staff's answers or approach is there a discussion or a recommendation as to whether or not the City's professional staff feels this is a good example of complying or meeting expectations set by that policy. And going back to the safety issue. Why can't a citizen get an answer to the question `is this a good idea? Is this safe?' Why do we get vague answers like it as safe as a driveway to Maryland Avenue, or safety is a relative thing? Why can't the city address the Parking issue before someone gets killed. Why can't Staff suggest a variance before a developer asks for it? How do we manage to get the statement that a vinyl sided 3000 square foot structure on a cul-de-sac surrounded by bituminous surfacing and no trees worth $200,000 is compatible with an 85 year old neighborhood of stucco, and wood housing with 600 to 900 square feet foot prints, treed and shrubbed yards off set from public streets and Bivd? We have indicated our differences with staff statements; and where and why we think errors or omissions were made. One suggestion we would like to have you entertain is to have Ms Becker have staff come and make a definitive statement on whether or not they thinks this is a good idea and whether or not they thinks it is safe; whether it be traffic, parking or ponds. to have Ms. Wheelock or staff make the statement that this is a good example of compfying with Met Council Policy. If you do approve this proposal please tefl the residents that you have determined i to be safe for traffic, parking, children; have indeed determined that it is compatible with their neighborhood; have determined that there is no possibility of developing these sites as zoned; and have determined that the cluster development does preserve and/or increase green space. ! Community Involvement The community has met many times with Summit Hill Council, with themselves, with 9�-.�'� pianning commission people. We have been asked to give our opinions on plans that have been changed on us at the last minute. We have sent {etters with issues. We have asked quest+ons. One of the main reasons cited by the community council for not approving the the plan was the developers unwillingness to answer our questions. However we have met with the developer after he was severely prompted to by the planning commission. However no agreement was ever reached with the developer. A partial agreement was reached about the alley. However this agreement was blown up to the extent that Mr. Field, Chairperson of the Zoning Committee appeared to inaccurately portrayed the proposal as having neighborhood support. He repeated this position a number of times to the fufl commission. The final result of all this is that we are united yet in our opposition to al{ of the proposals we have seen presented so far. The existing residents of this area with a total of 400 years of time invested in their neighborhood are requesting that you, the City Council address these concerns find them cause for denying what many in the area feel will lead to the degradation if not destruction of our neighborhood. ! Earlier Comments on Viability and Fears Earlier we mentioned fears about the viability and about property values and the real estate agents comments that the project needs to be done right. In our letter we addressed this issue. It basicalfy was that, because of public records brought to our attention we have strong doubts as the suitability and ability of Mendota Homes to develop this site. This was not due to the bankruptcy issues as much as to the findings by the court that there was substantial evidence of know+ngly making false oaths and inference of fraudulent intent. An appeals court also found against them. We are aware this is a sensitive issue. However it is a significant contributor to the reasons we fear this proposal. And because of this we feel it may be inappropriate to simply ignore it. In other communities when the professionai capabilities of a developer are questioned and evidence is provided to support that questioning, provisions do exist for calming those questions. While we are not suggesting it as an altemative as we have other ideas, we are suggesting that if the proposal does get approved that the performance bond for complying with all the provisions of the site plan review be expanded to require completion of the whatever the final proposal is within a 18 month time period, that all grading be completed in the 18 month time table, and that maintenance of the entire site be accomplished by either the developer or the owners. We would like the City to explore this or something similar. Again we are not offering this as an alternative, just something to be done in case our alternatives are rejected. 98-35'f ! Alternatives We realize we can't stop at just say no and that there is a need to ofEer altematives or compromises. Why has there been so much problem with the existing proposal? Why the repetitive redoing and reshaping of it? Why have Planning Commission members noted for public record `they would never buy it'? Why has it required so much effort and supposed creative thinking? Because in its current rendition and in all past renditions it is simply a bad idea. It carries too much baggage. As noted earlier, there has not been a proposal to develop as a single family housing on an accessible street. Our first alternative is to do just that on the lot on Lexington Par4cway, just like everyone eise in the neighborhood has. Our second alternative would be to have a Public Road built onto the site, not a driveway. And then to construct single family housing fronting that public road. While this does not satisfy all of the complaints it does deal with some. The approach so far as been too narrow and too focused on us versus them. Movement has gone on with too little input during the public hearing phase (for whatever reason) until now and too little response to the neighbor's concerns and statements. Please slow down, please respond to alt of the concerns, please make sure you have asked all the questio�s and received all the answers. Before I summarize I like to show this tape prepared by some residents; it was prepared for one of the initial discussion with the community council. Tape We had proposed another video but I'm going to have to ask you to use your imagination on this one. The video was going to go back and forth between a picture of the houses in our community, which you have seen, and a picture of a suburban cul-de-sac with double and triple townhouses all in uniform color and vinyl and no or little trees, again which I assume most of you have seen before. In Summary (of a summary) We feef a major issues is compatibility with the neighborhood. We feel the envelope of possible interpretations of that requirement has been extremely enlarge and furthermore pushed in the wrong direction We feel a major issue is safety in traffic, in parking, and in ponding requirements. We also feel that the City has not responded adequately or at all to these concerns, and that you cannot site passing a review process as an adequate addressing of 98 direct concerns, especiaNy if those questions are not part of the review process. We feel issues of alley use is a major safery issue. We feel a major issue is that cluster deve{opments should lead to increased green space. We feei the issues of property vatue, ofi viability of the project, ofi proper management are important. We feel there are more acceptable alternatives, development alternative and they should be the only ones ailowed. t8 -3�� To the Councilmembers of the City Council of St. Paul, Good Aftemoon . I'm here to read a letter signed by all of my neighbors. I'd like to note that almost ali of these neighbors have shown up for at least one and sometimes all of the five public meetings already scheduled to discuss this issue. Most have shown up for at least one of the five private meetings he�d in various neighbor's homes or rented community center meeting rooms. It is a very concerned group of �eighbors and a very united group of neighbors. It consists of 100% of the people living next to the site and includes neighbors on the other side of Lexington Parkway We think there were a number of errors and omissions in the process performed by both Staff and Planning Commission Members. In the foliowing list of comments however you wili note that we address both those errors and omissions and repeat a number of comments we have made in the last five public meetings held discussing ihis issue. ! Property Acquisition The property consists of finro lots. One on Lexington Parkway and one landlocked lot behind everyone's houses. It was acquired by Roger Vik as surpius county property for hundreds of dollars. ft was deemed valuefess or near so then because of iYs unsuitability for development. We are not saying you can't develop property because it was deemed valusless at some point in its history. We just want to be clear that there is no major investment or livelihood that we are threatening with denial of this development. This is not a situation of depriving a property owner of va{ue of their property. It has accurately been described as valueless in past, people have moved into the neighborhood aware that it was valueless, it was acquired under that status, and continues to exist under that status unless you decide to award it a variance thru this special use permit. ! Minimum Requirements It is our understanding that the owner needs to demonstrate an inability to develop the p�oQerty under the existing zoning before issuing a special use permit. The owner has not done this. There has never been a discussion of developing the site as zoned. The site is zoned single family residential, and the owner has not tried to put single family residential there. This can happen with no changes, to the property fronting Lexington Parkway now, and can happen, with some changes, to the second, bigger lot. We would like to explore this concept later. Ostensibly one of the other reasons for having a special use permit for a cluster 98 -�yy development is to preserve and increase green space, to c�uster the structures in such a manner as to increase green space within the City. As you view the proposal, note this does not happen. I Alley Use The alley use has been a major item for most of residents and others. It is two, not one, dead end alleys that furthermore combine into one outlet. Everyone involved has aiready reached a minimum proposal to not aliow major increased traffic on the alley. All the residents agree this would be insanity to allow. Accidents have happened already due to combination of densiry of existing traffic and proximity of the alley (125') to an intersection that has 24,000 ADT. Any increased use of the alley would require a paved surface 16' wide. This wou{d require removal of the trees in the alley and supporting of existing structures. ! Existing Property Values Initiafly some of the neighbors thought property values would suffer. It was thought that if you put new housing worth $150,000 to $200,000 right next to an existing old house worth $60,000 that the contrast between the two would actually devalue the existing house. However at one of our private meetings we invited a number of real estate professionals to speak to us. Two of them inform us this wouid not be the case. However both were very emphatic that amenities to the neighborhood are indeed fost, and that their statements on property value were very much contingent on the proposal being completed and completed correct�y. However even with this assurance some are stiil fearful. This concern was listed in this letter for this reason. And to lead into the next matter. One agent made this disclaimer only when made aware of who the developer is. I'd like io return to this issue a bit later. ! Viability of the Proposal There are strong doubts as to viability of this project. 1) The developer has already gone thru bankruptcy procedures in past developments. 2) The developer has indicated he will ignore the warnings issued by the railroad company as to the vibrations generated by the tracks at the bottom of the hiil from the deve{opment. The owner of the furthest house away on this block has indicated that you feel the trains far in advance of hearing them. There are a minimum of two 98-34Y schedule trains everyday right now plus commercial routings. 3) There has been indications of the possibility of contaminated soils or at the very least an abandoned dump site. However after months of questioning this, no soii borings have been performed. Instead, siab on grade consiruction has been p�aposed. 4)The site proposal cails for removal of the hundreds of trees on site, leaving a barren exposure to both the railroad and the freeway. And the future of that particular freeway is uncertain; will it be turned into renovated four lane expressway or into a linear park? 5) Because of the limited investment in the property acquisition there are fears that if the development does not produce, the developer will walk away leaving a mess behind. With the resulting mess, the City will then allow even more deviation or variances, because there will be a need to restore the site into something usable. In 1978 Roger Vik proposed apartment buildings with underground garages. Wil1 this proposal come back? ! Compatibility The requirements include, and the staff report states AThe design will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood@. The comment is made that overall the proposed design is compatible with surrounding neighborhood which consists of a mixture of 1, 1.5 and 2 story structures with gabled and hipped roofs. We think there is a mistake here. 7he onfy reafly compatible item wilf be that they house people. You go from a 64' or 90+' by 25' structures with attached garages of 800 sq feet for a total of 2400 to 3600 square feet structures to the existing structures ranging from 600 square feet to 900 square feet. You go from a mixture over 80 years of construction of stucco, clapboard, metal sliding, wood to one of uniform vinyl siding. The obvious incompatibility is you go from single family housing to multiple family housing. You go from fenced or treed lots fronting a public street with yards and boulevards to a cuf-de-sac with afmost no yard space and most of the trees removed. You go from a developed St. Paul Community with its own unique characterizations to a Woodbury house farm. Another obvious incompatibility is that you go from homes valued at $25,000 to 9�-��y $100,00 and now add homes valued at $140,000 to $200,000 Again the requirement is for granting a specia! use Qermit that compatibility exists. Stating that compatibility exists solely because there are 1 and 2 story structures with gabled and hipped roofs is an extreme, very liberal, interpretation of the word compatible. Almost to the point of making that requirement a non existent one. We believe of the envelope of possible interpretations of the word `compatible' is being stretched, and stretched in the wrong direction. ! Safety We feel staff and Planning Commission inadequately addressed the issue of safety, either thru a mistaken assessment or no assessment at all. Having the proposal be safe is another requirement in granting variances thru a special use permit. Traffic We have had two professionals in municipal tra�c and municipal engineering testify that the proposed outlet to Lexington Parkway is unsafe. Their comments are on public record. There has been no conflicting testimony from City Staff, engineering or otherwise. The best response we have is that it meets standards as to distance from a signa4ized intersection, that it meets Iine of sight requirements, and that it is as safe as a driveway on Maryland Avenue. The last statement, that it is as safe as a driveway on Maryland Avenue, came from staff in response to a direct question by a member of the planning commission. Later at another public meeting the same planning commission member, when quizzed on how informative Public Works was, stated his disappointment in them. While he did not elaborate as to why, it is our opinion he was disappointed because staff would not say directly `it is safe'. We, the neighbors, are equally disappointed because staff would not say directly `it is unsafe'. We'd like to come back to this issue later. /�qain, there has been comments from two professionals on municipal engineering and municipal traffic that it is unsafe in their professional opinions. One was very descriptive as to why, citing speed at the bottom of two hills, distracting characteristics, camouflage appearances, ADT, distance of alleys from intersections, etc. When a copy of that was submitted to the Public Works staff and they were questioned as to whether they would say he was wrong, they could or woufd not do so. There was an attempt to attenuate ane of these safety hazards by requiring a no left turn during rush hour traffic sign as you Ieave the development. This inadequately address the issue as speed is still the greatest on the bottom of the two hills located right at the point. Also the entrance and exit are designed to look like a driveway, 9� �sy� not a street that requires more attention. And, there was no corrssponding effort to regulate left turns into the site from north bound Lexington Parkway, again causing an unexpected road blockage for north bound traffic and crossing over south bound traffic. The existence of other, possibly more unsafe situations, does not create a reason to condone this type of planning now. Those other situations evolved over decades and correcting them may not be practicai now. Storm Water Manaqement There is a requirement that calis for the inclusion of a detention pond on the proposed developed site. This is due to storm water management requirements that are part of city ordinances. In most cases you will find this requirement being applied or incorporated into a parking lot or on the site of industrial or business expansions. Staff has found these ponds to be intrinsicaily unsafe in residential areas or in park areas due to the presence of children. However it is the policy to let the developer seek a variance rather then to selectively urge a variance based upon this particular safety issue. Parkinq On Lexinqton If a proposal takes away guest parking for existing residents on Lexington Parkway, on any type of property, whether it be the existing alley or the existing private property, with the end result being that guest of residents on Lexington end up parking on Lexington, you wifl afmost for sure be causing a fatafity. Residents have done studies, parking cars on Lexington during broad daylight and observing the number of near accidents that occur. The near accidents occurred almost every signal light cycle. Night time experiments could not be conducted. This issue has not been addressed at all by staff because it is a secondary effect of the proposal. But without this proposal it would not happen at all. ! Not In My Neighborhood! This is not a`not in my neighborhood you don't' issue. Yes, we like the open space. Yes, when we moved into this neighborhood we were assured this land focked lot could not be developed and that it had no value. And yes as we look out at the 24,000 ADT in the front of our houses we would prefer to have the back remain palatable. IYs kind of a`no brainer' that we do not want this here. But this isn't a half way house moving in, or a library, and there are no social movements being hindered here. Also this is not depriving the owner the right to access the lots on Lexington Parkway or development of his property as single � family housing. This does seek to deny development of a land locked lot that appropriatefy has had no value or development over the decades. We offer altematives later. We are offering real acceptable reasons for denying this proposal and they are usabie by you the decision makers. ! Metropolitan Council Policy On Urban Development We are all aware of the Metropolitan Council Policy on Urban Development where the stopping of urban sprawl out further and further is to be discouraged and development within existing highly dense sites is to be encourage. There are plenty of sites within the City of Saint Paul that can be developed for residential use. You have the old Amhoist site between Robert and Wabasha, you have river front sites in conjunction with Shepard Road Development, you have the Phalen Corridor with iYs accompanying light industrial. These alone offer the opportunities for 1000's of residential units. And if you want to continue coping with this particular policy and think it worth an investment by the community at large, you can move on to cleaning up contaminated sites suitable for light industrial and moving the pieces around a little better, again opening up sites for thousands of residential units. They will be coordinated with the community and there will be little or no problems with compatibility, safety, access, property values. These sites will be planned sites. They exist now. Wilder Homes just across the Freeway is a good example. The Summit Hill Zoning Committee strongly endorse the Met Council Policy. They have also turned down on three different public meeting a number of variations of developing this site including one not significantly different then what you are looking at now. As an aside the executive director also appeared at an earlier public hearing to recommend denial. The process of developing a coordinated or planned community to help with this policy is a much better process then the one being suggested for this neighborhood. We don't view filling in every little empty space as the right way of complying with the Met Councit. Furthermore, the process we have been subjected to appears to be somewhat willy nilly. Tne deve►oper has offered many variations of basicafly the same probfem proposaf but changing it enough at the last minute to make it a difficult moving target. For the �ast change, offered 5 minutes before the zoning committee meeting, no prepared comments from the residents were possible. Even complete staff approval had to be estimated by the staff present at the meeting. This did not appear to be the way to decide a community's future. ! Tough Questions, Tough Answers �8 �9� We have some real serious concerns about this process. There doesn't seem to be a lack of tough questions but there does seen to be a lack of tough answers. Take the issue ofi the Met Councii Policy. No where in staff's answers or approach is there a discussion or a recommendation as to whether or not the City's professional staff feels this is a good example of complying or meeting expectations set by that poficy. However they are willing to state off the record they do not think so, and in fact think this is a bad example of complying with that policy. But there is no departmental procedure for getting that opinion to you. There is no where an avenue for expressing that opinion to you. There is a vacuum from the City on what appears to be the major impetus for granting approval. And going back to the safety issue. Why can't a citizen get an answer to the question `is this a good idea? Is this safe?' Do we get the response that safety is a relative word because we have an official stance of neutrality and we can't risk having a lawyer sue us because our professional opinion may make it hard for them to engage in a business? Staff however is sometimes limited in how they can present an issue. Look at the storm water management requirements. Those are mandated by ordinance. However aiso note that variances exist for them. But it is the responsibifity of the developer to request that variance. There was a situation where Division of Parks was going to put a pond next to the children's playground. Staff couldn't make the decision to grant a variance. They had to call Parks staff and ask Park staff to ask them for a variance which was then granted. If staff starts issuing them without being requested they run into problems with setting precedence, etc. and that isn't easy to explain or deal with. Is staff really supposed to answer that a vinyl sided 2400 square foot townhouse with attached garages on a cul-de-sac surrounded by bituminous surfacing and no trees worth $200,000 is compatible with an 85 year old neighborhood of stucco, and wood housing with 600 to 900 square feet foot prints, treed and shrubbed yards off set from public streets and Blvd? The easy answer appears to be yes. Is staff to be blamed for this lack of hard answers? We don't think so. It is the policy makers in the departments that have gradually edged toward this direction. We are aware that there is a pluralistic society of tax payers and citizens out there and that they all have their concerns and needs, But we also feel tough answers to tough questions is a route that leads to better conditions. And we with our 400 years of investment in this community, are members of that society also. We have indicated our differences with staff statements; and where and why we think errors or omissions were made. One suggestion we would like to have you entertain is to have Mr. Shetka, traffic 9��gy engineer, come and make a definitive statement on whether or not he thinks this is a good idea and whetfier or not he thinks it is safe; to have Mr. Puchreiter come over and make a defnite statement that ponding sites in residential neighborhoods are needed and safe; to have Ms. Wheelock make the statement that this is a good example of compfying with Met Councif Policy. As an aside, this issue of complying with Met Council Policy is the only one the residents have heard thru all the various public hearings cited by advocates of this proposal, both at the District Council and at the Planning Commission. If you do approve this proposal please tell the residents that you have determined it to be safe for traffc, parking, children; have indeed determined that it is compatible with their neighborhood; have determined that there is no possibility of developing these sites as zoned; and have determined that the cluster development does preserve and/or increase green space. ! Community Involvement The community has met with the Summit Hill District Councif three times on this issue, each time to address a variation of the proposal, and as noted earlier, sometimes multipte variations that were not viewed ahead ofi time. In each case the neighborhood was united in it's opposition to the proposals. In each case the Summit Hill District Council agreed with the community, and even citing the developers inability to address the issues presented to him earlier. Along with a lack of response at the format meetings, the developer made no sincere effort to communicate with the neighborhood and negotiate with them. The first we heard about his willingness to do so was in front of the zoning committee where, while stating he had been willing all along to discuss and negotiate, he no longer was willi�g to do so. However after members of the zoning commission stated they would view favorably the attempt at communication, neighborhood members did gather, did discuss alternatives amongst themselves, and did set up a meeting with the developer. An agreement was reached with those who attended on some issues, mainly the alley access, but nowhere near all issues. Betore the neighborhood coordinator could get alf the responses firom the rest of the neighborhood, the developer had called back and said there were problems. It was with this information we attended the zoning committee's second meeting. When the issue went to the fufl Planning Commission, Mr. Field, Chairperson of the Zoning Committee appeared to inaccurately portrayed the proposal as having neighborhood support. He repeated this position a number of times to the full commission. The only part of the proposal that had neighborhood support was the 98-�� issue of not using the a11ey outletting to St. Clair Avenue by future owners or guests af future owners of the town homes. Pub{ic record from the second of the two dates for the public hearing in front of the zoning committee show that the Matherns never came to an agreement on any other issue, that they found problem with the proposed agreement before it could be presented to the remaining neighbor. The final result of all this is that we are united yet in our opposition to all of the proposals we have seen presented so far. The existing residents of this area with a total of 400 years of time invested in their neighborhood are requesting that you, the Ciry Council, pay attention to these findings and find them cause for denying what many in the area feef will lead to the degradation 'rf not destruction of our neighborhood. ! Earlier Comments on Viability and Fears Earlier we mentioned fears about the viabi�ity and about property values and the rea� estate agents comments that the project needs to be done right. As part of the information submitted during this whole process there was some information submitted by a Timothy Sullivan, an attorney. Upon review of that information it appears that John and Sandra Mathern, referred to in the documents as `The Matherns' were found to be in debt to United Mortgage Corporations for two lots they purchased and that the debt was a IittVe over half a milfion. This occurred in October of 1989. Not so bad and it happens to a lot o4 people. However in 1992 there was a claim that the Matherns had hindered or delayed their creditors, failed to produce adequate financial records, and knowingly made false oaths. It appears that it was further found that the courts held that substantia� evidence to support an inference of fraudulent intent by the Matherns. An appeal court found the Matherns failed to set forth affirmative admissible evidence to rebut the considerable circumstantial evidence of fraudulent intent and ruled against them. We are aware this is a sensitive issue. We are also aware that the City Attomey chose to not have the full material released in a package to planning commission members, deeming it not relevant or not to be considered in their decision making capacity. Instead just the cover letter from the presenting attorney was included. Most of the neighbors do not have a problem with this decision by the City Attorney. As noted above staff and now commission members are Iimited as to what they can say or do. However it is a significant contributor to the reasons we fear this proposal. And because of this we feel it may be inappropriate to simply ignore it. In other communities when the professional capabilities of a developer are questioned and evidence is provided to support that questioning, provisions do exist for calming those questions. While we are not suggesting it as an alternative as we have other ideas, we are suggesting that if the proposal does get approved that the q�� perFormance bond for compiying with all the provisions of the site plan review be expanded to require completion of the whatever the final proposal is within a 18 month time period, that all grading be completed in the 18 month time table, and that maintenance of the entire site be accomplished by eitfier the developer or the owners. We would like the City to explore this or something similar. Again we are not offering this as an altemative, just something to be done in case our alternatives are rejected. ! Altematives We realize we can't stop at just say no and that there is a need to offer alternatives or compromises. Why has there been so much problem with the existing proposal? Why the repetitive redoing and reshaping of it? Why have Planning Commission members noted for public record `they wauld never buy iY? Why has it required so much effort and supposed creative thinking? Because in its current rendition and in all past renditions it is simply a bad idea. It carries too much baggage. As noted in the first paragraph, there has not been a proposal to develop just as is now allowed - single family housing on an accessible street. Our first alternative is to do just that on the lot on Lexington Parkway, just like everyone else in the neighborhood has. Our second alternative would be to have a Public Road built onto the site, not a driveway. And then to construct single family housing fronting that public road. While this does not satisfy all of the complaints it does deal with some. The approach so far as been too narrow and too focused on us versus them. Movement has gone on with too little input during the public hearing phase (for whatever reason) until now and too little response to the neighbor's concerns and statements. Please slow down, please respond to all of the concerns, please make sure you have asked all the questions and received all the answers. This is our petition to the C'ity Council of St. Paul from the following residents: HELEN H CURRIER 1116 ST. CLAIR Avenue LOT 9, Rueth's Addition DAVID A& HELEN L SCHULTZ 1120 ST. CLAIR Avenue LOT 10, Rueth's Addition � JOEL M& Charlotte PATROS 9�-3g� � 1126 ST. CLAIR Avenue � LOT 11, Rueth's Addition � A�ICE L PETERSON � 1130 ST. CLAIR Avenue � LOT 12, Rueth's Addition � MARGARET H MARKS � 1134 ST. CLAIR Avenue � LOT 13, Rueth's Addition � SUSAN E WAGNER � 1138 ST. CLAIR Avenue � LOT 14, Rueth's Addition � Craig & BERYL P BOE � 1142 ST. CLAIR Avenue � LOT 15, Rueth's Addition � JAMES W& LISA R SWYERS � 1146 ST. CLAIR Avenue � LOT 16, Rueth's Addition � Milka P& Todd Thoresen � 1152 ST. CLAIR Avenue � LOT 17, Rueth's Addition � SETH M ANDERSON � 1156 ST. CLAIR Avenue � E 40 FT OF LOT 18, Rueth's Addition � MICHAEL R WIGFIELD � 1160 ST. CLAIR Avenue � WfTH AND SUBJ TO ESMTS AND EX THE � E 40 FT LOT 18, Rueth's Addition � PAT BYRNE & RACHEL BLANK � 243 S. Lexington Parkway j N 1 O FT OF LOT 2 AND ALL OF LOT 1, � Rueth's Addition � CHARLES W& KATHLEEN MARKS � 251 S. Lexington Parkway � EX N 1 O FT, LOT 2, Rueth's Addition 9�- 3y5� KEITH LANE CURTNER 259 S. Lexington Parkway LOT 3, Rueth's Addition � ALBERTA L BINKER � 263 S. Lexington Parkway � EX S 7 FT, LOT 4, Rueth's Addition � HELENE G OSTROW � 269 S. Lexington Parkway � S 7 FT OF LOT 4 AND ALL OF LOT 5, � Rueth's Addition � Christopher WALKER � 273 S. Lexington Parkway � LOT 6, Rueth's Addition ROBERT E& KATHLEEN A HENDRICKSON 279 S. Lexington Parkway EX S 2 FT, LOT 7, Rueth's Addition BEVERLY Y DUNBAR 283 S. Lexington Parkway S 2 FT OF LOT 7 AND ALL OF LOT 8, Rueth's Addition 9� Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, The above signed residents. 9� �9y K To the Councilmembers of the City Council ot St. Paul, Good Afternoon . � Z �� -�� I'm here to read a letter signed by all of my neighbors. I'd like to note that almost all of these neighbors have shown up for at least one and sometimes all of the five public meetings already scheduled to discuss this issue. Most have shown up for at least one of the five private meetings held in various neighbor's homes or rented community center meeting rooms. It is a very concerned group of neighbors and a very united group of neighbors. It consists of 100% of the people living next to the site and includes neighbors on the other side of Lexington Parkway We think there were a number of errors and omissions in the process performed by both Staff and Planning Commission Members. In the following list of comments however you will note that we address both those errors and omissions and repeat a number of comments we have made in the last five public meetings held discussing this issue. • Property Acquisition The property consists of two lots. One on Lexington Parkway and one landlocked lot behind everyone's houses. It was acquired by Roger Vik as surplus county property for hundreds of dollars. It was deemed valueless or near so then because of it's unsuitability for development. We are not saying you cari t develop property because it was deemed valueless at some point in its history. We just want to be clear that there is no major investment or livelihood that we are threatening with denial of this development. This is not a situation of depriving a property owner of value of their property. It has accurately been described as valueless in past, people have moved into the neighborhood aware that it was valueless, it was acquired under that status, and continues to exist under that status unless you decide to award it a variance thru this special use permit. • Minimum Requirements It is our understanding that the owner needs to demonstrate an inability to develop the property under the existing zoning before issuing a special use permit. The owner has not done this. There has never been a discussion of developing the site as zoned. The site is zoned single family residential, and the owner has not tried to put single family residential there. This can happen with no changes, to the property fronting Lexington Parkway now, and can happen, with some changes, to the second, bigger lot. We would like to explore this 1 of 13 i concept Iater. Ostensibly one of the other reasons for having a special use permit for a cluster development is to preserve and increase green space, to cluster the structures in such a manner as to increase gxeen space within the City. As you view the proposal, note this does not happen. • Alley Use The alley use has been a major item for most of residents and others. It is two, not one, dead end alleys that #urthermore combine into one outlet. Everyone involved has already reached a minimum proposal to not allow major increased traffic on the alley. All the residents agree this would be insanity to allow. Accidents have happened already due to combination of density of e�cisting traffic and proximity of the alley (125') to an intersection that has 24,000 ADT. Any increased use of the alley would require a paved surface 16' wide. This would require removal of the trees in the alley and supporting of existing structures. • Existing Property Values Initially some of the neighbors thought property values would suffer. It was thought that it you put new housing worth $150,000 to $200,000 right next to an existing old house worth $60,000 that the contrast between the two would actually devalue the existing house. However at one of our private meetings we invited a number of real estate professionals to speak to us. Two of them inform us this would not be the case. However both were very emphatic that amenities to the neighborhood are indeed tost, and that their statements on pmperty value were very much contingent on the proposal being completed and completed correctly. However even with this assurance some are still fearfizL This concern was listed in this leiter for this reason. And to lead into 4he next matter. One agent made this disclaimer only when made aware of who the developer is. I'd like to return to this issue a bit later. • Viability of the Pmposal There are strong doubts as to viability of this project. 1) The developer has already gone thru bankruptcy procedures in past . 2of13 V � `�8�39� developments. 2) The developer has indicated he will ignore the warnings issued by the railroad company as to the vibrations generated by the tracks at the bottom of the hill from the development. The owner of the furthest house away on this block has indicated that you feel the trains far in advance of hearing them. There are a minimum of two schedule trains everyday right now plus commercial routings. 3) There has been indications of the possibility of contaminated soils or at the very least an abandoned dump site. However after months of questioning this, no soil borings have been performed. Instead, slab on grade construction has been proposed. 4)The site proposal calls for removal of the hundreds of trees on site, leaving a barren exposure to both the railroad and the freeway. And the future of that particular freeway is uncertain; will it be turned into renovated four lane expressway or into a linear park? 5) Because of the limited investment in the property acquisition there are fears that if the development does not produce, the developer will walk away leaving a mess behind. With the resulting mess, the City will then allow even more deviation or variances, because there will be a need to restore the site into something usable. In 1978 Roger Vik proposed apartment buildings with underground garages. Will this proposal come back? • Compatibility The requirements include, and the staff report states "The design will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood". The comment is made that overall the proposed design is compatible with surrounding neighborhood which consists of a mixture of 1, 1.5 and 2 story structures with gabled and hipped roofs. We think there is a mistake here. The only really compatibie item will be that they house people. You go from a 64' or 90+' by25'structures with attached garages of 800 sqfeet for a total of 2400 to 3600 square feet structures to the existing structures ranging from 600 square feet to 900 square feet. You go from a mixture over 80 years of construction of stucco, clapboard, metal sliding, wood to one of uniform vinyl siding. 3of13 The obvious incompatibility is you go from single family housing to multiple family housing. You go from fenced or treed lots fronting a public street with yards and boulevards to a cul-de-sac with almost no yard space and most of tfie trees removed. You go from a developed St. Paul Community with its own unique characterizations to a Woodbury house tarm. Another obvious incompatibility is that you go from homes valued at $25,OOQ to $I00,00 and now add homes valued at $140,000 to $200,000 Again the requirement is for granting a special use permit that compatibility exists. Stating that compatibility exists solely because there are 1 and 2 story structures with gabled and hipped roofs is an extreme, very liberal, interpretation of the word compatible. Almost to the point of making that requirement a non existent one. We believe of the envelope of possible interpretations of the word 'compatible' is being stretched, and stretched in the wrong direction. • Safety We feel staff and Planning Commission inadequately addressed the issue of safety, either thru a mistaken assessment or no assessment at all. Having the proposal be safe is another requirement in granting variances thru a special use permit. Traffic We have had two professionats in municipal traffic and municipal engineering testify that the proposed outlet to Lexington Parkway is unsafe. Their comments are on public recard. 'There has been no conflicting testimony from City Staff, engineering or otherwise. The best response we have is that it meets standards as to distance from a signalized intersection, that it meets line of sight requirements, and that it is as safe as a driveway on Maryland Avenue. The last statement, that it is as safe as a driveway on Maryland Avenue, came from staff in response to a direct question by a member of the planning commission. Later at another public meeting the same planning commission member, when quizzed on how informative Public Works was, statea his disappointment in them. Whi1e he did not elaborate as to why, it is our opinion he was disappointed because staff would not say directly 'it is safe'. We, the neighbors, are equally disappointed because staff would not say directly `it is unsafe'. We'd like to come back to this issue later. Again, there has been comments from two professionals on municipal engineering and municipai traffic that it is unsafe in their professional opinions. One was very descriptive as to why, citing speed at the bottom of two hills, 4of13 �8-39y distracting characteristics, camouflage appearances, ADT, distance of alleys from intersections, etc. When a copy of that was submitted to the Public Works staff and they were questioned as to whether they would say he was wrong, they could or would not do so. There was an attempt to attenuate one of these safety hazards by requiring a n o left turn during rush hour traffic sign as you leave the development_ This inadequately address the issue as speed is still the greatest on the bottom of the Ywo hills located right at the point. Also the entrance and exit are designed to look like a driveway, not a street that requires more attention. And, there was no corresponding effort to regulate left turns into the site from north bound Lexington Parkway, again causing an unexpected road blockage for north bound traffic and crossing over south bound traffic. The existence of other, possibly more unsafe situations, does not create a reason to condone this type of planning now. Those other situations evolved over decades and correcting them may not be practical now. Storm Water Management There is a requirement that calls for the inclusion of a detention pond on the proposed developed site. This is due to storm water management requirements that are part of city ordinances. In most cases you will find this requirement being applied or incorporated into a parking lot or on the site of industrial or business expansions. Staff has found these ponds to be intrinsically unsafe in residential areas or in park areas due to the presence of children. However it is the policy to let the developer seek a variance rather then to selectively urge a variance based upon this particular safety issue. Parking On Lexin�ton If a proposal takes away guest parking for existing residents on Lexington Parkway, on any type of property, whether it be the existing alley or the existing private property, with the end result being that guest of residents on Lexington end up parking on Lexington, you will almost for sure be causing a fatality. Residents have done studies, parking cars on Lexington during broad daylight and observing the number of near accidents that occur. The near accidents occurred almost every signal light cycle. Night time experiments could not be conducted. This issue has not been addressed at ail by staff because it is a secondary effect of the proposal. But without this proposal it would not happen at all. 5of13 • Not In My Neighborhood! This is not a'not in my neighborhood you don t' issue. Yes, we like the open space. Yes, when we moved into this neighborhood we were assured this land locked lot could not be developed and that it had no value. And yes as we look out at the 24,000 ADT in the front of our houses we would prefer to have the back remain palatable. It's kind of a'no brainer' that we do not want this here. But this isn't a half way house moving in, or a library, and there are no social movements being hindered here. ALso this is not depriving the owner the right to access the lots on Lexington Parkway or development of his property as single family housing. This does seek to deny development of a land locked lot that appropriately has had no value or development over the decades. We offer alternatives later. We are offering real acceptable reasons tor denying this proposal and they are usable by you the decision makers. • Metropolitan Council Policy On Urban Development We are all aware of the Metropolitan Council Policy on Urban Development where the stopping of urban sprawl out further and further is to be discouraged and development within existing highly dense sites is to be encourage. There are plenty of sites wifhin the City of Saint Paul that can be developed for residential use. You have the old Amhoist site befween Robert and Wabasha, you have river front sites in conjunction with Shepard Road Development, you have the Phalen Corridor with it's accompanying Iight industrial. These alone offer the opportunities for 1000's of residential units. And if you want to continue coping with this particular policy and think it worth an investment by the community at large, you can move on to cleaning up contaminated sites suitable for light industrial and moving the pieces around a little better, again opening up sites for thousands of residential units. 'They will be coordinated with the community and there will be little or no problems with compatibility, safety, access, property values. These sites will be planned sites. They exist now. Wilder Homes just across the Freeway is a good example. The Summit Hill Zoning Committee strongly endorse the Met Council Policy. They have also turned down on three different public meeting a number of variations of developing this site including one not significantly different then what you are looking at now. As an aside the executive director also appeared at an earlier public hearing to recommend denial. 6of13 � r 9'� 39y The process of developing a coordinated or planned community to help with this policy is a much better process then the one being suggested for this neighborhood. We don't view filling in every little empty space as the right way of complying with the Met Council. Furthermore, the process we have been subjected to appears to be somewhat willy nilly. The developer has offered many variations of basically fihe same problem proposal but changing it enough at the last minute to make it a difficult moving target. For the last change, offered 5 minutes before the zoning committee meeting, no prepared comments from the residents were possibie. Even complete staff approval had to be estimated by the staff present at the meeting. This did not appear to be the way to decide a community's future. • Tough Questions, Tough Answers We have some real serious concerns about this process. There doesn't seem to be a lack of tough questions but there does seen to be a lack of tough answers. Take the issue of the Met Council Policy. No where in staff's answers or approach is there a discussion or a recommendation as to whether or not the City's professional staff feels this is a good exampie of complying or meeting expectations set by that policy. However they are willing to state off the record they do not think so, and in fact think this is a bad example of complying with that policy. But there is no departmental procedure for getting that opinion to you. There is no where an avenue for expressing that opinion to you. There is a vacuum from the City on what appears to be the majar impetus for granting approval. And going back to the safety issue. Why cari t a citizen get an answer to the question 'is this a good idea? Is this safe?' Do we get the response that safety is a relative ward because we have an official stance of neutrality and we cari t risk having a lawyer sue us because our professional opinion may make it hard for them to engage in a business? Staff however is sometimes limited in how they can present an issue. Look at the storm water management requirements. Those are mandated by ordinance. However also note that variances exist for them. But it is the responsibility of the developer to request that variance. There was a situation where Division of Parks was going to put a pond next to the children's playground. Staff couldn't make the decision to grant a variance. They had to call Parks staff and ask Park staff to ask them for a variance which was then granted. If staff starts issuing them without being requested they run into problems with setting precedence, etc. and that isn t easy to explain or dea] with. Is staff really supposed to answer that a vinyl sided 2406 square foot townhouse 7 of 13 with attached garages on a cul-de-sac surrounded by bituminous surfacing and no trees worth $200,000 is compatible with an 85 year old neighborhood of stucco, and wood housing with 600 to 900 square feet foot prints, treed and shrubbed yards off set from public streets and Blvd? The easy answer appears to be yes. Is staff to be blamed for this lack of hard answers? We don't think so. It is the policy makers in the departments that have gradually edged toward this direction. We are aware that there is a pluralisiic society of tax payers and citizens out there and Ehat Ehey all have their concerns and needs. But we also feel tough answers to tough questions is a route that leads to better conditions. And we with our 400 years of investment in this community, are members of that society aIso. We have indicated our differences with staff statements; and where and why we think errors or omissions were made. dne suggestion we would Iike to have you entertain is to have Mr. Shetka, traffic engineer, come and make a definitive statement on whether or not he thinks this is a good idea and whether or not he thinks it is safe; to have Mr. Puchreiter come over and make a definite statement that ponding sites in residential neighborhoods are needed and safe; to have Ms. Wheelock make the statement that this is a good example of complying with Met Council Policy. As an aside, this issue of complying with Met Council Policy is the only one the residents have heard thru all the various public hearings cited by advocates of this proposal, both at the District Councii and at the Planning Commission. If you do approve this proposal please te11 the residents that you have determined it to be safe for traffic, parking, children; have indeed determined that it is compatible with their neighborhood; have determined that there is no possibility of developing these sites as zoned; and have determined that the cluster development does preserve and/or increase green space. • Community Involvement The community has met with the Summit Hill District Council three times on this issue, each time to address a variation of the proposal, and as noted earlier, sometimes multiple variations that were not viewed ahead of time. In each case the neighborhood was united in it's opposition to the proposals. In each case the Summit Hill District Council agreed with the community, and even citing the developers inability to address the issues presented to him earlier� 8of13 � : 9 8-39�} Along with a lack of response at the formal meetings, the developer made no sincere effort to communicate with the neighborhood and negotiate with them. The first we heard about his willingness to do so was in front of the zoning committee where, while stating he had been willing all along to discuss and negotiate, he no longer was willing to do so. However after members of the zoning commission stated they would view favorably the attempt at communication, neighborhood members did gather, did discuss alternatives amongst themselves, and did set up a meeting with the developer. An agreement was reached with those who attended on some issues, mainly the alley access, but nowhere near all issues. Before the neighborhood coordinator could get all the responses from the rest of the neighborhood, the developer had called back and said there were problems. It was with this information we attended the zoning committee's second meeting. When the issue went to the full Planning Commission, Mr. Field, Chairperson of the Zoning Committee appeared to inaccurately portrayed the proposal as having neighborhood support. He repeated this position a number of times to the full commission. The only part of the proposal that had neighborhood support was the issue of not using the alley outletting to St. Clair Avenue by future owners or guests of future owners of the town homes. Public record from the second of the two dates for the public hearing in front of the zoning committee show that the Matherns never came to an agreement on any other issue, that they found problem with the proposed agreement before it could be presented to the remaining neighbor. The final result of all this is that we are united yet in our opposition to all of the proposals we have seen presented so far. The existing residents of this area with a total of 400 years of time invested in their neighborhood are requesting that you, the City Council, pay attention to these findings and find them cause for denying what many in the area feel will lead to the degradation if not destruction of our neighborhood. • Earlier Comments on Viability and Fears Eariier we mentioned fears about the viability and about property values and the real estate agents comments that the project needs to be done right. As part of the information submitted during this whole process there was some information submitted by a Timothy Sullivan, an attorney. Upon review of that information it appears that John and Sandra Mathern, referred to in the documents as 'The Matherns' were found to be in debt to United Mortgage Corporations for two lots they purchased and that the debtwas a little over half a million. This occurred in October of 1989. Not so bad and it happens to a lot of 9of13 people. However in 1992 there was a claim that the Matherns had hindered or delayed their creditors, failed to produce adequate financial records, and knowingly made false oaths. It appears that it was further found that the courts held that substantial evidence to support an inference of fraudu�ent intent bythe Matherns. An appeal court found the Matherns failed to set forth affirmative admissible evidence to rebnt the considerable circumstantial evidence of fraudulent intent and ruled against them. We are aware this is a sensitive issue. We are also aware that the City Attorney chose to not have the full material released in a package to planning commission members, deeming it not relevant or not to be considered in their decision making capacity. Instead just the cover letter from the presenting attorney was included. Most of the neighbors do not have a problem with this decision by the City Attorney. As noted above staff and now commission members are lunited as to what they can say or do. However it is a significant contributor to the reasons we fear this proposal. And because of this we feel it may be inappropriate to simply ignore it. In other communities when the professional capabilities of a developer are questioned and evidence is provided to support that questioning, provisions do exist for calming those questions. While we are not suggesting it as an alternative as we have other ideas, we are suggesting that if the proposal does get approved that the performance bond for complying with all the provisions of the site plan review be expanded to require completion of the whatever the final proposal is within a 18 month time period, that all grading be completed in the 18 month time table, and that maintenance of the entire site be accomplished by either the developer or the owners. We would like the City to explore this or something similar. Again we are not offering this as an alternative, just something to be done in case our altematives are rejected. • Alternatives We realize we can't stop at just say no and that there is a need to offer alternatives or compromises. Why has there been so much problem with the existing proposal? Why the repetitive redoing and reshaping of it? Why have Planning Commission members noted for pubIic record 'they would never buy it'? Why has it required so much effort and supposed creative thinking? Because in its current rendition and in all past renditions it is simply a bad idea. It carries too much baggage. As noted in the first paragraph, there has not been a proposal to develop just as is now allowed - single family housing on an accessible street. Our first alternative is to do just that on the tot on Lexington Parkway, just like everyone else in the neighborhood has. 70of13 . , . 9 8-39�f Our second alternative would be to have a Public Road built onto the site, not a driveway. And then to construct single family housing fronting that public road_ While this does not satisfy all of the complaints it does deal with some. The approach so far as been too narzow and too focused on us versus them. Movement has gone on with too little input during the public hearing phase (for whatever reason) until now and too little response to the neighbor's concerns and statements. Please slow down, please respond to all of the concerns, please make sure you have asked all the questions and received all the answers. This is our petition to the City Council of St. Paul from the following residents: ..�� o �� I DAVID A& HELEN L SCHULTZ I 1120 ST. CLAIR AVENUE I LOT 10, RUETH'S ADDITION I HELEN H CURRIER , I 1116 ST. CLAIR AVENUE �: ,� ,,� J� LOT 9, RUETH'S ADDITION I JOEL M& CHARLOTTE PATROS I 1126 ST. CLAIR AVENUE I LOT 11, RUETH'S ADDITION � \ � ) �� / " � � �.�%�-��-- I ALICE L PETERSON I 1130 ST. CLAIR AVENUE I LOT 12, RUETH'S ADDITION I MARGARET H MARKS ,,� I� 1134 ST. CLAIR AVENUE ' ^ � ��l'�2'�, 13, RUETH'S ADDITION �� : � : "' ' �~✓ z, a,. � Z:. � T '� I SUSAN E WAGNER �-��'�'�----,_ . I 1138 ST. CLAIR AVENUE r � �� l LOT 14, RUETH'S ADDITION �..•° ,, � p� � Z/� Jy > r�t.rc � - sr��,p � CRAIG & BERYL P BOE �`��'u�� s'�"` �`�� v� I 1142 ST. GLAIR AVENUE 0-��-� �� —` ��/ I LOT 15, RUETH'S ADDITION _ s� �� - ---------------------------- - ----------- ��t7 �C `7 �CSO -,�/�c I JAMES W& LISA R SWYERS S'i��erinv-, />�°f �- /�«��.� ,�, I 1146 ST. CLAIR AVENUE `��i �y� �..�� : I LOT 16, RUETH'S ADDlTION 11 of 13 ------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ , , , ----�-;, ----------------------------- r� '' '' '��'ti,--,.✓�` f MILKA P& TODD THORESEN F� '� ' i ( 1152 ST. CLAIR AVENUE I LOT 17, RUETH'S ADDITION S , f^�l . ��,,__-- � i �-�� I SETH M ANDERSON I 1156 ST. CLAIR AVENUE I E 40 FT OF LOT 18, RUETH'S ADDITION I MICHAEL R WIGFIELD �I 1160 ST. CLAIR AVENUE I WITH AND SUBJ TO ESMTS AND EX THE ,�E 40 FT LOT 18, RUETH'S ADDITION PAT BYRNE & RACHEL BLANK 243 S. LEXINGTON PARKWAY N 1 O FT OF LOT 2 AND ALL OF LOT 1, RUETH'S ADDITION I CHARLES W& KATHLEEN MARKS I 251 S. LEXINGTON PARKWAY � I EX N 1 O FT, LOT 2, RUETH'S ADDITION �.��.� G�.� _------------------------------------------------ ��.,�.-�-�'�--�--� }�4,t�.rv- �S�CZ. i.,� I KEITH l.ANE CURTNER I 259 S. LEXINGTON PARKWAY I LOT 3, RUETN'S ADDITION I ALBERTA L 81NKER I 263 S. LEXINGTON PARKWAY EX S 7 FT, LOT 4, RUETH'S ADDITION 1 HELENE G OSTROW I 269 S. LEXINGTON PARKWAY I S 7 FT OF LOT 4 AND ALL OF LOT 5, i RUETH'S ADDITION z� �Z/��v, I CHRISTOPHER WALKER f 273 S. LEXINGTON PARKWAY I LOT 6, RUETH'S ADDITION I ROBERT E& KATHLEEN A HENDRICKSON � 279 S. LEXINGTON PARKWAY I EX S 2 FT, LOT 7, RUETH'S ADD�TION 12 of 13 . ..y.: y �-39`� I BEVERLY Y DUNBAR I 283 S. LEXINGTON PARKWAY I S 2 FT OF LOT 7 AND ALL OF LOT 8, I RUETH'S ADDITION a a� � � D�Lo�� Il��w" ��.� 2'�� i � n�� .�. �-� �� 1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------=------ - ;��'�"�-'�- ��'lt�''�lkS�vV � J � � �t �i �e Il�� -�"�� nsov� ---�------------------------------------------------ �--� 5'o x�� x tn� f k�� ----------------------------------------------------- ►� � ��-rn�S �S , �� —`°� � ��y� S� Q,� a.-�'. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, The above signed residents. 13 of 13 � �j �-39�1 To the Councilmembers of the City Council of St. Paul, Good Afternoon. My name is Pat Byrne and I reside at 243 S. Lexington Parkway. I'm here to read a letter signed by all of my neighbors. However as a courtesy, /� the letter was provide to yot�ef re hand and Its been indicated that it has been d�ii,/�, JYL read by the Council Members.�mportant to the signers of that letter that it is read or listened to as this is their first opportunity to speak to a public �.�C representative in this process. Anyway I'm going to summarize that letter t��"' instead of reading it. However I will read the summary. (I'm not sure if it is the �4 ll reading or the length that bores people and puts them to sleep). I'd like to note it is a very concerned group of neighbors and a very united group of neighbors that ��,� / share in this appeal. It consists of 100°lo of the people living ext to the site and � � J'' �� .�(� includes neighbors on the other side of Lexington Parkway.��es°��^��T'� '—'�o � •�� el� ^a�••�' itn� ri�ll�t�lOS2 w -��-Sr7��C-lri ��' p � V We think there were a number of errors and omissions in the process performed by both Staff and Pianning Commission Members. In the following list of comments however you will note that we address both those errors and omissions and repeat a number of comments we have made in the last five public meetings held discussing this issue. I apologize to the signers if this seems briefer then it should, and I apologize to the Council if it seems longer then it should. • Property Acquisition, The site was acquired for very little money back in the 70's. It was deemed worthless then and has been deemed almost worthless since then by both the owner and Ramsey County property taxing system. ' g � p f* �n'-��:-_�'�•�, I'd like to note at this time an error in the letter sent out. It was not acquired as surplus county property. • Minirnum Requirements There has never been a discussion of developing the site as a single family residential site and therefore not requiring anyone to go thru this process. Ostensibly one of the reasons for having a special use permit for a cluster development is to preserve and increase green space, to cluster the structures in such a manner as to increase green space within the City. As you view the proposal, note this does not happen. 1 of 9 y 8-39y I'd note that one of the requirements is to minimize alterations of the natural features and topography. The plan proposes the removai of most if not all of the trees on this site. • Alley Use The alley use has been a major item for mos of residents �. It is two, n 3n�-�vrs� — ir -- n"` "'' Everyone involved has already reached a minimum proposal to not allow major increased traffic on the alley. � � �P-; e �a �` '- a ^�� a. Accidents have happened already due to combination of density of existing traffic and proximity of the alley (125') to an intersection that has 24,000 ADT. As noted those people right next to the proposed 150,OQQ units feel their 6�,�0� would not sell due to contrast. However two real estate agents, while acknowledging that amenities are reduced, property values should not be affected. However they noted this is only true if done right and if done compietely as the plan indicates. However even with this assurance some are still fearful. This concern was listed in this letter for this reason. And to lead into the next matter. One agent made this disclaimer only when made aware of who the developer is. • Viability of the Proposal There are strong doubts as to viability of this project. 1) The developer has already gone thru bankruptcy procedures in past developments. 2) The developer has indicated he will ignore the warnings issued bythe railroad company as to the vibrations generated by the tracks at the bottom of the hill from the development. 3) T`here has been indications of the possibility of contaminated soiis or at the very least an abandoned dump site. 2 of 9 • Existing Property Values 9�-39`f 4)The site proposal calls for removal of the hundreds of trees on site, leaving a barren exposure to both the railroad and the freeway. And the future of that particular freeway is uncertain; will it be turned into renovated four lane expressway or into a linear park? 5) There are fears the developer will walk if the units don't sell even though he has assured us they will sell like hotcakes. And then what will the City allow to happen on the site to salvage it • Compatibility The requirements include, and the staff report states "The design will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood". We think there is a mistake here. And this is one of the major issues to everyone in the neighborhood. The only really compatible item will be that they house people. You go from a 90' by 25' structures with attached garage of 800 sq feet for a total 3�0 square feet structures to the existing structures ranging from 600 square feet to 900 square feet. The attached garage is bigger then some of the houses You go from a mixture over 80 years of construction of stucco, clapboard, metal sliding, wood to one of uniform vinyl siding. The obvious incompatibility is you go from single family housing to multiple family housing. You go from fenced or treed lots fronting a public street with yards and boulevards to a cul-de-sac with almost no yard space and most of the trees removed. You go from a developed St. Paul Community with its own unique characterizations to a Woodbury house farm. • Safety 3 of 9 Another obvious incompatibility is that you go from homes valued at $25,000 to $100,00 and now add homes valued at $140,000 to $200,000 9�'3g�f \ � r/ "V �� Yv ��f Another requirement is that 'The use will not be detrimentai to the existing character of the development in the immediate neighborhood or endanger public health, safety, and general welfare' We feel staff and Planning Commission inadequately addressed the issue of safety, either thru a mistaken assessment or no assessment at ail. This is the second major issue with the neighborhood. Traffic The public record contains assessments by engineering professionals that the proposed outlet to Lexington Parkway is unsafe, and there has been no conflicting testimony from City Staff. In fact when asked directly if they could say the neighbor's assessment was incorrect we got a negative answer. The best response we have is that it meets standards as to distance from a signalized intersection, that it meets line of sight requirements, and that it is as safe as a driveway on Maryland Avenue. The last statement, that it i�, a�s safe on au n t mu sp� cti Y r i T�r t asoy��. ' e a� 1� in ro a lea st e�ite�[t is ` s e dUw�ver loo in�for a cie r s� t t that it s safe. �� l� � � ✓�c�c v�. �a�"tv tks an aside to the letter I'd like to point out t�at surviving the review process is not a statement from City Staff that�� is safe. It is a statement from staff that it met distance from signalized intersection standards and it met line of sight standards. That is all. There was an attempt to attenuate one of these safety hazards by requiring a no left turn during rush hour traffic sign as you leave the development. This�a�t addresses about 20°fo of the traffic safety issue and was done with no consuitation at all with traffic professionals. Storm Water Mana ement There is a requirement that calls for the inclusion of a detention pond on the p\�proposed developed site. As a Water resource professional I have found this to ��' be intrinsically unsafe in residential areas where children are�or in axeas where �� t�gi� existence is a surprise. �` Parking On Lexi�ton 4 of 9 q8-39� One end result of the proposal, whether directiy or indirectly, will be a definite increase in Parking on Lexington Parkway. Parking on Lexington will lead to � j many traffic accidents and I will easily state, traffic fatalities. There has been no � comment or review or contribution to discussion on this item from anyone within the City. In the list of major accident areas throughout the city, Lexington Parkway already occupies 1/8 of that list. • Not Itt My Neighborhood! This is not a'not in my neighborhood you don't' issue. Yes, we like the open space. Yes, when we moved into this neighborhood we were assured this land locked lot could not be developed and that it had no value. And yes as we look out at the 24,000 ADT in the front of our houses we would prefer to have the back remain palatable. It's kind of a'no brainer' that we do not want this here. But this isn t a half way house moving in, or a library, and there are no social movements being hindered here. Also this is not depriving the owner the right to access the lots on Lexington Parkway or development of his property as single family housing. This does seek to deny development of a land locked lot that appropriately has had no value or development over the decades. We offer alternatives later. As you review the permitted uses in the zoning law you will note that all non �,, � single family residential uses are ail socially benefiting items like churches, �`• i, schools, libraries, transitional housing, battered women and children residences, �v �� hospices, etc. Even Cluster development was there to provide more green space. �� But as noted elsewhere that also required compatibility and safety. i� t � 4 \� We are offering real acceptable reasons for denying this proposal and they are usable by you the decision makers_ Council Policy On Urban Development Our community council is on record as strongly agreeing with the principles espoused in the Metropolitan councils regional blueprint calling for decrease in urban sprawl and an increase in redevelopment of St. Paul sites. This community council is also on recard as opposing this particular development This proposal is not a good example of complying with that policy. We feel the pressure is mispiaced. We know the Mayor's office wants development of over 600 sites within the City. In off record comments we know that PED has been �� 9�-395f 'nice' to this developer. There is a push to get this redevelopment process going. ,�ut I listed possible examples in the letter. Those sites lend themselves to a / coordinated planned community with no one to complain. They exist now. Just `� look across the freeway to the Wilder Site. / I would also like to say as a manager of various programs that I feel the best way to a successful program is early simple successes, to make sure in your very first implementations to have everything weil thought out, with special attention, to � not use the easier method of seeing what happens and then make corrections as � you get into the bulk of a program. No one in the neighborhood or community � council is arguing with the policy. Just that this is the wrong way to start it, whether in our neighborhood or anyone else's neighborhood. With over 400 years of investment in this City we deserve better then this. The City deserves better then this. • Tough Questions, Tough Answers We have some reai serious concerns about this process. There doesn't seem to be a lack of tough questions but there does seen to be a lack of tough answers. Take the issue of the Met Council Policy. No where in staff's answers or approach is there a discussion or a recommendation as to whether or not the City's professional staff feels this is a good example of complying or meeting expectations set by that policy. And going back to the safety issue. Why can't a citizen get an answer to the question 'is this a good idea? Is this safe?' Why do we get vague answers like it as safe as a driveway to Maryland Avenue, or safety is a relative thing? Why cari t the city address the Parking issue before someone gets killed. Why cari t Staff suggest a variance before a developer asks for it? How do we manage to get the statement thaX a vinyl sided 3000 square foot structure on a cul-de-sac surrounded by bituminous surfacing and no trees worth $200,000 is compatible with an 85 year old neighborhood of stucco, and wood housing with 60� to 900 square feet foot prints, treed and shrubbed yards off set from public streets and Bivd? We have indicated our differences with staff statements; and where and why we think errors or omissions were made. One suggestion we would like to have you entertain is to have Ms Becker have staff come and make a definitive statement on whether or not they thinks this is a good idea and whether or not they thinks it is safe; whether it be traffic, parking 6 of 9 g � 394� or ponds. to have Ms. Wheelock or staff make the statement that this is a good example of complying with Met Council Policy. If you do approve this proposal please tell the residents that you have determined it to be safe for traffic, parking, children; have indeed determined that it is compatible with their neighborhood; have determined that there is no possibility of developing these sites as zoned; and have determined that the � cluster development does preserve and/or increase green space. • _Community Involvement The com unity has met many times with Summit Hill Council, with � themselves, with planning commission people. We have been asked to give our � opinions on plans that have been changed on us at the last minute. We have sent letters with issues. We have asked questions. One of the main reasons cited by the community council for not approving the the plan was the � developers unwillingness to answer our questions. However we have met with the developer after he was severely prompted to by the planning commission. � However no agreement was ever reached with the developer. A partial agreement was reached about the alley. However this agreement was � blown up to the extent that Mr. Field, Chairperson of the Zoning Committee appeared to inaccurately portrayed the proposal as having neighborhood support. He repeated this position a number of times to the full commission. i result of ali this is that we are united yet in our opposition to ail of the proposals we have seen presented so far. The existing residents of this area with a total of 400 years of time invested in their neighborhood are requesting that you, the City Council address these concerns find them cause far denying what many in the area feel will lead to the degradation if not destruction of our neighborhood. • Earlier Comments on Viability and Fears Earlier we mentioned fears about the viability and about property values and the real estate agents comments that the project needs to be done right. In our letter we addressed this issue. It basically was that, because of public records brought to our attention we have strong doubts as the suitability and ability of Mendota Homes to develop this site. This was not due to the bankruptcy issues as much as to the findings by the court that there was substantial evidence of knowingly making false oaths and inference of fraudulent intent. An appeals court also found against them. We are aware this is a sensitive issue. 7of9 �18-3y`l We had proposed another video but I'm going to have to ask you to use your imagination on this one. The video was going to go back and forth between a picture of the houses in our community, which you have seen, and a pictuxe of a suburban cul-de-sac with double and triple townhouses all in uniform color and vinyl and no or little trees, again which I assume most of you have seen before. In Summary (of a summary) We feel a major issues is compatibility with the neighborhood. We feel the envelope of possible interpretations of that requirement has been extremely enlarge and furthermore pushed in the wrong direction We feel a major issue is safety in traffic, in parking, and in ponding requirements. We also feel that the City has not responded adequately or at all to these concerns, and that you cannot site passing a review process as an adequate addressing of direct concerns, especially if those questions are not part of the review process. We feel issues of alley use is a major safety issue. We feel a major issue is that cluster developments should lead to increased green space. We feel the issues of property value, of viability of the project, of proper management are important. We feel there are more acceptable alternatives, development alternative� and they should be the only ones allowed. ' 9of9 y�-3y�{ , � � i � However it is a significant contributor to the reasons we fear this proposal. And because of this we feel it may be inappropriate to simply ignore it. In other communities when the professional capabilities of a developer are questioned and evidence is provided to support that questioning, provisions do exist for calming those questions. While we are not suggesting it as an alternative as we have other ideas, we are suggesting that if the proposal does get approved that the performance bond fox complying with all the provisions of the site plan review be expanded to require completion of the whatever the final proposal is within a 18 month time period, that all grading be completed in the 18 month time table, and that maintenance of the entire site be accomplished byeither the developer or the owners. We would like the City to expiore this or something similar. Again we are not offering this as an alternative, just something to be done in case our alternatives are rejected. • Alternatives We realize we can`t stop at just say no and that there is a need to offer alternatives or compromises. Why has there been so much probiem with the existing proposal? Why the repetitive redoing and reshaping of it? Why have Planning Commission members noted for public recard 'they would never buy it'? Why has it required so much effort and supposed creative thinking? Secause in its current rendition and in all past renditions it is simply a bad idea. It carries too much baggage. As noted earlier, there has not been a proposal to develop as a single £amily housing on an accessible street. Our first alternative is to do just that on the lot on Lexington Parkway, just like everyone else in the neighborhood has. Our second alternative would be to have a Public Road built onto the site, not a driveway. And then to construct single family housing fronting that public road. While this does not satisfy all of the complaints it does deal with some. The approach so far as been too narxow and too focused on us versus them. Movement has gone on with too little input during the pubiic hearing phase (for whatever reason) until now and too little response to the neighbor's concerns and statements. Please slow down, please respond to all of the concerns, please make sure you have asked all the questions and received all the answers. Before I summarize I like to show this tape prepared by some residents; it was prepared for one of the initial discussion with the community council. Tape :. • 9 �-3�Y TO APPLICANT . � . . �ZJ� LOCATION OF PROPERTY TIME OF HEARING PLACE OF HEARING PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE SAINT PAUL CTTY COUNCIL ZONTNG Properry Owners within 350 feet; I Representatives of Planning District 16 � BYRNE, PATRICK Appeal the Planning Commission approval of a 10 unit cluster development. / City Council Chambers, 3rd Floor City Hall-Court House 15 West Keliogg Blvd; Saint Paul, MN 55102 HOW TO PARTICIPATE 1. You may attend hearing and testify. 2. You may send a letter before the hearing to the Zoning Section of the Planning and Economic Development Department, 25 West Fourth St, 1100 City Ha11 Annex, Saint Paul, MN 55102. . 3.. Participation is not required. This is your notice of public hearine. ANY QUESTIONS Call Kady Dadlez of the Zoning o�ce at 266-6582 or your District Council Representative at 222-1222 with the following information: Zoning File Nutnber 97-313 Zoning File Name MENDOTA HOMES APPEAL Mailing Date 12/10/97 5�8-3S�f David & Helene Schultz 1120 Saint Clau Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota 55105 612-292-1096 January 13, 1998 St. Paul City Council c/o Zoning Section of PED 25 West Fourth Street 1100 City Hall Annex Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear City Council Members: Re: Mendota Homes Appeal Zoning File Number 97-313 We are adjoining property owners to the proposed Mendota Homes project and we are sending this letter to oppose the special use permit that was granted by the Planning Commission. We hope that this letter will be given all the weight that oral testimony would haue received. We oppose the granting of the special use permit for all of the reasons stated in the letter endorsed by all of the adjoining property owners in the area. However, we do wish to reinforce several points. We believe that the Planning Commission erred in failing Yo give sufficient attention to both the traffic safety problems and the incompatibility of the proposed project with the current architecture and land use of the neighborhood. First, placing additional traffic on either Lexington or Saint Clair Avenues will be a safety hazard that should be considered. Second, the proposed development, with large two and three unit structures, will be significantly larger than any of the eusting units in the area. Hence, the new Mendota Homes units will dwarf and hover over the e�sting houses. Overall, it is our believe that the Planning Commission failed to give due regard to these factors. Second, we believe that the Planning Commission erred in failing to permit certain testimony to be placed on the record for their consideration. By that, neighbors repeatedly sought to enter into the record their concern about the soil conditions on the land upon which this proposed development might be erected. The neighbors have legitimate concerns that because of the soil conditions construction of buildings on this property would perhaps endanger the public health or othenvise damage or be detrimental to neighboring property. In effect, because the Commission refused to allow testimony on this subject the Commission abused its discretion and failed to consider facts that may be critical to a fu11 and proper evaluation of the application of a special use permit for this project. Third, we believe that the Planning Commission erred in failing to consider all of the information submitted to them as a matter of public record. By that, Tim Sullivan had submitted court information to Beth Bartz regarding John Mathern's financial difficulties with other similar housing projects. Ms. Bartz failed to pass along to the Planning Commission this information. We believe that the Planning Commission should have reviewed this information and made its own decision to its relevancy. The failure to consider information submitted for public record, as well as the failure to pass this information along to the Planning Commission is an error of law. In sum, we hope that City Council considers this information when it reviews the Mendota January 13, 1998 (5:57pm) David Schultz 5�-3sy Homes project since it may speak to the capacity of the developer to execute and complete this project. Fourth, we believe that the Planning Commission erred in giving weight to facts and testimony that are not relevant to the statutory requirements specific to the granting of a special use permit. By that, during the public hearing Susan Kimberly testified to a Metropolitan Council determination that St. Paul needed to intensify its Iand use and increase the number of housing units in the city over the ne� iwenry years. Similarly, in its deliberations, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission referred to her testimony_ While Ms. Kimberl�s testimony may have some merit, neither the Met Council's report nor overall housing needs in the city are relevant to the granting of a special use permit for this property. Specifically, no where in §64.300 of the St. Paul I,egislative Code does it permit a regional or general concern for land development to count as a factor for allowing a special use permit for a specific property. Instead, one must look only to the applicable statutory conditions of the code as they apply to a specific parcel of property. To the e�ent that the Planning Commission considered irrelevant information such as this in its decision the Commission erred, and we urge you to consider the request for a special use permit for this project based solely upon the statutory relevant factors and facts considering this property. Fifth, at no point did the Planning Commission consider other alternative and less intensive uses than the proposed development. Instead of considering a ten unit cluster development some regard should be given to a less intense but otherwise compatible use for the property, e.g., several single family units. Overall, for the reasons specified above, as well as for those listed in the joint letter by all the neighbors, we believe that City Council should overturn the Planning Commission decision and vote to deny a special use permit for this project. However, were City Council disposed to supporting this project, we would ask that you modify the current special use permit in several ways. First, the overall number of units should be reduced to eight or nine units such that there will not be either a double unit directly on I.exington or a triple unit located anyv✓here in the project. A triple unit is clearly incompatible with the existing neighborhood and would be very out of size and character with the neighborhood. Second, by allowing only one unit on I.exington it will protect the house ne� to it. Third, by reducing the number of units to eight or nine it will less the intensification of use, preserve green space, and make the project less of a traffic safety problem. Fourth, we would like to see the developer post a bond guaranteeing that the project will be completed as specified. What the neighbors fear most is a project that is started and never completed, leaving a partially undeveloped hazard in the neighborhood. Please note, in making this request for a reduction in the number of units the developer will claim that he has already compromised from his initial plan of fifteen units. However, the original proposal for the plan was twelve units and subsequently the developer increased his request to fifteen. Hence, a compromise of eight or nine units to preseroe the neighborhood does not seem unreasonable. Thank you very much for considering our concerns. Sincerely, c� �_� Helene and David Schultz Jauuary 13, 1998 (S:S7pm) David Schultz