The URL can be used to link to this page

98-585r Council FIle #( g— 5 p S Green Sheet # � l�� RiGt�Al. Presented By Refened To Committee: Date �� 2 WHEREAS, Amold Fritsche, in Zoning File #48-041, duly filed an appeal of the 3 planning adiniiustrator's decision to approve a lot split for property located at X�'Y Wiggins 4 Road, legally described as Lot 5; Wilienbring Woods Addition, pursuant to Saint Paul 5 Legislative Code §64300(j); and 9 10 11 12 13 14 iS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirements of the Saint Paul Legislative Code §64300, the Saint Paul Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Apri124, 1998, at which all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the 3aint Paul Planning Commission, based upon the evidence presented, found that the plamiing administrator committed enor in approving the lot split for the following reasons: a. Section §67304 of the Saint Paul Zoning Code permits the planning admuustrator to approve a lot split provided six conditions are met. The planning administrator erred in finding that condition §67.304(a) of the zoning code was met. That condition states, "The lot or lofs have frontage on an existing improved sireet and access to municipal services." Wiggins Road is an officialiy platted street which abuts the property and provides access to municipal services, but it is also officially not an "improved streeY' nor is it maintained or plowed by the city. In addition, while the 12.5 feet of frontage for each lot provides access to municipal services it does not provide frontage in the traditional sense and lacks sufficient frontage to accommodate emergency vehicles. By comparison, the average frontage of surrounding lots is 57 feet. b. The Saint Paul City Council approved a final plat of property and the surrounding five lots in 1996, the result of a negotiated process in which the developer and property owner participated. The lot split approved by the planning administrator would allow an additionai lot. This is not in keeping with the original agreement made by the property owner/developer ar with the spirit and intent of the ciiy council action in 1996 and amounts to a second plat of the property. a The lot split does not conform to the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act which prohibits destruction of natural resources. The required grading and construction activity associated with the lot split and subsequent development will affect the wetland and fern grotto as weli as steep slopes on the property. RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, NIINNESOTA �t�-585 7 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 d. The plamung administrator failed to require a grading plan or contour map which fully represented the applicanYs irrtent and the lack of such a plan or map makes it nearly unpossible to deternune if the lot split meets the intent of the requirement of Saint Paul L,egislative Code, Section 67.305; and WHEREAS, based upon the decision of Planning Commission on the appeal of Arnold Fritsche and acting pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.206, Donald Willenbring, et al., duly filed with the City Clerk an appeal from the determination made by the Planuing 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 §b4.206 -§64.208, and upon nofice to affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the Council of the Ciry of Saint Paul on May 27, 1998, where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heazd. The matter was laid over for vote to June 10, 1998; and WHEREAS, the Council, having heard the statements made and having considered the applicauon, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Planning Commission, does hereby; RESOLVE, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby affirm the decision of the Planning Commission in this matter based upon the foliowing findings of the Council; The Councii, finding no error as to fact, finding or procedure in the fmdings and conclusions of the Planning Commission as contained in its resolution 98-36, dated May 8, 1498, hereby adopts the same as its own; and SE IT FURTFIER RESOLVED, that the appeal of Donald Willenbring et a1. be and is hereby denied;and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Cierk shall mail a copy of this resolution to Donald Willenbring et al. cJo John J. Choi, Attorney at Law, 4700 IDS Center, 80 South Eighth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-2228, the Zoning Administrator, the Plaiming Commission and Arnoid Fritsche, 2173 Hudson Road, #117, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55119. Requested by Department of: By: B appro�d by City ,�Att'o�Tn� 22 f��`� // % /% % / y G✓L✓ 6 Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: _�_ \ Appsoved by Hy: Adopted by Council: Date C�^�� \41 Adoptig� Certi£ied by Counc> Se tary City Council Rathy Lantry, 266-8670 OATE INRW 6/23J98 1�451GM NUYHERFOR RWTING ORDFR TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES GREEN SHEET oc.Fx+,�r owEC,ai q� N� 62165 mnnuo�e. rnvcou+ca ❑ 41YATlM1EY ❑ CRYCLiRK ❑ iWW46L�ERNCFlOW. ❑ HLLMCYL3ERVI�CCT6 ❑ WYORIORAa9tfAMl1 ❑ (CUP ALl IOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Finalizing City Council acYion taken 6-10-98 denying the appeal of Donald Willenbring for a lot split for property located at XXX Wiggins Road. PLANNING COMMISSION d8 COMMITfEE CML SERVICE CAMMISSION t rlas mis ae��m enerwonrea mxkr a contractrarmie aeaammenn YES NO 2. Has thie PereonMrm e�✓er been a ciM emPbyee9 YE3 NO 3. Ooes this persoMrm poesess a sI611 nd rwmiallyposePSSed by arry curten[ city employeel YES IJO 4. Is this peisoMGim a tarpetcd vendoY7 YES NO i h �'i aSG'aY�?^ ('•nr:ag , ;��.?4 �^� .�. �?�� . . `. ,: . ' f .� 1 i )7AL AMOUNT OF TRANSAC710N f T1�IN6 SOURCE ??3Ti:Ta'1 �; I�/9-1�P�dai�.7id�:id� 3.72�d1 ACTIVITV NUMBER VES NO ANCIAL INFORMATON (IXPWlq OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNBY Peg Birl� City Attomey -- S�S CITY OF SAINT PAUI, NortrtColeman, Mayar June 23, 1998 Nancy Anderson Council Secretary 310 City Ha11 15 West Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Appeal of Donald Willenbring, et al. Zoning FileNo.98-138 City Council Action Aate: June 1Q, 19� Dear Ms. Anderson: CivilDivision 400 City Hal! IS West Kellogg Blvd Saint Paul, Minnesota SST 02 Telephone: 611 1 66-8 7I0 Facsimile: 672 298-56I9 Attached please find a signed copy of a resolufion memorializing the decision of the Saint Pau� City Council in the above-entitled matter. Would you please have this resolution placed on the Council's Consent Agenda at your eaziiest convenience. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, �� Peter W. Warner Assistant City Attorney PW W(rmb Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING / S LLJ & ECONOMIC DEVELOPM&NT � � 9R-�i CTTY OF SA1NT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor May 13, 1998 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research Off'ice Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: Division ojPlmvruag 25 WestFourth Street t�� 'nint Paul, MN55102 �, �� ? � i � —,—• �� c��"",� ' � 1 �°!q�' Telephane: 6I2-266-6565 Facsi»¢te: 612-228-3374 �+011i'.�SS r��S2^!'Cs� ?,�', ;: � �9�� . e� �9�� .____.__.....--- _- --'� I would like to confirm that a public heazing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday May 27, 1998, for the following appeal of a Planning Commission decision denying an appeal of the planning administrator's decision to approve a lot split: Appellant: DONALD WILLENBRING, et al. File Number: Appeal of file #98-091 Purpose: Appeal a Planning Commission decision granting the appeal of Arnold Fritsche to a decision of the planning administrator to approve a lot split. Address: XXX Wiggins Road Legal Description of Property: Lot 5, Block I; Willenbring Woods Addition Previous Action Planning Commission Decision: Grant tkie appeal; vote: 12-0 (one abstention), May 8, 1948 My understanding is that this public heazing request will appear on the agenda for the May 20, 1998 City Council meeting and that you will publish notice of the heazing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Please call me at 266-6582 if you have any questions. Sincerel �� 'L�� Kady Dadlez City Planner cc: File #98-091 Paul Dubruiel Pattie Kelly Wendy Lane, LIEP Arnold Fritsche — - —�— � � • Fmsr xu,v • . - -' _ - . - NOTiCE OF PUSLIC flEARiN(i . . The Saint Paul City Council will conduct a public hearing on Wednesday. May'27. 1998 at 5:3Q p.m. in theCity Council Chambers. Third Flnor CityHail-Court House, to consider the appeal of Donald Willenbring, et a3, to a decision af the Planning Commission granting the appeal of Acnold Fritsche to a decision of the planning administrator to approve a lot spllY at� 7.7�C Wiggins Rnad. � Dated: May 13. 1998 - � � NANCY ANAERSON - � . . , . . - - � � Assistant Qty-Council Secretary .. � (Ma 16, 1995) ' DEPARIMENI' OF PI,ANNING & ECONOMIC DEVEIAPMEN"C Pamela L7Heelock Director 9g�-5�5 • CifY OF SAIN"T PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor May 19, 1998 Ms. Nancy Anderson Secretary to the City Council Room 310 City Ha11 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 25 K'es: Frnnrh Street Saint Pau1, MN 55102 RE: Zoning File #98-138: DONALD WILLENBRING, ET AL City Council Hearing: May 27, 1998, 530 pm. City Council Chambers Telephone: 6]Id 66-6565 Facsimile: 612428-3314 PURPOSE: Appeal a planning commission decision granting the appeal of Amold Fritsche to a decision of the planning administrator to approve a lot split at XXX Wiggins Road. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION� Grant the appeal and deny the lot split: 12-0 (one abstention) STAFF RE ATION: Deny the appeal and approve the lot split SUPPORT: Five people spoke in support of the appeal and against the lot split. OPPOSITION: Two people spoke in opposition to the appeal and for the lot split. Deaz Ms. Anderson: DONALD WILLENBRING, ET AL. have agpealed the decision of the Saint Paul Planning Commission to grant the appeal of Arnold Fritsche to a decision of the planning administrator to approve a lot split at XXX Wiggins Road. The Saint Paul Planning Commission held a public hearing on the appeal on Apri124, 1998. The appellant and others addressed the committee. At the close of the pubiic hearing the commission voted 10-1 to grant the appeal and deny the lot sptit. The Planning Commission adopted a resolution on May 8, 1998 granting the appeal and denying the lot split on vote of 12-0 (one abstention). The current appeal is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on May 27, 1998. Please notify me if any member of the City Council wishes to have slides of the site presented at the public hearing. Sincerely, ��„'�{,�'� ! l� ' Kenneth Ford Planning Administrator Attachments ^!� cc: City Council members ' � � APPLfCATION FOR APPFAL Departmesr of Planning and Economic Development Zoning Section II00 City Hal1 Annex 25 West Fourth Street Saint Paut, MN 551 D2 266-b589 APPELLANT PROPERTY LOCATION Name Donald Wi en ring, et a. Address 6956 Ashwood Road Woodbury MN 55125 - 0 City St._ Zip Dayiime phone .T�h„ (•hn j Zoning File Name g$ -091 AddresslLocation X w iggin s Road (LOt 5, Block 1, Willenbring Woods Addition) TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the: u Board of Zoning Appeals � City Council under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section 206 , Paragraph �a� of the Zoning Gode, to appeal a decision made 6y fhP City of St. Paul Planning Commission on May 8 19 File number: 98'091 {date of decision) GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you fse{ there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission. Please see attached. � Atfach additional sheet if AppiicanYs signature �� /''�� Date � �� City agent� John �'. hoi, Attorney fox Ap�ellant �•��'� H eiS,,S].C�Y], A at L aw & McKasy p.A. 4700 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-2228 • (612}330-3000 Fax(612)371-0653 Jokn J. Choi (612)330-3025 E-mail: jchoi a�essancom May 13, 1998 : a �i1 � �i/�:7�117 Department ofPlanning and Economic Development Zoning Section ll 00 City Hall Annex 25 West Fourth Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 � �Q'��C's F1L� �$'t38 � Re: Application for Appeal of Planning Commission's Decision �LY �ggins Road (Lot S, Block l; Willenbring Woods Elddition) Zoning File #98-09I Dear Sir/Madam: Attached please find the joint appeal application of 7an Buzicky, Chuck Buzicky, Don Willenbring and Doug Willenbring (hereinafter collectively referred to as `Buzicky" or "Appellants"). Please consider this letter as part of the Buzickys application for appeal of tke Saint Paul Pianning Commission's decision with regazd to the above-referenced file. I. BACKGROUND OF THE PARTIE�. 7an and Chuck Buzicky aze residents of Woodbury, Minnesota who wish to build a home in Saint Paul and on property that is currently owned by Donald and Doug Willenbring (i.e., "the Willenbring Woods Addition"). The Buzickys wish to build a home on the proposed parcel A, which is the southem portion of lot 5 of the Willenbring Woods Addition. Donald Willenbring is also a resident of Woodbury who wishes to build a home in Saint Paul and in the Willenbring Woods Addition. Donald Willenbring proposes that his home be located on the proposed pazcel B, which is the northern portion o£ lot 5 of the Willenbring Woods Addition. Don Wilienbring is cunentiy a resident of Saint Paul and resides at lot 1 of the Willenbring Woods Addition. Donald and Doug Willenbring are brothers who, among other things, aze in business as home builders. This subdivision is their only attempt at development. If the lot split is approved, 7an and Chuck Buzicky will buiid their new home on the front lot, and Doug �_J � 2 9�� 5�� Page 2 ' 1998 �� i �� . -. � Willenbring and his wife will build their new home on the reaz lot, adjacent to Don's lot. Elevations for these two homes are attached as Eachibit 1. The Willenbrings have expended and invested a considerable amount of money and time to develop the Wilienbring Woods Addition of Saint Paul. Mr. Amold Fritsche, who was the appeliant at the Planning Commissioq resides at lat 6 of the Willenbring Woods Addition. II. PROCEDURALBACKGROUND. On February 11, 1998, Donald Wiilenbring applied for a lot spiit of parcel 5 in the Willenbring Woods Addition. The proposed lot split was reviewed by Saint Paui PED, Public Works, and the Water Utility. On Mazch 6, 1998, upon review by city staff finding that ali conditions required for a lot split were met, Mr. Roger Ryan approved Mr. Willenbring's request for a lot split pursuant to Section 67.304 of the Saint Paul Zoning Code. This administrative action was appealed by Mr. Amold Fritsche, who resides on lot 6 of the Willenbring Woods Addition, pn Mr. Fritsche's appeal, city staf� recommended denying the appeal and upholding the administrative lot split. See Staff Report dated April 17, 1998 written by Kady Dadlez, which is attached hereto as Eachibit 2. • Apparently, due to vocal opposition from some of the neighbors to the site and former councilmember Aino Gueran's opposition, the Planning Commassion decided to reverse the administrative lot split in spite of the code's provisions that mandated it. After a public heazing on Mr. Fritsche's appeal, the Planning Commission granted the appeal thereby denying Mr. Willenbring's application for a lot split. See Planning Commission Resolution dated May 8, 1998, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. The Planning Commission denied the administrative lot split based upon three reasons. Those reasons are as follows: (1) As required by § 67.304(a), the lot that is proposed to be split must "have frontage on an e�sting improved street and access to municipal services." The Planning Commission ruled that the admistrative finding that there was such frontage and access was in enor; (2) The Planning Commission ruled that the administrarive lot split violated the "spirit and intenY' of the city council action in 1996 when a plat of 6 lots was approved for the Willenbring Woods Addition; and (3) The Planning Commission ruled that the administrator failed to require a grading plan or contour map for the lot split. From this decision of the Planning Commission, the Buzickys appeal to the Saint Paui City Council based upon the position that that the Pianning Commission's decision was in enor. � P � 1 I998 � �� $' l�j III. DISCUSSION OF THE PLANNING COMIIIISSION'S DECISION. A. The Proposed Lot Split Meets the Requirement of �rontage and Access as Required by Section 67.304(a). Tke administrative lot split initially approve@ by city staff ineets ali of the criteria set forth in the Code. In spite of the Planning Commission's Resolution, the lot does indeed have frontage on an existing "improved" street and access to municipal services. The street at issue was paved by the City of Saint Paul and has utilities under it, which were ordered by the City of Saint Paul. In its 1996 Order, the Saint Paul City Council describes the installation of the utilities and the street at issue as an "improvement " See Final Order of St. Paul City Council dated May 22, 1996, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 4. Moreover, the cost of both the paving and installing the utilities were assessed to the adjacent parcels, jnst like any other improved street in Saint Paut. Were this not the case, this subdivision would not have been possible in the frrst place since the original re-plat of the Willenbring Woods Addition required street frontage for lots 5 and 6. The extension of Wiggins Road is the only street access for Lots 5 and 6 in the Willenbring Woods Addition. Accordingly, ihe proposed lot spiit clearly has frantage on an eacisting improved street and has access to municipal services as required by the Code. • Although the term "Improved StreeY' is not defined in the Legislative Code, the word "Street" is defined as "[a] public dedicated right-of-way, other than an alley, which affords the principai means of access to abutting propecty." See Section 60.219. Wiggins Road is indeed a dedicated right-of-way. Since the proposed administrative lot split created a"flag loP' that provided street access to both lots, this &nding is without support. I note that Section 67304 does not require any particular amount of frontage on an existing improved street, but merely that there is frontage of some amount. The proposal to have a private drive eatend from the end of Wiggins Road which would split to serve the two new lots certainly would provide sufficienY access for both lots. Moreover, there are several ather locations in the vicinity of this lot in which there aze simitar private drives at the end of a street, all of which have vazious levels of impmvement, and all of which have been previously approved by the city. For example, at the Nofth end of Pt. Douglas Road, there are three private driveways as we11 as a future one that will have to be built once the lot is sold as advertised at that location. All of these wili share access to the end of Pt. Douglas Road at the same spot. Tn that case, there is no room for an emergency vehicle to turn around after providing services to these lots. Such vehicies would have to back up about a mile to Catver Avenue or try to tum around in the road. Similarly, at the end of Skyway Road (which is only about i4 feet wide to begin with), - there is a house at the end on the west side and there is absolutely na tum around azea for 0 �� U May 13, 1998 Page 4 emergency vehicles. These vehicles would have to back up a very narrow, poorly maintained and heavily wooded road about a mile and a half before the vehicle could actualiy turn around. This condition is nothing like that proposed for Willenbring Woods. Again, at the end of Ogden Court, there are four private driveways that spider web at the end of the Court. There is no way to tum around from those driveways other than within the Ogden Court, after backing up. Finally, at the end of Mystic Street, there is a house at the end of the pavement, and then a driveway begins to serve another house. There are other houses in thas area, one on the left and two on the right, all of which have no place to turn azound other than backing up to Totem Road. � ��'� ��.� �._ � B. The Spirit and Intent of the City Council's 1996 Approval of the Plat for the Witlenbring Woods Addition is Irrelevant to What the Code Requires. � Upon taking public testimony, which included the comments of former councilmember Dino Guerin, the Planning Commission held as a basis for their decision that the spirit and intent of the 1996 plat that was approved by the city council contemplated no additional parcels for the subdivlsion. Nevertheless, nothing in the official racord suggests that the approval of the plat in 1496 was in any way conditioned on the Willenbrings' agreement to forego any further possibility of subdividing any of the lots in the Willenbring Woods Addition. While the City's approval of the plat could have been conditioned on the Willenbrings' agreement to forego further lot splits, this was never required. In reality, the Willenbrings altered their original application for an eleven lot subdivision in an attempt to meet the demands of the neighborhood, and the council approved that application. Over the past two years, however, the market has shown that the large, two acre parcel is just not desirable in this neighborhood where most of the homes are on lots that occupy ]ess than one-half of an acre. It is for this reason that the lot split was sought. The Planning Commission's decision based upon a violation of the spirit and intent of the 1996 subdivision approvai was without simply without authority, was contrary to the city's own ordinances concerning administrative lot splits, and was arbitrary and capricious. C. The Grading Map Couid Easily Be Furnished By the App3icant. � The Willenbrings are willing to provide a grading plan or contour map. In its resolution, the 3aint Paul Planning Commission states that the lack of such a plan or map makes it nearly impossible to determine if the application meets Section b7.305 of the Code. Importantiy, however, Section 67.305 does require a grading plan or contour map but only states that one may be required. The fact that the planning administrator did not require a grading plan or contour map cannot be a legitimate basis for denying the application unless the applicant has been offered the opportunity to submit a grading plan or contour map. A site plan for the proposed lot `J_ May 13, 1998 Page 5 split is attached as Exhibit 5. This shoul@ provide the council with the information that staff never requested and that the planning commission did not haue. II. CONCLUSION. Based upon the foregoing reasons and the exhibits submitted herewith, the Appellants respectfully request that the City Council reverse the decision of the Planning Commission and adopt a decision consistent with the city staff report dated Aprit 17, 1998, which is attached hereto as E�ibit 2. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 330-3025. Sincerely, HESSIAN & McKASY, P.A. �,r� � By ��"--�"�,/'�--- 7ohn J. Choi 7JC:ktw Enclosures cc: All Saint Paul Councilmembers � ��'��'� ��$.� �� i � � I ` I � ju - �_ r; � �:� �'" � ;. 3 n e � ��,��,5 i? ati }� '�"� / � � Z��i�f� FILE ��3� o° >, �M�r G F m �< � Z Q � Q � � JI W �, � �i � {-" z 0 a � U � W 3 r � d F ° x 0 ro b � W � � � V � � � � a 'n 6 ° U ffi � �� H Ty" t � 6m p m `. m ��p � iC6 0. rt L � X :�t 7 " . . . . .� .. . . . ' y :t': ' ' �cl. . - . � . . _ ° � ,:. i � '.�. _ � $ � � . ;.� ^.. -� �� Fl�.� a�c� � � � _:.� �� „� z ; _ a � - �..;. . x � � o �: • . � � �� _;:. f �- 3� �:; �� $ � . & .�� `�. �� ,�,�, � �- �- � � `. �� s ' O�I� .6�f S � � �Q � ' ' � � . � . '� � 6. � � � . -'�..� :�..,,� _�.� �_ --— <� 3 d� " .� '_ `� � � 3�.� � y � � � 3 2 � r a � �- � � ,� � � t � _ � _ _"� � � £ � K :'�.�.: : . r � L� C M } ? ' • .. � � I � ! � ` •^ � ' �� ! ` I� I� - . w' - � � C� �' , � _ :'y �_�_ _ . ! I • � ( ( 4 s � + � , ' � ; ' : -, t' - :�� 4� a j I � � ' ;. t ; 1 .u,a !�wi �i � a' .�f�° �' .2 I :. � P. ' , n t - , i � ' f . Ei,�.�*�� . ��. �: .'-. ', � � � ' � m - : � .I. �: :`:': :�,._' -;;.�;: _ ' " �I il � — — _ _ ; ~ :-.:> >�;�� i ' } r _ ` �;�`�'.�-'��, y � � — — —�- � �, . - � .. . _ I � � � _ h � -� ' n , .;:� � � ! � ' � " * ' " �� i � � u A � � ' � � � ' � `� � � t �E f �v �f � ' -- j! + . 1 ; � � -�. � ( fF � 4 � � _ 1 '�I+ � �� • �� t a " � I. i` i ill_ i �_ ' ❑ C7 � � I '�� c � + �� .. ' � '� � �i � � � �_ _.___ � ' ll j ' �� • � � �A j ' � � �� e E O { . � � � ' ��' � � �' �k � � �� . � s � r � E �° � � � r s � J � � � i ; � � � i r � _ 1 c ` � _ _' _ __ � _.__� I 3�' � ` � � ��. _. �' — . . � _�� ' . � a :. .. ,:. :' ' •� - � , . C _:_ �.w"?��. . .. . ' 'vL? C ��s w� ?1- � 1 ": � � � ' �� 1 ! 1 •� - ' � 4.�. na �%-:,�.�' ' Z� � . ,� =3 : �� , ��g .� s _ �> ; .ar,v ..t�i ,g a •� .SW,9 . 4 ' , �a ; , ��v.s • ��'--.�;r .. 31-a -_ �- . . � .� ' . -�aNn:. .?s{sL:r�B '.Wa . ��::-. , . . . - ' l : �• _ .a . . .._ .. . . � . . . _ . . . \-, � ._ _ '.. 9 . . `_�'' _ � • � � � � � � P a �� r w 1 � •\` W �, , , ' � N �. 1 � � � > > � . \ 1 1 , ? si ______' i 2t.P ___y sQ4' _______� _ � �' j i � T Q .�/��' • ` \ � r\ a n � 1 . 1 � . ,� � . i' . Q o p + o � ^ � � ' " z� , ,._�. _ � �.� , o � vJ \ p E-. . S � `f 6 C� . H . � ..� : C] � � � U � . � -`� a . .. � � i ~` "'q Q , • ' \,. �w � � � � X �� V ' a z ' _ . � � °�a n it �a y � � � � m a ;�� w � `_ /�� . �, . 7r1 J t u Y �`\ `'\ \ W :„ a ` � �. H � ' y ' ' �' ° . v e y ro r-r � , - � —. . , � < t� � � � ' e y � - Z I O V C" ,�- � z ,'', x � , � �, , � � � �,� 1 �. • � pQ : p � `. � �` �2 0.� � ` � ' t-� A •i4 M � . 1 � > 1 `, 1 � � Y �1 � ` 4 i � � �, ��`� , O N�. � , i � s �; � • � �`-�. i . � ,. ,.-- t � t . � � ' ` �--"_�»�--_- \ , ___ a -" � �Ly,pFeo N �:. . � 7,� �y � I ' . � r � {`}9 � � L� � ' �g . , � a° � I �� W �_� � 4 � � � � 1 r � � g � n m Z o a � � z � � � � U L.�� } � � q� O ' e � h �6 g 0� `� y Y 'h �-� r+ � � y � • . r � � 2 u N o �� — Yr rG . =v, S {` � � 1 � '--''- =-- -°- =- I I � ' O� /'� � � �A V.1 I i � � � � I a a• x n ¢ � . t U R 9�� 6�� e � ' ,`. ,'�Q A �f. � o . � . . , < Q� �. � 6��• a � � m \. � / , � y '__ r o � � e � . �.�/ ; � h Y4 � 1 .�i . � , '�. ; � ,¢ J , - �� o " s � a � '� W � O �� i a �� y ^ � v+ p i 6� � . t 6 r I evec� '�� t �s . ' M .9L �LtAO . •g ��st� �.—.....— a�obohwo oa_>w3<>"� •Ze�r cn . �� z -----------------ecT ti ------------ 1� .. C Q� M rK �Lt.00 N V< N \ � ��G � n �� ._ .; 1 �xhibit � Z00(t4G'd 64�d{ C6/S1/50 dse�ap q u¢issaH J. u�. � ` z ��" ;� «. E59DitCti9� �� -��a� . � -� � t2. PAOL �,.�ORDEB In the Hatter of �xh► b►�-1� qS-5�s �r��r 5 ��' ��`�� COUHCZL FZLE N0. q(�— Sy� BY �� _ �- - FZLH HO: � 1882� � VOTIAG AABD 7 (1882Q) Constructing a sanitarp sewer Courc to approx. 145 ft. north the south property line o£ the Addition); reconstructed with existing Wiggins Road and a 20 Trench Area. (18821) Construct a public water main � Court to approx. 145 ft. north of the south property 13ne of Addition.) in Wiggins Road from Hillwood of Hillwood Court (10 ft. south of proposed Willenbring Woods 72 ft. of curb and gutter on foot w3de grarrb driveway in the 0.s i� in Wiggins Road from Aillwood of Aillwood Court (10 ft. south the proposed Willenbring Woods � ��1�� L� •l3� � • nderPreliminary�rder � � — 3Q � appzoved ��,^ ��} , �`jq�, � The Council of the City of Saint Paul has conducted a public.hearing upon the above improvement, due notice thereof having been given as presczibed bg the City Charter; and WHEREAS, The Council has heard al1 persons, objections and recommendations pertaining to said proposed improvement and has fully considered the same; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby order that the above-describe� improvement be made, and the proper Gity officers are hereby directed and authorized to proceed with the improvement; and be.it FBRTHER RESOLVED, That upon the completion of said improvement, the proper City officers shall calculate all expenses incurred therein and shall report the sane to the Citp Council in accordance with Chapter 14 of the City Charter. C�JUNCIL°ERSONS Yeas Nays �lakey +/�os tros ' �uer�n Harris— Abserss �egazc ✓I�eyt m aa ✓I�hune �o In ravor �sAgainst i �C�scr�i� Adopted by Council: Date � `" � ±e� 1� Certified Passed by Council5ecretar�� By Exhibit ayor 9 ��5 < - -- . �t �. - �y'1 � SllNfMARY OF ENG{NEERING RECOMMENDAT[ON Wiggins Rd.1 Leonard Court Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Project Project No. Report Prepared March 13, i996 Pubfic Hearing---------- P RO,f ECT: Construct a sanitary sewer system and water main in Wiggins Rd. from Hiliwood Ct. to approximately 1k5' north, 10' south of the souih property line of proposed Wiiienbring Woods Add"stion. EXIS7ING CONDITION: The Pro}ect area is presently not served by a sanitary sewer or water main. PROPOSED (MPROVEMEt�ITS_ • Sanitary sewer and watermain construction from tne existing mains in Wiggins Rd. to 145' north on Wiggins Rd.; reconstructed wiih 72' of curb and gutter on existing Wiggins Rd., and a 20' wide gravel drive�vay in the trench area. ALTERNATiVE: r To do nothing would require the property owners to construct long services. PaSiTIVE BENEFiTS: Lots 5 and 6 of Block 1 will have the benefit of public mains, consequent{y requiring shorter service connections. ADVERSE EFFEC'f�S: Norma! problems associated with constsuction such as noise , dust and general disrupfion, will be preseni. a � ZOi�i�G �1LE �r� l� �1G�S��1 COST ESTIMATES: Wiggins RdJ Leonard Court Project • Sanitary Sewer: Construction $10,597 Engir�eering and Inspection a 1,960 Service Fee $243 Project Tocal Financing: Assessment City A+d � :�� $4,000 ss,aoa Project Total $12,800 Watermain: �9,285 51,718 667 $11,670 7�� #i . S 0 S��r�b � �7��? � ` Since the assessment excEeds ihe benefits, the property ovraers would have fo agrea to sign a Waiver of Appeal form. RECOMMENDATlON The Qepartment of Public Works has no recommendatio� in this matter. Respectfully submitte ��l/��'"t�-d � Thomas J_ Egg City Engineer � � ��,� �,�-.ti, CL�`t:,c � .`�"•��`�,.� F��F —..iL�'�_ : � � �z � ESTIMATES FOR WIGGSNS ROAD IMPR04EMENTS ��--- � � Total E�cpenditures Rate Per Assessable Poot Assessment Financing City Aid Total QTJ�STIO2�'S? � ��V �� Water sanitary Main Sewer $4,600 $I2,800 �25.00 $25.00 $4,000 $ 4,000 � 600 8 800 �4,600 $12,800 � ;�� y��_____ Sanitary Sewer 266-6149 � ..:_�_�""� " " `�` � � � � � � VJater Main 266-6273 ��—"�°'""'— Assessments 2G6-8850 .. _ „�, .... �.,, ,:` . �;� . , ��.. �<w �,.., ; ;'� _..�-` - ' - `" `F. �� _ r ; "; - ' ,,. � � �^! � i'�_'.' ' ,ro.� 3~ —:` 1 � ru _-�� - . 'r{ J, 3 3Yr � \ ' :� � ' - . � � ...,. . � � ' (ry .... � ,r", J; ,:� s O « �.� � .�" , 'Y , tw X i ' � "� ':�. i � /��,�✓ ��.:, �'� f �� / 1-��'�:� si �; J� 1�-� �i(�r� _, �,. ,• �� \ ,w' �«,�{ e, -K i �. y �o` � o ,� t �r .�. � p n� �. �....`� u 2 5 .� .. i o < y . -'(,�� v` .. ;, ��:: ' 3'Fy � ? ��t+' i ��Yw.'r � v � o. n.� - Y . �� \� ��;�. _'•+.: ,p . � • �• 1 1..�� .._ GZ.4.7: '` w < � • , M h�..�h.i �� IH � /� 4,,,,� �., r T �OM, I� (�v ' r 'tl � • . . 5 � / � f � :I � ��. .j� /] � � � � ' J ,:'�.. ` _ \ Y�� ' \�\ -, ^� ` �� e � /� \, ;'k "�� iJ 4Q � ' _. �'?.r-.� SQA�� <.,,�._.. ��. �� „�. "' "" ' _"��..L'z . �` ".... .._ .,. 3-�: ' 13 �I� �1:'��aRx �.1.:'.. � , .� � � ��.�. . ..... _ �-�`:�� <', i �� ! � � • � �� r� �� .: : � { ` � r ! � cw � � �� ; � —i " '4 " ' � � � �� "=�c-�d 4.,� � ^ .�< V � �\_L—Jl��t:ac �vE. ( F q NI �p0< I�( • _:: 1 ,f . " �'' � T28N 'tZ2 � , ° ,.� ..�. 11 �< .�o, ..z 6b Z � x -"�. :-�- O -" � ,'� �'' `. w�...w� •.[ 1� 7 i 12 It" • � li I ulifoatt � h{ �i ry (\ � ^' 1 � � y i .� / `I 'i T �� `� V � � � ; ' , , CY _ �`�, : � � �. :_�� ,`;. - ..__ =; •.,.- .. +/ - � • .� . ;,�.: 4�' �' ,, � -- j- " i; L ."'.an„ .. '� t ��o a ,y � .f .i - ti � ' � � / /� p �� p . �, 1 � �!'.• � � x < .� !j A ' � �,� t� •. S ta � � �� ''''yJ,', (� � ��.� ��/ /<.� 2 � � 4 � � t �/ R ';� il��.., " ' C�/�. �.� Ja•. � /:�� !ME ' � L� . 4 F t �.K F�� ..,_�,�� ^ �. ' � �\ :� ` � r :� � �i.-'- �`. • F 1 ' < i „S 1 i V � Eg- i.; ` �G �, ,.-� �c �� `' (' r � ' , �. 1. ...�, S' C � • �✓� f • ��?f�i� �Y ,� � j J � T ;- �' �' % �� l � :_ _ � i ' .� i � � O t _ c _ ti � � r }.�"� : r' ��( '_. .- i ' � �' -.t `:_ j, '. � j�„ � ' , , '� - �'-; _ e. ! � � ` . i, t �- \ � 2 �4-� �.,, ` �, / SLin S t.,. � 9.. I`.'� / t+ i v.qa�`_ Ra ¢ O \ �� t � � � � � ' t - ,y 5. . �_.i � J � C � � : o Li'_ {-� ; � � � '� : � �( 5 i �' ; o - � � 1 �+ o i t`AY. if OCjJ 1 � 4 � �•� �'' ` / f , �� ' ,•�"`x� � X �+lY.a;�GG : 5 +4:�.� . _... .._� ' � Tt � ��'t ). � .. . • ��, . ' ,(: `. , : ....._ ,v _ ,``�' � 6? �t��roc� �t�. { c \ O � a� �' y` r / t i / �� a..a',•!l�.r.J4 '.�' K ( / /�� v ,, � � }^ �l \':' - r�` ' � /�. : � � YJC ]I'� � � W� �,, � �� / o ,.. � <... .; \ ` �' '`` , � :� � l ,. a ,, \ �� _ : �.. i,� . t`%/i '• A< i � � � Y p � % '`� V" L1'r�� L RD. I O y v . � � �� :}1BER 7R. . ° H YiJS C�. J:EX FL. LAKE :�C-:t�COD �� ' f t��Z� i Y �� g8-s85 . . �. _ � � Q �� 5 ��a� �` J • � D E D i t� 7 / 7 ) 1 \� . � ��, i �� V ��! � � Q � � � � � 3 \�, ;� � � �� . �a i " S a � �. D ;78/ c � R OA D � �--- � � �-� s i0 -`� ! .CC 19 � .c,.�' > �. , `� � �b I � 4 ° ,,, i Q � � � �-- o , c, o C. � • � • . � � . i � �G� 1 C� � a o C � � �2� 50 �2b 5� ;� ` _ ;2�r � � 3 �, �, 3 c, o l S _ o �� o � • �. i �� I < ? �c : L " c � � � ��, r, - � � � ' , o / �} ti� � o � o � o � , � � � ;� � � - .�r : JL?.So � � } .�' o . � 3 0 � r � ' ° "'`., rj ° (32� � � S � � � �5� � � _ ` �� _ �5 _ �. s CZSY OP ST. PAIIL PRHLZ2SIHAiY OHDBi In the Hatter of --�� '(�-'J�` , ' ` :�.: (I8820) Constructing a sanitary sewer Court to agprox. 145 f[. nor[h the south property line of the Addition); zeconstructed with existiag Wiggins Road and a 20 Trench Area, public hearing be given to 2he persons and in by the Charter, stating the t3me and place of of [he improvement and the total cost thereof (18821) Construct a public water main in Wiggins Road from Hillwood Couzt to approx. 145 ft. north of Hillwood Court (10 ft. south of the south property line of the proposed Willenbring Woods Addit3on.) �Z�#��G FlLE ��'� � The Council of the City of Saint Paul having received the report of the• Piayor upon the above improvemeat, and having considered said report, hereby resolves: 1. That the said report aad the same is herebp approved with co al[ernatives, and that the estimated cost thereof is $20,750 financed by Assessments ($4,000 sanitary sewer and $7,950 public water rtcain) and City Aid $8,800. 2. That a publ3c hear3ng be had on said improvement oa the 22nd_ day of 1996, at 5:00 o'clock P.M., in the Council Chambers of the City Ha1l and Court House Building in the City of Saiat Paul. - � 3. That notice of said the manner provided hearing, the nature as estimated. COUNCILPERSONS Yea� Nays Blakey ✓Bostrom faerin ✓�:arris �fegard +-'�ettman ✓l �In Favor �Agaiust - =? COIIACZL PILE A0. � BY , ' � ' • FT7.E HO� 18 20 6 18821 VOTZHG AAED 7 in Wiggins Aoad from Hillwood of Hillwood Court (10 f�. south of proposed Willenbring Woods 72 ft. of curb and gutter on foot wide gravel driveway in the Adopted by Council: Date ��,,,�A,� 1`; � Cercified Passed'op CouncilSecreLSry B9_"�� . �. 1�.,.,_1�.�. a---�s-- . � ayor (6 `a_'` t ir �''�:r. � ` °"�� Saint Paul City Council �� `� ;:- � �. = ,«TE�,r,�„ ~� Public Hearing Notice , S�� i71Ff f�[i 11 a ° �� Public Improvement Constructio �85• OWNER OR TAXPAYER f /` t! � � � COU23CIL DISTRICT � PLANI3ING COUNCIL q01 r .. .....:,__ :.:. . FILE # �i8.820:"<::�':::°;:;� :: PIi4PERTY ADDRESS _ ............._._...._....:�..,.,.._..M._.:., . <. -�>%� . _...... .. .. PARCEL IB PROPERTY TAX DESCRIPTION ��a�i�9'd�l �� -�—� �.-��;_- � _ .� : .... . . . . . .... .. :.. � THE TIME: :WEDNESDAY,_ MAY.:22; 1996 �AT .5:00. P.M, PUBIiC PLACE: City Councif Chambers, 3rd Fioor City HalhCourt Nouse HEARING Written or ora4 statements by any owner will be considered by fhe Council at this hearing. PURPOSE ESTIMATtD ASSESSMENT iNFORMATI�N ESTIMA � �D 'ASSESStvtEN7 CALCULATION To consider approva4 of the proposed project as follows: CONSTRUCT A SANITARY SEWER IN WIGGMS ROAD FROM HILLWOOD COURT TO APPROXIMATEIY �45 NORTH OF H4.LWOOD COURT (1Q FcET SOUTFt OF THE SOUTH PROPcRTY L1NE 0= THE PROPOSED WILLENBRING WOODS ADDiT10N); P.eCONSTRUCTED WfTH 72 FEET OF CURB AND GUT7ER ON EXISTING WIGGINS ROAD AND A 20 FOOT WIDE GRAVEL DRIVE[dAY IN THE TRENCH AREA. If the City Council approves the project, a{I or part of the cost will be assessed against the 6enefitfed properties. The ESTIMATED assessment for the above property is S NOTE: Tt-tIS IS NOT A BILL! Piease see PAYMENT iNFORMA310N on fhe reverse side of this notice. �{ CONTINISED ON REVERS� SIDE NOTIFICATION DATE: 06l03/96 - S� GIYY �F�i. � R;� �-,, � o ,�, y a ' �cc[[Clttitt � ItEE [I(4 71 a ; �s � E . i� � � aes+ Saint Paul City Counczl Public Hearing Notice Public Improvement Construction OWNER OR TAXPAYER • 7 �``�� 0 a�--�`�� COUNCIL DISTRICT #7 PLANNING COUNCIL #01 FILE � ;188�1�::«_�::�;�'��' PROPERTY ADDRESS PARCEL ID PROPERTX TAX DESCRIPTION ��}�� L� �� { �. L Lli� n. .. �.,..-__. _ Y ' . .,. �J�.'�.• .a. . THE TIME: N'EDNESDAY,.-MAY-22; �996'AT='5:00=P_NI: PUBLIC PLACE: City Gouncil Chambers, 3rd Floor City Hall-Court House FIEARiNG Written or oral statements by any owner wi!! be considered by tE�e Councif at this hearing. PURPOSE To consider approva! of the proposed project as follows: CONSTftUCT A PUBUC WATEft MAIN IN WIGGINS ROAD FFtOM MIIWOOD COUftT 70 APPAOXIMATELY 445 NOR7H OF NlLLWOOD COURT. (70 FEET SOUTH OF THE SOUTH PROPERTY LfNe OF THc PROPOSED WILLENBRMG WOODS ADDITION.) " ESTIMATED If the City Council approves the project, aii or part o€ the ASSESSMENT cost wili be assessed against the benefittsd properties. The (NFORMAT(ON ESTIMATED assessment for the above property is s• NOTE: TH1S !S NOT A BILLI P{ease see PAYMENT INFORMATtON on fhe reverse side af this notice. ESTIMATEQ ASS�SSMEN! CALCULATION � !� CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE NOTI�ICA+10N DATE: 05/03/96— c ; � ;�� # city of saint paui � pfanning commission resolution file number 98-36 �lPi May 8i 1998 Z�� iLE "9. �' _ � WHEREAS, Amold Fritsche, in Zoning File #98-091 and pursuant to the Saint Paul Legislative Code §b4300(j), duly filed an appeal o£ the planning administrator's decision to approve a tot split for property located at XXX WIGGINS ROAD, legally described as Lot 5; Willenbrin� Woods Addition; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirements of the Saint Paul Legislative Code §64300, the Saint Paul Planning Commission held a publia hearing on April 24, 1998, at which all persons ptesent were given an opportunity to be heazd; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented, found that the planning administrator erred in approving the lot split for the following reasons: a. Section §67304 of the Saint Paul Zoning Code permits the planning administrator to approve a lot split provided six conditions aze met. The ptanning administrator ened in finding that • condition §67304(a) of the zoning code was met. That condition states, "The lot or lots have frontage on an existing improved street and access fo municipal services. " Wiggins Road is an officaally platted street which abuts the properiy and provides access to municipal services, but it is also officially not an "improved streeY' nor is it maintained or plowed by the city. In addition, while the 12.5 feet of frontage for each lot provides access to municipal services it does not provide frontage in the traditional sense and lacks sufficient frontage to accommodate emergency vehicies . By comparison, the average frontage of surrounding lots is 57 feet. b. The Saint Paut City Council approved a final plat of the property and the surrounding five lots in 1996, the result of a negotiated process in which the developer and property owner participated. The lot split approved by the planning administrator would allow an additional lot. This is not in keeping with the original agreement made by the property owner! developer or with the spirit and intent of the city council action in I996 and amounts to a second plat of the property. c. The planning administrator failed to require a grading plan or contour map which fully represented the applicanYs intent and the lack of such a plan or map makes it nearly moved by Kramer secor�ded by Wencl in favor lZ� against 1 A6stention (Mardell) � Zoning File #98-091 Page Two of ResoluYion impossible to determine if the lot spiit meeYs the intent of the requirement of Saznt Paul Legislative Code, Section 67.305 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paut Planning Commission, that the appeai by Amoid Fritsche of the plamling administrator's decision to approve a lot spiit for the property located at X� WIGGTNS ROAD, legally described as Lot 5; Willenbring Woods Addition, is hereby granted for the reasons stated above; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the approval of the planning administrator of the application by Donald Willenbring, Zoning File #98-028, to allow the property at X�'Y WTGGINS ROAD to be split (Lot 5; Willenbring Woods Addition) is hereby rescinded; AND BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution sha11 be mailed to Amold Fritsche, Donald Willenbring, the zoning administrator, and the planning administrator. �ZO�t�G F1LE ��_ � -�. � • � � � ti , �° '. . � ;`, �; g �.� � ' M i n v�4es�rem. - t�- Sai v1,� �ax.v� � 1a3�,.v�.� rSC� "�w � o r� �� $i � iq�:'� (CommiSsioner Vaught's microphone was also not working.) Commissioner Gordon asked if this is the comer across £rom the comer of University and Dale where there is already is an open air farmers' market, and was that taken into consideration. Commissioner Field responded that the SW comer of Universiry and Daie's use will be changed, and the Uni-Dale Shopping Center open air farmers' market will replace Yhe one that has been on the SW comer, in theory. The n:otion on tl�e floor carried u�eanii�:ozrsly on a voice vote. Commissioner Field read the agenda for the Zonino Committee's next meeting, Thursday, May 14, 1998. � 1 � • 1 i i � I { i � i � Adnnt resolution of Planning Commission's 5ndings on the appeal Arnold Fritsche to a decision of the planning administrator to approve a lot split at �cx Wiggins Road. (Public hearin$ heid Apri12A, 1998) Commissioner Field staced that the Zoning Committee discussed the resolution on the appeal, and it is submitted on an advisory basis for discussion today. Chair Ivlorton reminded everyone that the public hearing on this matter is closed. 'I'he purpose of it being on the agenda today is to pass the resolution. M(1TT(l�T: Con�missiorter Xrarr�er rrtoved approval afthe stebmitted resolutio�z of lhe Plar:r:irsg Conuuission's findings on the appeal af the planning administrator's decision to approve a tot split at xrx lYiggius Road; Cournrissiater YYe�rct seconded tlle nrotion. Commissioner Mardell announced that he �vill abstain from voting on this matter because of a potential conflict. 1YLOTiO�Y7'_ilA1�F:t1�2: Comntissioner Yaught moved to delete subparagraph c. from tlre resolution, statiirg thal it is far too broad; Cournzissiater Fietd seconded the motio�t wkicJ: carried ou a voice vote of IO - 2(Kran:er, fYe�ecl) with ot:e abslersiion (Mardell). Commissioner Field refetred to a lettec received from the attomey of the land o�vner, and noted his concem. He stated that it is alluded to in the letter "that cooler heads should prevail." He said that he does not recall heated heads at the last meeting, and he wants the record not to reflect that there might have been an inflammatory discussion at that meeting. He feels that there was a healthy, long, detailed, and thoughtful discussion of the issues. He resents the Planning Commission members being refened to having heated heads. Commissioner Vaught concurred with Commissioner Field's comments. MOTION fo AMEi\'D: Commissioner Nordin moved that the new paragraph c. be consistentwith other paragraphs �vhen referring to the Legislative Code by deleting Chapter 67 and inserting Section 67305. Chair Morton accepted Commissioner Nordin's amendment as a friendly amendment. M(ITTON tf1.AlYLF1� Commissior:er Gordon, referring ta subparagraph b., moved to aniend tke last sentence io state: "Tltis is not iit keeping witl: !he original agreentent made �' �' �, � , . 'by tl�e developer aad property owner, or wir/i tlee spirit ar�d iieteret ofclee City Cour:cil actiort in 1996 axd aa�ounts to a second plat oftlae properry." Coninaissioa=er Vaught secai�ded the � naotion ivhich carried :u�ar:imously on a voice vate. � Commissioner Wenct drew members' attention to a sfieet contained in the packet dealing tivith � the width of the unpaved streets in Highwood, specificalty, the listing of those north of � Highcvood and those Yhat are south of Highwood. The Highwood Plan has a different � recognition of streets in the area north of Highwood and the area south of Aighwood. The north section talks about having paved streets that are 20-24 feet wide. Any improvements there are to be made to be improved streets. The only area of Highwood that is to be left unpaved and more rural in character with larger lots is the area south of High«•ood. T/te amended n�otion mt tl�e flaor to adoPt d�e resol�rtim� of the Planning Conunissinn's fiieditn�s, tleereby grmeting the appeal of tlre pfaiuting adneinistrator's decision to approve a lot split atsrx lYiggi�zs Road, carried unaninrously on a voice vote (ttitardell abstuining). V. Soufheasf Quadrant 72eporf -(Atlen Love}oy) Mr. Lovejoy highlighted a fe�v current projects. He started with a non-downtown project: the West Side Three Part Comprehensive Program that is curreatly before the HRA board, put together by ReDA, the bVest Side Community Development Corporation. They are one of the first CDCs to come forward with a strategy. This one developed from the WESCO Plan that was adopted a little more than a year ago. Al Carlson, housing specialist on the Southeast Team, has been warking tvith them. ReDA and NeDA have come together to propose a main street project funding from LISC. ._..�.• f .. . • - • .. Zhe3Zgner I andino-Proj�sL' A series of technical studies done on this site has led to the conclusion that this site is not particularly good for any kind of development other than development that could be flooded regularly, primarily because in order to make Yhe site developable, particularly for housing, the entire site tivould need to be elevated, approximately 11 feet, and that would create some �veird edges at Shepard Road, which will be reconstructed behind Upper Landing as well as relationship to the River's edge. There is a team working to come up with some ideas, but so far, no one's come up with any magic answers for the ITpper Landing. Thel2esigtiG.enier: An extremely important outgrowth of Yhe Riverfront Development Framework. The three principle people from City staff that are working on the Design Center are working virtual]y fu11 time on those activities: Tom Eggum, Public Works, is the leader of the Design Center; Lucy Thompson, PED; and Tim Agness, Parks Division. They have already had a very profound impact on design in the city, probably the most visible on the Minnesota Mutuai Design. As the new building goes up, you wilt begin to see a remarkable change from the kinds of developments that were done in the past. The gteatest design challenge was to create a front door on all four block faces. � Mississin�i Natinnal Re&reation Area fMNRRAI designatipn. The City is working with the Metropolitan Council, tivho are looking to the City and the Planning Commission to reflect many of the MNIZE2A principles within fhe context of the Comprehensive Plan. Tom Hanen, Ken Ford, Larry Soderholm, and Allen Lovejoy wi11 be negotiating with them. Certain key elements make sense being in the Comprehensive Plan, others do not. ThP T T Hill Rnilding. Apgroximately eight months ago the Public HealYh Department was in :�r �:' ,.. • ------_._.` �; ;�, � � Q 5 � 1 � �C��9�� LE 98- --- 3� Saint Paul Planning Commission City Hall Conference Center 15 Kellogg Boulevard �Vest A meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, Apri124, 1998, at 830 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall. Commissionars Present: Commissioners Absent: Mmes. Duarte, Engh, Faricy, Geisser, Maddox, Morton, Nordin, Treichel, and Wencl and Messrs: Chavez,. Field Tr., Gervais, Gordon, Kong, Kramer, Mardell, McDoneli, No�vlin, and Vaught. Messrs. *Johnson and Sharpe *Excused Also Present: Ken Ford, Planning Administrator; Jean Birkholz, Kady Dadlez, Donna Drummond, Nancy Homans, and Larry Soderholm, Department of Planning and Economic Development staff. I. Approval of Minutes of April 10,1447 � MSLTTON: ConuuissionerMcDorretl utoved approval ofihe rai�eutes ofApril IQ 1998; Con:neissioner Field seconded the n:otion. Commissioner Field asked that the minutes be amended to include the words "the applicant said that" before the words "they aa eed to" in line rivo on page six. Staff agreed to add those words. Tlte neatiorz to approve the aretended netr:utes ofApril Z0, 1998 carried ttnanimottsly on a voice vote. r�� V. 9:Q0 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING: To_cQnsislex Y2Le�[zn��LDnnald Fri�.c_chP nf the Planning Administrator's decision to approve a lot split for properiy at xxx Wiggins Road (Lot 5, Block 1; Willenbring Woods Addition) (Kady Aadlez, 266-6582) Chair Morton read the rules and procedures of public hearing. ' Ms. Dadlez gave a brief slide presentation to sho�v the site and the sunounding area. She provided some background for this case. In 1495, there was an application to divide this property (Willenbring �Voods property) into 11 parcels. A site plan review was also required at that time. The Planning Commission denied that site p]an review. The denial was appealed to the City Council; the City Council also denied that site plan and the subdivision of property. A year later the applicant came back with a plan to subdivide the property into 61ots. That was approved by the City Council. In ivtarch of this yeaz, the owner of the propety came in to request a split of the largest parcel, lot # 5, into parcels A and B, which is the subject of today's hearing. Ms. Dadlez cited a number of requirements that need to be met before the Planning Administrator can approve a split of a piece of property. 1. The lot(s) to be divided have to be on previously platted 3and. Z( This property was platted in 1996, so that criteria was m�� -------�»� 2. The lot(s) to be divided must meet the minimum standards for lot width and area in the zoning districi in which the property is located. In this case, the property is zoned R-1, which is a low density residential single family zone and requires 80 feet of �vidth and 9,600 square feet of lot area, Both of the lots meet that requirement. 3. The division must not cause a remaining part of a lot Yo become a separately described piece of property that doesn't meet the minimum standards. Both lots meet the minimum sYandards. 4. The dividing of the property must not create a split zone. In this case, both properties remain zoned R-1 tivith the split. 5. The division cattnot result in the creation of a nonconforming use or structure. The property is currently vacant and would be developed for single family homes. 6. The lot(s) must have frontage on an existing improved street and access to municipal services. - —„_ This requirement is met. Both sewer and water have been installed and there is access to the • lot for that, although there �vill need to be some additional work done in order to provide capacity for a third lot. Regazding "on an existing improved street " for purposes of splitting the tot, Public Works states that requirement is met, and thaYs the reason the Planning Administrator approved this spliY. Ms, Dadlez stated that a Public Works representative said that "Wiggins Road is an officiaily platted street upon which three tots abut, and iYs officially not improved." Pubtic Works has allowed ihe residences to install a longer driveway than normal. Public Works states that this last requirement is meY, for their purposes. Ms. Dadlez raminded the Commission Yhat access is sufficient for the two lots and therefore it's also sufficient for tha third lot. She noted that once properry is pIatted, nothing in the code prevents the staff from approving a lot split of a property, administratively, without going back to the City Council, and that is what happened in this case. In 1996 Yhe City Council approved a plaY of the property for six lots; two years later the properiy owner came in to request that the properry be split. AII of the standards for the split were met, and so it was approved; and that is why it did not need to go back to the City Council, Based on the findings in the staff report, staff would recommend that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and they uphold the position of the Planning Administrator. Commissioner Engh raised the quesrion of what affect this tot split might have environmentally. Ms. Dadlez responded that she did not lmotv; that perhaps the owner of the property mighY know. Chair Morton announced that John Labosky's presentation wouid be rescheduted. i. Dino Guerin, 1977 North Park Drive, addressed the Commission to testify that he was on - the City Council at the time this issue came up. He stated that he had been out to Iook at 10 zz R�- s�. f Z�P�� 1LE �� the site on numerous occasions with members of the communiry. The City Council decided that the oFVner of the property had the right to develop his land and that 61ots � were appropriate for this property, provided that it wouldn'i adversely affect the ��' community or wetlands, the bluff, or tree preservation. There was an understanding that_, �" � the owner agreed on 6, along with the neighborhood and the City Council. About three months ago, staff made a decision to split a lot, and now put in 7. He thinks that this decision violates good faith and the negotiations everyone had. He also thinks that the record of the City Council meeting saying that they aa eed to 6 lots should mean something. He hoped that this appeal Fvould be granted because there �vas an agreement to 6 lots. He thinks this is a back door way to gei in and get 7 lots. 2. Aavid Raymond, 2401 West 66th Street, Richfield, MN, attomey for ihe �Villenbring Companies, addressed the Commission and inh Don Willenbring, 579 McKnight Road (Block 1, Lot 1 of the Willenbring development). Mr. Raymond noted the concern expressed about the environment and the preservation of the trees and the development of these two lots, but that those decisions need to be made �vhen the building permit is applied for these two resideniial lots. He thinks that it does not come into play for the ]ot split. He reiterated that the staff report says that all of the conditions for a residential lot split have been met, and both lots A and B exceed the minimum requirements for residential lots. Both are approximately one acre. He said that the main point the appellant raises in the appeal is concemed rvith some drainage problems because of the elevation changes from lot S to lot 6. He stated that he hasn't seen any evidence of that, but he wi11 wait for the appellant to bring it forth. He assured the appellant that there will not be any additional run-off from those lots to his lot, and are willing to set up an . aa eement to take care of those issues. The drainage issue is another thing that will be brought up at the time the 6uilding permit is applied for. Commissioner Gordon asked if there had been an agreement to have 61ots. Mr. Willenbring responded that originally they had brought in a proposal far 1 I lots, including a street. Excessive grading Fvould have needed to be done, in addition to the removal of a lot of trees, so the proposat was turned down at the Planning Commission and again at the appeal before the City Council. Later, they applied for a 61ot proposal, and he answered that 61ots had been agreed upon. Since then, they were not able to sell the large 2 acre lot for the price they feel they need to get for it. So, they decided to split the lot. 3. Cy Yustin, 616 Wiggins Road, addressed the Commission in support of the appeal. He lives directly across the street from the driveway into the back lot. He stated that he and his wife have 4 reasons to object to this proposed change to, what they consider, a previous arrangement. 1. It's an arbitrary change, unnecessary, and they believe, unreasonable. 2. Adding another home on the lot is going to greatly change existing important natural features on the property. 3. Ic will also adversely affect the trees, slopes, the �vetiands, and the naturat vegetation in the area. 4. It will create an issue of potential danger and damage from water erosion and water run-off. It will probahly also require a street with a tum around for fire and safety vehicles as was originally considered when the Planning Commission looked it several years ago. ' Mr. Yusten circulated pictures to illustrate his position. 11 � L.J � �� 1LE -.�- t They purchased their house 616 Wiggins in February, 1996. They had been looking for a � home that was in a natural environment. They checked the City Council minutes and the Highwood Development Policies and Regu2ations for Implementation, April, 1995, to look at the rules for development in the area. It was clear from this document that the natural beauty of the area would continue to exist. He pointed to a hi[I as an important naturai feature of the area. He noted that Tom $each in January of 1996 described the full parcel (b lots): The site rises aimost 40 feet from the east end of the property on McKnight to a high point (the top of the hill) and then drops 60 feet to the �vest end. He continued to say tfiat the 60 foot drop is contained, almost in total, on lot 5. So, there's a 60 foot drop in an approximate 2501inear distance. You have to buiid the house on the slope to have a house on that lot. The slope, as described by the City Planning Office two years ago, ivas estimated to beriveen 40 and 50 degrees. So, there's goina to be an incredible change in what happens to the natural environment. Mature trees cvill need to be cut down and the siope will need to be excavated in order to build on this site. Mr. Yusten expressed that there was some wisdom when the Highwood Pian �vas put together. The Plan says in several places that there are areas in the High�c•ood region thaY are "unsuitable for development " This is a mound that they are trying to build on. Iie suspects that there are probably some burial mounds up there because it has such an unusual imob shape. To conclude, Mr. Yusten requested that the Commission not only support the appeal, but—..-_ _ also that he be advised in some manner if there are any future considerations onlhis • property. Atso, he asked that he be provided with a method by which he might appeal any decision he would consider coming from this Commission. Chair Morton reminded Pianning Commission members that the purpose of this hearing is to consider the decision of the Planning Administrator. Mr. W amer reCterated that the purpose of the appeal is to determine whether or not the Planning Administrator committed any error with respect to tke findings in para�raph H. 2. a. - f. Mr. Yusten interjected that the previous discussion said that the Planning Administrator is not restricted from splitting the property; he is atso not required to split the property. Mr. Wamer urged Commissioners to treat the last statement with caution because his interpretation of the code says that if the Pianning Administrator finds that all these conditions are met, that he is compelled to approve the lot split. Commissioner Nordin asked questions referring to the pictures. Commissioner Nowlin asked Mr. Wamer about the role of Fhe Commission in this case. Gommissioner Kramer asked Mr. Wamer what requirement there is that iot splits conform with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Warner noted that the requirements in the code are set out in the staff report. Section 76304 of the code says, - "If an applicant for a lot spiit meets the criteria that are set out in the staff repart, then the IZ 2� �- ��,� � City is compelled to approve the iot spii .'� � � � �� With respect to Commissioner Nowlin's question, the role of the Planning Commission today is to determine if the Planning Administrator erred in making his decision for this ]ot split. Commissioner Vaught commented that he is troubled �vith this. He stated that surely people have rights attached to pieces of property, �vhich the owner's of, at particular times, can act in derogation of as they apparently did with respect to this property when there was an agreement that there wouid be 6 lots on this property at the City Council in 1996. Is it therefore true that once acting in derogation of one's rights in a reasonably public forum does not bind one in any way; and one can act in dero�ation of that agreement just so long as one can find a section of the code to justify it? He is troubled by that. Mr. Wamer thinks that is propably the ultimate issue here. It appears that they felt compelled to grant the lot split because the application met all the requirements that are contained in the code, He said that he thinks the real issue here is whether or not the plat that �vas approved 6y the City Council was limited in any �vay to the number of lots that were approved. The burden of proof is on the applicant to show that so the Commission can make a decision. The only real record is the resolution of the City Council approving the plat. I[ says there are 6 lots; there are no other conditions that are attached. Generally, the law with respect to platting, states that municipalities can set certain conditions that are reasonably related to the platting process. Sometimes those decisions are reduced in writing in some sort of a development contract or something similar. IYs clear that wasn't done in this case, so, the ultimate question is did the City Council approve, did the developer acquiesce to limit the number of lots that are approved on the plat or was it something else. � Commissioner Vaught summarized that after listening today one could arrive at the conclusion that this particular request for a lot split is quite disingenuous, and at the same time arrive at the conclusion that it is legally mandated, 4vhich trou6les him some. He asked Mr. Wamer if the City Council, at the point that they approved the plat on this particular piece of property with the 61ots, could they have attached conditions to that approval such that this requested lot split would have been proscribed. Mr. Wamer answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Chavez asked for the photographs to be circulated. 4. Steven Darmer, 575 McKnight Road South, addressed the Commission in support of the appeal. He noted that three years ago when this came up he did not get involved. He felt that it's their property and they should get to do what they want with it. But now, he feels that they have taken advantage of the'situation. He feels that they, too, have shown a real lack of good faith in this building program. He expressed that maybe they could legally do the lot split. Ae thinks these homes are going to be built as "spec" homes. He stated that the family told him that they will be moving into them, and they expect to sell them when they have the opportunity. He showed pictures to illustrate: 1) the lack of clean-up done around Don's home; 2) drainage problems; and 3) that conshuction materials are being stored on one side of the home. He thinks there �vould be only two reasons to do this lot split: 1) to improve the community; or 2) to improve the neighborhood. He feels that iYs not improving the neighborhood; the neighborhood, in his opinion, is degenerating, since he has moved in. He informed Commissioners that the Wiltenbrings have done little to plznt any of the tress they have taken out, or done anything with the environment. He is concemed about that. � And he is concemed that this effort will not result in any monetary advantage to the community. He feels that if they put up a house next to his that is worth half a much, the prices of houses in the neighborhood will go down. Between that and the quality of the 13 25 � 7��G FBLE /�� neighborhood, he feels the tax base rvill go down. Cutting down Yrees near the pond will . have a disastrous effect on the environment. He's hoping that the Planning Commission wili not let him subdivide the property. Commissioner Vaught spoke for Chair MoRon tivhen he asked thai testimony be confined to whether the P[anning Administrator erred in making this decision, not tryin� to reargue the issue of the platting of this property to begin with. Chair Morton concurred and reminded people to limit their remarks to 3 minutes. 5. Arnold Fritsche, 597 Wiggins Road (Lot 6), addressed the Commission. Ais concems are about water run-off and taking down trees. He showed pictures of a retaining wall he put next to his drive�vay last summer that was tivashed away because of a lot of rain, which he since has had to be replace. He also put in a culvert to handle the water running off the driveway, He noted that in the back lot there is a fem grotto and also a very deep ravine that drops about 12-15 feet, �vhich handles a lot of tke run-off that comes off the top of the hill. Chair Morton asked Mr. Fritsche how he thinks the Zoning Administrator erred in his decision. Mr. Fritsche stated that for one thing he doesn't think the driveway is tivide enough to get an emergency vehicle into the back lot. He also hasn't seen anything done to make sure that water tivill not run across his property. In addition, he displayed the document that showed the final plat and Iisting 6 Iots only. 6. Steve Bartley, 601 Wiggins Road (Lot 1), ad�3ressed the Commission in support of the --„_ _ appeal. He had lived at this address for 16 yeazs. He describes it as an absolutely � gorgeous spot, one of the last remaining spots in the City of Saint Paul for this type of home. He finds it very upsetting that, as a resident, having gone through the whole City Council process, and finally come to an agreement of 61ots, and later to find the City Administrafor change it. He questioned how what they have done can be legally justified, and how can what they have done be changed? He doesn't consider 12 feet adequate frontage for 2 houses. Doug Willenbring, 1875 Donebal Drive, Woodbury, spoke in opposition of the appeal. He has purchased Lot B, and he failed to understand how the neighbors coutd speculate on how his driveway would go into the lot when he does not even lmow how it will go in. I3e feels that the owner of the property has a right to defend his property and how he will develop it. MOTTON: Comxiissioe:er Geisser moved to close the p«blic liearing, whidi rvas seconded by Camarissianer Nordin and carried nnaninrously on a voice vote. MOTiON: Comnrissioner Nowlif: moved to support the appeal and reverse tlie Plannirtg . A�Imiriistrator's decision on tlee basis tkat: I) tke szrbdivision of [asd is not a right, but au opportunity; 2) i['s ar: applicanPs job to jusYify tlte reasoni�eg for tlee subdivisio��, artd tJrat has ��ot been done; 3) tlre creation of these 2 lots by tl:e split does not provide adeqz�ate frontage on an ezisting intproved street sufficient to accom»aodate public safety vehicles; 4) tl�ere u uo reasori to revisit an agreeme�et that was raade one year ago by the City Cou�icil; and 5) t/ie Minreesota Er:vironmenfal Rights Act proltibits cities and otT:er jurisdictions of m�y kind, from intrudiug, destroying, or irrspairing major natnral environn�errtal feanrres, which the gradii�g and constructior: activity that rvill ueed to ocarr to fierther tlnis � developn:e�tt will inevitably do, thus creating an adverse impacf ou un onsire rvetland. The 14 26 �� r � r � nrotioit was seconded by Cammissioner Engh� � � � � � � � � � � Commissioner Vaught commented he tivishes he could vote for the motion presented but that he does not find any basis for finding enor with what the Planning Administrator has done. He believes, however, that the application to the Planning Administrator for a lot split has a certain disingenuousness about it, given tivhat the City Council did �vith the plat. Although, it's a final plat, it's clear that any split of a lot is a derogation of the final plat for the area in Fvhich that lot is located. So, the fact that the resolution calls it a final plat is not particularly persuasive. Had the City Council resolution contained conditions or limitations such that it clearly �vould have proscribed this particular application to the Planning Administrator, he might be able to support the motion. He noted that he does not find much to laud about this back door way of doing what many neighbors may have thought was prohibited. He stated that he cannot put himself in the position of substituting his judgment for the Planning Administrator's judgment on the basis of certain issues that Commissioner No«�lin talked about. He regrets it, but he will need to vote against this motion because the act is legal. Commissioner Engh disagreed with Commissioner Vaught and said that she thinks it is the Planning Commission's place to question the Planning Adminisfrator's judgment in cases that are brought forward on appeal. 5he echoed Commissioner Nowlin in saying that she doesn't think that the Planning Administrator was right on 2. a. where it talks about frontage on an existing improved street. She added that she doesn't think the zoning code envisions very creative planning as we have here. She feels, that the Planning Administrator, in this case, really did not capture what was envisioned in the zoning code as far as access to a developed street. . Commissioner Chavez noted that he is concemed with the safety issue. He asked if the City would not have had to review Wiggins Road in the application to assure that safety vehicles would be able to get in there? Ms. Dadlez xesponded that it was her understanding that Public Works did review the request for the lot sptit, and they were also very involved in the oripinal platting of the property for the 61ots, and it was their determination that the requirement for frontage and access of services was met. Based on that, planning staff moved forward to approve the lot split. Commissioner Vaught asked wheYher there was somewhere in the code a definition of an existing improved street, which precludes this stretch of Wiggins Road from being an existing improved street? Mr. Warner replied that he did not know. Ms. Dadlez responded that she is not sure; she was relying on Public Works regarding that input. Mr. Kufeld, from Public Works told her that Wihhins Road is an officially platted streets, upon which 3 lots abut, assuming the split is approved, otherwise 2 lots abutting. The street is officially not improved; a longer driveway is allowed to be installed. She then had asked him specificaliy, if the street was improved or not improved. He replied that for purposes of frontage and access, we consider it an improved street, although officially, iYs not an improved street, and they don't maintain it or plow it. Commissioner Vaught asked whether Mr. Kufeld gave her any code authority for making it so, or something he figured was a result of long standing? Ms. Dadlez replied that Mr. Kufeld did not give an code authority; he insinuated that it may not be the ideal situation, but iY s one that meets their requirements and therefore they were �villing to grant it. Commissioner Vaught stated that on the basis of that answer, he is going to change his vote; he does not think this is an officially improved street. On that narrow issue alone, he intends to vote to overturn the Planning Administrator because I think he did err, but not Fvith ' respect to the Environmental Rights Act or any of the rest of that stuff because he does think iYs relevant. 15 27 Commissioner Treichel asked, since so much of Yhe testimony and discussion was dzrected to . other things than whether the Planning Adminishator erred in his decision, if the envixonmental issues, water run-off, and other potentiai problems �vith construction are not taken care of in design review and other areas? She assumes that Yhe City will not let someone construct a house that causes �vater to run-off and cause anolher detriment to his property. Aren't there protections in other administrative areas that are irrelevant to the division of a lot? Ms. Dadlez replied that because there is quite a bit of change in gtade in this properry and there are some significaat slopes, and while this properiy is not located int the River Corridor, the City's zoning code does require site plan review for development of one or rivo family hom es on steep sIopes. They wiil need to go through site plan review and get building permits, so whatever issues there might be with impacting trees, wetlaad, and other environmental features, should be addressed. Commissioner Treichel noted that she then tivili vote against the motion because she thinks that division of the land is not re(ated to some of the testimony today. Commissioner Kramer noted that he disagrees with Commissioner Treichel because the part of the zoning code that is not before the Commission is Section 67305 which says that Application for approval of lot splits..,...other information may be required, such as a grading pIan or contour map to fully represent the intent of the lot split or determine if the lot split meets the intent and requirements of this chapter. He added that there is plenty of information here that shows that not only says other information may be required, but in this case, that it must be required. The motion before the Commissioner to grant tlee appeal af the PlanningAdministrator's � decision to approve a lot split for property at.zax Wiggins Road (Lot 5, Block I; �l(enbring Woods.4ddition) carried on a voice vote (Treichel). Commissioner VaughY asked that the Planning Commission review the resolution before iY moves forward. VI. Comprehensive Planning Committee Noreport. � ��i�it�l�,7 �Ii.� 9 8/38 VII. Neighborhood and Current Planning Committee No report. VIII. Communications Committee No report. IX. Task Force Reports None. X. Old Business None. � ".. 16 z $ MINUTES OF THE ZONiNG COMMI77EE Thursday, April 30, 1998 - 3:30 p.m. City Council Chambers, 3rd Floor s City Hati and Court House 15 West Kellogg Soutevard ,n � �� u � � PRESENT: Chavez, Faricy, Field, Kramer, Mort and Wencl ��l�i� � ABSENT: Gordon (excused) �� j3$ OTHERS Peter Warner, Assistant City Attorney; Kady Dadlez, Donna Drummond, Pat �e e ey, PRESENT: and Larry Soderhoim PED The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Field. ARNOLD FRITSCHE - 98-091 - Appeaf to a decision of the Planning Administrator to approve a lot split fior property locaied at xxx Wiggins Road. Kady Dadlez distributed a draft resolution which the Planning Commission requested to be reviewed. She asked the Committee for their input and comments before she resubmitted it to the full Planning Commission, and after some discussion there was agreement to changes as highfighted in resolution form below: WHEREAS, Arnofd Fritsche, in Zoning Code §64.300Q), duly filed an appeal of � for property located at XXX WIGGINS Addition; and File #98-091 and pursuant to the Saint Paul Legislative the planning administrator's decision to approve a lot split ROAD, legally described as Lot 5; Willenbring Woods WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirements of the Saint Paul Legislative Code §64.300, the Saint Pau! Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 24, 1998, at which all persons present were given an opportun+ty to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paui Pianning Commission, based on the evidence presented, found that the pfanning administrator erred in approving the lot spfit for the foflowing reasons: a. Section §67.304 of the Saint Paul Zoning Code permits the pianning administrator to approve a lot split provided six conditions are met. The planning admi�istrator erred in finding that condition §67.304(a) of the zoning code was met. That condition states, "The !ot o� lots have frontage on an existing improved street and access to municipai services." Wiggins Road is an officially platted street whicfi abuts the property and provides access to municipai services, but it is also officially not an "improved street° nor is it maintained or plowed by the city.�Y:in addition, while,the Al2.5 fe"et of frontage�for each lot pro�wdes acc`_ess to murnc�pa! sesv{ce""s it does not provide'fcontage in fhe tra_tlitionai sen"sea�d tactcs suffcient fronfagelo accommodate emergency vehicles ?`By companson the,ave�age fifontage:of surroundmg lots_ is 57 feet: b. The Saint Pau{ City Council approved a_finat plat of the property and the surrounding five lots +n 1996, the result<of a,negotiateci process m-which�the�developet paiticipa"�ecl. The lot split approved by the planning administrator wouid � , This is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the city councii action to a second plat of the property. an additional lot. in 1996 and amounts 29 � . Zoning Committee Minutes Meeting of Aprif 30, 1998 Arnofd Fritsche (98-091} Page Two c. The tot split does not conform to the Minn"e°sofa Environmental Rights Act which prohibits dsstruction of natural features. The required�graciing and construction activity associated with the lot split and subsequent development wili affect the wetland and fern_grotto as well as steep slopes on the property. d. Tfie Pa ul, ;Legisfafive;Gode NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by fhe Saint Paut Planning Commission, that the appeal by Arnold Fritsche of the pianning administrator's decision ta approve a lot split for the propefij located at XXX WIGGINS ROAD, legaily described as Lot 5; Willenbring Woods Addition, is hereby granted for the reasons stated above; AND 8E IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that fhe approval of the planning adminisfrator of tfie applicafion by Donatd Witienbring, Zoning Fiie #98-028, to aliow the property at XXX WIGGItVS ROAD to be split (Lot 5; Wilienbring Woods Addition) is hereby rescinded; AND BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution sha0 be mailed to Arnold Fritsche, Donald Wiflenbring, the zoning administrator, and the p(anning administrator. Drafted by: �� Pattie Kelie Recording Secretary Submitt by: �� Kady Da lez Southeast Team v� �au � �� E �l� � n U �.1 � � �: 3� MAY-13-1998 10�19 FROM CITY RTTORNEYS OFFICE May 5, 1998 92283314 P.01 � �� _ �; u .� i H �i�J��an Attomeys at Law & 1VIcKasy p '` 9 ' TO 4700 IDS Center 80 South Pighth Street Minneapolis, Minncsota 55402-2228 (612)330-3Q00 Fax (612)371-0653 �� [A�F 06 � �� BX HAND DELIVERY Ol� MAX 6,1998 � Peter Wamer, Esq. Assistant St. Paul City Attomey 400 City Fiall 15 West Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Appea2 of Asnoid Fritsche File No_ 9$-091 Dear Mr. Warner: � ��N��C� F��.� 9 �/38 � This office represents Jan and Chuck Buzicky as weli as Don and Aoug Wiilenbring with respect to the abov�referenced matter. The purpose of this letter is to formally request that the Planning Commission reconsider its vote followina the gublic hearing on April 24, 1998, City staff has kindiy provided a draft resolution that is set for adoption on Friday, May 8. However, it is our hope that calmer heads will prevail now that the public hearing is closed and the Plannin� Commissioners have had the chance to consider their actions. As the record now stands, however, the Planning Commission has reversed the adminisuative lot spiit granted by Roger Ryan before his retirement. As you may recali, this lot split was based upon the provisions of Section 67.3�4 of the St. Pau1 Legislative Code, and the staff recommettded affirming the split, Apparently due to vocal opposition from some of the neighbors to the site, the Planning Coznmission decided to reverse the lot split in spite of the code's provisions that mandated it. The appazent leader o£ this neighborhood opposition was the named appellant in the file, Mr. Arnold Fritsche. It is most disconcerting to note that the person who brought this appeal apparently violated Minnesota law when he removed uees from the edge o£ the lot that was adjacern to his own and seeded that property to grass. When we visited the site last week, I also noted that much of the land azea in the rear o£ the appellazit's lat had been cleazed of tzees and brush that are indigenous to this area. 3f MFlY-13-1998 10�19 FROM CITY RTTORNEYS DFFICE TO 92283314 P.02 Peter Warner, Esq. May S, 1998 Page2 ��BAl�d�9� i'iE.E �v�� • ----------------_ _ Beyond the support for Mr. Fritsche's appeal in spite of his misconduct, I azn puzzled by the city's deaial of an adminisvative lot split that meets atl of the criteria set foRh in the Code. Tn spite o£ the first finding in the proposed draft, the Iot does indeed have frontage on an existing imgroved street and access to municipal services. The street is paved, it has utilities under it, and the cost of laoth ths paving and utilities were assessed to the adjacent pazcels, just like any other improved street. If this was not the case, this subdivision would not have been possible in the first place since the original replat of the area required street frontage for lots 5 and 6, and this extension of Wiggins Road is the only street access for Lots 5 and 6. Aithou�h the term "Improved Street" is not defiaed in the Legislative Cade, the word "Street" is defined. Section 60.219 defines Street as "[a] public dedicated right-of- way, other than an aiiey, which af�'ords the principal means of access to abutting property." Wiggins Road is indeed a dedicated right-of-way. Since the proposed administrative lot split cseated a"flag Iot" that provided s�reet access w both lots, this finding is wifhout support. I note that Section 67.304 does not require any pazticulaz araount of frontage on an existing improved street, but merely Yhat fhere is frontage of some amount. The proposal to have a private drive extend from the end of Wiggins Road which would split to serve the two new lots certainly wouId provide sufficient access for • both lots. In the appendzx to the Code is a list of a number of unpaved streets that have widths less than the 12.5 feet that are proposed for the private drive, and a copy is enclosed for your reference. This subdivision does not create any condition thai is unsafe or unprecedented in the city. In fact, we haue noted that there are several other locatiotts in the vicinity of this tot in which there aze similaz private drives at the end of a street, all of which have various levels of improvement, and all of which have been previously approved by the city. Fot example, at tbe North ettd of Pt. Dougias Road, there aze three grivate driveways as weil as a fizture one that wi7l have to be built once the iot is sold as advertisecl at that lacation. All of these will share access to the end of Pt. Dougias Road at the same spot. In that case, there is no room for an emergency ve}ucle to turn around after praviding services to these lots. Such vehicles would have to back up about a mile 4o Carver Avenue or try to turn around in the road. Sunilarly, at the end of Skyway Road (which is only abaut 14 feet wide to begin with), there is a house at the end on the West side and there is absoluYely no tum around area for emergency vehicles. These vehicles woutd have to back up a very narrow, pooriy maiatained and heavily wooded road about a mile and a iialf before the vehicle could ac[uaily ttun around. 7his condition is nothing like that proposed for Willenbring � Woods. 32 MRY-13-1998 10�20 FROM CITY RTTORNEYS OFFICE TD � Peter Wazner, Esq. May 5, i998 Page 3 92283314 P.03 �� iL� 9-5-%� � Again, at the end of Ogden Cour� there are four private driveways that spider web at the end of the Court. There is no way to turn around from those driveways other than within the Ogden Court, after backing up. Finally, at the end of MysYic Street, there is a house at the end of the pavement, and then a driveway begins to serve another house. There are other houses in this area, one on the left and two on the right, alt of wkich have no place to turn amund other than backing up to Totem Road. and only want to move into St. Paul to improve their quality of life. Enclosed with this letter is a map showing the location of these four areas for which the subdivisions were allowed. These prior actions of the city demonstrate that denying this lot spiit was originally an azbitrary and capricious act. VJhile I understand that a few of the neiglabors may be concemed that this wooded area be subdivided so that two houses could be built, the Buzickys and Doug Willenbring hoth have pians that would fit well into this neighborhood, I have enclosed copies of the elevations of hath of their proposed homes fnr your reference. The fact is, no one wi11 destroy this area because they, too, wish to live here. Both o£ these landowners now live in Woodbury, • While 1 understand that ihe politics of neighborhood opposition often leads to actions that are taken simply because of the heat of the moment, I urge yau to advise the Planning Commission to reconsider whether to zeverse the administrative lot split. We will be in attendance at your meeting on May $, 1998, to answer any questions concerning the Buzic�.ys' and the Willenbrings' intended use of ihe land, but we certainly hope that you will reconsider your earlier decision to �rant the appeai so that my ciients can devote their efforts to building their homes. If you would like to discuss this before the meeting, please feel free to contact either 3ohn Choi or me at ow offices. Mr. Choi's telephone number 330-3025; my telephone number is 330.3003. T look fprward to the opportunity to discuss this with you further on Friday. Sincerely, T-iLSSIAN �@ MC SY, P.� / „ ��' IJ � `� � �� es �ittlejohn K EncIosures cc: A11 Planning Commission Members (w/encis) ' Jan and Chuck Buzicky Aon Willenbring Doug WiIlenbring 33 MRY-13-1498 1@�20 FROM CTTY ATTORNEYS OFF2CE 7AI31NG CODE T� 92283314 P.04 APPENDIX D TO THE ZONTNG CODE WSATH OF UNPAVED STREETS 1N HIGFiWOOD (OCFOBER, 1890) Part of Highwood North (NorEh of Highwood Avenue} South GSOt1Ltt OI Highwood Avenue} $treef Directton E•w N-S E-W Street Ntvne MaiIand E1znWOOd Howard (Lower) x�� Mystic Skyway Ogden Court boug�ynn Snowshoe Boxwaod •south of tree Marillac N •S Winthrop . (1) (S� indicates tne wiath at c4e weeternmust end oC the nereet. (2) (M) indicaces the srid�3 in the csiddle ot the aucet, (3f (El indi�aces the aidth at ti�e ea9eernmost end of the atreec. (4) (Nl indiceles the width at tha northemmont end of the etreet. <5} t� indieatd the width at tha aocthernmosi end ot the sa�eet Widih of Driving Stcrface (fo the nearest foot) 11 2Q I6 (� (2�� (E)g 26 I2 I4 io 26 IO ia �s 15 rtfnl lT'/ 12 18 18 16 18 I6 Q`j) io 16 IQ is (M1 24 fM) 12 is 16 16` 18 16 � 10 Z6 1� (S)ff nc��9 laJ 16 16 22 20 18 (Si � ��#i�l� F6LE � � � • � � Supp. No. 16 716 3� MFlY-13-1998 10�20 FROM CITY RTTORNEYS OFFICE TO 92283314 � P.95 �� ( H � See °age 85 ki • ''-�,�- " , �. � • ry- — 3 ' . ! g ti .��:� ?0.YF115]�PC^ � " ti, S+TtIf z '-'t_� 2' ' � � t- K�..ti' . _ 2 .. � •= . VCG'°: J Q� � C � � �§ 5 ��L.]a .... ' �l E a � " '� >�E',�'Y MK � a -, � 5 �' i = ��i ,�a � - _ Y " v } -' . .� ..._--._ . r1 . �.`_ .e.E ri � � � ' � E�t?,... #-MCpnG.:E J^ .35' _ � 199FJi NIM IG. ; `� � � EF • m " .Y� � .'.. 0. . . ��...4a.i�uc._ i"J� -� ..` >"" �.ant g c y 5 �� t xuttw. � c ;� iDaG`�.li:wavE Y �...i qG6 K �q� ,C . � r �PaARNW' e ... � �� j... ��.L+n.. ..5.'.` 'tY _'" - . . ." . meici . . °" � ya <�' " t`YWY iu4 : 'prye� `i.�— . ..tiN �8�l+iE ;, wCM aCNiN:aoO? � � �� S:AI � � S} ,. �y }iWR � ...�Maiix+E ifY�NQt� � . c - ' . . ye l�ytj y �.. .. st � fo<ESac[ Y � ` .\. � . � �BOa.. } L4WE4Fl�. .. 1 V�l 1`I (oy .�jax,:dWTO �= i . � � � � �� p � Py' H� � � 39� . '-�� V ... , tj o�a��.. '�°' w.rdu � T�.:v �.CrL�n .., p ��ac ��1`bro � , ` , � T . .( ...'... g .. : " ~ j.'`� .. .`{ ° YkGP c ' � '" _ .n. .a ; "�W .� r.F 0 v -. ��".n qD JC �, '%tppT:; � S� � � �.u: � .. � �MO� P ' ° 6z Y .. � . .� � %T' .<' :..:\.. ! _=... ' e � s. xjb - ' �..�_� � �'�_^`yu" g : � , . .... . "_" _' ' � uHiini "'�ji':.�-. ` . . _ , =i�., � . � �p� m ,:c � � _.... .._e .. .. ...6 ' " ' .\ �• �5�� I l l� � . c F 'M � M�('NQCO lF � _ � � >: � t :':.u,'r,iJ,aGJA ,�' ._ 5. "A�1lA� � .. ', . 4z ° C � L..� �. �� ? 3 uu!� � ace',rtw v .:� 'y .aw '� - I �.yiao9c� •. ' 9 c ' , a W . . . Y Y. Ci=� i a �. t � � x -. . 'tLd � � '0 '' 'S - % .. 25 ]� 1 � � ..l 3 P'�,� i i � � �� alMt�•.�f144 s%NRI�(�f:H i�`wl�J�� .�' } , s �cA ' - va.RLCEO� +� � i�� `\ si� � � �. �d c �� S tAMW000 ��`` : �YE ` Y 2 ! '.,MS � --A-F _A'+r , `4i l/.YV —' ' < } � , 4' 15� ' .1 .f a py G �bCC E`. ? �'.0 :.9 vS'Y r'9L � C � ` ~N p�� ' .. ^a y Y � n�l.'.w uyO�F a S �WEPf�T a� _� � � �I . t' x Y FYC � Z� M9FPMl S s o_:' - Z? ' . wsa. Gt�t� ' . - �. 'F"�;, . �581.,vl:sr, � 'v" �.`., y�S�+%` a a`` � ..i� �� r y �� . . ` � �9AL:N'Pr T V'� b'F� .�.... .�lN�cN1V w4 F... � �'`' �y � '� ` _ � 7E MCM41900"' lYE - ^; . 4 .._._:� SFYM1t� • � ,` �— \ \ . ' Sl _ � a � ' = 4'x,g °_ T ^� =, : . _ � 5 � V, �� •q a � _ v 3 Yn McYIE �C. Y�:� W. + • �T �� }� �°� ' .. ' �0� ` "'" �L:_'�'�: s."�G� ��__ u �� r� Pa ' I .Q y fi � �� y � � , b � 4 �'� 3 4 IONFKILSTCP `�: �.�. r � = � ;1� OD' v � nE�G*�iit+� � C ',� �f: y � 1 . �' MnOCt �i y Jy ¢ �,.J � j =� � �H r x � � r F v � � ' � .. `� ,., _1:�, 1� _ , . e;x � � 'T2. Laka ; - . a . .. � � . mn�n o <.�..... sc+". �` a ' �.. y �\ : �� :��.� � � � � .� � ... `,, � J "a �M,�'� � g , � �`1� �"'��'E � --,.� GNVEP :� AYE. : \ �1 0 : � v UPt W . . � ' ` � 1 g �,:`�, �`'s t 1f�P1:.��l�/��3� 1 � \ `` {' 9J Y . � `\`\ J . P , ` . !125 ` .�e � � \ ` �:, 1� 0 76�1 , \ �.� ' �. . � , : s . ♦ . _....$._.._...._-.��_t_ . _ .4._��-�� . _' �{.., . " W ' "' ____" �._-� f " � '.�\\ � �. .' . •C Ni H . .\ . _`� � ' L\ `�'. \ \ R.1asSF�COUV7Y .-.,,. `` 1.— �� , .. T r.`�: ..• ��i :.\�t. �ASMM4�0�[60lY+Yf-'6F'S` �78L ` m �� .Jx�'Inu'�� ti fv. } t � .- .'.;Z� gNtFT �:x � ..' �_ _ YVti� •� `� � i • �._'` Y : ;.�v� ; �\ ;, 1 :sa� `,i, ' N��V�'�R �° _; ,� � l�R �O \ n � � �/ ` . �i,?� y ,� �� . •�� ':: V� }1 i \ t Q�, . � uGx�yv ....... �.. } � tvillsF ?S : i �� ' / � clYettarcn � •; � � � a � a : �!� ,� �\ ` � �.__ G - �. � j � :C :, t� � 1... � �� i .� �� CU'EiFRY �� . .•(. p : :1 .! , a 1 _ � � f ��'� � �/ ' � � } : /} � � � � � ^} � � � �� C ;� i� , `3�`3_.¢5 .��. tLAD.an-. j x: . , f Y t � ' �: i�' �� 1 :I�+�T `�. ��V V V C11 ��.r . O, . hSTRf �'� . ME . � f.��` ' � � _ � ` .. 1OR141{ 6 +� j��;;� • ; i f ��475 ': --�--� ` s ,Y �'o YAO K�"YiW . l� � \1Q00 A�'"Y 3B 1 � Yr ��iw Gf+n.t�W � - ..� s :`.� � uam : "�,__ �C ! �. Pase 98 See Page !11 a�u�ne�vl.uaa '� � MAY-13-1998 10=21 FROM CITY ATT�RNEYS OFFICE T� 92283314 P.06 . . • . . . ':_ ... i l,� : - � �. � . . . , o . � _ -,�, .i . . OTD 'i 9 . .. v _..'. O 1 . �� d �' �.:' ' �� . . ��-�� ,_ � . . ��':: 'R�,... _ .r' ��> � � = ai j+ �.' � � � � _ 3 - ��,.. �~ �39 .°�:r ��' � '� �.. �. a � , o > ��:;, ` ,� � a�� {: , �a ' ' pd ;0 F.�e G � � t . .r � � q S wo 1 .:. "�� tL. �_ Y <. -„ — i � � � '� ' _ F f �.;f � � i �� = �° !�� 1 2 � � � ' ' ! ( � : c � ;d + ^ ' °a� .;. _. � � �: � � i I � .� �-°,,. :.{ ; � i �' i � � , ':.�, , . I � ' I t � ►, � ;>: =:�:` ='; _ � I , � _ , t. :�:;�:•;'_ :s . , � i � , �`-�:: :%;::-�. .,::�, T ;=: � � � � � I � a� .►,Q .+�, . _ � ' , :. ��', . r;,.�' _ _":�,. • , �;; . .. � � 1 f. +�;}�,E�':`' �i�� a, �',2 Y.j. „ • � }� i EC . � I � \' Y • �` ' .��'•� t �'. i � � 1 � � _ 3 .: � .: - �.•;!� �SJY . �1_: J �� ,t:'.�.: st�: � �; :: _ _ � r . � – � v � __G. - "� '; . ', ' � �,. � ' � _ �� .. � �ll I , r 4 � �� • _ �� iw ' I o- a {{ �� { °�' r { I sG I t �. a � � i� '�' �' I� _ . ' i�l �~1 . � (.�� ► a�i t , I . ( 1= t�c�� t �; �� ❑0 1 i i , E 3 � � � a a , -- . ._� � 1 �� ' . ~ I : e it � ( . . b S. ' ° � ' � �! � J � '� � � � � , .. l .' .�:� ' . ' � � f F �I ( � ' � 4 �_ i �� r . � �:. e � � ta � i � . �` `r �� .r __ r_ Y ___� . ` - , _ . � 3 � . . �' - i � ---7-I � �. � . � ' ,�2J t ��ISJV'I�TL . �.�� r � - s : ' �3 • � �v�� F . � ' b��. �� .. . - : :.s' ;... _:.�::.rtiii:.' � , � � � S.�e ..�,.r :f,l•D. •+Q� Yt,9 ' ��,- � � .?k',e`� �: • :,9�?t'.� •' >`?+�<'' _ _ , -, �' � . . _ . . •. . . . � ' � � .. ^ . � _ _ :�ti;�"';I:t:''— . . .�.:' .�� .: �_� . . _.� • . .... r '�.�. ' • .. . . .. . .. ... . .. .. . ��: .. . . . > ... . r . .. =��y..:.:g � TOTAL P.06 � i ' RECEIVED APR 2 � 1998 ZONiNG Kady Dadlez 25 W. Fourth Street I 100 City Aall Annex St. Paut, MN 55102 Deaz Planning Administrator, Steven Darmer 575 South McKni�ttt Rd. St. Paul, MN 55119 April 20, 1998 �., . � � _ ;, �' '? � �� .� �� ( I am writing this to show my support for Amo1d Fritche and his opposition to the splittin� of the lot located at XXX Wlggins. I cordially request that you reconsider this decision and not allow this lot to be split. I feel strongly about this due to a lack of good faith by the contractor, monetary issues, the quality of the neighbor, and destruction of the environment. Lack of good faith This contractor ao eed to a plan a year ago. At that time these issues shou]d have been resolved. I now see this as an attempt to slide in additional modifications. I was not involved I the original discussions, at that time I felt the contractor should have more freedom. But now that I see his attitude and the effect this is having I feel some action is needed. Besides not following through on this agreement T have called the building inspecYoT twice about code violations. Monetary issues The only advantage in splitting this lot is to allow this confractor to make more money. The only reason to allow this lot to be split is to improve the neighborhood or increase revenue to the city. We aze not responsible for his bad inveshnents, he should have had these issues xesolved before now. This split will degrade the neighborhood so there is no advantage there. I also feel that the sma]ler low priced, mazginal homes will degrade the neighborhood resulting in reduced property valves and therefore reduced revenue to the city. Quality of the neighbozhood This contractor has no concern for the neighborhood and what happens to it. He is on to the third home while the second is still a shambles. There is no drive, sidewallc, or land scaping. He has lefr behind ;adder;, scrap p:ast:c an3 scaifold w-�ti: it i; needEd. The lack oi concem will resuit in a series of homes tnat do not fit in and are not maintained. Destruction of the Environment The continued deshvction of this envirorunent is havin� a drastic effect on the wild life and the enjoyment of this wild life. He has made no effort to try and assist in preventing this destruction, even to the point of not piling things over game trails. Therefore, I would greatly appreciate it if you could fmd it feasible to repeal this approval to split XXX Waggins and maintain the original agreement. Zoning File Number:98-091 Zoning File Name: Amold Fritsche Sincerely, V C/ �— � 630 Hillwood Ct., St. Paul, MN 55119 April 17, 1998 St. Paul Planuing Commission c/o Kady Dadlez 25 W Fourth St., 110o City Hall Anaex St. Paul, MN 55102 Re£ Lot split for a�cx Wiggins Road (Lot 5, Blosk 1; Willenbring Woods Addition) Zoning File #: 98-091 Dear Pianning Commission, RECElVED APR 2 0 i998 ZONING I am writing in support the Appeal to the Pianning Administrator's decision to approve a tot split for the property in question. The reasons for my opposition to split ttus lot aze: 1, The Highwood Plan adopted by the.City stipulated tbat the nat�ccai environment be preserved in any new development. The developer of this property has not shown the willingness to abide by ttris plan and has repeatedly tried to circumvent the wishes of the neighbors and pas[ decision of this Commission and the City Council on this matter. Splitting this lot into two wiil only add to the destruction of this natural properry 2. There is no detailad compliance plan to nLmi�e environment dvnage, including preservation of the native fem, to support tlus lot split. I have been a resident of District 1 for over 20 years. My decision to build my current house in Highwood azea ten years ago was influenced ]azgely by the natural woaled surroundings. The developer for my area fore$o the opportunity to develop the property in question, citing difficuhies in building and retaining the nabiral beauty of tfie environment. I do not oppose to new development in my neighborhood, if it is done in accordance with Iocal reguiations and enhancement to neighborhood beauty. I do object to the developer's disregard for the neighborhood and the environment. I urge the Plauning Commission to exercise your fiduciary responsibility to past decisions on this subject and to the neighborhood as stipulated in the Highwood P(an. Thazik you for your time and understanding Sincereiy, � � �Dart Moy � �� i � i.i � � �� --,"--"'_ '"' � � • � _ -� 38 i�. ' �/��, i�� c�.�,�,sr U� � Z�f� ��r F� LE _`�?'�__ � %�fj�l : f�4 f�r i �ci e.� �i� f� ;��.a->��t c� . RECEIVE[� J - � � � • S%- . ��t N APR 2 2 1998 ,�� sTi i9 ZONlNG �E: � z �.,, �y � i� y�_�9i /-12i✓atc! Fr�-y�s"tby LCT 5✓'/.?' ��,fi 5—. �SIUcK /' Wl7t yl.C�i� �'�. , q f �td„�-�� ,� xy �. � � .�<<_«l /�2c./' G'vn,ni;'.sf,�bn� -� w�3h f° e,rP��r�'"' �y � c e�n 4l� �f- J �.-t Sf'l� f-, ��,,-� vi7zh/t 7� a�ttr,1=�/ ��t.s /t�.�,n�, t- vuiJy� G.1lL 7`ci fv��t '�`�t /'/ann.A� Gd�s?.hil�l2�i7��s �lJ✓zv,v✓; ��Pt:Pi�%l � nr� �� . frf.n✓2 4 4�t .I�/. 7�. G b8/��v� 'L/�w�t t w<��Jd C'c>x f Y�`Z. �'c'a..%f. �F�J S'4.PP.c.�nrf.h�r �;y' fh.3 ..: +'[ d'e.�-��/ /1 r. �� Llr.ilr nr:�. //i, j Cr.p 7�f_'�r cfrr',%� c'/G� ;� �'//'e4cly cv� q °� n., v/fl'%Cr"f'}/ o�� '.�flr.f - F'c.r lt.l C.;�r- i S a�,� m/l�, yy y � / � /. `nY ��.��c�- �r��ct.a� ,� -t�.3 ,+ di q� �'�i7� Gsq d 1-F'c'c, T f�Z qK� jyrri� �C�n1✓J?✓v/,��j —, 7 / ��i � t �C re iac�"_ %k y l -r'xf Z lz:t Csz rlk�rcc` Mrai'f �°rr �'-h,� �tr�2!/tFi ;�✓� � n� 7�(� i�i C'/'ta/r�' f�t f'F:'c rn ;•✓ial /-Jc VR ��lc �"ti /7 (2 fY. � c ,�( _ � `f!, �zS �'- 1�� %�w.e�' cf �c�z c lrt�:d j �vi� �i��i. '� :,.�ilc� �-� i'"� CGF �� 't�Y' t✓e:y�yss��_� tGr� 7 �lre�, t� !7e c_ �/� fir✓ �/k.y i n f� Y� �d'1 1 � -�u�rl�� , /I o L. 7� � cr �r6P��f �- !.e I��zr� s� �f�t%'d"�e� F 1'1 � ��?iz ".�../. i<,.rr� ur-c „�<> c� ihl� /. / f-�/ :tic � f<�z �i-� �-� G✓�, v /r>r/1' � �S'fr�c-f' �{r4iJ v �f ?(w;;. ,� D � C= t, i� � n� /ea ✓el rh r.-✓ ��J t l��Y! f� %rU' G/ " �� '{��GZ� OUf (�/i di/'«/.!�'7F f1/r� st •�-�e/' o��i yi e��s/r. �u�'' �� u.o.� i ��- ; 1 % Lr4 n /c Y�� r �� Zt)��G FIL� ��__�-� __ PLANNZNG COMMISSION STAFF RSPORT � =: � 3==== � _____ ___________��__ • 1. APPLICANT: ARONLD FRITSCHE FILS # 98-091 DATE OF HSARING: 04/24/98 2. CLASSiHSCATION; Appeal of Planning Administrator's Decision 3. LoCATION: XXX Wiggins Road 4. PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 5. LEGAL D$SCRIPTSON: Lot 5, Block 1; Willenbring Woods Addition 6. P&ESBNT ZONING: R-1 ZONING CODS R8F8RSNCH: §64.300(j) & §67.304 7. STAFF INVESTIGATSON AND REPORT: DATB: 4/17/98 �Y: Kady Dadlez S. DATS AfiCESVBD: 04/02/98 DEADLSNS FOR ACTSON: 6/1/98 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- A. HIIRPOSS: To consider an appeal of the planning administrator•s decision to approve a lot split. B. PARCEL SIZB: This slightly irregularly shaped parcel has 25 feet of frontage on Wiggins Road, has an average width of 277 feet, and a depth of 328 feet for a total lot area of about 86,600 square feet (2.03 acres). The two lots created by the lot split have Che following dimensions and area: Parcel A has I2_5 feet of frontage on Wiggins Road, is 249.5 feet in width, and 139.09 feet in depth for a lot area of about 39,029 square feet (.896 acres); Parcel B has 22.5 feet of frontage on Wiggins 22oad, a width of about 292 feet, and a depth of about 164 feet for a total lot area of about 49,57i square feet (i.i38 acres). C. SXISTING LAND IISE: The property is currently vacant. D. SIIRxoIINDiNG LAND vSS: The property is surrounded by single family homes in R-1 and R-2 zoning districts. E. ZONING COD$ CITATION: Section 67.304 of the zoning code permits the planning administrator to approve Iot splits provided six conditions are met. These conditions are identified in finding #2 of this report. Section 64.300(j) of the zoning code states that the p].anning administrator's decision is subject to appeal to the planning commission. The planning aommission must conduct a public hearing on the appeal within 30 days of the receipt of the appeal by the planning commission. F. HISTORY/DISCIISSION: There are several zoning cases Concerning this property. 7.'he cases involve a 4.9 acres parcel along McRnight Road that was the subject of site plan review and subdivision applications. • � _� �� , � 5 1 � ; J `• � J • � Zoning File #95-�91 Page Two In 1995 a site plan review application was made for a proposed 11-lot subdivision of the 4.5 acre parcel. The planning commission denied the site plan because it was not consistent with the city's Tree Preservation Ordinance, with preservation of environmentally sensitive areas including a fem grotto and wetland, and with protection of adjacent and neighboring properties relating to storm water drainage. The planning commission's denial was appealed by the applicant to the city council. The city council upheld the planning commission's decision and denied the appeal. The aity council also denied a request at that time for preliminary and final glat approval for the proposed subdivision of land finding that the subdivision did not con£orm to the requirements of the zoning code. In 1996 the city council approved a final plat of the property czeating six lots. The city council approved the plat subject to the condition that the developer receive approval from the city for plans to construct the driveway and utilities from Wiggins to the westerly lots (Lots 5 and 6) prior to approval of any building permits for Lots 5 and 6. These improvements were made late in 1996. It is Lot 5 of the plat approved in 1996 that is the subject of the current appeal. G. DISTRTCT COIINCiL RECOMMENDATION: `The District 1 Community Council had not taken a position on the appeal at the time the staff report was dra£ted. H. FINDING5: 1. On February 11, 1998 Donald Willenbring applied for a lot split to divide one parcel into two (divide lot 5 into parcels A and B). The proposed lot split was reviewed by city staff including individuals from PED, Public Works, and the Water Utility. On March 6, 1998, upon review by city staff finding that all conditions required for a lot split were met, the planning administrator approved the request. 2. Section 67.3�4 of the Saint Paul Zoning Code permits the planning administrator to approve lot splits without platting provided the following conditions are met. a. The Zot or lots have frontage ou an existing improved street and access to municipal services, This condition is met. Both of the lots have frontage on an existing improved streeC and access Co oity sewer and water. b. The lot or lots to be divided are previously platted Zaad. This condition is met. The property to be divided was previously platted land. A plat for the property was approved by the city council in 1996. r c. THe lot or lots meet the miaimum staszdards for Zot midth and area for the zoaing district in which they are located. � � Zoning File #96-091 Page Three This condition is met. The two lots meet the minimum standards £or lot width and area in the zoning district (80 feet of width and 9,600 square feet of lot area are required). Parcel A has a width of 249.5 feet and a lot area of about 39,000 square feet Parcel B has about 292 feet of width and a Zot area of about 49,OD0 square £eet. d. The division of the lots sfialI not cause a remaining part of a Iot Eo become a separateIy described tract which does not meet the miaimum standards of the zoaiag districC fn whzek it is 2ocated or whiclx does not have street froatage and access to muaicfpal services. This condition is met. Both lots meet the minimum standards Eor the R-1 zoning district and have street frontage and access to municipal services. e. The divisioa does not resuSt in a split zoning classification on a single lot. This condition is met. Both lots are zoned R-1, residential single family. f. The division does not result in the creation of a nonconforming strueture or use. This condition is met. The property is currently vacant. A s3ngle family home is planned for each o£ the lots. 3. While the final plat approved by the city council in 1996 created six Iots, nothing in the subdivision ordinance prevents svbsequent subdivisions by platting or lot split, provided all of the conditions are met. In this particular case staff found all of the requirements ' £or a lot split to be met and appraved the division administratively. Subsequent subdivision by platting would require city council approval. 4. Section 64.300(j) of the zoning code states, Planning administrator's decision/appeal to commission. The grant or denial of approval by the planning or zoning administrator is subject to appeal to Che planning commission by any person, firm or corporation, or by any office, department, board or bureau affected by a decision of the planning or zoning adminisCrator within thirty (3D) days after the decision appealefl £rom shall have l�een served either in person or by mail upon the owner of the property which is the subject matter of fhe decision. The planning commission shall conduct a hearing on the appeal within thirty (30) days of the receipt oP the appeal by the planning commission. I. STAFF RECObII+�NDATIOx: Sased on findings 1 through 4 staff recommends the planning commission deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the planning administrator to approve the lot split. � U lJ _ � 42 g�-s�5 � i APPUCATlON FOR APPEAL Department of Planning and Economic Development Zoning Section 1100 City Hall Annex 25 West Fourtl: Street Saint Paul, MN 55102 266-6589 APPELLANT Name �aen�a�'D �2, Address �,2/73 ffuns�� D #�/7 City s'f'� /�A-u � St.�'±� Zip Ss ��9 Daytime phone � S'� -/� �s I PROPERTY Zoning File Name Lcl �`«�N ��•`�G wooJ f}7>D. ��v LOCATION [aT " Address/Location G��,°rr.°.✓s ,Q�� d" R�ccK ! ��-�c�.�gz.�• � of fhe Zoning Code, to / ( S! �l9 i z7 � on � (a 2C{..� � , 19� Fife number: ` — Q � (date of decision) TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the: u Board of Zoning Appea{s ❑ City Council under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section ?�DC� Paragr appeal a decision made by the f�[..AN�i(/n/l-� H!J !1/� . Gf20UNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Soard of Zoning Appeafs or the P{anning Commission. /! 0 � L: "TV !r1"�t�f A� j ht` j�.]jM.�•J�sr ��SG; dF �p �LQ Fy{�'/`� �O�'J C/L („V �Lt� � 2 ��` P�'! h'..Q % y � C� l� �O �-ri 1 �.Ci �, ,� E. ;4 �D ° T , r prJ e� fi-s �coTi a.r� F a Ta t`Y3 � Th� w, r.c�. � a � � �� LoTS �=a2 �r.�z5 trj W+aS t7 � V� D'zD 7� , �= !n DNE o /}PRov;=� Pttf . L� ,, �ridc� . Gi t�/ Lv+�.nlC, L_ E , nhN � t�uRchRSe f�JQT `7T :L WAS Iv�-� �Y L�UiLL��B��' �� NO! Q. � u ,� v I=t- 2�rn a L�� on>�� oN� �mn- W�CT � T �-w� Cc� C�-r.i �Il r�1 0...! W ArT �Q � , y �, i � � (zo P �.R7 y . Q°✓+� i.iJ Tt Y S b,� 7 t I Attach additiona! sheet if necessary) Applicant's Qate Y" 9�City agent_� �'2`�43 � ��l� F�LE ��__!� _�� Ca-� sP��- �.��d c� �cw,vt;,,, J �-d,w�� i �� 2 � C�'RTIF`ICA TE OF SUR VEY FOR WILLENBRING C0. ' N B9'S3' 1T E Zg�p ___ r:aw_____ . .. —_• , �___________________ .. ' ovwa¢ i u�Ure � " ' [nssv i, — . 4 2i �.' �� c �YILLENBRING PARCEL B IFE4�IIJ8 ACRfS . � �� 3 � ' : 5 ' HLOCK "�' Sq 5` 6 s 3 '� 8� e.wxc v_ `r.� E�i � G" J� 5 8 z ��QUJ 1 ADDITION S N 89'S1'S�' E • 33]CO i PAftCEL A wF£A�0.896 �CAES • � SCALE 1' _ }C `� M'� C4R: ER. �0� 3 � OExO*FS iR PFU er �� p�� WIM4tR SFT /.!q 4A�KC0 8Y p�C NNBER 1]168, NZESS OirvERwSE 3 • oe.wtcs xox avE w�vuear ra� �� SUYVE'tORS iq�L �.ro. ��Si. e➢�30� � 1 c � �: ti" w....a a �mr. _ s.% CCRnER tOT 5 � q �K" � ___,_• ,. N ' ? ' tii5o � _ _ "— �SBASPOYW 262W {VCGGINS � � OAK � ftILLS I WIGG[NS q I y . i ROAD LAND DESCRIPTION � YEqE9T �RiFT THAT iN5 AIRYEY WAS PWYARE� BY ME OR MOFR Cvrn � y y�me+< � NY �tECi SlHRVSqN MD Mai 1 Au A OIAY PEG6iEiEA l?AA Cx . m X:e�uMa.xcrLN ARVEYIXt M9ER TfE l0.W$ OF RE $iAiF O! AnNE50YA Fwz ian.fsM�� 1 a�� :>= ' ¢ e�.ereflai �eeNr4 �AT•z �3 __�{/l CIIYOF54fYTPRL'L f [[ROY Bpfi�SiAVEYOR . c.. � J.IZ;U• 4YJVSDiA LICENSE Ml�ER 10)AS � Ft+�n�i� SOHLEN SURVEYING & ENGINEERING,INC ' �(A PNKEL 1 T; et p0't of ta[ 5, B�ack 1. W11,LEM^0.1NC "W�5 0➢��TICC+. Re¢eC CoVnty. M ne ata, IL:nM1 Euiterly nG $out�e�ly tne el :n^ Eezer:OeE I�nes. Cvnrcnc:ny at tne So�tN.ext orner f sa�tl lot 5; ne w M1o�th 89 0e9�eex 51 � s 0l e Ja East, alang tne Sovt� I�ne et saiC t t 5. E�ztantt a! $ 50 tee[ to trte p;�nt el peginn�ng o( I�nea�fo D< Qescr:OeE; tncnce W�t� 46 6eyrCea 18 minutez 11 s onES Evst, e O�stence 3�.92 �ttt: ' Te�Ce Noit� W Ee9«<s t] m nut¢a ]5 5 O�<s Weit, pa�nllel v�tt� t�e�East ��ne I o�E Lot 5. a E�slonce ot 39.G9 1aet, t.e e Norin 89 Y� rnt b s nGS Eoat, a eutance ol 2J] 00 feet to me Nort�.est eorne� ot bt S�BIOCk 1. a( se'tl WILLE�2rtIM: wfQlS �.W'T(IX+ antl fne�e [em��natin9. ppiCEl B ��-585 � � r� e�n.k _ t�t a,-�-- ��„� 06 -w�.� � e� — ividi c.A,�es ��rovec� Lo#- sPli �r o� (��- 5 �9� Oq�b 79 7, pON� � w`L �� N gR1 • � t23) ! (27) .. o '1 � .. i.t 05U �I�� 'i 9 �� parcei F� A�� W ��pS � . ...-. .� _ _. _ 5 ._ _ .._. _ � I ' C22) I o � �roPosCd }�r�l !} � - I . i 1 � r ia> 2 (19 l �so 3 czo> 4 ,�� , tA `" ' �� " - , za 2 � i c� a� 4� 3 .0�� , °' / v � � �. h m .3>�. _ �„ � 3 9.ta �� 5y i 77 o j 4 >8� Z ;28 o ROAD .�j 1• —�� „ (a-3) � ��7 t32. / 2 � 9 e j 102.4} I a.3C ,?9 � ... 4.SZ l2� � � \Z � N bo , 12B � ° '2 '�� " �.. � � � ...� � h <z91 � � ' ,r' (4z) t3} ! 3 iz� se 28 ��, _ , �>a �,. � cS� .� Zt,��f�� ►�.E `��t�8_ � 45 �__� � � �J � � SUNRAY-BATTZECREEK-HIGHWOOD �'�� IAZEL PARK HAUEN-PROSPERITY HlLLCREST 3. WEST SIDE 4. AAYTON'S BLLJFP 5. PA7'I�TE-PHALEN 6, NORTH EI�'B 7. 8. 9. 1Q. 11. 12. 13. 14. is. 16. 27. THOMAS-DALE SL7MMIT-LJNiVERSITY tiYF.ST SEVEN'1�I COMO HAMLINE-ivIIDWAY ST. ANI�EIONY PARK MEIZRIAM PARK-LEXII3GTON HAMLINE-SNELLING MACALESTER GROVEI.AND HIGHI.AI�TD SUMMI'I' HIT.L DOWNTOWN � ZONiNG FILF a&`t�i HAMLIhrE ., CITIZEN PARTTCIPATTON PI.ANNIPTG DISTRTCI'S --,-- . � � � � �-� � -- ` � � � :._'•-_--z --... _ - -- __- _ _ _ - - ___ - - _= `==° =- _� --- -- - - - .... - -- ,.......-:� _-- - ° — ,-._... _ _,. - _ :-- - - - -- -=-- - - --- - - - , _ � _. ,. y _ : . r-- _-- ------- - --- - - :i_:_- - — - - -- .... ` e.-- --- _ -- �__ _-'.� -- _ ------ - - -- "-.,,;.,.:._,._ r --`_ — ....._�..�_- ---- ---- -- — ..-��"� ` __ _- -- - --_ _ c—__`:� __ --"".,:- -_- _------�- - -- -'---- ____ � ,. . _ a= ��" . _ - -- . � i-.-- .= 1'" ;� ._�. ;- ::' ...'.. '__ ' ""_,_' _ ' _ '__ °% ' _ _ v - ' ' " ' •' Y• ' ' _ - G_ _ _ ' .. .. . 1 � - J � - .t '�,.' _'_ < =.�� ;_"_ _ ., �-:• _� ' \ �,-'_'�" .._ ' _ _ '_"_ _ '-' r . " - _ ' ' - t =_ —_ _" '_ _'__ _ c_ ' ., , ___ � _- __ _ ' ____ Y �_ L 1 . ^ - '• ..'. Z'. -___ _ _ � =ac�'. �_ C....-.? �... : : �� - _-_- _ _- _ _ "- ' _ __ ___- _'_ '_ -_'- �. � e. :.f�.:^ + . . . . .., - -� �. __ ___ . .._.:. � ' F - : ', : '__ " "_ _ _ _ _ _ _ "' _ _ _ - _ M1= - _ _ . ' ?i. ^�� ,'.. ' ' "" . _ ' _ _ _ _ _-.' _' __ ' _ _ " ' _" _ _ _"_ .. ' '� . -?t.�: :'`� ?". � ' _ - ' r .._ -� ; " ' _ _ _ _ '_ "- "_ _ ._..:..- . . , �,... z'^ ' ______ ____ _ _ "-_ __ _ _- _"" ' ' _ _ "' ' � " . , n __ __- _. _ ___ _ __"_' �.. __ _ . �._.r.�% i, ,1.,,,..•,"t.�-`v,—=',--- -- — �'—' '�� --- — � - -- _ —'� ��a�--::� . .J �: _ _ .. . � -- > >,�,,,-�. .,=�^_-__ __-_ ____ - - _ ==== -_ . - - _ -; _ -_-_ . � !� '� '� p s ; ._ : i�" l = �"� i l` � - _ _ — ____ -- - __ - � 1,—�,— ,'-`,�'= � .I�'. �� \ I' p —� r -.: :'`..�:«. r . __ . ' � -' _ _ _ _ _ .= l' ..J"/::',V `� - _ �� \\`� \ _ 1^l; :_...., ♦� • ./ �r:� q • ,:�.- r' . '`�_ _ _—_'- __ = � ,�-\,--.�. _-i_.�',.,.r - _- . . :. �:-:-,::,..: � �,`�. :,.�'��.�� ^ �c • 4,� _==` _"°L�.._ _-_ _ _ �. . " ."�"�"` i=l �---,�'�, � `- _ : \-� l_.�, - ^�-..--_.�'t�_r-- - _'_ - --� _... � � 1'� ' . c �' '� I?•.. �.�- �" �._._ _' -- - '_ -___�_� � _ T , ' \�, : . - \�� _ �- `,>�.+'./-".:�,T�-� ..._._'_ - -T' = ;.`�- {j' l-G=._:�� __' ' �'� +�. ... " .."' . (�'"� __ " �[ - .i �'- ','_` ":� y b�..\ "� J - __ __ < __ '_ �.\ .. �• �> . '" _J,�- 3.1�.. .• �` • � .'' .' � ' i =_ ...., ;—T== .... . _- _;'�\ .. �'�_ '-__•. .. ........ _ __ "_ _- � '' , � , ,_ �. . �..: - : . ' ... ._ . � - - � . _ . :. �J ! ^;, -" -' � :�:.':�=P ��.o>v� ,— \�i -- ,. , -__- ! :_'.- �\ C ' .._ `�i,� �: - �., -.,�..� _ ., I - `,�'-� ,� .-. � � . _ . s \' ' ..:" �..� I '. \.. , � '_i��'-' :.._ ..'._,.,= __ �, ` %�. �� , '*.:." `� �� • ;. 7 � .�_ 1 i t , � '� .—... __.,��....,:� ..r� ..� �,:'t' °,..:-� _�� :��-"�. _� °�`�- !��'�, ..._ � �.� / i� �� ( ; i�� ..__./ � .� ,_l _...^..__. _ ,.. . � C. ! i.,- � .! .—✓: _""^ � ..% '� ` ,\q `..ti. , \, � .��'�\(\� i ___ _-�1_ . ;: _ _ . ; '\ ,�\ . e i . : : � � . . . ° � . =� � . , \\" \\ . �_. � • I � , _ _� j i ..•_ �• . \�\ u ' \\\ \• . �� j M1/��,_ ... �a. '` � \ '-� . � ..~., r. _ .� . �,�, , , _ ...... . _ " ' '. _ __' "' _' ' .�. �'ti. �`:\�� "„-'^ .,�: ^:z`��` ��,, . ' ' : " . .. S _.\ I �� . ��-f:.� �' �> �.. •� �'*� .��_ � j- � 4 �y � - \ '"�'� ^ �'l'��\'�11�\ 1 \ �r � �' \ \ 1 ..� . �. � . � �y � ,\:'. . ... .._ . n . . . �.�:.^ , .� = JC '� �� `= .. . ' ,. , ` • _ .. �`�',,\'��`�,:'.. ��, i .' � �� .:�' �'._'u'�-j�_ .�;:` �=�_.=-i�� "'� �'; : � �� i�,.. � . ��. c) �� '�' i -. .... ,j� _, ` � p f � - �"" �lt' ;i " � , —"_ � �J' _ t�\/_;(';'' �. ( "i _ ...��;� ( .� y � '�=%—_�—�_--_ \ ._ ,',' .� (� �'\ _�� ',C..�--,�..___��-'. �'.. � �.`� � , � '� — •-°-,:r,� _._ .—. �{ _ =��-.�c� "'`� ;=� � v �.� . � � �;�;� :�b =s,=_i� � ir=.: `i=_� �.�� .'� �� i - _— ��-��.��' • '1.. .Y�_,'_r � - �..-_ ....,..,--- � _ ,� 7,s" ": 1 _ ,�� • ' : ,4 �I � � I • � '•' II \ . �. l y l C � ' • �, \'i ,! w' � �`�..\�.._ ��\ � �;�� .�,z ti � _ ., -. ��_ �.:.F , i 1 `� _ ' • `1` � �•� — _ _ s`-s' _ - ' _ _ " _ _ ..�+�-� �� ` j(� � {•``-` 4 � Y 5 .� � 1f < � � �.-.� ��a .: :� _ �� i �` i • �� r I �� ..� C;::i F � . : � `� 1� - .7 �.� �n 3 � " •<`� : �-�� l �� ~ � .�.,�,�a.-� . :' `'��`-- �� ■ �� BATTLE-CREEK DIS7RICT 1 �N �=, 4-� l7 � i � a i� _ � O ! � I �__ � � I I 0 � i . ' - ' � I m �` � �.� � � �. V � �,� 0 i � O O � � O � J / � � q � 0 ' p O � p O / � O � O � �� O O v 0 °I�j o . � j .��. ° T1 w � O � O O v J — O _ O _ O � O J O � O T O p o i c� o/ � � �, o Q � O I O I t � � - � 0 l,oT I �T�_ ��3 � 1 Lo7� � � O O O 0 � v 0 C� s �- � t.�f 5 • l APPLICANT fr1�SG�. �Trin� LEGEND PURPOSE—��1� .�� zoning disirict boundary s � F1LE #_ "lE "Oq � pqTE �1'1�" �14 � subjed property n"' o�n�'- PLNG. DlST � MAP # �� t�� o one fami(y ••^ commercic ��''� � hvo family ♦ .�.. industrial �' �-+: °=" .`� jz muitipie family d$ V vacant ....�:_..... . . � Q - - - t n�n - -- _, C�] � r Council FIle #( g— 5 p S Green Sheet # � l�� RiGt�Al. Presented By Refened To Committee: Date �� 2 WHEREAS, Amold Fritsche, in Zoning File #48-041, duly filed an appeal of the 3 planning adiniiustrator's decision to approve a lot split for property located at X�'Y Wiggins 4 Road, legally described as Lot 5; Wilienbring Woods Addition, pursuant to Saint Paul 5 Legislative Code §64300(j); and 9 10 11 12 13 14 iS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirements of the Saint Paul Legislative Code §64300, the Saint Paul Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Apri124, 1998, at which all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the 3aint Paul Planning Commission, based upon the evidence presented, found that the plamiing administrator committed enor in approving the lot split for the following reasons: a. Section §67304 of the Saint Paul Zoning Code permits the planning admuustrator to approve a lot split provided six conditions are met. The planning administrator erred in finding that condition §67.304(a) of the zoning code was met. That condition states, "The lot or lofs have frontage on an existing improved sireet and access to municipal services." Wiggins Road is an officialiy platted street which abuts the property and provides access to municipal services, but it is also officially not an "improved streeY' nor is it maintained or plowed by the city. In addition, while the 12.5 feet of frontage for each lot provides access to municipal services it does not provide frontage in the traditional sense and lacks sufficient frontage to accommodate emergency vehicles. By comparison, the average frontage of surrounding lots is 57 feet. b. The Saint Paul City Council approved a final plat of property and the surrounding five lots in 1996, the result of a negotiated process in which the developer and property owner participated. The lot split approved by the planning administrator would allow an additionai lot. This is not in keeping with the original agreement made by the property owner/developer ar with the spirit and intent of the ciiy council action in 1996 and amounts to a second plat of the property. a The lot split does not conform to the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act which prohibits destruction of natural resources. The required grading and construction activity associated with the lot split and subsequent development will affect the wetland and fern grotto as weli as steep slopes on the property. RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, NIINNESOTA �t�-585 7 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 d. The plamung administrator failed to require a grading plan or contour map which fully represented the applicanYs irrtent and the lack of such a plan or map makes it nearly unpossible to deternune if the lot split meets the intent of the requirement of Saint Paul L,egislative Code, Section 67.305; and WHEREAS, based upon the decision of Planning Commission on the appeal of Arnold Fritsche and acting pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.206, Donald Willenbring, et al., duly filed with the City Clerk an appeal from the determination made by the Planuing 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 §b4.206 -§64.208, and upon nofice to affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the Council of the Ciry of Saint Paul on May 27, 1998, where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heazd. The matter was laid over for vote to June 10, 1998; and WHEREAS, the Council, having heard the statements made and having considered the applicauon, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Planning Commission, does hereby; RESOLVE, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby affirm the decision of the Planning Commission in this matter based upon the foliowing findings of the Council; The Councii, finding no error as to fact, finding or procedure in the fmdings and conclusions of the Planning Commission as contained in its resolution 98-36, dated May 8, 1498, hereby adopts the same as its own; and SE IT FURTFIER RESOLVED, that the appeal of Donald Willenbring et a1. be and is hereby denied;and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Cierk shall mail a copy of this resolution to Donald Willenbring et al. cJo John J. Choi, Attorney at Law, 4700 IDS Center, 80 South Eighth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-2228, the Zoning Administrator, the Plaiming Commission and Arnoid Fritsche, 2173 Hudson Road, #117, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55119. Requested by Department of: By: B appro�d by City ,�Att'o�Tn� 22 f��`� // % /% % / y G✓L✓ 6 Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: _�_ \ Appsoved by Hy: Adopted by Council: Date C�^�� \41 Adoptig� Certi£ied by Counc> Se tary City Council Rathy Lantry, 266-8670 OATE INRW 6/23J98 1�451GM NUYHERFOR RWTING ORDFR TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES GREEN SHEET oc.Fx+,�r owEC,ai q� N� 62165 mnnuo�e. rnvcou+ca ❑ 41YATlM1EY ❑ CRYCLiRK ❑ iWW46L�ERNCFlOW. ❑ HLLMCYL3ERVI�CCT6 ❑ WYORIORAa9tfAMl1 ❑ (CUP ALl IOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Finalizing City Council acYion taken 6-10-98 denying the appeal of Donald Willenbring for a lot split for property located at XXX Wiggins Road. PLANNING COMMISSION d8 COMMITfEE CML SERVICE CAMMISSION t rlas mis ae��m enerwonrea mxkr a contractrarmie aeaammenn YES NO 2. Has thie PereonMrm e�✓er been a ciM emPbyee9 YE3 NO 3. Ooes this persoMrm poesess a sI611 nd rwmiallyposePSSed by arry curten[ city employeel YES IJO 4. Is this peisoMGim a tarpetcd vendoY7 YES NO i h �'i aSG'aY�?^ ('•nr:ag , ;��.?4 �^� .�. �?�� . . `. ,: . ' f .� 1 i )7AL AMOUNT OF TRANSAC710N f T1�IN6 SOURCE ??3Ti:Ta'1 �; I�/9-1�P�dai�.7id�:id� 3.72�d1 ACTIVITV NUMBER VES NO ANCIAL INFORMATON (IXPWlq OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNBY Peg Birl� City Attomey -- S�S CITY OF SAINT PAUI, NortrtColeman, Mayar June 23, 1998 Nancy Anderson Council Secretary 310 City Ha11 15 West Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Appeal of Donald Willenbring, et al. Zoning FileNo.98-138 City Council Action Aate: June 1Q, 19� Dear Ms. Anderson: CivilDivision 400 City Hal! IS West Kellogg Blvd Saint Paul, Minnesota SST 02 Telephone: 611 1 66-8 7I0 Facsimile: 672 298-56I9 Attached please find a signed copy of a resolufion memorializing the decision of the Saint Pau� City Council in the above-entitled matter. Would you please have this resolution placed on the Council's Consent Agenda at your eaziiest convenience. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, �� Peter W. Warner Assistant City Attorney PW W(rmb Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING / S LLJ & ECONOMIC DEVELOPM&NT � � 9R-�i CTTY OF SA1NT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor May 13, 1998 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research Off'ice Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: Division ojPlmvruag 25 WestFourth Street t�� 'nint Paul, MN55102 �, �� ? � i � —,—• �� c��"",� ' � 1 �°!q�' Telephane: 6I2-266-6565 Facsi»¢te: 612-228-3374 �+011i'.�SS r��S2^!'Cs� ?,�', ;: � �9�� . e� �9�� .____.__.....--- _- --'� I would like to confirm that a public heazing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday May 27, 1998, for the following appeal of a Planning Commission decision denying an appeal of the planning administrator's decision to approve a lot split: Appellant: DONALD WILLENBRING, et al. File Number: Appeal of file #98-091 Purpose: Appeal a Planning Commission decision granting the appeal of Arnold Fritsche to a decision of the planning administrator to approve a lot split. Address: XXX Wiggins Road Legal Description of Property: Lot 5, Block I; Willenbring Woods Addition Previous Action Planning Commission Decision: Grant tkie appeal; vote: 12-0 (one abstention), May 8, 1948 My understanding is that this public heazing request will appear on the agenda for the May 20, 1998 City Council meeting and that you will publish notice of the heazing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Please call me at 266-6582 if you have any questions. Sincerel �� 'L�� Kady Dadlez City Planner cc: File #98-091 Paul Dubruiel Pattie Kelly Wendy Lane, LIEP Arnold Fritsche — - —�— � � • Fmsr xu,v • . - -' _ - . - NOTiCE OF PUSLIC flEARiN(i . . The Saint Paul City Council will conduct a public hearing on Wednesday. May'27. 1998 at 5:3Q p.m. in theCity Council Chambers. Third Flnor CityHail-Court House, to consider the appeal of Donald Willenbring, et a3, to a decision af the Planning Commission granting the appeal of Acnold Fritsche to a decision of the planning administrator to approve a lot spllY at� 7.7�C Wiggins Rnad. � Dated: May 13. 1998 - � � NANCY ANAERSON - � . . , . . - - � � Assistant Qty-Council Secretary .. � (Ma 16, 1995) ' DEPARIMENI' OF PI,ANNING & ECONOMIC DEVEIAPMEN"C Pamela L7Heelock Director 9g�-5�5 • CifY OF SAIN"T PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor May 19, 1998 Ms. Nancy Anderson Secretary to the City Council Room 310 City Ha11 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 25 K'es: Frnnrh Street Saint Pau1, MN 55102 RE: Zoning File #98-138: DONALD WILLENBRING, ET AL City Council Hearing: May 27, 1998, 530 pm. City Council Chambers Telephone: 6]Id 66-6565 Facsimile: 612428-3314 PURPOSE: Appeal a planning commission decision granting the appeal of Amold Fritsche to a decision of the planning administrator to approve a lot split at XXX Wiggins Road. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION� Grant the appeal and deny the lot split: 12-0 (one abstention) STAFF RE ATION: Deny the appeal and approve the lot split SUPPORT: Five people spoke in support of the appeal and against the lot split. OPPOSITION: Two people spoke in opposition to the appeal and for the lot split. Deaz Ms. Anderson: DONALD WILLENBRING, ET AL. have agpealed the decision of the Saint Paul Planning Commission to grant the appeal of Arnold Fritsche to a decision of the planning administrator to approve a lot split at XXX Wiggins Road. The Saint Paul Planning Commission held a public hearing on the appeal on Apri124, 1998. The appellant and others addressed the committee. At the close of the pubiic hearing the commission voted 10-1 to grant the appeal and deny the lot sptit. The Planning Commission adopted a resolution on May 8, 1998 granting the appeal and denying the lot split on vote of 12-0 (one abstention). The current appeal is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on May 27, 1998. Please notify me if any member of the City Council wishes to have slides of the site presented at the public hearing. Sincerely, ��„'�{,�'� ! l� ' Kenneth Ford Planning Administrator Attachments ^!� cc: City Council members ' � � APPLfCATION FOR APPFAL Departmesr of Planning and Economic Development Zoning Section II00 City Hal1 Annex 25 West Fourth Street Saint Paut, MN 551 D2 266-b589 APPELLANT PROPERTY LOCATION Name Donald Wi en ring, et a. Address 6956 Ashwood Road Woodbury MN 55125 - 0 City St._ Zip Dayiime phone .T�h„ (•hn j Zoning File Name g$ -091 AddresslLocation X w iggin s Road (LOt 5, Block 1, Willenbring Woods Addition) TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the: u Board of Zoning Appeals � City Council under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section 206 , Paragraph �a� of the Zoning Gode, to appeal a decision made 6y fhP City of St. Paul Planning Commission on May 8 19 File number: 98'091 {date of decision) GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you fse{ there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission. Please see attached. � Atfach additional sheet if AppiicanYs signature �� /''�� Date � �� City agent� John �'. hoi, Attorney fox Ap�ellant �•��'� H eiS,,S].C�Y], A at L aw & McKasy p.A. 4700 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-2228 • (612}330-3000 Fax(612)371-0653 Jokn J. Choi (612)330-3025 E-mail: jchoi a�essancom May 13, 1998 : a �i1 � �i/�:7�117 Department ofPlanning and Economic Development Zoning Section ll 00 City Hall Annex 25 West Fourth Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 � �Q'��C's F1L� �$'t38 � Re: Application for Appeal of Planning Commission's Decision �LY �ggins Road (Lot S, Block l; Willenbring Woods Elddition) Zoning File #98-09I Dear Sir/Madam: Attached please find the joint appeal application of 7an Buzicky, Chuck Buzicky, Don Willenbring and Doug Willenbring (hereinafter collectively referred to as `Buzicky" or "Appellants"). Please consider this letter as part of the Buzickys application for appeal of tke Saint Paul Pianning Commission's decision with regazd to the above-referenced file. I. BACKGROUND OF THE PARTIE�. 7an and Chuck Buzicky aze residents of Woodbury, Minnesota who wish to build a home in Saint Paul and on property that is currently owned by Donald and Doug Willenbring (i.e., "the Willenbring Woods Addition"). The Buzickys wish to build a home on the proposed parcel A, which is the southem portion of lot 5 of the Willenbring Woods Addition. Donald Willenbring is also a resident of Woodbury who wishes to build a home in Saint Paul and in the Willenbring Woods Addition. Donald Willenbring proposes that his home be located on the proposed pazcel B, which is the northern portion o£ lot 5 of the Willenbring Woods Addition. Don Wilienbring is cunentiy a resident of Saint Paul and resides at lot 1 of the Willenbring Woods Addition. Donald and Doug Willenbring are brothers who, among other things, aze in business as home builders. This subdivision is their only attempt at development. If the lot split is approved, 7an and Chuck Buzicky will buiid their new home on the front lot, and Doug �_J � 2 9�� 5�� Page 2 ' 1998 �� i �� . -. � Willenbring and his wife will build their new home on the reaz lot, adjacent to Don's lot. Elevations for these two homes are attached as Eachibit 1. The Willenbrings have expended and invested a considerable amount of money and time to develop the Wilienbring Woods Addition of Saint Paul. Mr. Amold Fritsche, who was the appeliant at the Planning Commissioq resides at lat 6 of the Willenbring Woods Addition. II. PROCEDURALBACKGROUND. On February 11, 1998, Donald Wiilenbring applied for a lot spiit of parcel 5 in the Willenbring Woods Addition. The proposed lot split was reviewed by Saint Paui PED, Public Works, and the Water Utility. On Mazch 6, 1998, upon review by city staff finding that ali conditions required for a lot split were met, Mr. Roger Ryan approved Mr. Willenbring's request for a lot split pursuant to Section 67.304 of the Saint Paul Zoning Code. This administrative action was appealed by Mr. Amold Fritsche, who resides on lot 6 of the Willenbring Woods Addition, pn Mr. Fritsche's appeal, city staf� recommended denying the appeal and upholding the administrative lot split. See Staff Report dated April 17, 1998 written by Kady Dadlez, which is attached hereto as Eachibit 2. • Apparently, due to vocal opposition from some of the neighbors to the site and former councilmember Aino Gueran's opposition, the Planning Commassion decided to reverse the administrative lot split in spite of the code's provisions that mandated it. After a public heazing on Mr. Fritsche's appeal, the Planning Commission granted the appeal thereby denying Mr. Willenbring's application for a lot split. See Planning Commission Resolution dated May 8, 1998, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. The Planning Commission denied the administrative lot split based upon three reasons. Those reasons are as follows: (1) As required by § 67.304(a), the lot that is proposed to be split must "have frontage on an e�sting improved street and access to municipal services." The Planning Commission ruled that the admistrative finding that there was such frontage and access was in enor; (2) The Planning Commission ruled that the administrarive lot split violated the "spirit and intenY' of the city council action in 1996 when a plat of 6 lots was approved for the Willenbring Woods Addition; and (3) The Planning Commission ruled that the administrator failed to require a grading plan or contour map for the lot split. From this decision of the Planning Commission, the Buzickys appeal to the Saint Paui City Council based upon the position that that the Pianning Commission's decision was in enor. � P � 1 I998 � �� $' l�j III. DISCUSSION OF THE PLANNING COMIIIISSION'S DECISION. A. The Proposed Lot Split Meets the Requirement of �rontage and Access as Required by Section 67.304(a). Tke administrative lot split initially approve@ by city staff ineets ali of the criteria set forth in the Code. In spite of the Planning Commission's Resolution, the lot does indeed have frontage on an existing "improved" street and access to municipal services. The street at issue was paved by the City of Saint Paul and has utilities under it, which were ordered by the City of Saint Paul. In its 1996 Order, the Saint Paul City Council describes the installation of the utilities and the street at issue as an "improvement " See Final Order of St. Paul City Council dated May 22, 1996, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 4. Moreover, the cost of both the paving and installing the utilities were assessed to the adjacent parcels, jnst like any other improved street in Saint Paut. Were this not the case, this subdivision would not have been possible in the frrst place since the original re-plat of the Willenbring Woods Addition required street frontage for lots 5 and 6. The extension of Wiggins Road is the only street access for Lots 5 and 6 in the Willenbring Woods Addition. Accordingly, ihe proposed lot spiit clearly has frantage on an eacisting improved street and has access to municipal services as required by the Code. • Although the term "Improved StreeY' is not defined in the Legislative Code, the word "Street" is defined as "[a] public dedicated right-of-way, other than an alley, which affords the principai means of access to abutting propecty." See Section 60.219. Wiggins Road is indeed a dedicated right-of-way. Since the proposed administrative lot split created a"flag loP' that provided street access to both lots, this &nding is without support. I note that Section 67304 does not require any particular amount of frontage on an existing improved street, but merely that there is frontage of some amount. The proposal to have a private drive eatend from the end of Wiggins Road which would split to serve the two new lots certainly would provide sufficienY access for both lots. Moreover, there are several ather locations in the vicinity of this lot in which there aze simitar private drives at the end of a street, all of which have vazious levels of impmvement, and all of which have been previously approved by the city. For example, at the Nofth end of Pt. Douglas Road, there are three private driveways as we11 as a future one that will have to be built once the lot is sold as advertised at that location. All of these wili share access to the end of Pt. Douglas Road at the same spot. Tn that case, there is no room for an emergency vehicle to turn around after providing services to these lots. Such vehicies would have to back up about a mile to Catver Avenue or try to tum around in the road. Similarly, at the end of Skyway Road (which is only about i4 feet wide to begin with), - there is a house at the end on the west side and there is absolutely na tum around azea for 0 �� U May 13, 1998 Page 4 emergency vehicles. These vehicles would have to back up a very narrow, poorly maintained and heavily wooded road about a mile and a half before the vehicle could actualiy turn around. This condition is nothing like that proposed for Willenbring Woods. Again, at the end of Ogden Court, there are four private driveways that spider web at the end of the Court. There is no way to tum around from those driveways other than within the Ogden Court, after backing up. Finally, at the end of Mystic Street, there is a house at the end of the pavement, and then a driveway begins to serve another house. There are other houses in thas area, one on the left and two on the right, all of which have no place to turn azound other than backing up to Totem Road. � ��'� ��.� �._ � B. The Spirit and Intent of the City Council's 1996 Approval of the Plat for the Witlenbring Woods Addition is Irrelevant to What the Code Requires. � Upon taking public testimony, which included the comments of former councilmember Dino Guerin, the Planning Commission held as a basis for their decision that the spirit and intent of the 1996 plat that was approved by the city council contemplated no additional parcels for the subdivlsion. Nevertheless, nothing in the official racord suggests that the approval of the plat in 1496 was in any way conditioned on the Willenbrings' agreement to forego any further possibility of subdividing any of the lots in the Willenbring Woods Addition. While the City's approval of the plat could have been conditioned on the Willenbrings' agreement to forego further lot splits, this was never required. In reality, the Willenbrings altered their original application for an eleven lot subdivision in an attempt to meet the demands of the neighborhood, and the council approved that application. Over the past two years, however, the market has shown that the large, two acre parcel is just not desirable in this neighborhood where most of the homes are on lots that occupy ]ess than one-half of an acre. It is for this reason that the lot split was sought. The Planning Commission's decision based upon a violation of the spirit and intent of the 1996 subdivision approvai was without simply without authority, was contrary to the city's own ordinances concerning administrative lot splits, and was arbitrary and capricious. C. The Grading Map Couid Easily Be Furnished By the App3icant. � The Willenbrings are willing to provide a grading plan or contour map. In its resolution, the 3aint Paul Planning Commission states that the lack of such a plan or map makes it nearly impossible to determine if the application meets Section b7.305 of the Code. Importantiy, however, Section 67.305 does require a grading plan or contour map but only states that one may be required. The fact that the planning administrator did not require a grading plan or contour map cannot be a legitimate basis for denying the application unless the applicant has been offered the opportunity to submit a grading plan or contour map. A site plan for the proposed lot `J_ May 13, 1998 Page 5 split is attached as Exhibit 5. This shoul@ provide the council with the information that staff never requested and that the planning commission did not haue. II. CONCLUSION. Based upon the foregoing reasons and the exhibits submitted herewith, the Appellants respectfully request that the City Council reverse the decision of the Planning Commission and adopt a decision consistent with the city staff report dated Aprit 17, 1998, which is attached hereto as E�ibit 2. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 330-3025. Sincerely, HESSIAN & McKASY, P.A. �,r� � By ��"--�"�,/'�--- 7ohn J. Choi 7JC:ktw Enclosures cc: All Saint Paul Councilmembers � ��'��'� ��$.� �� i � � I ` I � ju - �_ r; � �:� �'" � ;. 3 n e � ��,��,5 i? ati }� '�"� / � � Z��i�f� FILE ��3� o° >, �M�r G F m �< � Z Q � Q � � JI W �, � �i � {-" z 0 a � U � W 3 r � d F ° x 0 ro b � W � � � V � � � � a 'n 6 ° U ffi � �� H Ty" t � 6m p m `. m ��p � iC6 0. rt L � X :�t 7 " . . . . .� .. . . . ' y :t': ' ' �cl. . - . � . . _ ° � ,:. i � '.�. _ � $ � � . ;.� ^.. -� �� Fl�.� a�c� � � � _:.� �� „� z ; _ a � - �..;. . x � � o �: • . � � �� _;:. f �- 3� �:; �� $ � . & .�� `�. �� ,�,�, � �- �- � � `. �� s ' O�I� .6�f S � � �Q � ' ' � � . � . '� � 6. � � � . -'�..� :�..,,� _�.� �_ --— <� 3 d� " .� '_ `� � � 3�.� � y � � � 3 2 � r a � �- � � ,� � � t � _ � _ _"� � � £ � K :'�.�.: : . r � L� C M } ? ' • .. � � I � ! � ` •^ � ' �� ! ` I� I� - . w' - � � C� �' , � _ :'y �_�_ _ . ! I • � ( ( 4 s � + � , ' � ; ' : -, t' - :�� 4� a j I � � ' ;. t ; 1 .u,a !�wi �i � a' .�f�° �' .2 I :. � P. ' , n t - , i � ' f . Ei,�.�*�� . ��. �: .'-. ', � � � ' � m - : � .I. �: :`:': :�,._' -;;.�;: _ ' " �I il � — — _ _ ; ~ :-.:> >�;�� i ' } r _ ` �;�`�'.�-'��, y � � — — —�- � �, . - � .. . _ I � � � _ h � -� ' n , .;:� � � ! � ' � " * ' " �� i � � u A � � ' � � � ' � `� � � t �E f �v �f � ' -- j! + . 1 ; � � -�. � ( fF � 4 � � _ 1 '�I+ � �� • �� t a " � I. i` i ill_ i �_ ' ❑ C7 � � I '�� c � + �� .. ' � '� � �i � � � �_ _.___ � ' ll j ' �� • � � �A j ' � � �� e E O { . � � � ' ��' � � �' �k � � �� . � s � r � E �° � � � r s � J � � � i ; � � � i r � _ 1 c ` � _ _' _ __ � _.__� I 3�' � ` � � ��. _. �' — . . � _�� ' . � a :. .. ,:. :' ' •� - � , . C _:_ �.w"?��. . .. . ' 'vL? C ��s w� ?1- � 1 ": � � � ' �� 1 ! 1 •� - ' � 4.�. na �%-:,�.�' ' Z� � . ,� =3 : �� , ��g .� s _ �> ; .ar,v ..t�i ,g a •� .SW,9 . 4 ' , �a ; , ��v.s • ��'--.�;r .. 31-a -_ �- . . � .� ' . -�aNn:. .?s{sL:r�B '.Wa . ��::-. , . . . - ' l : �• _ .a . . .._ .. . . � . . . _ . . . \-, � ._ _ '.. 9 . . `_�'' _ � • � � � � � � P a �� r w 1 � •\` W �, , , ' � N �. 1 � � � > > � . \ 1 1 , ? si ______' i 2t.P ___y sQ4' _______� _ � �' j i � T Q .�/��' • ` \ � r\ a n � 1 . 1 � . ,� � . i' . Q o p + o � ^ � � ' " z� , ,._�. _ � �.� , o � vJ \ p E-. . S � `f 6 C� . H . � ..� : C] � � � U � . � -`� a . .. � � i ~` "'q Q , • ' \,. �w � � � � X �� V ' a z ' _ . � � °�a n it �a y � � � � m a ;�� w � `_ /�� . �, . 7r1 J t u Y �`\ `'\ \ W :„ a ` � �. H � ' y ' ' �' ° . v e y ro r-r � , - � —. . , � < t� � � � ' e y � - Z I O V C" ,�- � z ,'', x � , � �, , � � � �,� 1 �. • � pQ : p � `. � �` �2 0.� � ` � ' t-� A •i4 M � . 1 � > 1 `, 1 � � Y �1 � ` 4 i � � �, ��`� , O N�. � , i � s �; � • � �`-�. i . � ,. ,.-- t � t . � � ' ` �--"_�»�--_- \ , ___ a -" � �Ly,pFeo N �:. . � 7,� �y � I ' . � r � {`}9 � � L� � ' �g . , � a° � I �� W �_� � 4 � � � � 1 r � � g � n m Z o a � � z � � � � U L.�� } � � q� O ' e � h �6 g 0� `� y Y 'h �-� r+ � � y � • . r � � 2 u N o �� — Yr rG . =v, S {` � � 1 � '--''- =-- -°- =- I I � ' O� /'� � � �A V.1 I i � � � � I a a• x n ¢ � . t U R 9�� 6�� e � ' ,`. ,'�Q A �f. � o . � . . , < Q� �. � 6��• a � � m \. � / , � y '__ r o � � e � . �.�/ ; � h Y4 � 1 .�i . � , '�. ; � ,¢ J , - �� o " s � a � '� W � O �� i a �� y ^ � v+ p i 6� � . t 6 r I evec� '�� t �s . ' M .9L �LtAO . •g ��st� �.—.....— a�obohwo oa_>w3<>"� •Ze�r cn . �� z -----------------ecT ti ------------ 1� .. C Q� M rK �Lt.00 N V< N \ � ��G � n �� ._ .; 1 �xhibit � Z00(t4G'd 64�d{ C6/S1/50 dse�ap q u¢issaH J. u�. � ` z ��" ;� «. E59DitCti9� �� -��a� . � -� � t2. PAOL �,.�ORDEB In the Hatter of �xh► b►�-1� qS-5�s �r��r 5 ��' ��`�� COUHCZL FZLE N0. q(�— Sy� BY �� _ �- - FZLH HO: � 1882� � VOTIAG AABD 7 (1882Q) Constructing a sanitarp sewer Courc to approx. 145 ft. north the south property line o£ the Addition); reconstructed with existing Wiggins Road and a 20 Trench Area. (18821) Construct a public water main � Court to approx. 145 ft. north of the south property 13ne of Addition.) in Wiggins Road from Hillwood of Hillwood Court (10 ft. south of proposed Willenbring Woods 72 ft. of curb and gutter on foot w3de grarrb driveway in the 0.s i� in Wiggins Road from Aillwood of Aillwood Court (10 ft. south the proposed Willenbring Woods � ��1�� L� •l3� � • nderPreliminary�rder � � — 3Q � appzoved ��,^ ��} , �`jq�, � The Council of the City of Saint Paul has conducted a public.hearing upon the above improvement, due notice thereof having been given as presczibed bg the City Charter; and WHEREAS, The Council has heard al1 persons, objections and recommendations pertaining to said proposed improvement and has fully considered the same; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby order that the above-describe� improvement be made, and the proper Gity officers are hereby directed and authorized to proceed with the improvement; and be.it FBRTHER RESOLVED, That upon the completion of said improvement, the proper City officers shall calculate all expenses incurred therein and shall report the sane to the Citp Council in accordance with Chapter 14 of the City Charter. C�JUNCIL°ERSONS Yeas Nays �lakey +/�os tros ' �uer�n Harris— Abserss �egazc ✓I�eyt m aa ✓I�hune �o In ravor �sAgainst i �C�scr�i� Adopted by Council: Date � `" � ±e� 1� Certified Passed by Council5ecretar�� By Exhibit ayor 9 ��5 < - -- . �t �. - �y'1 � SllNfMARY OF ENG{NEERING RECOMMENDAT[ON Wiggins Rd.1 Leonard Court Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Project Project No. Report Prepared March 13, i996 Pubfic Hearing---------- P RO,f ECT: Construct a sanitary sewer system and water main in Wiggins Rd. from Hiliwood Ct. to approximately 1k5' north, 10' south of the souih property line of proposed Wiiienbring Woods Add"stion. EXIS7ING CONDITION: The Pro}ect area is presently not served by a sanitary sewer or water main. PROPOSED (MPROVEMEt�ITS_ • Sanitary sewer and watermain construction from tne existing mains in Wiggins Rd. to 145' north on Wiggins Rd.; reconstructed wiih 72' of curb and gutter on existing Wiggins Rd., and a 20' wide gravel drive�vay in the trench area. ALTERNATiVE: r To do nothing would require the property owners to construct long services. PaSiTIVE BENEFiTS: Lots 5 and 6 of Block 1 will have the benefit of public mains, consequent{y requiring shorter service connections. ADVERSE EFFEC'f�S: Norma! problems associated with constsuction such as noise , dust and general disrupfion, will be preseni. a � ZOi�i�G �1LE �r� l� �1G�S��1 COST ESTIMATES: Wiggins RdJ Leonard Court Project • Sanitary Sewer: Construction $10,597 Engir�eering and Inspection a 1,960 Service Fee $243 Project Tocal Financing: Assessment City A+d � :�� $4,000 ss,aoa Project Total $12,800 Watermain: �9,285 51,718 667 $11,670 7�� #i . S 0 S��r�b � �7��? � ` Since the assessment excEeds ihe benefits, the property ovraers would have fo agrea to sign a Waiver of Appeal form. RECOMMENDATlON The Qepartment of Public Works has no recommendatio� in this matter. Respectfully submitte ��l/��'"t�-d � Thomas J_ Egg City Engineer � � ��,� �,�-.ti, CL�`t:,c � .`�"•��`�,.� F��F —..iL�'�_ : � � �z � ESTIMATES FOR WIGGSNS ROAD IMPR04EMENTS ��--- � � Total E�cpenditures Rate Per Assessable Poot Assessment Financing City Aid Total QTJ�STIO2�'S? � ��V �� Water sanitary Main Sewer $4,600 $I2,800 �25.00 $25.00 $4,000 $ 4,000 � 600 8 800 �4,600 $12,800 � ;�� y��_____ Sanitary Sewer 266-6149 � ..:_�_�""� " " `�` � � � � � � VJater Main 266-6273 ��—"�°'""'— Assessments 2G6-8850 .. _ „�, .... �.,, ,:` . �;� . , ��.. �<w �,.., ; ;'� _..�-` - ' - `" `F. �� _ r ; "; - ' ,,. � � �^! � i'�_'.' ' ,ro.� 3~ —:` 1 � ru _-�� - . 'r{ J, 3 3Yr � \ ' :� � ' - . � � ...,. . � � ' (ry .... � ,r", J; ,:� s O « �.� � .�" , 'Y , tw X i ' � "� ':�. i � /��,�✓ ��.:, �'� f �� / 1-��'�:� si �; J� 1�-� �i(�r� _, �,. ,• �� \ ,w' �«,�{ e, -K i �. y �o` � o ,� t �r .�. � p n� �. �....`� u 2 5 .� .. i o < y . -'(,�� v` .. ;, ��:: ' 3'Fy � ? ��t+' i ��Yw.'r � v � o. n.� - Y . �� \� ��;�. _'•+.: ,p . � • �• 1 1..�� .._ GZ.4.7: '` w < � • , M h�..�h.i �� IH � /� 4,,,,� �., r T �OM, I� (�v ' r 'tl � • . . 5 � / � f � :I � ��. .j� /] � � � � ' J ,:'�.. ` _ \ Y�� ' \�\ -, ^� ` �� e � /� \, ;'k "�� iJ 4Q � ' _. �'?.r-.� SQA�� <.,,�._.. ��. �� „�. "' "" ' _"��..L'z . �` ".... .._ .,. 3-�: ' 13 �I� �1:'��aRx �.1.:'.. � , .� � � ��.�. . ..... _ �-�`:�� <', i �� ! � � • � �� r� �� .: : � { ` � r ! � cw � � �� ; � —i " '4 " ' � � � �� "=�c-�d 4.,� � ^ .�< V � �\_L—Jl��t:ac �vE. ( F q NI �p0< I�( • _:: 1 ,f . " �'' � T28N 'tZ2 � , ° ,.� ..�. 11 �< .�o, ..z 6b Z � x -"�. :-�- O -" � ,'� �'' `. w�...w� •.[ 1� 7 i 12 It" • � li I ulifoatt � h{ �i ry (\ � ^' 1 � � y i .� / `I 'i T �� `� V � � � ; ' , , CY _ �`�, : � � �. :_�� ,`;. - ..__ =; •.,.- .. +/ - � • .� . ;,�.: 4�' �' ,, � -- j- " i; L ."'.an„ .. '� t ��o a ,y � .f .i - ti � ' � � / /� p �� p . �, 1 � �!'.• � � x < .� !j A ' � �,� t� •. S ta � � �� ''''yJ,', (� � ��.� ��/ /<.� 2 � � 4 � � t �/ R ';� il��.., " ' C�/�. �.� Ja•. � /:�� !ME ' � L� . 4 F t �.K F�� ..,_�,�� ^ �. ' � �\ :� ` � r :� � �i.-'- �`. • F 1 ' < i „S 1 i V � Eg- i.; ` �G �, ,.-� �c �� `' (' r � ' , �. 1. ...�, S' C � • �✓� f • ��?f�i� �Y ,� � j J � T ;- �' �' % �� l � :_ _ � i ' .� i � � O t _ c _ ti � � r }.�"� : r' ��( '_. .- i ' � �' -.t `:_ j, '. � j�„ � ' , , '� - �'-; _ e. ! � � ` . i, t �- \ � 2 �4-� �.,, ` �, / SLin S t.,. � 9.. I`.'� / t+ i v.qa�`_ Ra ¢ O \ �� t � � � � � ' t - ,y 5. . �_.i � J � C � � : o Li'_ {-� ; � � � '� : � �( 5 i �' ; o - � � 1 �+ o i t`AY. if OCjJ 1 � 4 � �•� �'' ` / f , �� ' ,•�"`x� � X �+lY.a;�GG : 5 +4:�.� . _... .._� ' � Tt � ��'t ). � .. . • ��, . ' ,(: `. , : ....._ ,v _ ,``�' � 6? �t��roc� �t�. { c \ O � a� �' y` r / t i / �� a..a',•!l�.r.J4 '.�' K ( / /�� v ,, � � }^ �l \':' - r�` ' � /�. : � � YJC ]I'� � � W� �,, � �� / o ,.. � <... .; \ ` �' '`` , � :� � l ,. a ,, \ �� _ : �.. i,� . t`%/i '• A< i � � � Y p � % '`� V" L1'r�� L RD. I O y v . � � �� :}1BER 7R. . ° H YiJS C�. J:EX FL. LAKE :�C-:t�COD �� ' f t��Z� i Y �� g8-s85 . . �. _ � � Q �� 5 ��a� �` J • � D E D i t� 7 / 7 ) 1 \� . � ��, i �� V ��! � � Q � � � � � 3 \�, ;� � � �� . �a i " S a � �. D ;78/ c � R OA D � �--- � � �-� s i0 -`� ! .CC 19 � .c,.�' > �. , `� � �b I � 4 ° ,,, i Q � � � �-- o , c, o C. � • � • . � � . i � �G� 1 C� � a o C � � �2� 50 �2b 5� ;� ` _ ;2�r � � 3 �, �, 3 c, o l S _ o �� o � • �. i �� I < ? �c : L " c � � � ��, r, - � � � ' , o / �} ti� � o � o � o � , � � � ;� � � - .�r : JL?.So � � } .�' o . � 3 0 � r � ' ° "'`., rj ° (32� � � S � � � �5� � � _ ` �� _ �5 _ �. s CZSY OP ST. PAIIL PRHLZ2SIHAiY OHDBi In the Hatter of --�� '(�-'J�` , ' ` :�.: (I8820) Constructing a sanitary sewer Court to agprox. 145 f[. nor[h the south property line of the Addition); zeconstructed with existiag Wiggins Road and a 20 Trench Area, public hearing be given to 2he persons and in by the Charter, stating the t3me and place of of [he improvement and the total cost thereof (18821) Construct a public water main in Wiggins Road from Hillwood Couzt to approx. 145 ft. north of Hillwood Court (10 ft. south of the south property line of the proposed Willenbring Woods Addit3on.) �Z�#��G FlLE ��'� � The Council of the City of Saint Paul having received the report of the• Piayor upon the above improvemeat, and having considered said report, hereby resolves: 1. That the said report aad the same is herebp approved with co al[ernatives, and that the estimated cost thereof is $20,750 financed by Assessments ($4,000 sanitary sewer and $7,950 public water rtcain) and City Aid $8,800. 2. That a publ3c hear3ng be had on said improvement oa the 22nd_ day of 1996, at 5:00 o'clock P.M., in the Council Chambers of the City Ha1l and Court House Building in the City of Saiat Paul. - � 3. That notice of said the manner provided hearing, the nature as estimated. COUNCILPERSONS Yea� Nays Blakey ✓Bostrom faerin ✓�:arris �fegard +-'�ettman ✓l �In Favor �Agaiust - =? COIIACZL PILE A0. � BY , ' � ' • FT7.E HO� 18 20 6 18821 VOTZHG AAED 7 in Wiggins Aoad from Hillwood of Hillwood Court (10 f�. south of proposed Willenbring Woods 72 ft. of curb and gutter on foot wide gravel driveway in the Adopted by Council: Date ��,,,�A,� 1`; � Cercified Passed'op CouncilSecreLSry B9_"�� . �. 1�.,.,_1�.�. a---�s-- . � ayor (6 `a_'` t ir �''�:r. � ` °"�� Saint Paul City Council �� `� ;:- � �. = ,«TE�,r,�„ ~� Public Hearing Notice , S�� i71Ff f�[i 11 a ° �� Public Improvement Constructio �85• OWNER OR TAXPAYER f /` t! � � � COU23CIL DISTRICT � PLANI3ING COUNCIL q01 r .. .....:,__ :.:. . FILE # �i8.820:"<::�':::°;:;� :: PIi4PERTY ADDRESS _ ............._._...._....:�..,.,.._..M._.:., . <. -�>%� . _...... .. .. PARCEL IB PROPERTY TAX DESCRIPTION ��a�i�9'd�l �� -�—� �.-��;_- � _ .� : .... . . . . . .... .. :.. � THE TIME: :WEDNESDAY,_ MAY.:22; 1996 �AT .5:00. P.M, PUBIiC PLACE: City Councif Chambers, 3rd Fioor City HalhCourt Nouse HEARING Written or ora4 statements by any owner will be considered by fhe Council at this hearing. PURPOSE ESTIMATtD ASSESSMENT iNFORMATI�N ESTIMA � �D 'ASSESStvtEN7 CALCULATION To consider approva4 of the proposed project as follows: CONSTRUCT A SANITARY SEWER IN WIGGMS ROAD FROM HILLWOOD COURT TO APPROXIMATEIY �45 NORTH OF H4.LWOOD COURT (1Q FcET SOUTFt OF THE SOUTH PROPcRTY L1NE 0= THE PROPOSED WILLENBRING WOODS ADDiT10N); P.eCONSTRUCTED WfTH 72 FEET OF CURB AND GUT7ER ON EXISTING WIGGINS ROAD AND A 20 FOOT WIDE GRAVEL DRIVE[dAY IN THE TRENCH AREA. If the City Council approves the project, a{I or part of the cost will be assessed against the 6enefitfed properties. The ESTIMATED assessment for the above property is S NOTE: Tt-tIS IS NOT A BILL! Piease see PAYMENT iNFORMA310N on fhe reverse side of this notice. �{ CONTINISED ON REVERS� SIDE NOTIFICATION DATE: 06l03/96 - S� GIYY �F�i. � R;� �-,, � o ,�, y a ' �cc[[Clttitt � ItEE [I(4 71 a ; �s � E . i� � � aes+ Saint Paul City Counczl Public Hearing Notice Public Improvement Construction OWNER OR TAXPAYER • 7 �``�� 0 a�--�`�� COUNCIL DISTRICT #7 PLANNING COUNCIL #01 FILE � ;188�1�::«_�::�;�'��' PROPERTY ADDRESS PARCEL ID PROPERTX TAX DESCRIPTION ��}�� L� �� { �. L Lli� n. .. �.,..-__. _ Y ' . .,. �J�.'�.• .a. . THE TIME: N'EDNESDAY,.-MAY-22; �996'AT='5:00=P_NI: PUBLIC PLACE: City Gouncil Chambers, 3rd Floor City Hall-Court House FIEARiNG Written or oral statements by any owner wi!! be considered by tE�e Councif at this hearing. PURPOSE To consider approva! of the proposed project as follows: CONSTftUCT A PUBUC WATEft MAIN IN WIGGINS ROAD FFtOM MIIWOOD COUftT 70 APPAOXIMATELY 445 NOR7H OF NlLLWOOD COURT. (70 FEET SOUTH OF THE SOUTH PROPERTY LfNe OF THc PROPOSED WILLENBRMG WOODS ADDITION.) " ESTIMATED If the City Council approves the project, aii or part o€ the ASSESSMENT cost wili be assessed against the benefittsd properties. The (NFORMAT(ON ESTIMATED assessment for the above property is s• NOTE: TH1S !S NOT A BILLI P{ease see PAYMENT INFORMATtON on fhe reverse side af this notice. ESTIMATEQ ASS�SSMEN! CALCULATION � !� CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE NOTI�ICA+10N DATE: 05/03/96— c ; � ;�� # city of saint paui � pfanning commission resolution file number 98-36 �lPi May 8i 1998 Z�� iLE "9. �' _ � WHEREAS, Amold Fritsche, in Zoning File #98-091 and pursuant to the Saint Paul Legislative Code §b4300(j), duly filed an appeal o£ the planning administrator's decision to approve a tot split for property located at XXX WIGGINS ROAD, legally described as Lot 5; Willenbrin� Woods Addition; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirements of the Saint Paul Legislative Code §64300, the Saint Paul Planning Commission held a publia hearing on April 24, 1998, at which all persons ptesent were given an opportunity to be heazd; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented, found that the planning administrator erred in approving the lot split for the following reasons: a. Section §67304 of the Saint Paul Zoning Code permits the planning administrator to approve a lot split provided six conditions aze met. The ptanning administrator ened in finding that • condition §67304(a) of the zoning code was met. That condition states, "The lot or lots have frontage on an existing improved street and access fo municipal services. " Wiggins Road is an officaally platted street which abuts the properiy and provides access to municipal services, but it is also officially not an "improved streeY' nor is it maintained or plowed by the city. In addition, while the 12.5 feet of frontage for each lot provides access to municipal services it does not provide frontage in the traditional sense and lacks sufficient frontage to accommodate emergency vehicies . By comparison, the average frontage of surrounding lots is 57 feet. b. The Saint Paut City Council approved a final plat of the property and the surrounding five lots in 1996, the result of a negotiated process in which the developer and property owner participated. The lot split approved by the planning administrator would allow an additional lot. This is not in keeping with the original agreement made by the property owner! developer or with the spirit and intent of the city council action in I996 and amounts to a second plat of the property. c. The planning administrator failed to require a grading plan or contour map which fully represented the applicanYs intent and the lack of such a plan or map makes it nearly moved by Kramer secor�ded by Wencl in favor lZ� against 1 A6stention (Mardell) � Zoning File #98-091 Page Two of ResoluYion impossible to determine if the lot spiit meeYs the intent of the requirement of Saznt Paul Legislative Code, Section 67.305 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paut Planning Commission, that the appeai by Amoid Fritsche of the plamling administrator's decision to approve a lot spiit for the property located at X� WIGGTNS ROAD, legally described as Lot 5; Willenbring Woods Addition, is hereby granted for the reasons stated above; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the approval of the planning administrator of the application by Donald Willenbring, Zoning File #98-028, to allow the property at X�'Y WTGGINS ROAD to be split (Lot 5; Willenbring Woods Addition) is hereby rescinded; AND BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution sha11 be mailed to Amold Fritsche, Donald Willenbring, the zoning administrator, and the planning administrator. �ZO�t�G F1LE ��_ � -�. � • � � � ti , �° '. . � ;`, �; g �.� � ' M i n v�4es�rem. - t�- Sai v1,� �ax.v� � 1a3�,.v�.� rSC� "�w � o r� �� $i � iq�:'� (CommiSsioner Vaught's microphone was also not working.) Commissioner Gordon asked if this is the comer across £rom the comer of University and Dale where there is already is an open air farmers' market, and was that taken into consideration. Commissioner Field responded that the SW comer of Universiry and Daie's use will be changed, and the Uni-Dale Shopping Center open air farmers' market will replace Yhe one that has been on the SW comer, in theory. The n:otion on tl�e floor carried u�eanii�:ozrsly on a voice vote. Commissioner Field read the agenda for the Zonino Committee's next meeting, Thursday, May 14, 1998. � 1 � • 1 i i � I { i � i � Adnnt resolution of Planning Commission's 5ndings on the appeal Arnold Fritsche to a decision of the planning administrator to approve a lot split at �cx Wiggins Road. (Public hearin$ heid Apri12A, 1998) Commissioner Field staced that the Zoning Committee discussed the resolution on the appeal, and it is submitted on an advisory basis for discussion today. Chair Ivlorton reminded everyone that the public hearing on this matter is closed. 'I'he purpose of it being on the agenda today is to pass the resolution. M(1TT(l�T: Con�missiorter Xrarr�er rrtoved approval afthe stebmitted resolutio�z of lhe Plar:r:irsg Conuuission's findings on the appeal af the planning administrator's decision to approve a tot split at xrx lYiggius Road; Cournrissiater YYe�rct seconded tlle nrotion. Commissioner Mardell announced that he �vill abstain from voting on this matter because of a potential conflict. 1YLOTiO�Y7'_ilA1�F:t1�2: Comntissioner Yaught moved to delete subparagraph c. from tlre resolution, statiirg thal it is far too broad; Cournzissiater Fietd seconded the motio�t wkicJ: carried ou a voice vote of IO - 2(Kran:er, fYe�ecl) with ot:e abslersiion (Mardell). Commissioner Field refetred to a lettec received from the attomey of the land o�vner, and noted his concem. He stated that it is alluded to in the letter "that cooler heads should prevail." He said that he does not recall heated heads at the last meeting, and he wants the record not to reflect that there might have been an inflammatory discussion at that meeting. He feels that there was a healthy, long, detailed, and thoughtful discussion of the issues. He resents the Planning Commission members being refened to having heated heads. Commissioner Vaught concurred with Commissioner Field's comments. MOTION fo AMEi\'D: Commissioner Nordin moved that the new paragraph c. be consistentwith other paragraphs �vhen referring to the Legislative Code by deleting Chapter 67 and inserting Section 67305. Chair Morton accepted Commissioner Nordin's amendment as a friendly amendment. M(ITTON tf1.AlYLF1� Commissior:er Gordon, referring ta subparagraph b., moved to aniend tke last sentence io state: "Tltis is not iit keeping witl: !he original agreentent made �' �' �, � , . 'by tl�e developer aad property owner, or wir/i tlee spirit ar�d iieteret ofclee City Cour:cil actiort in 1996 axd aa�ounts to a second plat oftlae properry." Coninaissioa=er Vaught secai�ded the � naotion ivhich carried :u�ar:imously on a voice vate. � Commissioner Wenct drew members' attention to a sfieet contained in the packet dealing tivith � the width of the unpaved streets in Highwood, specificalty, the listing of those north of � Highcvood and those Yhat are south of Highwood. The Highwood Plan has a different � recognition of streets in the area north of Highwood and the area south of Aighwood. The north section talks about having paved streets that are 20-24 feet wide. Any improvements there are to be made to be improved streets. The only area of Highwood that is to be left unpaved and more rural in character with larger lots is the area south of High«•ood. T/te amended n�otion mt tl�e flaor to adoPt d�e resol�rtim� of the Planning Conunissinn's fiieditn�s, tleereby grmeting the appeal of tlre pfaiuting adneinistrator's decision to approve a lot split atsrx lYiggi�zs Road, carried unaninrously on a voice vote (ttitardell abstuining). V. Soufheasf Quadrant 72eporf -(Atlen Love}oy) Mr. Lovejoy highlighted a fe�v current projects. He started with a non-downtown project: the West Side Three Part Comprehensive Program that is curreatly before the HRA board, put together by ReDA, the bVest Side Community Development Corporation. They are one of the first CDCs to come forward with a strategy. This one developed from the WESCO Plan that was adopted a little more than a year ago. Al Carlson, housing specialist on the Southeast Team, has been warking tvith them. ReDA and NeDA have come together to propose a main street project funding from LISC. ._..�.• f .. . • - • .. Zhe3Zgner I andino-Proj�sL' A series of technical studies done on this site has led to the conclusion that this site is not particularly good for any kind of development other than development that could be flooded regularly, primarily because in order to make Yhe site developable, particularly for housing, the entire site tivould need to be elevated, approximately 11 feet, and that would create some �veird edges at Shepard Road, which will be reconstructed behind Upper Landing as well as relationship to the River's edge. There is a team working to come up with some ideas, but so far, no one's come up with any magic answers for the ITpper Landing. Thel2esigtiG.enier: An extremely important outgrowth of Yhe Riverfront Development Framework. The three principle people from City staff that are working on the Design Center are working virtual]y fu11 time on those activities: Tom Eggum, Public Works, is the leader of the Design Center; Lucy Thompson, PED; and Tim Agness, Parks Division. They have already had a very profound impact on design in the city, probably the most visible on the Minnesota Mutuai Design. As the new building goes up, you wilt begin to see a remarkable change from the kinds of developments that were done in the past. The gteatest design challenge was to create a front door on all four block faces. � Mississin�i Natinnal Re&reation Area fMNRRAI designatipn. The City is working with the Metropolitan Council, tivho are looking to the City and the Planning Commission to reflect many of the MNIZE2A principles within fhe context of the Comprehensive Plan. Tom Hanen, Ken Ford, Larry Soderholm, and Allen Lovejoy wi11 be negotiating with them. Certain key elements make sense being in the Comprehensive Plan, others do not. ThP T T Hill Rnilding. Apgroximately eight months ago the Public HealYh Department was in :�r �:' ,.. • ------_._.` �; ;�, � � Q 5 � 1 � �C��9�� LE 98- --- 3� Saint Paul Planning Commission City Hall Conference Center 15 Kellogg Boulevard �Vest A meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, Apri124, 1998, at 830 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall. Commissionars Present: Commissioners Absent: Mmes. Duarte, Engh, Faricy, Geisser, Maddox, Morton, Nordin, Treichel, and Wencl and Messrs: Chavez,. Field Tr., Gervais, Gordon, Kong, Kramer, Mardell, McDoneli, No�vlin, and Vaught. Messrs. *Johnson and Sharpe *Excused Also Present: Ken Ford, Planning Administrator; Jean Birkholz, Kady Dadlez, Donna Drummond, Nancy Homans, and Larry Soderholm, Department of Planning and Economic Development staff. I. Approval of Minutes of April 10,1447 � MSLTTON: ConuuissionerMcDorretl utoved approval ofihe rai�eutes ofApril IQ 1998; Con:neissioner Field seconded the n:otion. Commissioner Field asked that the minutes be amended to include the words "the applicant said that" before the words "they aa eed to" in line rivo on page six. Staff agreed to add those words. Tlte neatiorz to approve the aretended netr:utes ofApril Z0, 1998 carried ttnanimottsly on a voice vote. r�� V. 9:Q0 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING: To_cQnsislex Y2Le�[zn��LDnnald Fri�.c_chP nf the Planning Administrator's decision to approve a lot split for properiy at xxx Wiggins Road (Lot 5, Block 1; Willenbring Woods Addition) (Kady Aadlez, 266-6582) Chair Morton read the rules and procedures of public hearing. ' Ms. Dadlez gave a brief slide presentation to sho�v the site and the sunounding area. She provided some background for this case. In 1495, there was an application to divide this property (Willenbring �Voods property) into 11 parcels. A site plan review was also required at that time. The Planning Commission denied that site p]an review. The denial was appealed to the City Council; the City Council also denied that site plan and the subdivision of property. A year later the applicant came back with a plan to subdivide the property into 61ots. That was approved by the City Council. In ivtarch of this yeaz, the owner of the propety came in to request a split of the largest parcel, lot # 5, into parcels A and B, which is the subject of today's hearing. Ms. Dadlez cited a number of requirements that need to be met before the Planning Administrator can approve a split of a piece of property. 1. The lot(s) to be divided have to be on previously platted 3and. Z( This property was platted in 1996, so that criteria was m�� -------�»� 2. The lot(s) to be divided must meet the minimum standards for lot width and area in the zoning districi in which the property is located. In this case, the property is zoned R-1, which is a low density residential single family zone and requires 80 feet of �vidth and 9,600 square feet of lot area, Both of the lots meet that requirement. 3. The division must not cause a remaining part of a lot Yo become a separately described piece of property that doesn't meet the minimum standards. Both lots meet the minimum sYandards. 4. The dividing of the property must not create a split zone. In this case, both properties remain zoned R-1 tivith the split. 5. The division cattnot result in the creation of a nonconforming use or structure. The property is currently vacant and would be developed for single family homes. 6. The lot(s) must have frontage on an existing improved street and access to municipal services. - —„_ This requirement is met. Both sewer and water have been installed and there is access to the • lot for that, although there �vill need to be some additional work done in order to provide capacity for a third lot. Regazding "on an existing improved street " for purposes of splitting the tot, Public Works states that requirement is met, and thaYs the reason the Planning Administrator approved this spliY. Ms, Dadlez stated that a Public Works representative said that "Wiggins Road is an officiaily platted street upon which three tots abut, and iYs officially not improved." Pubtic Works has allowed ihe residences to install a longer driveway than normal. Public Works states that this last requirement is meY, for their purposes. Ms. Dadlez raminded the Commission Yhat access is sufficient for the two lots and therefore it's also sufficient for tha third lot. She noted that once properry is pIatted, nothing in the code prevents the staff from approving a lot split of a property, administratively, without going back to the City Council, and that is what happened in this case. In 1996 Yhe City Council approved a plaY of the property for six lots; two years later the properiy owner came in to request that the properry be split. AII of the standards for the split were met, and so it was approved; and that is why it did not need to go back to the City Council, Based on the findings in the staff report, staff would recommend that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and they uphold the position of the Planning Administrator. Commissioner Engh raised the quesrion of what affect this tot split might have environmentally. Ms. Dadlez responded that she did not lmotv; that perhaps the owner of the property mighY know. Chair Morton announced that John Labosky's presentation wouid be rescheduted. i. Dino Guerin, 1977 North Park Drive, addressed the Commission to testify that he was on - the City Council at the time this issue came up. He stated that he had been out to Iook at 10 zz R�- s�. f Z�P�� 1LE �� the site on numerous occasions with members of the communiry. The City Council decided that the oFVner of the property had the right to develop his land and that 61ots � were appropriate for this property, provided that it wouldn'i adversely affect the ��' community or wetlands, the bluff, or tree preservation. There was an understanding that_, �" � the owner agreed on 6, along with the neighborhood and the City Council. About three months ago, staff made a decision to split a lot, and now put in 7. He thinks that this decision violates good faith and the negotiations everyone had. He also thinks that the record of the City Council meeting saying that they aa eed to 6 lots should mean something. He hoped that this appeal Fvould be granted because there �vas an agreement to 6 lots. He thinks this is a back door way to gei in and get 7 lots. 2. Aavid Raymond, 2401 West 66th Street, Richfield, MN, attomey for ihe �Villenbring Companies, addressed the Commission and inh Don Willenbring, 579 McKnight Road (Block 1, Lot 1 of the Willenbring development). Mr. Raymond noted the concern expressed about the environment and the preservation of the trees and the development of these two lots, but that those decisions need to be made �vhen the building permit is applied for these two resideniial lots. He thinks that it does not come into play for the ]ot split. He reiterated that the staff report says that all of the conditions for a residential lot split have been met, and both lots A and B exceed the minimum requirements for residential lots. Both are approximately one acre. He said that the main point the appellant raises in the appeal is concemed rvith some drainage problems because of the elevation changes from lot S to lot 6. He stated that he hasn't seen any evidence of that, but he wi11 wait for the appellant to bring it forth. He assured the appellant that there will not be any additional run-off from those lots to his lot, and are willing to set up an . aa eement to take care of those issues. The drainage issue is another thing that will be brought up at the time the 6uilding permit is applied for. Commissioner Gordon asked if there had been an agreement to have 61ots. Mr. Willenbring responded that originally they had brought in a proposal far 1 I lots, including a street. Excessive grading Fvould have needed to be done, in addition to the removal of a lot of trees, so the proposat was turned down at the Planning Commission and again at the appeal before the City Council. Later, they applied for a 61ot proposal, and he answered that 61ots had been agreed upon. Since then, they were not able to sell the large 2 acre lot for the price they feel they need to get for it. So, they decided to split the lot. 3. Cy Yustin, 616 Wiggins Road, addressed the Commission in support of the appeal. He lives directly across the street from the driveway into the back lot. He stated that he and his wife have 4 reasons to object to this proposed change to, what they consider, a previous arrangement. 1. It's an arbitrary change, unnecessary, and they believe, unreasonable. 2. Adding another home on the lot is going to greatly change existing important natural features on the property. 3. Ic will also adversely affect the trees, slopes, the �vetiands, and the naturat vegetation in the area. 4. It will create an issue of potential danger and damage from water erosion and water run-off. It will probahly also require a street with a tum around for fire and safety vehicles as was originally considered when the Planning Commission looked it several years ago. ' Mr. Yusten circulated pictures to illustrate his position. 11 � L.J � �� 1LE -.�- t They purchased their house 616 Wiggins in February, 1996. They had been looking for a � home that was in a natural environment. They checked the City Council minutes and the Highwood Development Policies and Regu2ations for Implementation, April, 1995, to look at the rules for development in the area. It was clear from this document that the natural beauty of the area would continue to exist. He pointed to a hi[I as an important naturai feature of the area. He noted that Tom $each in January of 1996 described the full parcel (b lots): The site rises aimost 40 feet from the east end of the property on McKnight to a high point (the top of the hill) and then drops 60 feet to the �vest end. He continued to say tfiat the 60 foot drop is contained, almost in total, on lot 5. So, there's a 60 foot drop in an approximate 2501inear distance. You have to buiid the house on the slope to have a house on that lot. The slope, as described by the City Planning Office two years ago, ivas estimated to beriveen 40 and 50 degrees. So, there's goina to be an incredible change in what happens to the natural environment. Mature trees cvill need to be cut down and the siope will need to be excavated in order to build on this site. Mr. Yusten expressed that there was some wisdom when the Highwood Pian �vas put together. The Plan says in several places that there are areas in the High�c•ood region thaY are "unsuitable for development " This is a mound that they are trying to build on. Iie suspects that there are probably some burial mounds up there because it has such an unusual imob shape. To conclude, Mr. Yusten requested that the Commission not only support the appeal, but—..-_ _ also that he be advised in some manner if there are any future considerations onlhis • property. Atso, he asked that he be provided with a method by which he might appeal any decision he would consider coming from this Commission. Chair Morton reminded Pianning Commission members that the purpose of this hearing is to consider the decision of the Planning Administrator. Mr. W amer reCterated that the purpose of the appeal is to determine whether or not the Planning Administrator committed any error with respect to tke findings in para�raph H. 2. a. - f. Mr. Yusten interjected that the previous discussion said that the Planning Administrator is not restricted from splitting the property; he is atso not required to split the property. Mr. Wamer urged Commissioners to treat the last statement with caution because his interpretation of the code says that if the Pianning Administrator finds that all these conditions are met, that he is compelled to approve the lot split. Commissioner Nordin asked questions referring to the pictures. Commissioner Nowlin asked Mr. Wamer about the role of Fhe Commission in this case. Gommissioner Kramer asked Mr. Wamer what requirement there is that iot splits conform with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Warner noted that the requirements in the code are set out in the staff report. Section 76304 of the code says, - "If an applicant for a lot spiit meets the criteria that are set out in the staff repart, then the IZ 2� �- ��,� � City is compelled to approve the iot spii .'� � � � �� With respect to Commissioner Nowlin's question, the role of the Planning Commission today is to determine if the Planning Administrator erred in making his decision for this ]ot split. Commissioner Vaught commented that he is troubled �vith this. He stated that surely people have rights attached to pieces of property, �vhich the owner's of, at particular times, can act in derogation of as they apparently did with respect to this property when there was an agreement that there wouid be 6 lots on this property at the City Council in 1996. Is it therefore true that once acting in derogation of one's rights in a reasonably public forum does not bind one in any way; and one can act in dero�ation of that agreement just so long as one can find a section of the code to justify it? He is troubled by that. Mr. Wamer thinks that is propably the ultimate issue here. It appears that they felt compelled to grant the lot split because the application met all the requirements that are contained in the code, He said that he thinks the real issue here is whether or not the plat that �vas approved 6y the City Council was limited in any �vay to the number of lots that were approved. The burden of proof is on the applicant to show that so the Commission can make a decision. The only real record is the resolution of the City Council approving the plat. I[ says there are 6 lots; there are no other conditions that are attached. Generally, the law with respect to platting, states that municipalities can set certain conditions that are reasonably related to the platting process. Sometimes those decisions are reduced in writing in some sort of a development contract or something similar. IYs clear that wasn't done in this case, so, the ultimate question is did the City Council approve, did the developer acquiesce to limit the number of lots that are approved on the plat or was it something else. � Commissioner Vaught summarized that after listening today one could arrive at the conclusion that this particular request for a lot split is quite disingenuous, and at the same time arrive at the conclusion that it is legally mandated, 4vhich trou6les him some. He asked Mr. Wamer if the City Council, at the point that they approved the plat on this particular piece of property with the 61ots, could they have attached conditions to that approval such that this requested lot split would have been proscribed. Mr. Wamer answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Chavez asked for the photographs to be circulated. 4. Steven Darmer, 575 McKnight Road South, addressed the Commission in support of the appeal. He noted that three years ago when this came up he did not get involved. He felt that it's their property and they should get to do what they want with it. But now, he feels that they have taken advantage of the'situation. He feels that they, too, have shown a real lack of good faith in this building program. He expressed that maybe they could legally do the lot split. Ae thinks these homes are going to be built as "spec" homes. He stated that the family told him that they will be moving into them, and they expect to sell them when they have the opportunity. He showed pictures to illustrate: 1) the lack of clean-up done around Don's home; 2) drainage problems; and 3) that conshuction materials are being stored on one side of the home. He thinks there �vould be only two reasons to do this lot split: 1) to improve the community; or 2) to improve the neighborhood. He feels that iYs not improving the neighborhood; the neighborhood, in his opinion, is degenerating, since he has moved in. He informed Commissioners that the Wiltenbrings have done little to plznt any of the tress they have taken out, or done anything with the environment. He is concemed about that. � And he is concemed that this effort will not result in any monetary advantage to the community. He feels that if they put up a house next to his that is worth half a much, the prices of houses in the neighborhood will go down. Between that and the quality of the 13 25 � 7��G FBLE /�� neighborhood, he feels the tax base rvill go down. Cutting down Yrees near the pond will . have a disastrous effect on the environment. He's hoping that the Planning Commission wili not let him subdivide the property. Commissioner Vaught spoke for Chair MoRon tivhen he asked thai testimony be confined to whether the P[anning Administrator erred in making this decision, not tryin� to reargue the issue of the platting of this property to begin with. Chair Morton concurred and reminded people to limit their remarks to 3 minutes. 5. Arnold Fritsche, 597 Wiggins Road (Lot 6), addressed the Commission. Ais concems are about water run-off and taking down trees. He showed pictures of a retaining wall he put next to his drive�vay last summer that was tivashed away because of a lot of rain, which he since has had to be replace. He also put in a culvert to handle the water running off the driveway, He noted that in the back lot there is a fem grotto and also a very deep ravine that drops about 12-15 feet, �vhich handles a lot of tke run-off that comes off the top of the hill. Chair Morton asked Mr. Fritsche how he thinks the Zoning Administrator erred in his decision. Mr. Fritsche stated that for one thing he doesn't think the driveway is tivide enough to get an emergency vehicle into the back lot. He also hasn't seen anything done to make sure that water tivill not run across his property. In addition, he displayed the document that showed the final plat and Iisting 6 Iots only. 6. Steve Bartley, 601 Wiggins Road (Lot 1), ad�3ressed the Commission in support of the --„_ _ appeal. He had lived at this address for 16 yeazs. He describes it as an absolutely � gorgeous spot, one of the last remaining spots in the City of Saint Paul for this type of home. He finds it very upsetting that, as a resident, having gone through the whole City Council process, and finally come to an agreement of 61ots, and later to find the City Administrafor change it. He questioned how what they have done can be legally justified, and how can what they have done be changed? He doesn't consider 12 feet adequate frontage for 2 houses. Doug Willenbring, 1875 Donebal Drive, Woodbury, spoke in opposition of the appeal. He has purchased Lot B, and he failed to understand how the neighbors coutd speculate on how his driveway would go into the lot when he does not even lmow how it will go in. I3e feels that the owner of the property has a right to defend his property and how he will develop it. MOTTON: Comxiissioe:er Geisser moved to close the p«blic liearing, whidi rvas seconded by Camarissianer Nordin and carried nnaninrously on a voice vote. MOTiON: Comnrissioner Nowlif: moved to support the appeal and reverse tlie Plannirtg . A�Imiriistrator's decision on tlee basis tkat: I) tke szrbdivision of [asd is not a right, but au opportunity; 2) i['s ar: applicanPs job to jusYify tlte reasoni�eg for tlee subdivisio��, artd tJrat has ��ot been done; 3) tlre creation of these 2 lots by tl:e split does not provide adeqz�ate frontage on an ezisting intproved street sufficient to accom»aodate public safety vehicles; 4) tl�ere u uo reasori to revisit an agreeme�et that was raade one year ago by the City Cou�icil; and 5) t/ie Minreesota Er:vironmenfal Rights Act proltibits cities and otT:er jurisdictions of m�y kind, from intrudiug, destroying, or irrspairing major natnral environn�errtal feanrres, which the gradii�g and constructior: activity that rvill ueed to ocarr to fierther tlnis � developn:e�tt will inevitably do, thus creating an adverse impacf ou un onsire rvetland. The 14 26 �� r � r � nrotioit was seconded by Cammissioner Engh� � � � � � � � � � � Commissioner Vaught commented he tivishes he could vote for the motion presented but that he does not find any basis for finding enor with what the Planning Administrator has done. He believes, however, that the application to the Planning Administrator for a lot split has a certain disingenuousness about it, given tivhat the City Council did �vith the plat. Although, it's a final plat, it's clear that any split of a lot is a derogation of the final plat for the area in Fvhich that lot is located. So, the fact that the resolution calls it a final plat is not particularly persuasive. Had the City Council resolution contained conditions or limitations such that it clearly �vould have proscribed this particular application to the Planning Administrator, he might be able to support the motion. He noted that he does not find much to laud about this back door way of doing what many neighbors may have thought was prohibited. He stated that he cannot put himself in the position of substituting his judgment for the Planning Administrator's judgment on the basis of certain issues that Commissioner No«�lin talked about. He regrets it, but he will need to vote against this motion because the act is legal. Commissioner Engh disagreed with Commissioner Vaught and said that she thinks it is the Planning Commission's place to question the Planning Adminisfrator's judgment in cases that are brought forward on appeal. 5he echoed Commissioner Nowlin in saying that she doesn't think that the Planning Administrator was right on 2. a. where it talks about frontage on an existing improved street. She added that she doesn't think the zoning code envisions very creative planning as we have here. She feels, that the Planning Administrator, in this case, really did not capture what was envisioned in the zoning code as far as access to a developed street. . Commissioner Chavez noted that he is concemed with the safety issue. He asked if the City would not have had to review Wiggins Road in the application to assure that safety vehicles would be able to get in there? Ms. Dadlez xesponded that it was her understanding that Public Works did review the request for the lot sptit, and they were also very involved in the oripinal platting of the property for the 61ots, and it was their determination that the requirement for frontage and access of services was met. Based on that, planning staff moved forward to approve the lot split. Commissioner Vaught asked wheYher there was somewhere in the code a definition of an existing improved street, which precludes this stretch of Wiggins Road from being an existing improved street? Mr. Warner replied that he did not know. Ms. Dadlez responded that she is not sure; she was relying on Public Works regarding that input. Mr. Kufeld, from Public Works told her that Wihhins Road is an officially platted streets, upon which 3 lots abut, assuming the split is approved, otherwise 2 lots abutting. The street is officially not improved; a longer driveway is allowed to be installed. She then had asked him specificaliy, if the street was improved or not improved. He replied that for purposes of frontage and access, we consider it an improved street, although officially, iYs not an improved street, and they don't maintain it or plow it. Commissioner Vaught asked whether Mr. Kufeld gave her any code authority for making it so, or something he figured was a result of long standing? Ms. Dadlez replied that Mr. Kufeld did not give an code authority; he insinuated that it may not be the ideal situation, but iY s one that meets their requirements and therefore they were �villing to grant it. Commissioner Vaught stated that on the basis of that answer, he is going to change his vote; he does not think this is an officially improved street. On that narrow issue alone, he intends to vote to overturn the Planning Administrator because I think he did err, but not Fvith ' respect to the Environmental Rights Act or any of the rest of that stuff because he does think iYs relevant. 15 27 Commissioner Treichel asked, since so much of Yhe testimony and discussion was dzrected to . other things than whether the Planning Adminishator erred in his decision, if the envixonmental issues, water run-off, and other potentiai problems �vith construction are not taken care of in design review and other areas? She assumes that Yhe City will not let someone construct a house that causes �vater to run-off and cause anolher detriment to his property. Aren't there protections in other administrative areas that are irrelevant to the division of a lot? Ms. Dadlez replied that because there is quite a bit of change in gtade in this properry and there are some significaat slopes, and while this properiy is not located int the River Corridor, the City's zoning code does require site plan review for development of one or rivo family hom es on steep sIopes. They wiil need to go through site plan review and get building permits, so whatever issues there might be with impacting trees, wetlaad, and other environmental features, should be addressed. Commissioner Treichel noted that she then tivili vote against the motion because she thinks that division of the land is not re(ated to some of the testimony today. Commissioner Kramer noted that he disagrees with Commissioner Treichel because the part of the zoning code that is not before the Commission is Section 67305 which says that Application for approval of lot splits..,...other information may be required, such as a grading pIan or contour map to fully represent the intent of the lot split or determine if the lot split meets the intent and requirements of this chapter. He added that there is plenty of information here that shows that not only says other information may be required, but in this case, that it must be required. The motion before the Commissioner to grant tlee appeal af the PlanningAdministrator's � decision to approve a lot split for property at.zax Wiggins Road (Lot 5, Block I; �l(enbring Woods.4ddition) carried on a voice vote (Treichel). Commissioner VaughY asked that the Planning Commission review the resolution before iY moves forward. VI. Comprehensive Planning Committee Noreport. � ��i�it�l�,7 �Ii.� 9 8/38 VII. Neighborhood and Current Planning Committee No report. VIII. Communications Committee No report. IX. Task Force Reports None. X. Old Business None. � ".. 16 z $ MINUTES OF THE ZONiNG COMMI77EE Thursday, April 30, 1998 - 3:30 p.m. City Council Chambers, 3rd Floor s City Hati and Court House 15 West Kellogg Soutevard ,n � �� u � � PRESENT: Chavez, Faricy, Field, Kramer, Mort and Wencl ��l�i� � ABSENT: Gordon (excused) �� j3$ OTHERS Peter Warner, Assistant City Attorney; Kady Dadlez, Donna Drummond, Pat �e e ey, PRESENT: and Larry Soderhoim PED The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Field. ARNOLD FRITSCHE - 98-091 - Appeaf to a decision of the Planning Administrator to approve a lot split fior property locaied at xxx Wiggins Road. Kady Dadlez distributed a draft resolution which the Planning Commission requested to be reviewed. She asked the Committee for their input and comments before she resubmitted it to the full Planning Commission, and after some discussion there was agreement to changes as highfighted in resolution form below: WHEREAS, Arnofd Fritsche, in Zoning Code §64.300Q), duly filed an appeal of � for property located at XXX WIGGINS Addition; and File #98-091 and pursuant to the Saint Paul Legislative the planning administrator's decision to approve a lot split ROAD, legally described as Lot 5; Willenbring Woods WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirements of the Saint Paul Legislative Code §64.300, the Saint Pau! Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 24, 1998, at which all persons present were given an opportun+ty to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paui Pianning Commission, based on the evidence presented, found that the pfanning administrator erred in approving the lot spfit for the foflowing reasons: a. Section §67.304 of the Saint Paul Zoning Code permits the pianning administrator to approve a lot split provided six conditions are met. The planning admi�istrator erred in finding that condition §67.304(a) of the zoning code was met. That condition states, "The !ot o� lots have frontage on an existing improved street and access to municipai services." Wiggins Road is an officially platted street whicfi abuts the property and provides access to municipai services, but it is also officially not an "improved street° nor is it maintained or plowed by the city.�Y:in addition, while,the Al2.5 fe"et of frontage�for each lot pro�wdes acc`_ess to murnc�pa! sesv{ce""s it does not provide'fcontage in fhe tra_tlitionai sen"sea�d tactcs suffcient fronfagelo accommodate emergency vehicles ?`By companson the,ave�age fifontage:of surroundmg lots_ is 57 feet: b. The Saint Pau{ City Council approved a_finat plat of the property and the surrounding five lots +n 1996, the result<of a,negotiateci process m-which�the�developet paiticipa"�ecl. The lot split approved by the planning administrator wouid � , This is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the city councii action to a second plat of the property. an additional lot. in 1996 and amounts 29 � . Zoning Committee Minutes Meeting of Aprif 30, 1998 Arnofd Fritsche (98-091} Page Two c. The tot split does not conform to the Minn"e°sofa Environmental Rights Act which prohibits dsstruction of natural features. The required�graciing and construction activity associated with the lot split and subsequent development wili affect the wetland and fern_grotto as well as steep slopes on the property. d. Tfie Pa ul, ;Legisfafive;Gode NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by fhe Saint Paut Planning Commission, that the appeal by Arnold Fritsche of the pianning administrator's decision ta approve a lot split for the propefij located at XXX WIGGINS ROAD, legaily described as Lot 5; Willenbring Woods Addition, is hereby granted for the reasons stated above; AND 8E IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that fhe approval of the planning adminisfrator of tfie applicafion by Donatd Witienbring, Zoning Fiie #98-028, to aliow the property at XXX WIGGItVS ROAD to be split (Lot 5; Wilienbring Woods Addition) is hereby rescinded; AND BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution sha0 be mailed to Arnold Fritsche, Donald Wiflenbring, the zoning administrator, and the p(anning administrator. Drafted by: �� Pattie Kelie Recording Secretary Submitt by: �� Kady Da lez Southeast Team v� �au � �� E �l� � n U �.1 � � �: 3� MAY-13-1998 10�19 FROM CITY RTTORNEYS OFFICE May 5, 1998 92283314 P.01 � �� _ �; u .� i H �i�J��an Attomeys at Law & 1VIcKasy p '` 9 ' TO 4700 IDS Center 80 South Pighth Street Minneapolis, Minncsota 55402-2228 (612)330-3Q00 Fax (612)371-0653 �� [A�F 06 � �� BX HAND DELIVERY Ol� MAX 6,1998 � Peter Wamer, Esq. Assistant St. Paul City Attomey 400 City Fiall 15 West Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Appea2 of Asnoid Fritsche File No_ 9$-091 Dear Mr. Warner: � ��N��C� F��.� 9 �/38 � This office represents Jan and Chuck Buzicky as weli as Don and Aoug Wiilenbring with respect to the abov�referenced matter. The purpose of this letter is to formally request that the Planning Commission reconsider its vote followina the gublic hearing on April 24, 1998, City staff has kindiy provided a draft resolution that is set for adoption on Friday, May 8. However, it is our hope that calmer heads will prevail now that the public hearing is closed and the Plannin� Commissioners have had the chance to consider their actions. As the record now stands, however, the Planning Commission has reversed the adminisuative lot spiit granted by Roger Ryan before his retirement. As you may recali, this lot split was based upon the provisions of Section 67.3�4 of the St. Pau1 Legislative Code, and the staff recommettded affirming the split, Apparently due to vocal opposition from some of the neighbors to the site, the Planning Coznmission decided to reverse the lot split in spite of the code's provisions that mandated it. The appazent leader o£ this neighborhood opposition was the named appellant in the file, Mr. Arnold Fritsche. It is most disconcerting to note that the person who brought this appeal apparently violated Minnesota law when he removed uees from the edge o£ the lot that was adjacern to his own and seeded that property to grass. When we visited the site last week, I also noted that much of the land azea in the rear o£ the appellazit's lat had been cleazed of tzees and brush that are indigenous to this area. 3f MFlY-13-1998 10�19 FROM CITY RTTORNEYS DFFICE TO 92283314 P.02 Peter Warner, Esq. May S, 1998 Page2 ��BAl�d�9� i'iE.E �v�� • ----------------_ _ Beyond the support for Mr. Fritsche's appeal in spite of his misconduct, I azn puzzled by the city's deaial of an adminisvative lot split that meets atl of the criteria set foRh in the Code. Tn spite o£ the first finding in the proposed draft, the Iot does indeed have frontage on an existing imgroved street and access to municipal services. The street is paved, it has utilities under it, and the cost of laoth ths paving and utilities were assessed to the adjacent pazcels, just like any other improved street. If this was not the case, this subdivision would not have been possible in the first place since the original replat of the area required street frontage for lots 5 and 6, and this extension of Wiggins Road is the only street access for Lots 5 and 6. Aithou�h the term "Improved Street" is not defiaed in the Legislative Cade, the word "Street" is defined. Section 60.219 defines Street as "[a] public dedicated right-of- way, other than an aiiey, which af�'ords the principal means of access to abutting property." Wiggins Road is indeed a dedicated right-of-way. Since the proposed administrative lot split cseated a"flag Iot" that provided s�reet access w both lots, this finding is wifhout support. I note that Section 67.304 does not require any pazticulaz araount of frontage on an existing improved street, but merely Yhat fhere is frontage of some amount. The proposal to have a private drive extend from the end of Wiggins Road which would split to serve the two new lots certainly wouId provide sufficient access for • both lots. In the appendzx to the Code is a list of a number of unpaved streets that have widths less than the 12.5 feet that are proposed for the private drive, and a copy is enclosed for your reference. This subdivision does not create any condition thai is unsafe or unprecedented in the city. In fact, we haue noted that there are several other locatiotts in the vicinity of this tot in which there aze similaz private drives at the end of a street, all of which have various levels of improvement, and all of which have been previously approved by the city. Fot example, at tbe North ettd of Pt. Dougias Road, there aze three grivate driveways as weil as a fizture one that wi7l have to be built once the iot is sold as advertisecl at that lacation. All of these will share access to the end of Pt. Dougias Road at the same spot. In that case, there is no room for an emergency ve}ucle to turn around after praviding services to these lots. Such vehicles would have to back up about a mile 4o Carver Avenue or try to turn around in the road. Sunilarly, at the end of Skyway Road (which is only abaut 14 feet wide to begin with), there is a house at the end on the West side and there is absoluYely no tum around area for emergency vehicles. These vehicles woutd have to back up a very narrow, pooriy maiatained and heavily wooded road about a mile and a iialf before the vehicle could ac[uaily ttun around. 7his condition is nothing like that proposed for Willenbring � Woods. 32 MRY-13-1998 10�20 FROM CITY RTTORNEYS OFFICE TD � Peter Wazner, Esq. May 5, i998 Page 3 92283314 P.03 �� iL� 9-5-%� � Again, at the end of Ogden Cour� there are four private driveways that spider web at the end of the Court. There is no way to turn around from those driveways other than within the Ogden Court, after backing up. Finally, at the end of MysYic Street, there is a house at the end of the pavement, and then a driveway begins to serve another house. There are other houses in this area, one on the left and two on the right, alt of wkich have no place to turn amund other than backing up to Totem Road. and only want to move into St. Paul to improve their quality of life. Enclosed with this letter is a map showing the location of these four areas for which the subdivisions were allowed. These prior actions of the city demonstrate that denying this lot spiit was originally an azbitrary and capricious act. VJhile I understand that a few of the neiglabors may be concemed that this wooded area be subdivided so that two houses could be built, the Buzickys and Doug Willenbring hoth have pians that would fit well into this neighborhood, I have enclosed copies of the elevations of hath of their proposed homes fnr your reference. The fact is, no one wi11 destroy this area because they, too, wish to live here. Both o£ these landowners now live in Woodbury, • While 1 understand that ihe politics of neighborhood opposition often leads to actions that are taken simply because of the heat of the moment, I urge yau to advise the Planning Commission to reconsider whether to zeverse the administrative lot split. We will be in attendance at your meeting on May $, 1998, to answer any questions concerning the Buzic�.ys' and the Willenbrings' intended use of ihe land, but we certainly hope that you will reconsider your earlier decision to �rant the appeai so that my ciients can devote their efforts to building their homes. If you would like to discuss this before the meeting, please feel free to contact either 3ohn Choi or me at ow offices. Mr. Choi's telephone number 330-3025; my telephone number is 330.3003. T look fprward to the opportunity to discuss this with you further on Friday. Sincerely, T-iLSSIAN �@ MC SY, P.� / „ ��' IJ � `� � �� es �ittlejohn K EncIosures cc: A11 Planning Commission Members (w/encis) ' Jan and Chuck Buzicky Aon Willenbring Doug WiIlenbring 33 MRY-13-1498 1@�20 FROM CTTY ATTORNEYS OFF2CE 7AI31NG CODE T� 92283314 P.04 APPENDIX D TO THE ZONTNG CODE WSATH OF UNPAVED STREETS 1N HIGFiWOOD (OCFOBER, 1890) Part of Highwood North (NorEh of Highwood Avenue} South GSOt1Ltt OI Highwood Avenue} $treef Directton E•w N-S E-W Street Ntvne MaiIand E1znWOOd Howard (Lower) x�� Mystic Skyway Ogden Court boug�ynn Snowshoe Boxwaod •south of tree Marillac N •S Winthrop . (1) (S� indicates tne wiath at c4e weeternmust end oC the nereet. (2) (M) indicaces the srid�3 in the csiddle ot the aucet, (3f (El indi�aces the aidth at ti�e ea9eernmost end of the atreec. (4) (Nl indiceles the width at tha northemmont end of the etreet. <5} t� indieatd the width at tha aocthernmosi end ot the sa�eet Widih of Driving Stcrface (fo the nearest foot) 11 2Q I6 (� (2�� (E)g 26 I2 I4 io 26 IO ia �s 15 rtfnl lT'/ 12 18 18 16 18 I6 Q`j) io 16 IQ is (M1 24 fM) 12 is 16 16` 18 16 � 10 Z6 1� (S)ff nc��9 laJ 16 16 22 20 18 (Si � ��#i�l� F6LE � � � • � � Supp. No. 16 716 3� MFlY-13-1998 10�20 FROM CITY RTTORNEYS OFFICE TO 92283314 � P.95 �� ( H � See °age 85 ki • ''-�,�- " , �. � • ry- — 3 ' . ! g ti .��:� ?0.YF115]�PC^ � " ti, S+TtIf z '-'t_� 2' ' � � t- K�..ti' . _ 2 .. � •= . VCG'°: J Q� � C � � �§ 5 ��L.]a .... ' �l E a � " '� >�E',�'Y MK � a -, � 5 �' i = ��i ,�a � - _ Y " v } -' . .� ..._--._ . r1 . �.`_ .e.E ri � � � ' � E�t?,... #-MCpnG.:E J^ .35' _ � 199FJi NIM IG. ; `� � � EF • m " .Y� � .'.. 0. . . ��...4a.i�uc._ i"J� -� ..` >"" �.ant g c y 5 �� t xuttw. � c ;� iDaG`�.li:wavE Y �...i qG6 K �q� ,C . � r �PaARNW' e ... � �� j... ��.L+n.. ..5.'.` 'tY _'" - . . ." . meici . . °" � ya <�' " t`YWY iu4 : 'prye� `i.�— . ..tiN �8�l+iE ;, wCM aCNiN:aoO? � � �� S:AI � � S} ,. �y }iWR � ...�Maiix+E ifY�NQt� � . c - ' . . ye l�ytj y �.. .. st � fo<ESac[ Y � ` .\. � . � �BOa.. } L4WE4Fl�. .. 1 V�l 1`I (oy .�jax,:dWTO �= i . � � � � �� p � Py' H� � � 39� . '-�� V ... , tj o�a��.. '�°' w.rdu � T�.:v �.CrL�n .., p ��ac ��1`bro � , ` , � T . .( ...'... g .. : " ~ j.'`� .. .`{ ° YkGP c ' � '" _ .n. .a ; "�W .� r.F 0 v -. ��".n qD JC �, '%tppT:; � S� � � �.u: � .. � �MO� P ' ° 6z Y .. � . .� � %T' .<' :..:\.. ! _=... ' e � s. xjb - ' �..�_� � �'�_^`yu" g : � , . .... . "_" _' ' � uHiini "'�ji':.�-. ` . . _ , =i�., � . � �p� m ,:c � � _.... .._e .. .. ...6 ' " ' .\ �• �5�� I l l� � . c F 'M � M�('NQCO lF � _ � � >: � t :':.u,'r,iJ,aGJA ,�' ._ 5. "A�1lA� � .. ', . 4z ° C � L..� �. �� ? 3 uu!� � ace',rtw v .:� 'y .aw '� - I �.yiao9c� •. ' 9 c ' , a W . . . Y Y. Ci=� i a �. t � � x -. . 'tLd � � '0 '' 'S - % .. 25 ]� 1 � � ..l 3 P'�,� i i � � �� alMt�•.�f144 s%NRI�(�f:H i�`wl�J�� .�' } , s �cA ' - va.RLCEO� +� � i�� `\ si� � � �. �d c �� S tAMW000 ��`` : �YE ` Y 2 ! '.,MS � --A-F _A'+r , `4i l/.YV —' ' < } � , 4' 15� ' .1 .f a py G �bCC E`. ? �'.0 :.9 vS'Y r'9L � C � ` ~N p�� ' .. ^a y Y � n�l.'.w uyO�F a S �WEPf�T a� _� � � �I . t' x Y FYC � Z� M9FPMl S s o_:' - Z? ' . wsa. Gt�t� ' . - �. 'F"�;, . �581.,vl:sr, � 'v" �.`., y�S�+%` a a`` � ..i� �� r y �� . . ` � �9AL:N'Pr T V'� b'F� .�.... .�lN�cN1V w4 F... � �'`' �y � '� ` _ � 7E MCM41900"' lYE - ^; . 4 .._._:� SFYM1t� • � ,` �— \ \ . ' Sl _ � a � ' = 4'x,g °_ T ^� =, : . _ � 5 � V, �� •q a � _ v 3 Yn McYIE �C. Y�:� W. + • �T �� }� �°� ' .. ' �0� ` "'" �L:_'�'�: s."�G� ��__ u �� r� Pa ' I .Q y fi � �� y � � , b � 4 �'� 3 4 IONFKILSTCP `�: �.�. r � = � ;1� OD' v � nE�G*�iit+� � C ',� �f: y � 1 . �' MnOCt �i y Jy ¢ �,.J � j =� � �H r x � � r F v � � ' � .. `� ,., _1:�, 1� _ , . e;x � � 'T2. Laka ; - . a . .. � � . mn�n o <.�..... sc+". �` a ' �.. y �\ : �� :��.� � � � � .� � ... `,, � J "a �M,�'� � g , � �`1� �"'��'E � --,.� GNVEP :� AYE. : \ �1 0 : � v UPt W . . � ' ` � 1 g �,:`�, �`'s t 1f�P1:.��l�/��3� 1 � \ `` {' 9J Y . � `\`\ J . P , ` . !125 ` .�e � � \ ` �:, 1� 0 76�1 , \ �.� ' �. . � , : s . ♦ . _....$._.._...._-.��_t_ . _ .4._��-�� . _' �{.., . " W ' "' ____" �._-� f " � '.�\\ � �. .' . •C Ni H . .\ . _`� � ' L\ `�'. \ \ R.1asSF�COUV7Y .-.,,. `` 1.— �� , .. T r.`�: ..• ��i :.\�t. �ASMM4�0�[60lY+Yf-'6F'S` �78L ` m �� .Jx�'Inu'�� ti fv. } t � .- .'.;Z� gNtFT �:x � ..' �_ _ YVti� •� `� � i • �._'` Y : ;.�v� ; �\ ;, 1 :sa� `,i, ' N��V�'�R �° _; ,� � l�R �O \ n � � �/ ` . �i,?� y ,� �� . •�� ':: V� }1 i \ t Q�, . � uGx�yv ....... �.. } � tvillsF ?S : i �� ' / � clYettarcn � •; � � � a � a : �!� ,� �\ ` � �.__ G - �. � j � :C :, t� � 1... � �� i .� �� CU'EiFRY �� . .•(. p : :1 .! , a 1 _ � � f ��'� � �/ ' � � } : /} � � � � � ^} � � � �� C ;� i� , `3�`3_.¢5 .��. tLAD.an-. j x: . , f Y t � ' �: i�' �� 1 :I�+�T `�. ��V V V C11 ��.r . O, . hSTRf �'� . ME . � f.��` ' � � _ � ` .. 1OR141{ 6 +� j��;;� • ; i f ��475 ': --�--� ` s ,Y �'o YAO K�"YiW . l� � \1Q00 A�'"Y 3B 1 � Yr ��iw Gf+n.t�W � - ..� s :`.� � uam : "�,__ �C ! �. Pase 98 See Page !11 a�u�ne�vl.uaa '� � MAY-13-1998 10=21 FROM CITY ATT�RNEYS OFFICE T� 92283314 P.06 . . • . . . ':_ ... i l,� : - � �. � . . . , o . � _ -,�, .i . . OTD 'i 9 . .. v _..'. O 1 . �� d �' �.:' ' �� . . ��-�� ,_ � . . ��':: 'R�,... _ .r' ��> � � = ai j+ �.' � � � � _ 3 - ��,.. �~ �39 .°�:r ��' � '� �.. �. a � , o > ��:;, ` ,� � a�� {: , �a ' ' pd ;0 F.�e G � � t . .r � � q S wo 1 .:. "�� tL. �_ Y <. -„ — i � � � '� ' _ F f �.;f � � i �� = �° !�� 1 2 � � � ' ' ! ( � : c � ;d + ^ ' °a� .;. _. � � �: � � i I � .� �-°,,. :.{ ; � i �' i � � , ':.�, , . I � ' I t � ►, � ;>: =:�:` ='; _ � I , � _ , t. :�:;�:•;'_ :s . , � i � , �`-�:: :%;::-�. .,::�, T ;=: � � � � � I � a� .►,Q .+�, . _ � ' , :. ��', . r;,.�' _ _":�,. • , �;; . .. � � 1 f. +�;}�,E�':`' �i�� a, �',2 Y.j. „ • � }� i EC . � I � \' Y • �` ' .��'•� t �'. i � � 1 � � _ 3 .: � .: - �.•;!� �SJY . �1_: J �� ,t:'.�.: st�: � �; :: _ _ � r . � – � v � __G. - "� '; . ', ' � �,. � ' � _ �� .. � �ll I , r 4 � �� • _ �� iw ' I o- a {{ �� { °�' r { I sG I t �. a � � i� '�' �' I� _ . ' i�l �~1 . � (.�� ► a�i t , I . ( 1= t�c�� t �; �� ❑0 1 i i , E 3 � � � a a , -- . ._� � 1 �� ' . ~ I : e it � ( . . b S. ' ° � ' � �! � J � '� � � � � , .. l .' .�:� ' . ' � � f F �I ( � ' � 4 �_ i �� r . � �:. e � � ta � i � . �` `r �� .r __ r_ Y ___� . ` - , _ . � 3 � . . �' - i � ---7-I � �. � . � ' ,�2J t ��ISJV'I�TL . �.�� r � - s : ' �3 • � �v�� F . � ' b��. �� .. . - : :.s' ;... _:.�::.rtiii:.' � , � � � S.�e ..�,.r :f,l•D. •+Q� Yt,9 ' ��,- � � .?k',e`� �: • :,9�?t'.� •' >`?+�<'' _ _ , -, �' � . . _ . . •. . . . � ' � � .. ^ . � _ _ :�ti;�"';I:t:''— . . .�.:' .�� .: �_� . . _.� • . .... r '�.�. ' • .. . . .. . .. ... . .. .. . ��: .. . . . > ... . r . .. =��y..:.:g � TOTAL P.06 � i ' RECEIVED APR 2 � 1998 ZONiNG Kady Dadlez 25 W. Fourth Street I 100 City Aall Annex St. Paut, MN 55102 Deaz Planning Administrator, Steven Darmer 575 South McKni�ttt Rd. St. Paul, MN 55119 April 20, 1998 �., . � � _ ;, �' '? � �� .� �� ( I am writing this to show my support for Amo1d Fritche and his opposition to the splittin� of the lot located at XXX Wlggins. I cordially request that you reconsider this decision and not allow this lot to be split. I feel strongly about this due to a lack of good faith by the contractor, monetary issues, the quality of the neighbor, and destruction of the environment. Lack of good faith This contractor ao eed to a plan a year ago. At that time these issues shou]d have been resolved. I now see this as an attempt to slide in additional modifications. I was not involved I the original discussions, at that time I felt the contractor should have more freedom. But now that I see his attitude and the effect this is having I feel some action is needed. Besides not following through on this agreement T have called the building inspecYoT twice about code violations. Monetary issues The only advantage in splitting this lot is to allow this confractor to make more money. The only reason to allow this lot to be split is to improve the neighborhood or increase revenue to the city. We aze not responsible for his bad inveshnents, he should have had these issues xesolved before now. This split will degrade the neighborhood so there is no advantage there. I also feel that the sma]ler low priced, mazginal homes will degrade the neighborhood resulting in reduced property valves and therefore reduced revenue to the city. Quality of the neighbozhood This contractor has no concern for the neighborhood and what happens to it. He is on to the third home while the second is still a shambles. There is no drive, sidewallc, or land scaping. He has lefr behind ;adder;, scrap p:ast:c an3 scaifold w-�ti: it i; needEd. The lack oi concem will resuit in a series of homes tnat do not fit in and are not maintained. Destruction of the Environment The continued deshvction of this envirorunent is havin� a drastic effect on the wild life and the enjoyment of this wild life. He has made no effort to try and assist in preventing this destruction, even to the point of not piling things over game trails. Therefore, I would greatly appreciate it if you could fmd it feasible to repeal this approval to split XXX Waggins and maintain the original agreement. Zoning File Number:98-091 Zoning File Name: Amold Fritsche Sincerely, V C/ �— � 630 Hillwood Ct., St. Paul, MN 55119 April 17, 1998 St. Paul Planuing Commission c/o Kady Dadlez 25 W Fourth St., 110o City Hall Anaex St. Paul, MN 55102 Re£ Lot split for a�cx Wiggins Road (Lot 5, Blosk 1; Willenbring Woods Addition) Zoning File #: 98-091 Dear Pianning Commission, RECElVED APR 2 0 i998 ZONING I am writing in support the Appeal to the Pianning Administrator's decision to approve a tot split for the property in question. The reasons for my opposition to split ttus lot aze: 1, The Highwood Plan adopted by the.City stipulated tbat the nat�ccai environment be preserved in any new development. The developer of this property has not shown the willingness to abide by ttris plan and has repeatedly tried to circumvent the wishes of the neighbors and pas[ decision of this Commission and the City Council on this matter. Splitting this lot into two wiil only add to the destruction of this natural properry 2. There is no detailad compliance plan to nLmi�e environment dvnage, including preservation of the native fem, to support tlus lot split. I have been a resident of District 1 for over 20 years. My decision to build my current house in Highwood azea ten years ago was influenced ]azgely by the natural woaled surroundings. The developer for my area fore$o the opportunity to develop the property in question, citing difficuhies in building and retaining the nabiral beauty of tfie environment. I do not oppose to new development in my neighborhood, if it is done in accordance with Iocal reguiations and enhancement to neighborhood beauty. I do object to the developer's disregard for the neighborhood and the environment. I urge the Plauning Commission to exercise your fiduciary responsibility to past decisions on this subject and to the neighborhood as stipulated in the Highwood P(an. Thazik you for your time and understanding Sincereiy, � � �Dart Moy � �� i � i.i � � �� --,"--"'_ '"' � � • � _ -� 38 i�. ' �/��, i�� c�.�,�,sr U� � Z�f� ��r F� LE _`�?'�__ � %�fj�l : f�4 f�r i �ci e.� �i� f� ;��.a->��t c� . RECEIVE[� J - � � � • S%- . ��t N APR 2 2 1998 ,�� sTi i9 ZONlNG �E: � z �.,, �y � i� y�_�9i /-12i✓atc! Fr�-y�s"tby LCT 5✓'/.?' ��,fi 5—. �SIUcK /' Wl7t yl.C�i� �'�. , q f �td„�-�� ,� xy �. � � .�<<_«l /�2c./' G'vn,ni;'.sf,�bn� -� w�3h f° e,rP��r�'"' �y � c e�n 4l� �f- J �.-t Sf'l� f-, ��,,-� vi7zh/t 7� a�ttr,1=�/ ��t.s /t�.�,n�, t- vuiJy� G.1lL 7`ci fv��t '�`�t /'/ann.A� Gd�s?.hil�l2�i7��s �lJ✓zv,v✓; ��Pt:Pi�%l � nr� �� . frf.n✓2 4 4�t .I�/. 7�. G b8/��v� 'L/�w�t t w<��Jd C'c>x f Y�`Z. �'c'a..%f. �F�J S'4.PP.c.�nrf.h�r �;y' fh.3 ..: +'[ d'e.�-��/ /1 r. �� Llr.ilr nr:�. //i, j Cr.p 7�f_'�r cfrr',%� c'/G� ;� �'//'e4cly cv� q °� n., v/fl'%Cr"f'}/ o�� '.�flr.f - F'c.r lt.l C.;�r- i S a�,� m/l�, yy y � / � /. `nY ��.��c�- �r��ct.a� ,� -t�.3 ,+ di q� �'�i7� Gsq d 1-F'c'c, T f�Z qK� jyrri� �C�n1✓J?✓v/,��j —, 7 / ��i � t �C re iac�"_ %k y l -r'xf Z lz:t Csz rlk�rcc` Mrai'f �°rr �'-h,� �tr�2!/tFi ;�✓� � n� 7�(� i�i C'/'ta/r�' f�t f'F:'c rn ;•✓ial /-Jc VR ��lc �"ti /7 (2 fY. � c ,�( _ � `f!, �zS �'- 1�� %�w.e�' cf �c�z c lrt�:d j �vi� �i��i. '� :,.�ilc� �-� i'"� CGF �� 't�Y' t✓e:y�yss��_� tGr� 7 �lre�, t� !7e c_ �/� fir✓ �/k.y i n f� Y� �d'1 1 � -�u�rl�� , /I o L. 7� � cr �r6P��f �- !.e I��zr� s� �f�t%'d"�e� F 1'1 � ��?iz ".�../. i<,.rr� ur-c „�<> c� ihl� /. / f-�/ :tic � f<�z �i-� �-� G✓�, v /r>r/1' � �S'fr�c-f' �{r4iJ v �f ?(w;;. ,� D � C= t, i� � n� /ea ✓el rh r.-✓ ��J t l��Y! f� %rU' G/ " �� '{��GZ� OUf (�/i di/'«/.!�'7F f1/r� st •�-�e/' o��i yi e��s/r. �u�'' �� u.o.� i ��- ; 1 % Lr4 n /c Y�� r �� Zt)��G FIL� ��__�-� __ PLANNZNG COMMISSION STAFF RSPORT � =: � 3==== � _____ ___________��__ • 1. APPLICANT: ARONLD FRITSCHE FILS # 98-091 DATE OF HSARING: 04/24/98 2. CLASSiHSCATION; Appeal of Planning Administrator's Decision 3. LoCATION: XXX Wiggins Road 4. PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 5. LEGAL D$SCRIPTSON: Lot 5, Block 1; Willenbring Woods Addition 6. P&ESBNT ZONING: R-1 ZONING CODS R8F8RSNCH: §64.300(j) & §67.304 7. STAFF INVESTIGATSON AND REPORT: DATB: 4/17/98 �Y: Kady Dadlez S. DATS AfiCESVBD: 04/02/98 DEADLSNS FOR ACTSON: 6/1/98 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- A. HIIRPOSS: To consider an appeal of the planning administrator•s decision to approve a lot split. B. PARCEL SIZB: This slightly irregularly shaped parcel has 25 feet of frontage on Wiggins Road, has an average width of 277 feet, and a depth of 328 feet for a total lot area of about 86,600 square feet (2.03 acres). The two lots created by the lot split have Che following dimensions and area: Parcel A has I2_5 feet of frontage on Wiggins Road, is 249.5 feet in width, and 139.09 feet in depth for a lot area of about 39,029 square feet (.896 acres); Parcel B has 22.5 feet of frontage on Wiggins 22oad, a width of about 292 feet, and a depth of about 164 feet for a total lot area of about 49,57i square feet (i.i38 acres). C. SXISTING LAND IISE: The property is currently vacant. D. SIIRxoIINDiNG LAND vSS: The property is surrounded by single family homes in R-1 and R-2 zoning districts. E. ZONING COD$ CITATION: Section 67.304 of the zoning code permits the planning administrator to approve Iot splits provided six conditions are met. These conditions are identified in finding #2 of this report. Section 64.300(j) of the zoning code states that the p].anning administrator's decision is subject to appeal to the planning commission. The planning aommission must conduct a public hearing on the appeal within 30 days of the receipt of the appeal by the planning commission. F. HISTORY/DISCIISSION: There are several zoning cases Concerning this property. 7.'he cases involve a 4.9 acres parcel along McRnight Road that was the subject of site plan review and subdivision applications. • � _� �� , � 5 1 � ; J `• � J • � Zoning File #95-�91 Page Two In 1995 a site plan review application was made for a proposed 11-lot subdivision of the 4.5 acre parcel. The planning commission denied the site plan because it was not consistent with the city's Tree Preservation Ordinance, with preservation of environmentally sensitive areas including a fem grotto and wetland, and with protection of adjacent and neighboring properties relating to storm water drainage. The planning commission's denial was appealed by the applicant to the city council. The city council upheld the planning commission's decision and denied the appeal. The aity council also denied a request at that time for preliminary and final glat approval for the proposed subdivision of land finding that the subdivision did not con£orm to the requirements of the zoning code. In 1996 the city council approved a final plat of the property czeating six lots. The city council approved the plat subject to the condition that the developer receive approval from the city for plans to construct the driveway and utilities from Wiggins to the westerly lots (Lots 5 and 6) prior to approval of any building permits for Lots 5 and 6. These improvements were made late in 1996. It is Lot 5 of the plat approved in 1996 that is the subject of the current appeal. G. DISTRTCT COIINCiL RECOMMENDATION: `The District 1 Community Council had not taken a position on the appeal at the time the staff report was dra£ted. H. FINDING5: 1. On February 11, 1998 Donald Willenbring applied for a lot split to divide one parcel into two (divide lot 5 into parcels A and B). The proposed lot split was reviewed by city staff including individuals from PED, Public Works, and the Water Utility. On March 6, 1998, upon review by city staff finding that all conditions required for a lot split were met, the planning administrator approved the request. 2. Section 67.3�4 of the Saint Paul Zoning Code permits the planning administrator to approve lot splits without platting provided the following conditions are met. a. The Zot or lots have frontage ou an existing improved street and access to municipal services, This condition is met. Both of the lots have frontage on an existing improved streeC and access Co oity sewer and water. b. The lot or lots to be divided are previously platted Zaad. This condition is met. The property to be divided was previously platted land. A plat for the property was approved by the city council in 1996. r c. THe lot or lots meet the miaimum staszdards for Zot midth and area for the zoaing district in which they are located. � � Zoning File #96-091 Page Three This condition is met. The two lots meet the minimum standards £or lot width and area in the zoning district (80 feet of width and 9,600 square feet of lot area are required). Parcel A has a width of 249.5 feet and a lot area of about 39,000 square feet Parcel B has about 292 feet of width and a Zot area of about 49,OD0 square £eet. d. The division of the lots sfialI not cause a remaining part of a Iot Eo become a separateIy described tract which does not meet the miaimum standards of the zoaiag districC fn whzek it is 2ocated or whiclx does not have street froatage and access to muaicfpal services. This condition is met. Both lots meet the minimum standards Eor the R-1 zoning district and have street frontage and access to municipal services. e. The divisioa does not resuSt in a split zoning classification on a single lot. This condition is met. Both lots are zoned R-1, residential single family. f. The division does not result in the creation of a nonconforming strueture or use. This condition is met. The property is currently vacant. A s3ngle family home is planned for each o£ the lots. 3. While the final plat approved by the city council in 1996 created six Iots, nothing in the subdivision ordinance prevents svbsequent subdivisions by platting or lot split, provided all of the conditions are met. In this particular case staff found all of the requirements ' £or a lot split to be met and appraved the division administratively. Subsequent subdivision by platting would require city council approval. 4. Section 64.300(j) of the zoning code states, Planning administrator's decision/appeal to commission. The grant or denial of approval by the planning or zoning administrator is subject to appeal to Che planning commission by any person, firm or corporation, or by any office, department, board or bureau affected by a decision of the planning or zoning adminisCrator within thirty (3D) days after the decision appealefl £rom shall have l�een served either in person or by mail upon the owner of the property which is the subject matter of fhe decision. The planning commission shall conduct a hearing on the appeal within thirty (30) days of the receipt oP the appeal by the planning commission. I. STAFF RECObII+�NDATIOx: Sased on findings 1 through 4 staff recommends the planning commission deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the planning administrator to approve the lot split. � U lJ _ � 42 g�-s�5 � i APPUCATlON FOR APPEAL Department of Planning and Economic Development Zoning Section 1100 City Hall Annex 25 West Fourtl: Street Saint Paul, MN 55102 266-6589 APPELLANT Name �aen�a�'D �2, Address �,2/73 ffuns�� D #�/7 City s'f'� /�A-u � St.�'±� Zip Ss ��9 Daytime phone � S'� -/� �s I PROPERTY Zoning File Name Lcl �`«�N ��•`�G wooJ f}7>D. ��v LOCATION [aT " Address/Location G��,°rr.°.✓s ,Q�� d" R�ccK ! ��-�c�.�gz.�• � of fhe Zoning Code, to / ( S! �l9 i z7 � on � (a 2C{..� � , 19� Fife number: ` — Q � (date of decision) TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the: u Board of Zoning Appea{s ❑ City Council under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section ?�DC� Paragr appeal a decision made by the f�[..AN�i(/n/l-� H!J !1/� . Gf20UNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Soard of Zoning Appeafs or the P{anning Commission. /! 0 � L: "TV !r1"�t�f A� j ht` j�.]jM.�•J�sr ��SG; dF �p �LQ Fy{�'/`� �O�'J C/L („V �Lt� � 2 ��` P�'! h'..Q % y � C� l� �O �-ri 1 �.Ci �, ,� E. ;4 �D ° T , r prJ e� fi-s �coTi a.r� F a Ta t`Y3 � Th� w, r.c�. � a � � �� LoTS �=a2 �r.�z5 trj W+aS t7 � V� D'zD 7� , �= !n DNE o /}PRov;=� Pttf . L� ,, �ridc� . Gi t�/ Lv+�.nlC, L_ E , nhN � t�uRchRSe f�JQT `7T :L WAS Iv�-� �Y L�UiLL��B��' �� NO! Q. � u ,� v I=t- 2�rn a L�� on>�� oN� �mn- W�CT � T �-w� Cc� C�-r.i �Il r�1 0...! W ArT �Q � , y �, i � � (zo P �.R7 y . Q°✓+� i.iJ Tt Y S b,� 7 t I Attach additiona! sheet if necessary) Applicant's Qate Y" 9�City agent_� �'2`�43 � ��l� F�LE ��__!� _�� Ca-� sP��- �.��d c� �cw,vt;,,, J �-d,w�� i �� 2 � C�'RTIF`ICA TE OF SUR VEY FOR WILLENBRING C0. ' N B9'S3' 1T E Zg�p ___ r:aw_____ . .. —_• , �___________________ .. ' ovwa¢ i u�Ure � " ' [nssv i, — . 4 2i �.' �� c �YILLENBRING PARCEL B IFE4�IIJ8 ACRfS . � �� 3 � ' : 5 ' HLOCK "�' Sq 5` 6 s 3 '� 8� e.wxc v_ `r.� E�i � G" J� 5 8 z ��QUJ 1 ADDITION S N 89'S1'S�' E • 33]CO i PAftCEL A wF£A�0.896 �CAES • � SCALE 1' _ }C `� M'� C4R: ER. �0� 3 � OExO*FS iR PFU er �� p�� WIM4tR SFT /.!q 4A�KC0 8Y p�C NNBER 1]168, NZESS OirvERwSE 3 • oe.wtcs xox avE w�vuear ra� �� SUYVE'tORS iq�L �.ro. ��Si. e➢�30� � 1 c � �: ti" w....a a �mr. _ s.% CCRnER tOT 5 � q �K" � ___,_• ,. N ' ? ' tii5o � _ _ "— �SBASPOYW 262W {VCGGINS � � OAK � ftILLS I WIGG[NS q I y . i ROAD LAND DESCRIPTION � YEqE9T �RiFT THAT iN5 AIRYEY WAS PWYARE� BY ME OR MOFR Cvrn � y y�me+< � NY �tECi SlHRVSqN MD Mai 1 Au A OIAY PEG6iEiEA l?AA Cx . m X:e�uMa.xcrLN ARVEYIXt M9ER TfE l0.W$ OF RE $iAiF O! AnNE50YA Fwz ian.fsM�� 1 a�� :>= ' ¢ e�.ereflai �eeNr4 �AT•z �3 __�{/l CIIYOF54fYTPRL'L f [[ROY Bpfi�SiAVEYOR . c.. � J.IZ;U• 4YJVSDiA LICENSE Ml�ER 10)AS � Ft+�n�i� SOHLEN SURVEYING & ENGINEERING,INC ' �(A PNKEL 1 T; et p0't of ta[ 5, B�ack 1. W11,LEM^0.1NC "W�5 0➢��TICC+. Re¢eC CoVnty. M ne ata, IL:nM1 Euiterly nG $out�e�ly tne el :n^ Eezer:OeE I�nes. Cvnrcnc:ny at tne So�tN.ext orner f sa�tl lot 5; ne w M1o�th 89 0e9�eex 51 � s 0l e Ja East, alang tne Sovt� I�ne et saiC t t 5. E�ztantt a! $ 50 tee[ to trte p;�nt el peginn�ng o( I�nea�fo D< Qescr:OeE; tncnce W�t� 46 6eyrCea 18 minutez 11 s onES Evst, e O�stence 3�.92 �ttt: ' Te�Ce Noit� W Ee9«<s t] m nut¢a ]5 5 O�<s Weit, pa�nllel v�tt� t�e�East ��ne I o�E Lot 5. a E�slonce ot 39.G9 1aet, t.e e Norin 89 Y� rnt b s nGS Eoat, a eutance ol 2J] 00 feet to me Nort�.est eorne� ot bt S�BIOCk 1. a( se'tl WILLE�2rtIM: wfQlS �.W'T(IX+ antl fne�e [em��natin9. ppiCEl B ��-585 � � r� e�n.k _ t�t a,-�-- ��„� 06 -w�.� � e� — ividi c.A,�es ��rovec� Lo#- sPli �r o� (��- 5 �9� Oq�b 79 7, pON� � w`L �� N gR1 • � t23) ! (27) .. o '1 � .. i.t 05U �I�� 'i 9 �� parcei F� A�� W ��pS � . ...-. .� _ _. _ 5 ._ _ .._. _ � I ' C22) I o � �roPosCd }�r�l !} � - I . i 1 � r ia> 2 (19 l �so 3 czo> 4 ,�� , tA `" ' �� " - , za 2 � i c� a� 4� 3 .0�� , °' / v � � �. h m .3>�. _ �„ � 3 9.ta �� 5y i 77 o j 4 >8� Z ;28 o ROAD .�j 1• —�� „ (a-3) � ��7 t32. / 2 � 9 e j 102.4} I a.3C ,?9 � ... 4.SZ l2� � � \Z � N bo , 12B � ° '2 '�� " �.. � � � ...� � h <z91 � � ' ,r' (4z) t3} ! 3 iz� se 28 ��, _ , �>a �,. � cS� .� Zt,��f�� ►�.E `��t�8_ � 45 �__� � � �J � � SUNRAY-BATTZECREEK-HIGHWOOD �'�� IAZEL PARK HAUEN-PROSPERITY HlLLCREST 3. WEST SIDE 4. AAYTON'S BLLJFP 5. PA7'I�TE-PHALEN 6, NORTH EI�'B 7. 8. 9. 1Q. 11. 12. 13. 14. is. 16. 27. THOMAS-DALE SL7MMIT-LJNiVERSITY tiYF.ST SEVEN'1�I COMO HAMLINE-ivIIDWAY ST. ANI�EIONY PARK MEIZRIAM PARK-LEXII3GTON HAMLINE-SNELLING MACALESTER GROVEI.AND HIGHI.AI�TD SUMMI'I' HIT.L DOWNTOWN � ZONiNG FILF a&`t�i HAMLIhrE ., CITIZEN PARTTCIPATTON PI.ANNIPTG DISTRTCI'S --,-- . � � � � �-� � -- ` � � � :._'•-_--z --... _ - -- __- _ _ _ - - ___ - - _= `==° =- _� --- -- - - - .... - -- ,.......-:� _-- - ° — ,-._... _ _,. - _ :-- - - - -- -=-- - - --- - - - , _ � _. ,. y _ : . r-- _-- ------- - --- - - :i_:_- - — - - -- .... ` e.-- --- _ -- �__ _-'.� -- _ ------ - - -- "-.,,;.,.:._,._ r --`_ — ....._�..�_- ---- ---- -- — ..-��"� ` __ _- -- - --_ _ c—__`:� __ --"".,:- -_- _------�- - -- -'---- ____ � ,. . _ a= ��" . _ - -- . � i-.-- .= 1'" ;� ._�. ;- ::' ...'.. '__ ' ""_,_' _ ' _ '__ °% ' _ _ v - ' ' " ' •' Y• ' ' _ - G_ _ _ ' .. .. . 1 � - J � - .t '�,.' _'_ < =.�� ;_"_ _ ., �-:• _� ' \ �,-'_'�" .._ ' _ _ '_"_ _ '-' r . " - _ ' ' - t =_ —_ _" '_ _'__ _ c_ ' ., , ___ � _- __ _ ' ____ Y �_ L 1 . ^ - '• ..'. Z'. -___ _ _ � =ac�'. �_ C....-.? �... : : �� - _-_- _ _- _ _ "- ' _ __ ___- _'_ '_ -_'- �. � e. :.f�.:^ + . . . . .., - -� �. __ ___ . .._.:. � ' F - : ', : '__ " "_ _ _ _ _ _ _ "' _ _ _ - _ M1= - _ _ . ' ?i. ^�� ,'.. ' ' "" . _ ' _ _ _ _ _-.' _' __ ' _ _ " ' _" _ _ _"_ .. ' '� . -?t.�: :'`� ?". � ' _ - ' r .._ -� ; " ' _ _ _ _ '_ "- "_ _ ._..:..- . . , �,... z'^ ' ______ ____ _ _ "-_ __ _ _- _"" ' ' _ _ "' ' � " . , n __ __- _. _ ___ _ __"_' �.. __ _ . �._.r.�% i, ,1.,,,..•,"t.�-`v,—=',--- -- — �'—' '�� --- — � - -- _ —'� ��a�--::� . .J �: _ _ .. . � -- > >,�,,,-�. .,=�^_-__ __-_ ____ - - _ ==== -_ . - - _ -; _ -_-_ . � !� '� '� p s ; ._ : i�" l = �"� i l` � - _ _ — ____ -- - __ - � 1,—�,— ,'-`,�'= � .I�'. �� \ I' p —� r -.: :'`..�:«. r . __ . ' � -' _ _ _ _ _ .= l' ..J"/::',V `� - _ �� \\`� \ _ 1^l; :_...., ♦� • ./ �r:� q • ,:�.- r' . '`�_ _ _—_'- __ = � ,�-\,--.�. _-i_.�',.,.r - _- . . :. �:-:-,::,..: � �,`�. :,.�'��.�� ^ �c • 4,� _==` _"°L�.._ _-_ _ _ �. . " ."�"�"` i=l �---,�'�, � `- _ : \-� l_.�, - ^�-..--_.�'t�_r-- - _'_ - --� _... � � 1'� ' . c �' '� I?•.. �.�- �" �._._ _' -- - '_ -___�_� � _ T , ' \�, : . - \�� _ �- `,>�.+'./-".:�,T�-� ..._._'_ - -T' = ;.`�- {j' l-G=._:�� __' ' �'� +�. ... " .."' . (�'"� __ " �[ - .i �'- ','_` ":� y b�..\ "� J - __ __ < __ '_ �.\ .. �• �> . '" _J,�- 3.1�.. .• �` • � .'' .' � ' i =_ ...., ;—T== .... . _- _;'�\ .. �'�_ '-__•. .. ........ _ __ "_ _- � '' , � , ,_ �. . �..: - : . ' ... ._ . � - - � . _ . :. �J ! ^;, -" -' � :�:.':�=P ��.o>v� ,— \�i -- ,. , -__- ! :_'.- �\ C ' .._ `�i,� �: - �., -.,�..� _ ., I - `,�'-� ,� .-. � � . _ . s \' ' ..:" �..� I '. \.. , � '_i��'-' :.._ ..'._,.,= __ �, ` %�. �� , '*.:." `� �� • ;. 7 � .�_ 1 i t , � '� .—... __.,��....,:� ..r� ..� �,:'t' °,..:-� _�� :��-"�. _� °�`�- !��'�, ..._ � �.� / i� �� ( ; i�� ..__./ � .� ,_l _...^..__. _ ,.. . � C. ! i.,- � .! .—✓: _""^ � ..% '� ` ,\q `..ti. , \, � .��'�\(\� i ___ _-�1_ . ;: _ _ . ; '\ ,�\ . e i . : : � � . . . ° � . =� � . , \\" \\ . �_. � • I � , _ _� j i ..•_ �• . \�\ u ' \\\ \• . �� j M1/��,_ ... �a. '` � \ '-� . � ..~., r. _ .� . �,�, , , _ ...... . _ " ' '. _ __' "' _' ' .�. �'ti. �`:\�� "„-'^ .,�: ^:z`��` ��,, . ' ' : " . .. S _.\ I �� . ��-f:.� �' �> �.. •� �'*� .��_ � j- � 4 �y � - \ '"�'� ^ �'l'��\'�11�\ 1 \ �r � �' \ \ 1 ..� . �. � . � �y � ,\:'. . ... .._ . n . . . �.�:.^ , .� = JC '� �� `= .. . ' ,. , ` • _ .. �`�',,\'��`�,:'.. ��, i .' � �� .:�' �'._'u'�-j�_ .�;:` �=�_.=-i�� "'� �'; : � �� i�,.. � . ��. c) �� '�' i -. .... ,j� _, ` � p f � - �"" �lt' ;i " � , —"_ � �J' _ t�\/_;(';'' �. ( "i _ ...��;� ( .� y � '�=%—_�—�_--_ \ ._ ,',' .� (� �'\ _�� ',C..�--,�..___��-'. �'.. � �.`� � , � '� — •-°-,:r,� _._ .—. �{ _ =��-.�c� "'`� ;=� � v �.� . � � �;�;� :�b =s,=_i� � ir=.: `i=_� �.�� .'� �� i - _— ��-��.��' • '1.. .Y�_,'_r � - �..-_ ....,..,--- � _ ,� 7,s" ": 1 _ ,�� • ' : ,4 �I � � I • � '•' II \ . �. l y l C � ' • �, \'i ,! w' � �`�..\�.._ ��\ � �;�� .�,z ti � _ ., -. ��_ �.:.F , i 1 `� _ ' • `1` � �•� — _ _ s`-s' _ - ' _ _ " _ _ ..�+�-� �� ` j(� � {•``-` 4 � Y 5 .� � 1f < � � �.-.� ��a .: :� _ �� i �` i • �� r I �� ..� C;::i F � . : � `� 1� - .7 �.� �n 3 � " •<`� : �-�� l �� ~ � .�.,�,�a.-� . :' `'��`-- �� ■ �� BATTLE-CREEK DIS7RICT 1 �N �=, 4-� l7 � i � a i� _ � O ! � I �__ � � I I 0 � i . ' - ' � I m �` � �.� � � �. V � �,� 0 i � O O � � O � J / � � q � 0 ' p O � p O / � O � O � �� O O v 0 °I�j o . � j .��. ° T1 w � O � O O v J — O _ O _ O � O J O � O T O p o i c� o/ � � �, o Q � O I O I t � � - � 0 l,oT I �T�_ ��3 � 1 Lo7� � � O O O 0 � v 0 C� s �- � t.�f 5 • l APPLICANT fr1�SG�. �Trin� LEGEND PURPOSE—��1� .�� zoning disirict boundary s � F1LE #_ "lE "Oq � pqTE �1'1�" �14 � subjed property n"' o�n�'- PLNG. DlST � MAP # �� t�� o one fami(y ••^ commercic ��''� � hvo family ♦ .�.. industrial �' �-+: °=" .`� jz muitipie family d$ V vacant ....�:_..... . . � Q - - - t n�n - -- _, C�] � r Council FIle #( g— 5 p S Green Sheet # � l�� RiGt�Al. Presented By Refened To Committee: Date �� 2 WHEREAS, Amold Fritsche, in Zoning File #48-041, duly filed an appeal of the 3 planning adiniiustrator's decision to approve a lot split for property located at X�'Y Wiggins 4 Road, legally described as Lot 5; Wilienbring Woods Addition, pursuant to Saint Paul 5 Legislative Code §64300(j); and 9 10 11 12 13 14 iS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirements of the Saint Paul Legislative Code §64300, the Saint Paul Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Apri124, 1998, at which all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the 3aint Paul Planning Commission, based upon the evidence presented, found that the plamiing administrator committed enor in approving the lot split for the following reasons: a. Section §67304 of the Saint Paul Zoning Code permits the planning admuustrator to approve a lot split provided six conditions are met. The planning administrator erred in finding that condition §67.304(a) of the zoning code was met. That condition states, "The lot or lofs have frontage on an existing improved sireet and access to municipal services." Wiggins Road is an officialiy platted street which abuts the property and provides access to municipal services, but it is also officially not an "improved streeY' nor is it maintained or plowed by the city. In addition, while the 12.5 feet of frontage for each lot provides access to municipal services it does not provide frontage in the traditional sense and lacks sufficient frontage to accommodate emergency vehicles. By comparison, the average frontage of surrounding lots is 57 feet. b. The Saint Paul City Council approved a final plat of property and the surrounding five lots in 1996, the result of a negotiated process in which the developer and property owner participated. The lot split approved by the planning administrator would allow an additionai lot. This is not in keeping with the original agreement made by the property owner/developer ar with the spirit and intent of the ciiy council action in 1996 and amounts to a second plat of the property. a The lot split does not conform to the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act which prohibits destruction of natural resources. The required grading and construction activity associated with the lot split and subsequent development will affect the wetland and fern grotto as weli as steep slopes on the property. RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, NIINNESOTA �t�-585 7 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 d. The plamung administrator failed to require a grading plan or contour map which fully represented the applicanYs irrtent and the lack of such a plan or map makes it nearly unpossible to deternune if the lot split meets the intent of the requirement of Saint Paul L,egislative Code, Section 67.305; and WHEREAS, based upon the decision of Planning Commission on the appeal of Arnold Fritsche and acting pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.206, Donald Willenbring, et al., duly filed with the City Clerk an appeal from the determination made by the Planuing 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 §b4.206 -§64.208, and upon nofice to affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the Council of the Ciry of Saint Paul on May 27, 1998, where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heazd. The matter was laid over for vote to June 10, 1998; and WHEREAS, the Council, having heard the statements made and having considered the applicauon, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Planning Commission, does hereby; RESOLVE, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby affirm the decision of the Planning Commission in this matter based upon the foliowing findings of the Council; The Councii, finding no error as to fact, finding or procedure in the fmdings and conclusions of the Planning Commission as contained in its resolution 98-36, dated May 8, 1498, hereby adopts the same as its own; and SE IT FURTFIER RESOLVED, that the appeal of Donald Willenbring et a1. be and is hereby denied;and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Cierk shall mail a copy of this resolution to Donald Willenbring et al. cJo John J. Choi, Attorney at Law, 4700 IDS Center, 80 South Eighth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-2228, the Zoning Administrator, the Plaiming Commission and Arnoid Fritsche, 2173 Hudson Road, #117, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55119. Requested by Department of: By: B appro�d by City ,�Att'o�Tn� 22 f��`� // % /% % / y G✓L✓ 6 Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: _�_ \ Appsoved by Hy: Adopted by Council: Date C�^�� \41 Adoptig� Certi£ied by Counc> Se tary City Council Rathy Lantry, 266-8670 OATE INRW 6/23J98 1�451GM NUYHERFOR RWTING ORDFR TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES GREEN SHEET oc.Fx+,�r owEC,ai q� N� 62165 mnnuo�e. rnvcou+ca ❑ 41YATlM1EY ❑ CRYCLiRK ❑ iWW46L�ERNCFlOW. ❑ HLLMCYL3ERVI�CCT6 ❑ WYORIORAa9tfAMl1 ❑ (CUP ALl IOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Finalizing City Council acYion taken 6-10-98 denying the appeal of Donald Willenbring for a lot split for property located at XXX Wiggins Road. PLANNING COMMISSION d8 COMMITfEE CML SERVICE CAMMISSION t rlas mis ae��m enerwonrea mxkr a contractrarmie aeaammenn YES NO 2. Has thie PereonMrm e�✓er been a ciM emPbyee9 YE3 NO 3. Ooes this persoMrm poesess a sI611 nd rwmiallyposePSSed by arry curten[ city employeel YES IJO 4. Is this peisoMGim a tarpetcd vendoY7 YES NO i h �'i aSG'aY�?^ ('•nr:ag , ;��.?4 �^� .�. �?�� . . `. ,: . ' f .� 1 i )7AL AMOUNT OF TRANSAC710N f T1�IN6 SOURCE ??3Ti:Ta'1 �; I�/9-1�P�dai�.7id�:id� 3.72�d1 ACTIVITV NUMBER VES NO ANCIAL INFORMATON (IXPWlq OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNBY Peg Birl� City Attomey -- S�S CITY OF SAINT PAUI, NortrtColeman, Mayar June 23, 1998 Nancy Anderson Council Secretary 310 City Ha11 15 West Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Appeal of Donald Willenbring, et al. Zoning FileNo.98-138 City Council Action Aate: June 1Q, 19� Dear Ms. Anderson: CivilDivision 400 City Hal! IS West Kellogg Blvd Saint Paul, Minnesota SST 02 Telephone: 611 1 66-8 7I0 Facsimile: 672 298-56I9 Attached please find a signed copy of a resolufion memorializing the decision of the Saint Pau� City Council in the above-entitled matter. Would you please have this resolution placed on the Council's Consent Agenda at your eaziiest convenience. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, �� Peter W. Warner Assistant City Attorney PW W(rmb Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING / S LLJ & ECONOMIC DEVELOPM&NT � � 9R-�i CTTY OF SA1NT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor May 13, 1998 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research Off'ice Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: Division ojPlmvruag 25 WestFourth Street t�� 'nint Paul, MN55102 �, �� ? � i � —,—• �� c��"",� ' � 1 �°!q�' Telephane: 6I2-266-6565 Facsi»¢te: 612-228-3374 �+011i'.�SS r��S2^!'Cs� ?,�', ;: � �9�� . e� �9�� .____.__.....--- _- --'� I would like to confirm that a public heazing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday May 27, 1998, for the following appeal of a Planning Commission decision denying an appeal of the planning administrator's decision to approve a lot split: Appellant: DONALD WILLENBRING, et al. File Number: Appeal of file #98-091 Purpose: Appeal a Planning Commission decision granting the appeal of Arnold Fritsche to a decision of the planning administrator to approve a lot split. Address: XXX Wiggins Road Legal Description of Property: Lot 5, Block I; Willenbring Woods Addition Previous Action Planning Commission Decision: Grant tkie appeal; vote: 12-0 (one abstention), May 8, 1948 My understanding is that this public heazing request will appear on the agenda for the May 20, 1998 City Council meeting and that you will publish notice of the heazing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Please call me at 266-6582 if you have any questions. Sincerel �� 'L�� Kady Dadlez City Planner cc: File #98-091 Paul Dubruiel Pattie Kelly Wendy Lane, LIEP Arnold Fritsche — - —�— � � • Fmsr xu,v • . - -' _ - . - NOTiCE OF PUSLIC flEARiN(i . . The Saint Paul City Council will conduct a public hearing on Wednesday. May'27. 1998 at 5:3Q p.m. in theCity Council Chambers. Third Flnor CityHail-Court House, to consider the appeal of Donald Willenbring, et a3, to a decision af the Planning Commission granting the appeal of Acnold Fritsche to a decision of the planning administrator to approve a lot spllY at� 7.7�C Wiggins Rnad. � Dated: May 13. 1998 - � � NANCY ANAERSON - � . . , . . - - � � Assistant Qty-Council Secretary .. � (Ma 16, 1995) ' DEPARIMENI' OF PI,ANNING & ECONOMIC DEVEIAPMEN"C Pamela L7Heelock Director 9g�-5�5 • CifY OF SAIN"T PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor May 19, 1998 Ms. Nancy Anderson Secretary to the City Council Room 310 City Ha11 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 25 K'es: Frnnrh Street Saint Pau1, MN 55102 RE: Zoning File #98-138: DONALD WILLENBRING, ET AL City Council Hearing: May 27, 1998, 530 pm. City Council Chambers Telephone: 6]Id 66-6565 Facsimile: 612428-3314 PURPOSE: Appeal a planning commission decision granting the appeal of Amold Fritsche to a decision of the planning administrator to approve a lot split at XXX Wiggins Road. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION� Grant the appeal and deny the lot split: 12-0 (one abstention) STAFF RE ATION: Deny the appeal and approve the lot split SUPPORT: Five people spoke in support of the appeal and against the lot split. OPPOSITION: Two people spoke in opposition to the appeal and for the lot split. Deaz Ms. Anderson: DONALD WILLENBRING, ET AL. have agpealed the decision of the Saint Paul Planning Commission to grant the appeal of Arnold Fritsche to a decision of the planning administrator to approve a lot split at XXX Wiggins Road. The Saint Paul Planning Commission held a public hearing on the appeal on Apri124, 1998. The appellant and others addressed the committee. At the close of the pubiic hearing the commission voted 10-1 to grant the appeal and deny the lot sptit. The Planning Commission adopted a resolution on May 8, 1998 granting the appeal and denying the lot split on vote of 12-0 (one abstention). The current appeal is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on May 27, 1998. Please notify me if any member of the City Council wishes to have slides of the site presented at the public hearing. Sincerely, ��„'�{,�'� ! l� ' Kenneth Ford Planning Administrator Attachments ^!� cc: City Council members ' � � APPLfCATION FOR APPFAL Departmesr of Planning and Economic Development Zoning Section II00 City Hal1 Annex 25 West Fourth Street Saint Paut, MN 551 D2 266-b589 APPELLANT PROPERTY LOCATION Name Donald Wi en ring, et a. Address 6956 Ashwood Road Woodbury MN 55125 - 0 City St._ Zip Dayiime phone .T�h„ (•hn j Zoning File Name g$ -091 AddresslLocation X w iggin s Road (LOt 5, Block 1, Willenbring Woods Addition) TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the: u Board of Zoning Appeals � City Council under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section 206 , Paragraph �a� of the Zoning Gode, to appeal a decision made 6y fhP City of St. Paul Planning Commission on May 8 19 File number: 98'091 {date of decision) GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you fse{ there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission. Please see attached. � Atfach additional sheet if AppiicanYs signature �� /''�� Date � �� City agent� John �'. hoi, Attorney fox Ap�ellant �•��'� H eiS,,S].C�Y], A at L aw & McKasy p.A. 4700 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-2228 • (612}330-3000 Fax(612)371-0653 Jokn J. Choi (612)330-3025 E-mail: jchoi a�essancom May 13, 1998 : a �i1 � �i/�:7�117 Department ofPlanning and Economic Development Zoning Section ll 00 City Hall Annex 25 West Fourth Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 � �Q'��C's F1L� �$'t38 � Re: Application for Appeal of Planning Commission's Decision �LY �ggins Road (Lot S, Block l; Willenbring Woods Elddition) Zoning File #98-09I Dear Sir/Madam: Attached please find the joint appeal application of 7an Buzicky, Chuck Buzicky, Don Willenbring and Doug Willenbring (hereinafter collectively referred to as `Buzicky" or "Appellants"). Please consider this letter as part of the Buzickys application for appeal of tke Saint Paul Pianning Commission's decision with regazd to the above-referenced file. I. BACKGROUND OF THE PARTIE�. 7an and Chuck Buzicky aze residents of Woodbury, Minnesota who wish to build a home in Saint Paul and on property that is currently owned by Donald and Doug Willenbring (i.e., "the Willenbring Woods Addition"). The Buzickys wish to build a home on the proposed parcel A, which is the southem portion of lot 5 of the Willenbring Woods Addition. Donald Willenbring is also a resident of Woodbury who wishes to build a home in Saint Paul and in the Willenbring Woods Addition. Donald Willenbring proposes that his home be located on the proposed pazcel B, which is the northern portion o£ lot 5 of the Willenbring Woods Addition. Don Wilienbring is cunentiy a resident of Saint Paul and resides at lot 1 of the Willenbring Woods Addition. Donald and Doug Willenbring are brothers who, among other things, aze in business as home builders. This subdivision is their only attempt at development. If the lot split is approved, 7an and Chuck Buzicky will buiid their new home on the front lot, and Doug �_J � 2 9�� 5�� Page 2 ' 1998 �� i �� . -. � Willenbring and his wife will build their new home on the reaz lot, adjacent to Don's lot. Elevations for these two homes are attached as Eachibit 1. The Willenbrings have expended and invested a considerable amount of money and time to develop the Wilienbring Woods Addition of Saint Paul. Mr. Amold Fritsche, who was the appeliant at the Planning Commissioq resides at lat 6 of the Willenbring Woods Addition. II. PROCEDURALBACKGROUND. On February 11, 1998, Donald Wiilenbring applied for a lot spiit of parcel 5 in the Willenbring Woods Addition. The proposed lot split was reviewed by Saint Paui PED, Public Works, and the Water Utility. On Mazch 6, 1998, upon review by city staff finding that ali conditions required for a lot split were met, Mr. Roger Ryan approved Mr. Willenbring's request for a lot split pursuant to Section 67.304 of the Saint Paul Zoning Code. This administrative action was appealed by Mr. Amold Fritsche, who resides on lot 6 of the Willenbring Woods Addition, pn Mr. Fritsche's appeal, city staf� recommended denying the appeal and upholding the administrative lot split. See Staff Report dated April 17, 1998 written by Kady Dadlez, which is attached hereto as Eachibit 2. • Apparently, due to vocal opposition from some of the neighbors to the site and former councilmember Aino Gueran's opposition, the Planning Commassion decided to reverse the administrative lot split in spite of the code's provisions that mandated it. After a public heazing on Mr. Fritsche's appeal, the Planning Commission granted the appeal thereby denying Mr. Willenbring's application for a lot split. See Planning Commission Resolution dated May 8, 1998, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. The Planning Commission denied the administrative lot split based upon three reasons. Those reasons are as follows: (1) As required by § 67.304(a), the lot that is proposed to be split must "have frontage on an e�sting improved street and access to municipal services." The Planning Commission ruled that the admistrative finding that there was such frontage and access was in enor; (2) The Planning Commission ruled that the administrarive lot split violated the "spirit and intenY' of the city council action in 1996 when a plat of 6 lots was approved for the Willenbring Woods Addition; and (3) The Planning Commission ruled that the administrator failed to require a grading plan or contour map for the lot split. From this decision of the Planning Commission, the Buzickys appeal to the Saint Paui City Council based upon the position that that the Pianning Commission's decision was in enor. � P � 1 I998 � �� $' l�j III. DISCUSSION OF THE PLANNING COMIIIISSION'S DECISION. A. The Proposed Lot Split Meets the Requirement of �rontage and Access as Required by Section 67.304(a). Tke administrative lot split initially approve@ by city staff ineets ali of the criteria set forth in the Code. In spite of the Planning Commission's Resolution, the lot does indeed have frontage on an existing "improved" street and access to municipal services. The street at issue was paved by the City of Saint Paul and has utilities under it, which were ordered by the City of Saint Paul. In its 1996 Order, the Saint Paul City Council describes the installation of the utilities and the street at issue as an "improvement " See Final Order of St. Paul City Council dated May 22, 1996, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 4. Moreover, the cost of both the paving and installing the utilities were assessed to the adjacent parcels, jnst like any other improved street in Saint Paut. Were this not the case, this subdivision would not have been possible in the frrst place since the original re-plat of the Willenbring Woods Addition required street frontage for lots 5 and 6. The extension of Wiggins Road is the only street access for Lots 5 and 6 in the Willenbring Woods Addition. Accordingly, ihe proposed lot spiit clearly has frantage on an eacisting improved street and has access to municipal services as required by the Code. • Although the term "Improved StreeY' is not defined in the Legislative Code, the word "Street" is defined as "[a] public dedicated right-of-way, other than an alley, which affords the principai means of access to abutting propecty." See Section 60.219. Wiggins Road is indeed a dedicated right-of-way. Since the proposed administrative lot split created a"flag loP' that provided street access to both lots, this &nding is without support. I note that Section 67304 does not require any particular amount of frontage on an existing improved street, but merely that there is frontage of some amount. The proposal to have a private drive eatend from the end of Wiggins Road which would split to serve the two new lots certainly would provide sufficienY access for both lots. Moreover, there are several ather locations in the vicinity of this lot in which there aze simitar private drives at the end of a street, all of which have vazious levels of impmvement, and all of which have been previously approved by the city. For example, at the Nofth end of Pt. Douglas Road, there are three private driveways as we11 as a future one that will have to be built once the lot is sold as advertised at that location. All of these wili share access to the end of Pt. Douglas Road at the same spot. Tn that case, there is no room for an emergency vehicle to turn around after providing services to these lots. Such vehicies would have to back up about a mile to Catver Avenue or try to tum around in the road. Similarly, at the end of Skyway Road (which is only about i4 feet wide to begin with), - there is a house at the end on the west side and there is absolutely na tum around azea for 0 �� U May 13, 1998 Page 4 emergency vehicles. These vehicles would have to back up a very narrow, poorly maintained and heavily wooded road about a mile and a half before the vehicle could actualiy turn around. This condition is nothing like that proposed for Willenbring Woods. Again, at the end of Ogden Court, there are four private driveways that spider web at the end of the Court. There is no way to tum around from those driveways other than within the Ogden Court, after backing up. Finally, at the end of Mystic Street, there is a house at the end of the pavement, and then a driveway begins to serve another house. There are other houses in thas area, one on the left and two on the right, all of which have no place to turn azound other than backing up to Totem Road. � ��'� ��.� �._ � B. The Spirit and Intent of the City Council's 1996 Approval of the Plat for the Witlenbring Woods Addition is Irrelevant to What the Code Requires. � Upon taking public testimony, which included the comments of former councilmember Dino Guerin, the Planning Commission held as a basis for their decision that the spirit and intent of the 1996 plat that was approved by the city council contemplated no additional parcels for the subdivlsion. Nevertheless, nothing in the official racord suggests that the approval of the plat in 1496 was in any way conditioned on the Willenbrings' agreement to forego any further possibility of subdividing any of the lots in the Willenbring Woods Addition. While the City's approval of the plat could have been conditioned on the Willenbrings' agreement to forego further lot splits, this was never required. In reality, the Willenbrings altered their original application for an eleven lot subdivision in an attempt to meet the demands of the neighborhood, and the council approved that application. Over the past two years, however, the market has shown that the large, two acre parcel is just not desirable in this neighborhood where most of the homes are on lots that occupy ]ess than one-half of an acre. It is for this reason that the lot split was sought. The Planning Commission's decision based upon a violation of the spirit and intent of the 1996 subdivision approvai was without simply without authority, was contrary to the city's own ordinances concerning administrative lot splits, and was arbitrary and capricious. C. The Grading Map Couid Easily Be Furnished By the App3icant. � The Willenbrings are willing to provide a grading plan or contour map. In its resolution, the 3aint Paul Planning Commission states that the lack of such a plan or map makes it nearly impossible to determine if the application meets Section b7.305 of the Code. Importantiy, however, Section 67.305 does require a grading plan or contour map but only states that one may be required. The fact that the planning administrator did not require a grading plan or contour map cannot be a legitimate basis for denying the application unless the applicant has been offered the opportunity to submit a grading plan or contour map. A site plan for the proposed lot `J_ May 13, 1998 Page 5 split is attached as Exhibit 5. This shoul@ provide the council with the information that staff never requested and that the planning commission did not haue. II. CONCLUSION. Based upon the foregoing reasons and the exhibits submitted herewith, the Appellants respectfully request that the City Council reverse the decision of the Planning Commission and adopt a decision consistent with the city staff report dated Aprit 17, 1998, which is attached hereto as E�ibit 2. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 330-3025. Sincerely, HESSIAN & McKASY, P.A. �,r� � By ��"--�"�,/'�--- 7ohn J. Choi 7JC:ktw Enclosures cc: All Saint Paul Councilmembers � ��'��'� ��$.� �� i � � I ` I � ju - �_ r; � �:� �'" � ;. 3 n e � ��,��,5 i? ati }� '�"� / � � Z��i�f� FILE ��3� o° >, �M�r G F m �< � Z Q � Q � � JI W �, � �i � {-" z 0 a � U � W 3 r � d F ° x 0 ro b � W � � � V � � � � a 'n 6 ° U ffi � �� H Ty" t � 6m p m `. m ��p � iC6 0. rt L � X :�t 7 " . . . . .� .. . . . ' y :t': ' ' �cl. . - . � . . _ ° � ,:. i � '.�. _ � $ � � . ;.� ^.. -� �� Fl�.� a�c� � � � _:.� �� „� z ; _ a � - �..;. . x � � o �: • . � � �� _;:. f �- 3� �:; �� $ � . & .�� `�. �� ,�,�, � �- �- � � `. �� s ' O�I� .6�f S � � �Q � ' ' � � . � . '� � 6. � � � . -'�..� :�..,,� _�.� �_ --— <� 3 d� " .� '_ `� � � 3�.� � y � � � 3 2 � r a � �- � � ,� � � t � _ � _ _"� � � £ � K :'�.�.: : . r � L� C M } ? ' • .. � � I � ! � ` •^ � ' �� ! ` I� I� - . w' - � � C� �' , � _ :'y �_�_ _ . ! I • � ( ( 4 s � + � , ' � ; ' : -, t' - :�� 4� a j I � � ' ;. t ; 1 .u,a !�wi �i � a' .�f�° �' .2 I :. � P. ' , n t - , i � ' f . Ei,�.�*�� . ��. �: .'-. ', � � � ' � m - : � .I. �: :`:': :�,._' -;;.�;: _ ' " �I il � — — _ _ ; ~ :-.:> >�;�� i ' } r _ ` �;�`�'.�-'��, y � � — — —�- � �, . - � .. . _ I � � � _ h � -� ' n , .;:� � � ! � ' � " * ' " �� i � � u A � � ' � � � ' � `� � � t �E f �v �f � ' -- j! + . 1 ; � � -�. � ( fF � 4 � � _ 1 '�I+ � �� • �� t a " � I. i` i ill_ i �_ ' ❑ C7 � � I '�� c � + �� .. ' � '� � �i � � � �_ _.___ � ' ll j ' �� • � � �A j ' � � �� e E O { . � � � ' ��' � � �' �k � � �� . � s � r � E �° � � � r s � J � � � i ; � � � i r � _ 1 c ` � _ _' _ __ � _.__� I 3�' � ` � � ��. _. �' — . . � _�� ' . � a :. .. ,:. :' ' •� - � , . C _:_ �.w"?��. . .. . ' 'vL? C ��s w� ?1- � 1 ": � � � ' �� 1 ! 1 •� - ' � 4.�. na �%-:,�.�' ' Z� � . ,� =3 : �� , ��g .� s _ �> ; .ar,v ..t�i ,g a •� .SW,9 . 4 ' , �a ; , ��v.s • ��'--.�;r .. 31-a -_ �- . . � .� ' . -�aNn:. .?s{sL:r�B '.Wa . ��::-. , . . . - ' l : �• _ .a . . .._ .. . . � . . . _ . . . \-, � ._ _ '.. 9 . . `_�'' _ � • � � � � � � P a �� r w 1 � •\` W �, , , ' � N �. 1 � � � > > � . \ 1 1 , ? si ______' i 2t.P ___y sQ4' _______� _ � �' j i � T Q .�/��' • ` \ � r\ a n � 1 . 1 � . ,� � . i' . Q o p + o � ^ � � ' " z� , ,._�. _ � �.� , o � vJ \ p E-. . S � `f 6 C� . H . � ..� : C] � � � U � . � -`� a . .. � � i ~` "'q Q , • ' \,. �w � � � � X �� V ' a z ' _ . � � °�a n it �a y � � � � m a ;�� w � `_ /�� . �, . 7r1 J t u Y �`\ `'\ \ W :„ a ` � �. H � ' y ' ' �' ° . v e y ro r-r � , - � —. . , � < t� � � � ' e y � - Z I O V C" ,�- � z ,'', x � , � �, , � � � �,� 1 �. • � pQ : p � `. � �` �2 0.� � ` � ' t-� A •i4 M � . 1 � > 1 `, 1 � � Y �1 � ` 4 i � � �, ��`� , O N�. � , i � s �; � • � �`-�. i . � ,. ,.-- t � t . � � ' ` �--"_�»�--_- \ , ___ a -" � �Ly,pFeo N �:. . � 7,� �y � I ' . � r � {`}9 � � L� � ' �g . , � a° � I �� W �_� � 4 � � � � 1 r � � g � n m Z o a � � z � � � � U L.�� } � � q� O ' e � h �6 g 0� `� y Y 'h �-� r+ � � y � • . r � � 2 u N o �� — Yr rG . =v, S {` � � 1 � '--''- =-- -°- =- I I � ' O� /'� � � �A V.1 I i � � � � I a a• x n ¢ � . t U R 9�� 6�� e � ' ,`. ,'�Q A �f. � o . � . . , < Q� �. � 6��• a � � m \. � / , � y '__ r o � � e � . �.�/ ; � h Y4 � 1 .�i . � , '�. ; � ,¢ J , - �� o " s � a � '� W � O �� i a �� y ^ � v+ p i 6� � . t 6 r I evec� '�� t �s . ' M .9L �LtAO . •g ��st� �.—.....— a�obohwo oa_>w3<>"� •Ze�r cn . �� z -----------------ecT ti ------------ 1� .. C Q� M rK �Lt.00 N V< N \ � ��G � n �� ._ .; 1 �xhibit � Z00(t4G'd 64�d{ C6/S1/50 dse�ap q u¢issaH J. u�. � ` z ��" ;� «. E59DitCti9� �� -��a� . � -� � t2. PAOL �,.�ORDEB In the Hatter of �xh► b►�-1� qS-5�s �r��r 5 ��' ��`�� COUHCZL FZLE N0. q(�— Sy� BY �� _ �- - FZLH HO: � 1882� � VOTIAG AABD 7 (1882Q) Constructing a sanitarp sewer Courc to approx. 145 ft. north the south property line o£ the Addition); reconstructed with existing Wiggins Road and a 20 Trench Area. (18821) Construct a public water main � Court to approx. 145 ft. north of the south property 13ne of Addition.) in Wiggins Road from Hillwood of Hillwood Court (10 ft. south of proposed Willenbring Woods 72 ft. of curb and gutter on foot w3de grarrb driveway in the 0.s i� in Wiggins Road from Aillwood of Aillwood Court (10 ft. south the proposed Willenbring Woods � ��1�� L� •l3� � • nderPreliminary�rder � � — 3Q � appzoved ��,^ ��} , �`jq�, � The Council of the City of Saint Paul has conducted a public.hearing upon the above improvement, due notice thereof having been given as presczibed bg the City Charter; and WHEREAS, The Council has heard al1 persons, objections and recommendations pertaining to said proposed improvement and has fully considered the same; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby order that the above-describe� improvement be made, and the proper Gity officers are hereby directed and authorized to proceed with the improvement; and be.it FBRTHER RESOLVED, That upon the completion of said improvement, the proper City officers shall calculate all expenses incurred therein and shall report the sane to the Citp Council in accordance with Chapter 14 of the City Charter. C�JUNCIL°ERSONS Yeas Nays �lakey +/�os tros ' �uer�n Harris— Abserss �egazc ✓I�eyt m aa ✓I�hune �o In ravor �sAgainst i �C�scr�i� Adopted by Council: Date � `" � ±e� 1� Certified Passed by Council5ecretar�� By Exhibit ayor 9 ��5 < - -- . �t �. - �y'1 � SllNfMARY OF ENG{NEERING RECOMMENDAT[ON Wiggins Rd.1 Leonard Court Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Project Project No. Report Prepared March 13, i996 Pubfic Hearing---------- P RO,f ECT: Construct a sanitary sewer system and water main in Wiggins Rd. from Hiliwood Ct. to approximately 1k5' north, 10' south of the souih property line of proposed Wiiienbring Woods Add"stion. EXIS7ING CONDITION: The Pro}ect area is presently not served by a sanitary sewer or water main. PROPOSED (MPROVEMEt�ITS_ • Sanitary sewer and watermain construction from tne existing mains in Wiggins Rd. to 145' north on Wiggins Rd.; reconstructed wiih 72' of curb and gutter on existing Wiggins Rd., and a 20' wide gravel drive�vay in the trench area. ALTERNATiVE: r To do nothing would require the property owners to construct long services. PaSiTIVE BENEFiTS: Lots 5 and 6 of Block 1 will have the benefit of public mains, consequent{y requiring shorter service connections. ADVERSE EFFEC'f�S: Norma! problems associated with constsuction such as noise , dust and general disrupfion, will be preseni. a � ZOi�i�G �1LE �r� l� �1G�S��1 COST ESTIMATES: Wiggins RdJ Leonard Court Project • Sanitary Sewer: Construction $10,597 Engir�eering and Inspection a 1,960 Service Fee $243 Project Tocal Financing: Assessment City A+d � :�� $4,000 ss,aoa Project Total $12,800 Watermain: �9,285 51,718 667 $11,670 7�� #i . S 0 S��r�b � �7��? � ` Since the assessment excEeds ihe benefits, the property ovraers would have fo agrea to sign a Waiver of Appeal form. RECOMMENDATlON The Qepartment of Public Works has no recommendatio� in this matter. Respectfully submitte ��l/��'"t�-d � Thomas J_ Egg City Engineer � � ��,� �,�-.ti, CL�`t:,c � .`�"•��`�,.� F��F —..iL�'�_ : � � �z � ESTIMATES FOR WIGGSNS ROAD IMPR04EMENTS ��--- � � Total E�cpenditures Rate Per Assessable Poot Assessment Financing City Aid Total QTJ�STIO2�'S? � ��V �� Water sanitary Main Sewer $4,600 $I2,800 �25.00 $25.00 $4,000 $ 4,000 � 600 8 800 �4,600 $12,800 � ;�� y��_____ Sanitary Sewer 266-6149 � ..:_�_�""� " " `�` � � � � � � VJater Main 266-6273 ��—"�°'""'— Assessments 2G6-8850 .. _ „�, .... �.,, ,:` . �;� . , ��.. �<w �,.., ; ;'� _..�-` - ' - `" `F. �� _ r ; "; - ' ,,. � � �^! � i'�_'.' ' ,ro.� 3~ —:` 1 � ru _-�� - . 'r{ J, 3 3Yr � \ ' :� � ' - . � � ...,. . � � ' (ry .... � ,r", J; ,:� s O « �.� � .�" , 'Y , tw X i ' � "� ':�. i � /��,�✓ ��.:, �'� f �� / 1-��'�:� si �; J� 1�-� �i(�r� _, �,. ,• �� \ ,w' �«,�{ e, -K i �. y �o` � o ,� t �r .�. � p n� �. �....`� u 2 5 .� .. i o < y . -'(,�� v` .. ;, ��:: ' 3'Fy � ? ��t+' i ��Yw.'r � v � o. n.� - Y . �� \� ��;�. _'•+.: ,p . � • �• 1 1..�� .._ GZ.4.7: '` w < � • , M h�..�h.i �� IH � /� 4,,,,� �., r T �OM, I� (�v ' r 'tl � • . . 5 � / � f � :I � ��. .j� /] � � � � ' J ,:'�.. ` _ \ Y�� ' \�\ -, ^� ` �� e � /� \, ;'k "�� iJ 4Q � ' _. �'?.r-.� SQA�� <.,,�._.. ��. �� „�. "' "" ' _"��..L'z . �` ".... .._ .,. 3-�: ' 13 �I� �1:'��aRx �.1.:'.. � , .� � � ��.�. . ..... _ �-�`:�� <', i �� ! � � • � �� r� �� .: : � { ` � r ! � cw � � �� ; � —i " '4 " ' � � � �� "=�c-�d 4.,� � ^ .�< V � �\_L—Jl��t:ac �vE. ( F q NI �p0< I�( • _:: 1 ,f . " �'' � T28N 'tZ2 � , ° ,.� ..�. 11 �< .�o, ..z 6b Z � x -"�. :-�- O -" � ,'� �'' `. w�...w� •.[ 1� 7 i 12 It" • � li I ulifoatt � h{ �i ry (\ � ^' 1 � � y i .� / `I 'i T �� `� V � � � ; ' , , CY _ �`�, : � � �. :_�� ,`;. - ..__ =; •.,.- .. +/ - � • .� . ;,�.: 4�' �' ,, � -- j- " i; L ."'.an„ .. '� t ��o a ,y � .f .i - ti � ' � � / /� p �� p . �, 1 � �!'.• � � x < .� !j A ' � �,� t� •. S ta � � �� ''''yJ,', (� � ��.� ��/ /<.� 2 � � 4 � � t �/ R ';� il��.., " ' C�/�. �.� Ja•. � /:�� !ME ' � L� . 4 F t �.K F�� ..,_�,�� ^ �. ' � �\ :� ` � r :� � �i.-'- �`. • F 1 ' < i „S 1 i V � Eg- i.; ` �G �, ,.-� �c �� `' (' r � ' , �. 1. ...�, S' C � • �✓� f • ��?f�i� �Y ,� � j J � T ;- �' �' % �� l � :_ _ � i ' .� i � � O t _ c _ ti � � r }.�"� : r' ��( '_. .- i ' � �' -.t `:_ j, '. � j�„ � ' , , '� - �'-; _ e. ! � � ` . i, t �- \ � 2 �4-� �.,, ` �, / SLin S t.,. � 9.. I`.'� / t+ i v.qa�`_ Ra ¢ O \ �� t � � � � � ' t - ,y 5. . �_.i � J � C � � : o Li'_ {-� ; � � � '� : � �( 5 i �' ; o - � � 1 �+ o i t`AY. if OCjJ 1 � 4 � �•� �'' ` / f , �� ' ,•�"`x� � X �+lY.a;�GG : 5 +4:�.� . _... .._� ' � Tt � ��'t ). � .. . • ��, . ' ,(: `. , : ....._ ,v _ ,``�' � 6? �t��roc� �t�. { c \ O � a� �' y` r / t i / �� a..a',•!l�.r.J4 '.�' K ( / /�� v ,, � � }^ �l \':' - r�` ' � /�. : � � YJC ]I'� � � W� �,, � �� / o ,.. � <... .; \ ` �' '`` , � :� � l ,. a ,, \ �� _ : �.. i,� . t`%/i '• A< i � � � Y p � % '`� V" L1'r�� L RD. I O y v . � � �� :}1BER 7R. . ° H YiJS C�. J:EX FL. LAKE :�C-:t�COD �� ' f t��Z� i Y �� g8-s85 . . �. _ � � Q �� 5 ��a� �` J • � D E D i t� 7 / 7 ) 1 \� . � ��, i �� V ��! � � Q � � � � � 3 \�, ;� � � �� . �a i " S a � �. D ;78/ c � R OA D � �--- � � �-� s i0 -`� ! .CC 19 � .c,.�' > �. , `� � �b I � 4 ° ,,, i Q � � � �-- o , c, o C. � • � • . � � . i � �G� 1 C� � a o C � � �2� 50 �2b 5� ;� ` _ ;2�r � � 3 �, �, 3 c, o l S _ o �� o � • �. i �� I < ? �c : L " c � � � ��, r, - � � � ' , o / �} ti� � o � o � o � , � � � ;� � � - .�r : JL?.So � � } .�' o . � 3 0 � r � ' ° "'`., rj ° (32� � � S � � � �5� � � _ ` �� _ �5 _ �. s CZSY OP ST. PAIIL PRHLZ2SIHAiY OHDBi In the Hatter of --�� '(�-'J�` , ' ` :�.: (I8820) Constructing a sanitary sewer Court to agprox. 145 f[. nor[h the south property line of the Addition); zeconstructed with existiag Wiggins Road and a 20 Trench Area, public hearing be given to 2he persons and in by the Charter, stating the t3me and place of of [he improvement and the total cost thereof (18821) Construct a public water main in Wiggins Road from Hillwood Couzt to approx. 145 ft. north of Hillwood Court (10 ft. south of the south property line of the proposed Willenbring Woods Addit3on.) �Z�#��G FlLE ��'� � The Council of the City of Saint Paul having received the report of the• Piayor upon the above improvemeat, and having considered said report, hereby resolves: 1. That the said report aad the same is herebp approved with co al[ernatives, and that the estimated cost thereof is $20,750 financed by Assessments ($4,000 sanitary sewer and $7,950 public water rtcain) and City Aid $8,800. 2. That a publ3c hear3ng be had on said improvement oa the 22nd_ day of 1996, at 5:00 o'clock P.M., in the Council Chambers of the City Ha1l and Court House Building in the City of Saiat Paul. - � 3. That notice of said the manner provided hearing, the nature as estimated. COUNCILPERSONS Yea� Nays Blakey ✓Bostrom faerin ✓�:arris �fegard +-'�ettman ✓l �In Favor �Agaiust - =? COIIACZL PILE A0. � BY , ' � ' • FT7.E HO� 18 20 6 18821 VOTZHG AAED 7 in Wiggins Aoad from Hillwood of Hillwood Court (10 f�. south of proposed Willenbring Woods 72 ft. of curb and gutter on foot wide gravel driveway in the Adopted by Council: Date ��,,,�A,� 1`; � Cercified Passed'op CouncilSecreLSry B9_"�� . �. 1�.,.,_1�.�. a---�s-- . � ayor (6 `a_'` t ir �''�:r. � ` °"�� Saint Paul City Council �� `� ;:- � �. = ,«TE�,r,�„ ~� Public Hearing Notice , S�� i71Ff f�[i 11 a ° �� Public Improvement Constructio �85• OWNER OR TAXPAYER f /` t! � � � COU23CIL DISTRICT � PLANI3ING COUNCIL q01 r .. .....:,__ :.:. . FILE # �i8.820:"<::�':::°;:;� :: PIi4PERTY ADDRESS _ ............._._...._....:�..,.,.._..M._.:., . <. -�>%� . _...... .. .. PARCEL IB PROPERTY TAX DESCRIPTION ��a�i�9'd�l �� -�—� �.-��;_- � _ .� : .... . . . . . .... .. :.. � THE TIME: :WEDNESDAY,_ MAY.:22; 1996 �AT .5:00. P.M, PUBIiC PLACE: City Councif Chambers, 3rd Fioor City HalhCourt Nouse HEARING Written or ora4 statements by any owner will be considered by fhe Council at this hearing. PURPOSE ESTIMATtD ASSESSMENT iNFORMATI�N ESTIMA � �D 'ASSESStvtEN7 CALCULATION To consider approva4 of the proposed project as follows: CONSTRUCT A SANITARY SEWER IN WIGGMS ROAD FROM HILLWOOD COURT TO APPROXIMATEIY �45 NORTH OF H4.LWOOD COURT (1Q FcET SOUTFt OF THE SOUTH PROPcRTY L1NE 0= THE PROPOSED WILLENBRING WOODS ADDiT10N); P.eCONSTRUCTED WfTH 72 FEET OF CURB AND GUT7ER ON EXISTING WIGGINS ROAD AND A 20 FOOT WIDE GRAVEL DRIVE[dAY IN THE TRENCH AREA. If the City Council approves the project, a{I or part of the cost will be assessed against the 6enefitfed properties. The ESTIMATED assessment for the above property is S NOTE: Tt-tIS IS NOT A BILL! Piease see PAYMENT iNFORMA310N on fhe reverse side of this notice. �{ CONTINISED ON REVERS� SIDE NOTIFICATION DATE: 06l03/96 - S� GIYY �F�i. � R;� �-,, � o ,�, y a ' �cc[[Clttitt � ItEE [I(4 71 a ; �s � E . i� � � aes+ Saint Paul City Counczl Public Hearing Notice Public Improvement Construction OWNER OR TAXPAYER • 7 �``�� 0 a�--�`�� COUNCIL DISTRICT #7 PLANNING COUNCIL #01 FILE � ;188�1�::«_�::�;�'��' PROPERTY ADDRESS PARCEL ID PROPERTX TAX DESCRIPTION ��}�� L� �� { �. L Lli� n. .. �.,..-__. _ Y ' . .,. �J�.'�.• .a. . THE TIME: N'EDNESDAY,.-MAY-22; �996'AT='5:00=P_NI: PUBLIC PLACE: City Gouncil Chambers, 3rd Floor City Hall-Court House FIEARiNG Written or oral statements by any owner wi!! be considered by tE�e Councif at this hearing. PURPOSE To consider approva! of the proposed project as follows: CONSTftUCT A PUBUC WATEft MAIN IN WIGGINS ROAD FFtOM MIIWOOD COUftT 70 APPAOXIMATELY 445 NOR7H OF NlLLWOOD COURT. (70 FEET SOUTH OF THE SOUTH PROPERTY LfNe OF THc PROPOSED WILLENBRMG WOODS ADDITION.) " ESTIMATED If the City Council approves the project, aii or part o€ the ASSESSMENT cost wili be assessed against the benefittsd properties. The (NFORMAT(ON ESTIMATED assessment for the above property is s• NOTE: TH1S !S NOT A BILLI P{ease see PAYMENT INFORMATtON on fhe reverse side af this notice. ESTIMATEQ ASS�SSMEN! CALCULATION � !� CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE NOTI�ICA+10N DATE: 05/03/96— c ; � ;�� # city of saint paui � pfanning commission resolution file number 98-36 �lPi May 8i 1998 Z�� iLE "9. �' _ � WHEREAS, Amold Fritsche, in Zoning File #98-091 and pursuant to the Saint Paul Legislative Code §b4300(j), duly filed an appeal o£ the planning administrator's decision to approve a tot split for property located at XXX WIGGINS ROAD, legally described as Lot 5; Willenbrin� Woods Addition; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirements of the Saint Paul Legislative Code §64300, the Saint Paul Planning Commission held a publia hearing on April 24, 1998, at which all persons ptesent were given an opportunity to be heazd; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented, found that the planning administrator erred in approving the lot split for the following reasons: a. Section §67304 of the Saint Paul Zoning Code permits the planning administrator to approve a lot split provided six conditions aze met. The ptanning administrator ened in finding that • condition §67304(a) of the zoning code was met. That condition states, "The lot or lots have frontage on an existing improved street and access fo municipal services. " Wiggins Road is an officaally platted street which abuts the properiy and provides access to municipal services, but it is also officially not an "improved streeY' nor is it maintained or plowed by the city. In addition, while the 12.5 feet of frontage for each lot provides access to municipal services it does not provide frontage in the traditional sense and lacks sufficient frontage to accommodate emergency vehicies . By comparison, the average frontage of surrounding lots is 57 feet. b. The Saint Paut City Council approved a final plat of the property and the surrounding five lots in 1996, the result of a negotiated process in which the developer and property owner participated. The lot split approved by the planning administrator would allow an additional lot. This is not in keeping with the original agreement made by the property owner! developer or with the spirit and intent of the city council action in I996 and amounts to a second plat of the property. c. The planning administrator failed to require a grading plan or contour map which fully represented the applicanYs intent and the lack of such a plan or map makes it nearly moved by Kramer secor�ded by Wencl in favor lZ� against 1 A6stention (Mardell) � Zoning File #98-091 Page Two of ResoluYion impossible to determine if the lot spiit meeYs the intent of the requirement of Saznt Paul Legislative Code, Section 67.305 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paut Planning Commission, that the appeai by Amoid Fritsche of the plamling administrator's decision to approve a lot spiit for the property located at X� WIGGTNS ROAD, legally described as Lot 5; Willenbring Woods Addition, is hereby granted for the reasons stated above; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the approval of the planning administrator of the application by Donald Willenbring, Zoning File #98-028, to allow the property at X�'Y WTGGINS ROAD to be split (Lot 5; Willenbring Woods Addition) is hereby rescinded; AND BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution sha11 be mailed to Amold Fritsche, Donald Willenbring, the zoning administrator, and the planning administrator. �ZO�t�G F1LE ��_ � -�. � • � � � ti , �° '. . � ;`, �; g �.� � ' M i n v�4es�rem. - t�- Sai v1,� �ax.v� � 1a3�,.v�.� rSC� "�w � o r� �� $i � iq�:'� (CommiSsioner Vaught's microphone was also not working.) Commissioner Gordon asked if this is the comer across £rom the comer of University and Dale where there is already is an open air farmers' market, and was that taken into consideration. Commissioner Field responded that the SW comer of Universiry and Daie's use will be changed, and the Uni-Dale Shopping Center open air farmers' market will replace Yhe one that has been on the SW comer, in theory. The n:otion on tl�e floor carried u�eanii�:ozrsly on a voice vote. Commissioner Field read the agenda for the Zonino Committee's next meeting, Thursday, May 14, 1998. � 1 � • 1 i i � I { i � i � Adnnt resolution of Planning Commission's 5ndings on the appeal Arnold Fritsche to a decision of the planning administrator to approve a lot split at �cx Wiggins Road. (Public hearin$ heid Apri12A, 1998) Commissioner Field staced that the Zoning Committee discussed the resolution on the appeal, and it is submitted on an advisory basis for discussion today. Chair Ivlorton reminded everyone that the public hearing on this matter is closed. 'I'he purpose of it being on the agenda today is to pass the resolution. M(1TT(l�T: Con�missiorter Xrarr�er rrtoved approval afthe stebmitted resolutio�z of lhe Plar:r:irsg Conuuission's findings on the appeal af the planning administrator's decision to approve a tot split at xrx lYiggius Road; Cournrissiater YYe�rct seconded tlle nrotion. Commissioner Mardell announced that he �vill abstain from voting on this matter because of a potential conflict. 1YLOTiO�Y7'_ilA1�F:t1�2: Comntissioner Yaught moved to delete subparagraph c. from tlre resolution, statiirg thal it is far too broad; Cournzissiater Fietd seconded the motio�t wkicJ: carried ou a voice vote of IO - 2(Kran:er, fYe�ecl) with ot:e abslersiion (Mardell). Commissioner Field refetred to a lettec received from the attomey of the land o�vner, and noted his concem. He stated that it is alluded to in the letter "that cooler heads should prevail." He said that he does not recall heated heads at the last meeting, and he wants the record not to reflect that there might have been an inflammatory discussion at that meeting. He feels that there was a healthy, long, detailed, and thoughtful discussion of the issues. He resents the Planning Commission members being refened to having heated heads. Commissioner Vaught concurred with Commissioner Field's comments. MOTION fo AMEi\'D: Commissioner Nordin moved that the new paragraph c. be consistentwith other paragraphs �vhen referring to the Legislative Code by deleting Chapter 67 and inserting Section 67305. Chair Morton accepted Commissioner Nordin's amendment as a friendly amendment. M(ITTON tf1.AlYLF1� Commissior:er Gordon, referring ta subparagraph b., moved to aniend tke last sentence io state: "Tltis is not iit keeping witl: !he original agreentent made �' �' �, � , . 'by tl�e developer aad property owner, or wir/i tlee spirit ar�d iieteret ofclee City Cour:cil actiort in 1996 axd aa�ounts to a second plat oftlae properry." Coninaissioa=er Vaught secai�ded the � naotion ivhich carried :u�ar:imously on a voice vate. � Commissioner Wenct drew members' attention to a sfieet contained in the packet dealing tivith � the width of the unpaved streets in Highwood, specificalty, the listing of those north of � Highcvood and those Yhat are south of Highwood. The Highwood Plan has a different � recognition of streets in the area north of Highwood and the area south of Aighwood. The north section talks about having paved streets that are 20-24 feet wide. Any improvements there are to be made to be improved streets. The only area of Highwood that is to be left unpaved and more rural in character with larger lots is the area south of High«•ood. T/te amended n�otion mt tl�e flaor to adoPt d�e resol�rtim� of the Planning Conunissinn's fiieditn�s, tleereby grmeting the appeal of tlre pfaiuting adneinistrator's decision to approve a lot split atsrx lYiggi�zs Road, carried unaninrously on a voice vote (ttitardell abstuining). V. Soufheasf Quadrant 72eporf -(Atlen Love}oy) Mr. Lovejoy highlighted a fe�v current projects. He started with a non-downtown project: the West Side Three Part Comprehensive Program that is curreatly before the HRA board, put together by ReDA, the bVest Side Community Development Corporation. They are one of the first CDCs to come forward with a strategy. This one developed from the WESCO Plan that was adopted a little more than a year ago. Al Carlson, housing specialist on the Southeast Team, has been warking tvith them. ReDA and NeDA have come together to propose a main street project funding from LISC. ._..�.• f .. . • - • .. Zhe3Zgner I andino-Proj�sL' A series of technical studies done on this site has led to the conclusion that this site is not particularly good for any kind of development other than development that could be flooded regularly, primarily because in order to make Yhe site developable, particularly for housing, the entire site tivould need to be elevated, approximately 11 feet, and that would create some �veird edges at Shepard Road, which will be reconstructed behind Upper Landing as well as relationship to the River's edge. There is a team working to come up with some ideas, but so far, no one's come up with any magic answers for the ITpper Landing. Thel2esigtiG.enier: An extremely important outgrowth of Yhe Riverfront Development Framework. The three principle people from City staff that are working on the Design Center are working virtual]y fu11 time on those activities: Tom Eggum, Public Works, is the leader of the Design Center; Lucy Thompson, PED; and Tim Agness, Parks Division. They have already had a very profound impact on design in the city, probably the most visible on the Minnesota Mutuai Design. As the new building goes up, you wilt begin to see a remarkable change from the kinds of developments that were done in the past. The gteatest design challenge was to create a front door on all four block faces. � Mississin�i Natinnal Re&reation Area fMNRRAI designatipn. The City is working with the Metropolitan Council, tivho are looking to the City and the Planning Commission to reflect many of the MNIZE2A principles within fhe context of the Comprehensive Plan. Tom Hanen, Ken Ford, Larry Soderholm, and Allen Lovejoy wi11 be negotiating with them. Certain key elements make sense being in the Comprehensive Plan, others do not. ThP T T Hill Rnilding. Apgroximately eight months ago the Public HealYh Department was in :�r �:' ,.. • ------_._.` �; ;�, � � Q 5 � 1 � �C��9�� LE 98- --- 3� Saint Paul Planning Commission City Hall Conference Center 15 Kellogg Boulevard �Vest A meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, Apri124, 1998, at 830 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall. Commissionars Present: Commissioners Absent: Mmes. Duarte, Engh, Faricy, Geisser, Maddox, Morton, Nordin, Treichel, and Wencl and Messrs: Chavez,. Field Tr., Gervais, Gordon, Kong, Kramer, Mardell, McDoneli, No�vlin, and Vaught. Messrs. *Johnson and Sharpe *Excused Also Present: Ken Ford, Planning Administrator; Jean Birkholz, Kady Dadlez, Donna Drummond, Nancy Homans, and Larry Soderholm, Department of Planning and Economic Development staff. I. Approval of Minutes of April 10,1447 � MSLTTON: ConuuissionerMcDorretl utoved approval ofihe rai�eutes ofApril IQ 1998; Con:neissioner Field seconded the n:otion. Commissioner Field asked that the minutes be amended to include the words "the applicant said that" before the words "they aa eed to" in line rivo on page six. Staff agreed to add those words. Tlte neatiorz to approve the aretended netr:utes ofApril Z0, 1998 carried ttnanimottsly on a voice vote. r�� V. 9:Q0 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING: To_cQnsislex Y2Le�[zn��LDnnald Fri�.c_chP nf the Planning Administrator's decision to approve a lot split for properiy at xxx Wiggins Road (Lot 5, Block 1; Willenbring Woods Addition) (Kady Aadlez, 266-6582) Chair Morton read the rules and procedures of public hearing. ' Ms. Dadlez gave a brief slide presentation to sho�v the site and the sunounding area. She provided some background for this case. In 1495, there was an application to divide this property (Willenbring �Voods property) into 11 parcels. A site plan review was also required at that time. The Planning Commission denied that site p]an review. The denial was appealed to the City Council; the City Council also denied that site plan and the subdivision of property. A year later the applicant came back with a plan to subdivide the property into 61ots. That was approved by the City Council. In ivtarch of this yeaz, the owner of the propety came in to request a split of the largest parcel, lot # 5, into parcels A and B, which is the subject of today's hearing. Ms. Dadlez cited a number of requirements that need to be met before the Planning Administrator can approve a split of a piece of property. 1. The lot(s) to be divided have to be on previously platted 3and. Z( This property was platted in 1996, so that criteria was m�� -------�»� 2. The lot(s) to be divided must meet the minimum standards for lot width and area in the zoning districi in which the property is located. In this case, the property is zoned R-1, which is a low density residential single family zone and requires 80 feet of �vidth and 9,600 square feet of lot area, Both of the lots meet that requirement. 3. The division must not cause a remaining part of a lot Yo become a separately described piece of property that doesn't meet the minimum standards. Both lots meet the minimum sYandards. 4. The dividing of the property must not create a split zone. In this case, both properties remain zoned R-1 tivith the split. 5. The division cattnot result in the creation of a nonconforming use or structure. The property is currently vacant and would be developed for single family homes. 6. The lot(s) must have frontage on an existing improved street and access to municipal services. - —„_ This requirement is met. Both sewer and water have been installed and there is access to the • lot for that, although there �vill need to be some additional work done in order to provide capacity for a third lot. Regazding "on an existing improved street " for purposes of splitting the tot, Public Works states that requirement is met, and thaYs the reason the Planning Administrator approved this spliY. Ms, Dadlez stated that a Public Works representative said that "Wiggins Road is an officiaily platted street upon which three tots abut, and iYs officially not improved." Pubtic Works has allowed ihe residences to install a longer driveway than normal. Public Works states that this last requirement is meY, for their purposes. Ms. Dadlez raminded the Commission Yhat access is sufficient for the two lots and therefore it's also sufficient for tha third lot. She noted that once properry is pIatted, nothing in the code prevents the staff from approving a lot split of a property, administratively, without going back to the City Council, and that is what happened in this case. In 1996 Yhe City Council approved a plaY of the property for six lots; two years later the properiy owner came in to request that the properry be split. AII of the standards for the split were met, and so it was approved; and that is why it did not need to go back to the City Council, Based on the findings in the staff report, staff would recommend that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and they uphold the position of the Planning Administrator. Commissioner Engh raised the quesrion of what affect this tot split might have environmentally. Ms. Dadlez responded that she did not lmotv; that perhaps the owner of the property mighY know. Chair Morton announced that John Labosky's presentation wouid be rescheduted. i. Dino Guerin, 1977 North Park Drive, addressed the Commission to testify that he was on - the City Council at the time this issue came up. He stated that he had been out to Iook at 10 zz R�- s�. f Z�P�� 1LE �� the site on numerous occasions with members of the communiry. The City Council decided that the oFVner of the property had the right to develop his land and that 61ots � were appropriate for this property, provided that it wouldn'i adversely affect the ��' community or wetlands, the bluff, or tree preservation. There was an understanding that_, �" � the owner agreed on 6, along with the neighborhood and the City Council. About three months ago, staff made a decision to split a lot, and now put in 7. He thinks that this decision violates good faith and the negotiations everyone had. He also thinks that the record of the City Council meeting saying that they aa eed to 6 lots should mean something. He hoped that this appeal Fvould be granted because there �vas an agreement to 6 lots. He thinks this is a back door way to gei in and get 7 lots. 2. Aavid Raymond, 2401 West 66th Street, Richfield, MN, attomey for ihe �Villenbring Companies, addressed the Commission and inh Don Willenbring, 579 McKnight Road (Block 1, Lot 1 of the Willenbring development). Mr. Raymond noted the concern expressed about the environment and the preservation of the trees and the development of these two lots, but that those decisions need to be made �vhen the building permit is applied for these two resideniial lots. He thinks that it does not come into play for the ]ot split. He reiterated that the staff report says that all of the conditions for a residential lot split have been met, and both lots A and B exceed the minimum requirements for residential lots. Both are approximately one acre. He said that the main point the appellant raises in the appeal is concemed rvith some drainage problems because of the elevation changes from lot S to lot 6. He stated that he hasn't seen any evidence of that, but he wi11 wait for the appellant to bring it forth. He assured the appellant that there will not be any additional run-off from those lots to his lot, and are willing to set up an . aa eement to take care of those issues. The drainage issue is another thing that will be brought up at the time the 6uilding permit is applied for. Commissioner Gordon asked if there had been an agreement to have 61ots. Mr. Willenbring responded that originally they had brought in a proposal far 1 I lots, including a street. Excessive grading Fvould have needed to be done, in addition to the removal of a lot of trees, so the proposat was turned down at the Planning Commission and again at the appeal before the City Council. Later, they applied for a 61ot proposal, and he answered that 61ots had been agreed upon. Since then, they were not able to sell the large 2 acre lot for the price they feel they need to get for it. So, they decided to split the lot. 3. Cy Yustin, 616 Wiggins Road, addressed the Commission in support of the appeal. He lives directly across the street from the driveway into the back lot. He stated that he and his wife have 4 reasons to object to this proposed change to, what they consider, a previous arrangement. 1. It's an arbitrary change, unnecessary, and they believe, unreasonable. 2. Adding another home on the lot is going to greatly change existing important natural features on the property. 3. Ic will also adversely affect the trees, slopes, the �vetiands, and the naturat vegetation in the area. 4. It will create an issue of potential danger and damage from water erosion and water run-off. It will probahly also require a street with a tum around for fire and safety vehicles as was originally considered when the Planning Commission looked it several years ago. ' Mr. Yusten circulated pictures to illustrate his position. 11 � L.J � �� 1LE -.�- t They purchased their house 616 Wiggins in February, 1996. They had been looking for a � home that was in a natural environment. They checked the City Council minutes and the Highwood Development Policies and Regu2ations for Implementation, April, 1995, to look at the rules for development in the area. It was clear from this document that the natural beauty of the area would continue to exist. He pointed to a hi[I as an important naturai feature of the area. He noted that Tom $each in January of 1996 described the full parcel (b lots): The site rises aimost 40 feet from the east end of the property on McKnight to a high point (the top of the hill) and then drops 60 feet to the �vest end. He continued to say tfiat the 60 foot drop is contained, almost in total, on lot 5. So, there's a 60 foot drop in an approximate 2501inear distance. You have to buiid the house on the slope to have a house on that lot. The slope, as described by the City Planning Office two years ago, ivas estimated to beriveen 40 and 50 degrees. So, there's goina to be an incredible change in what happens to the natural environment. Mature trees cvill need to be cut down and the siope will need to be excavated in order to build on this site. Mr. Yusten expressed that there was some wisdom when the Highwood Pian �vas put together. The Plan says in several places that there are areas in the High�c•ood region thaY are "unsuitable for development " This is a mound that they are trying to build on. Iie suspects that there are probably some burial mounds up there because it has such an unusual imob shape. To conclude, Mr. Yusten requested that the Commission not only support the appeal, but—..-_ _ also that he be advised in some manner if there are any future considerations onlhis • property. Atso, he asked that he be provided with a method by which he might appeal any decision he would consider coming from this Commission. Chair Morton reminded Pianning Commission members that the purpose of this hearing is to consider the decision of the Planning Administrator. Mr. W amer reCterated that the purpose of the appeal is to determine whether or not the Planning Administrator committed any error with respect to tke findings in para�raph H. 2. a. - f. Mr. Yusten interjected that the previous discussion said that the Planning Administrator is not restricted from splitting the property; he is atso not required to split the property. Mr. Wamer urged Commissioners to treat the last statement with caution because his interpretation of the code says that if the Pianning Administrator finds that all these conditions are met, that he is compelled to approve the lot split. Commissioner Nordin asked questions referring to the pictures. Commissioner Nowlin asked Mr. Wamer about the role of Fhe Commission in this case. Gommissioner Kramer asked Mr. Wamer what requirement there is that iot splits conform with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Warner noted that the requirements in the code are set out in the staff report. Section 76304 of the code says, - "If an applicant for a lot spiit meets the criteria that are set out in the staff repart, then the IZ 2� �- ��,� � City is compelled to approve the iot spii .'� � � � �� With respect to Commissioner Nowlin's question, the role of the Planning Commission today is to determine if the Planning Administrator erred in making his decision for this ]ot split. Commissioner Vaught commented that he is troubled �vith this. He stated that surely people have rights attached to pieces of property, �vhich the owner's of, at particular times, can act in derogation of as they apparently did with respect to this property when there was an agreement that there wouid be 6 lots on this property at the City Council in 1996. Is it therefore true that once acting in derogation of one's rights in a reasonably public forum does not bind one in any way; and one can act in dero�ation of that agreement just so long as one can find a section of the code to justify it? He is troubled by that. Mr. Wamer thinks that is propably the ultimate issue here. It appears that they felt compelled to grant the lot split because the application met all the requirements that are contained in the code, He said that he thinks the real issue here is whether or not the plat that �vas approved 6y the City Council was limited in any �vay to the number of lots that were approved. The burden of proof is on the applicant to show that so the Commission can make a decision. The only real record is the resolution of the City Council approving the plat. I[ says there are 6 lots; there are no other conditions that are attached. Generally, the law with respect to platting, states that municipalities can set certain conditions that are reasonably related to the platting process. Sometimes those decisions are reduced in writing in some sort of a development contract or something similar. IYs clear that wasn't done in this case, so, the ultimate question is did the City Council approve, did the developer acquiesce to limit the number of lots that are approved on the plat or was it something else. � Commissioner Vaught summarized that after listening today one could arrive at the conclusion that this particular request for a lot split is quite disingenuous, and at the same time arrive at the conclusion that it is legally mandated, 4vhich trou6les him some. He asked Mr. Wamer if the City Council, at the point that they approved the plat on this particular piece of property with the 61ots, could they have attached conditions to that approval such that this requested lot split would have been proscribed. Mr. Wamer answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Chavez asked for the photographs to be circulated. 4. Steven Darmer, 575 McKnight Road South, addressed the Commission in support of the appeal. He noted that three years ago when this came up he did not get involved. He felt that it's their property and they should get to do what they want with it. But now, he feels that they have taken advantage of the'situation. He feels that they, too, have shown a real lack of good faith in this building program. He expressed that maybe they could legally do the lot split. Ae thinks these homes are going to be built as "spec" homes. He stated that the family told him that they will be moving into them, and they expect to sell them when they have the opportunity. He showed pictures to illustrate: 1) the lack of clean-up done around Don's home; 2) drainage problems; and 3) that conshuction materials are being stored on one side of the home. He thinks there �vould be only two reasons to do this lot split: 1) to improve the community; or 2) to improve the neighborhood. He feels that iYs not improving the neighborhood; the neighborhood, in his opinion, is degenerating, since he has moved in. He informed Commissioners that the Wiltenbrings have done little to plznt any of the tress they have taken out, or done anything with the environment. He is concemed about that. � And he is concemed that this effort will not result in any monetary advantage to the community. He feels that if they put up a house next to his that is worth half a much, the prices of houses in the neighborhood will go down. Between that and the quality of the 13 25 � 7��G FBLE /�� neighborhood, he feels the tax base rvill go down. Cutting down Yrees near the pond will . have a disastrous effect on the environment. He's hoping that the Planning Commission wili not let him subdivide the property. Commissioner Vaught spoke for Chair MoRon tivhen he asked thai testimony be confined to whether the P[anning Administrator erred in making this decision, not tryin� to reargue the issue of the platting of this property to begin with. Chair Morton concurred and reminded people to limit their remarks to 3 minutes. 5. Arnold Fritsche, 597 Wiggins Road (Lot 6), addressed the Commission. Ais concems are about water run-off and taking down trees. He showed pictures of a retaining wall he put next to his drive�vay last summer that was tivashed away because of a lot of rain, which he since has had to be replace. He also put in a culvert to handle the water running off the driveway, He noted that in the back lot there is a fem grotto and also a very deep ravine that drops about 12-15 feet, �vhich handles a lot of tke run-off that comes off the top of the hill. Chair Morton asked Mr. Fritsche how he thinks the Zoning Administrator erred in his decision. Mr. Fritsche stated that for one thing he doesn't think the driveway is tivide enough to get an emergency vehicle into the back lot. He also hasn't seen anything done to make sure that water tivill not run across his property. In addition, he displayed the document that showed the final plat and Iisting 6 Iots only. 6. Steve Bartley, 601 Wiggins Road (Lot 1), ad�3ressed the Commission in support of the --„_ _ appeal. He had lived at this address for 16 yeazs. He describes it as an absolutely � gorgeous spot, one of the last remaining spots in the City of Saint Paul for this type of home. He finds it very upsetting that, as a resident, having gone through the whole City Council process, and finally come to an agreement of 61ots, and later to find the City Administrafor change it. He questioned how what they have done can be legally justified, and how can what they have done be changed? He doesn't consider 12 feet adequate frontage for 2 houses. Doug Willenbring, 1875 Donebal Drive, Woodbury, spoke in opposition of the appeal. He has purchased Lot B, and he failed to understand how the neighbors coutd speculate on how his driveway would go into the lot when he does not even lmow how it will go in. I3e feels that the owner of the property has a right to defend his property and how he will develop it. MOTTON: Comxiissioe:er Geisser moved to close the p«blic liearing, whidi rvas seconded by Camarissianer Nordin and carried nnaninrously on a voice vote. MOTiON: Comnrissioner Nowlif: moved to support the appeal and reverse tlie Plannirtg . A�Imiriistrator's decision on tlee basis tkat: I) tke szrbdivision of [asd is not a right, but au opportunity; 2) i['s ar: applicanPs job to jusYify tlte reasoni�eg for tlee subdivisio��, artd tJrat has ��ot been done; 3) tlre creation of these 2 lots by tl:e split does not provide adeqz�ate frontage on an ezisting intproved street sufficient to accom»aodate public safety vehicles; 4) tl�ere u uo reasori to revisit an agreeme�et that was raade one year ago by the City Cou�icil; and 5) t/ie Minreesota Er:vironmenfal Rights Act proltibits cities and otT:er jurisdictions of m�y kind, from intrudiug, destroying, or irrspairing major natnral environn�errtal feanrres, which the gradii�g and constructior: activity that rvill ueed to ocarr to fierther tlnis � developn:e�tt will inevitably do, thus creating an adverse impacf ou un onsire rvetland. The 14 26 �� r � r � nrotioit was seconded by Cammissioner Engh� � � � � � � � � � � Commissioner Vaught commented he tivishes he could vote for the motion presented but that he does not find any basis for finding enor with what the Planning Administrator has done. He believes, however, that the application to the Planning Administrator for a lot split has a certain disingenuousness about it, given tivhat the City Council did �vith the plat. Although, it's a final plat, it's clear that any split of a lot is a derogation of the final plat for the area in Fvhich that lot is located. So, the fact that the resolution calls it a final plat is not particularly persuasive. Had the City Council resolution contained conditions or limitations such that it clearly �vould have proscribed this particular application to the Planning Administrator, he might be able to support the motion. He noted that he does not find much to laud about this back door way of doing what many neighbors may have thought was prohibited. He stated that he cannot put himself in the position of substituting his judgment for the Planning Administrator's judgment on the basis of certain issues that Commissioner No«�lin talked about. He regrets it, but he will need to vote against this motion because the act is legal. Commissioner Engh disagreed with Commissioner Vaught and said that she thinks it is the Planning Commission's place to question the Planning Adminisfrator's judgment in cases that are brought forward on appeal. 5he echoed Commissioner Nowlin in saying that she doesn't think that the Planning Administrator was right on 2. a. where it talks about frontage on an existing improved street. She added that she doesn't think the zoning code envisions very creative planning as we have here. She feels, that the Planning Administrator, in this case, really did not capture what was envisioned in the zoning code as far as access to a developed street. . Commissioner Chavez noted that he is concemed with the safety issue. He asked if the City would not have had to review Wiggins Road in the application to assure that safety vehicles would be able to get in there? Ms. Dadlez xesponded that it was her understanding that Public Works did review the request for the lot sptit, and they were also very involved in the oripinal platting of the property for the 61ots, and it was their determination that the requirement for frontage and access of services was met. Based on that, planning staff moved forward to approve the lot split. Commissioner Vaught asked wheYher there was somewhere in the code a definition of an existing improved street, which precludes this stretch of Wiggins Road from being an existing improved street? Mr. Warner replied that he did not know. Ms. Dadlez responded that she is not sure; she was relying on Public Works regarding that input. Mr. Kufeld, from Public Works told her that Wihhins Road is an officially platted streets, upon which 3 lots abut, assuming the split is approved, otherwise 2 lots abutting. The street is officially not improved; a longer driveway is allowed to be installed. She then had asked him specificaliy, if the street was improved or not improved. He replied that for purposes of frontage and access, we consider it an improved street, although officially, iYs not an improved street, and they don't maintain it or plow it. Commissioner Vaught asked whether Mr. Kufeld gave her any code authority for making it so, or something he figured was a result of long standing? Ms. Dadlez replied that Mr. Kufeld did not give an code authority; he insinuated that it may not be the ideal situation, but iY s one that meets their requirements and therefore they were �villing to grant it. Commissioner Vaught stated that on the basis of that answer, he is going to change his vote; he does not think this is an officially improved street. On that narrow issue alone, he intends to vote to overturn the Planning Administrator because I think he did err, but not Fvith ' respect to the Environmental Rights Act or any of the rest of that stuff because he does think iYs relevant. 15 27 Commissioner Treichel asked, since so much of Yhe testimony and discussion was dzrected to . other things than whether the Planning Adminishator erred in his decision, if the envixonmental issues, water run-off, and other potentiai problems �vith construction are not taken care of in design review and other areas? She assumes that Yhe City will not let someone construct a house that causes �vater to run-off and cause anolher detriment to his property. Aren't there protections in other administrative areas that are irrelevant to the division of a lot? Ms. Dadlez replied that because there is quite a bit of change in gtade in this properry and there are some significaat slopes, and while this properiy is not located int the River Corridor, the City's zoning code does require site plan review for development of one or rivo family hom es on steep sIopes. They wiil need to go through site plan review and get building permits, so whatever issues there might be with impacting trees, wetlaad, and other environmental features, should be addressed. Commissioner Treichel noted that she then tivili vote against the motion because she thinks that division of the land is not re(ated to some of the testimony today. Commissioner Kramer noted that he disagrees with Commissioner Treichel because the part of the zoning code that is not before the Commission is Section 67305 which says that Application for approval of lot splits..,...other information may be required, such as a grading pIan or contour map to fully represent the intent of the lot split or determine if the lot split meets the intent and requirements of this chapter. He added that there is plenty of information here that shows that not only says other information may be required, but in this case, that it must be required. The motion before the Commissioner to grant tlee appeal af the PlanningAdministrator's � decision to approve a lot split for property at.zax Wiggins Road (Lot 5, Block I; �l(enbring Woods.4ddition) carried on a voice vote (Treichel). Commissioner VaughY asked that the Planning Commission review the resolution before iY moves forward. VI. Comprehensive Planning Committee Noreport. � ��i�it�l�,7 �Ii.� 9 8/38 VII. Neighborhood and Current Planning Committee No report. VIII. Communications Committee No report. IX. Task Force Reports None. X. Old Business None. � ".. 16 z $ MINUTES OF THE ZONiNG COMMI77EE Thursday, April 30, 1998 - 3:30 p.m. City Council Chambers, 3rd Floor s City Hati and Court House 15 West Kellogg Soutevard ,n � �� u � � PRESENT: Chavez, Faricy, Field, Kramer, Mort and Wencl ��l�i� � ABSENT: Gordon (excused) �� j3$ OTHERS Peter Warner, Assistant City Attorney; Kady Dadlez, Donna Drummond, Pat �e e ey, PRESENT: and Larry Soderhoim PED The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Field. ARNOLD FRITSCHE - 98-091 - Appeaf to a decision of the Planning Administrator to approve a lot split fior property locaied at xxx Wiggins Road. Kady Dadlez distributed a draft resolution which the Planning Commission requested to be reviewed. She asked the Committee for their input and comments before she resubmitted it to the full Planning Commission, and after some discussion there was agreement to changes as highfighted in resolution form below: WHEREAS, Arnofd Fritsche, in Zoning Code §64.300Q), duly filed an appeal of � for property located at XXX WIGGINS Addition; and File #98-091 and pursuant to the Saint Paul Legislative the planning administrator's decision to approve a lot split ROAD, legally described as Lot 5; Willenbring Woods WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirements of the Saint Paul Legislative Code §64.300, the Saint Pau! Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 24, 1998, at which all persons present were given an opportun+ty to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paui Pianning Commission, based on the evidence presented, found that the pfanning administrator erred in approving the lot spfit for the foflowing reasons: a. Section §67.304 of the Saint Paul Zoning Code permits the pianning administrator to approve a lot split provided six conditions are met. The planning admi�istrator erred in finding that condition §67.304(a) of the zoning code was met. That condition states, "The !ot o� lots have frontage on an existing improved street and access to municipai services." Wiggins Road is an officially platted street whicfi abuts the property and provides access to municipai services, but it is also officially not an "improved street° nor is it maintained or plowed by the city.�Y:in addition, while,the Al2.5 fe"et of frontage�for each lot pro�wdes acc`_ess to murnc�pa! sesv{ce""s it does not provide'fcontage in fhe tra_tlitionai sen"sea�d tactcs suffcient fronfagelo accommodate emergency vehicles ?`By companson the,ave�age fifontage:of surroundmg lots_ is 57 feet: b. The Saint Pau{ City Council approved a_finat plat of the property and the surrounding five lots +n 1996, the result<of a,negotiateci process m-which�the�developet paiticipa"�ecl. The lot split approved by the planning administrator wouid � , This is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the city councii action to a second plat of the property. an additional lot. in 1996 and amounts 29 � . Zoning Committee Minutes Meeting of Aprif 30, 1998 Arnofd Fritsche (98-091} Page Two c. The tot split does not conform to the Minn"e°sofa Environmental Rights Act which prohibits dsstruction of natural features. The required�graciing and construction activity associated with the lot split and subsequent development wili affect the wetland and fern_grotto as well as steep slopes on the property. d. Tfie Pa ul, ;Legisfafive;Gode NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by fhe Saint Paut Planning Commission, that the appeal by Arnold Fritsche of the pianning administrator's decision ta approve a lot split for the propefij located at XXX WIGGINS ROAD, legaily described as Lot 5; Willenbring Woods Addition, is hereby granted for the reasons stated above; AND 8E IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that fhe approval of the planning adminisfrator of tfie applicafion by Donatd Witienbring, Zoning Fiie #98-028, to aliow the property at XXX WIGGItVS ROAD to be split (Lot 5; Wilienbring Woods Addition) is hereby rescinded; AND BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution sha0 be mailed to Arnold Fritsche, Donald Wiflenbring, the zoning administrator, and the p(anning administrator. Drafted by: �� Pattie Kelie Recording Secretary Submitt by: �� Kady Da lez Southeast Team v� �au � �� E �l� � n U �.1 � � �: 3� MAY-13-1998 10�19 FROM CITY RTTORNEYS OFFICE May 5, 1998 92283314 P.01 � �� _ �; u .� i H �i�J��an Attomeys at Law & 1VIcKasy p '` 9 ' TO 4700 IDS Center 80 South Pighth Street Minneapolis, Minncsota 55402-2228 (612)330-3Q00 Fax (612)371-0653 �� [A�F 06 � �� BX HAND DELIVERY Ol� MAX 6,1998 � Peter Wamer, Esq. Assistant St. Paul City Attomey 400 City Fiall 15 West Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Appea2 of Asnoid Fritsche File No_ 9$-091 Dear Mr. Warner: � ��N��C� F��.� 9 �/38 � This office represents Jan and Chuck Buzicky as weli as Don and Aoug Wiilenbring with respect to the abov�referenced matter. The purpose of this letter is to formally request that the Planning Commission reconsider its vote followina the gublic hearing on April 24, 1998, City staff has kindiy provided a draft resolution that is set for adoption on Friday, May 8. However, it is our hope that calmer heads will prevail now that the public hearing is closed and the Plannin� Commissioners have had the chance to consider their actions. As the record now stands, however, the Planning Commission has reversed the adminisuative lot spiit granted by Roger Ryan before his retirement. As you may recali, this lot split was based upon the provisions of Section 67.3�4 of the St. Pau1 Legislative Code, and the staff recommettded affirming the split, Apparently due to vocal opposition from some of the neighbors to the site, the Planning Coznmission decided to reverse the lot split in spite of the code's provisions that mandated it. The appazent leader o£ this neighborhood opposition was the named appellant in the file, Mr. Arnold Fritsche. It is most disconcerting to note that the person who brought this appeal apparently violated Minnesota law when he removed uees from the edge o£ the lot that was adjacern to his own and seeded that property to grass. When we visited the site last week, I also noted that much of the land azea in the rear o£ the appellazit's lat had been cleazed of tzees and brush that are indigenous to this area. 3f MFlY-13-1998 10�19 FROM CITY RTTORNEYS DFFICE TO 92283314 P.02 Peter Warner, Esq. May S, 1998 Page2 ��BAl�d�9� i'iE.E �v�� • ----------------_ _ Beyond the support for Mr. Fritsche's appeal in spite of his misconduct, I azn puzzled by the city's deaial of an adminisvative lot split that meets atl of the criteria set foRh in the Code. Tn spite o£ the first finding in the proposed draft, the Iot does indeed have frontage on an existing imgroved street and access to municipal services. The street is paved, it has utilities under it, and the cost of laoth ths paving and utilities were assessed to the adjacent pazcels, just like any other improved street. If this was not the case, this subdivision would not have been possible in the first place since the original replat of the area required street frontage for lots 5 and 6, and this extension of Wiggins Road is the only street access for Lots 5 and 6. Aithou�h the term "Improved Street" is not defiaed in the Legislative Cade, the word "Street" is defined. Section 60.219 defines Street as "[a] public dedicated right-of- way, other than an aiiey, which af�'ords the principal means of access to abutting property." Wiggins Road is indeed a dedicated right-of-way. Since the proposed administrative lot split cseated a"flag Iot" that provided s�reet access w both lots, this finding is wifhout support. I note that Section 67.304 does not require any pazticulaz araount of frontage on an existing improved street, but merely Yhat fhere is frontage of some amount. The proposal to have a private drive extend from the end of Wiggins Road which would split to serve the two new lots certainly wouId provide sufficient access for • both lots. In the appendzx to the Code is a list of a number of unpaved streets that have widths less than the 12.5 feet that are proposed for the private drive, and a copy is enclosed for your reference. This subdivision does not create any condition thai is unsafe or unprecedented in the city. In fact, we haue noted that there are several other locatiotts in the vicinity of this tot in which there aze similaz private drives at the end of a street, all of which have various levels of improvement, and all of which have been previously approved by the city. Fot example, at tbe North ettd of Pt. Dougias Road, there aze three grivate driveways as weil as a fizture one that wi7l have to be built once the iot is sold as advertisecl at that lacation. All of these will share access to the end of Pt. Dougias Road at the same spot. In that case, there is no room for an emergency ve}ucle to turn around after praviding services to these lots. Such vehicles would have to back up about a mile 4o Carver Avenue or try to turn around in the road. Sunilarly, at the end of Skyway Road (which is only abaut 14 feet wide to begin with), there is a house at the end on the West side and there is absoluYely no tum around area for emergency vehicles. These vehicles woutd have to back up a very narrow, pooriy maiatained and heavily wooded road about a mile and a iialf before the vehicle could ac[uaily ttun around. 7his condition is nothing like that proposed for Willenbring � Woods. 32 MRY-13-1998 10�20 FROM CITY RTTORNEYS OFFICE TD � Peter Wazner, Esq. May 5, i998 Page 3 92283314 P.03 �� iL� 9-5-%� � Again, at the end of Ogden Cour� there are four private driveways that spider web at the end of the Court. There is no way to turn around from those driveways other than within the Ogden Court, after backing up. Finally, at the end of MysYic Street, there is a house at the end of the pavement, and then a driveway begins to serve another house. There are other houses in this area, one on the left and two on the right, alt of wkich have no place to turn amund other than backing up to Totem Road. and only want to move into St. Paul to improve their quality of life. Enclosed with this letter is a map showing the location of these four areas for which the subdivisions were allowed. These prior actions of the city demonstrate that denying this lot spiit was originally an azbitrary and capricious act. VJhile I understand that a few of the neiglabors may be concemed that this wooded area be subdivided so that two houses could be built, the Buzickys and Doug Willenbring hoth have pians that would fit well into this neighborhood, I have enclosed copies of the elevations of hath of their proposed homes fnr your reference. The fact is, no one wi11 destroy this area because they, too, wish to live here. Both o£ these landowners now live in Woodbury, • While 1 understand that ihe politics of neighborhood opposition often leads to actions that are taken simply because of the heat of the moment, I urge yau to advise the Planning Commission to reconsider whether to zeverse the administrative lot split. We will be in attendance at your meeting on May $, 1998, to answer any questions concerning the Buzic�.ys' and the Willenbrings' intended use of ihe land, but we certainly hope that you will reconsider your earlier decision to �rant the appeai so that my ciients can devote their efforts to building their homes. If you would like to discuss this before the meeting, please feel free to contact either 3ohn Choi or me at ow offices. Mr. Choi's telephone number 330-3025; my telephone number is 330.3003. T look fprward to the opportunity to discuss this with you further on Friday. Sincerely, T-iLSSIAN �@ MC SY, P.� / „ ��' IJ � `� � �� es �ittlejohn K EncIosures cc: A11 Planning Commission Members (w/encis) ' Jan and Chuck Buzicky Aon Willenbring Doug WiIlenbring 33 MRY-13-1498 1@�20 FROM CTTY ATTORNEYS OFF2CE 7AI31NG CODE T� 92283314 P.04 APPENDIX D TO THE ZONTNG CODE WSATH OF UNPAVED STREETS 1N HIGFiWOOD (OCFOBER, 1890) Part of Highwood North (NorEh of Highwood Avenue} South GSOt1Ltt OI Highwood Avenue} $treef Directton E•w N-S E-W Street Ntvne MaiIand E1znWOOd Howard (Lower) x�� Mystic Skyway Ogden Court boug�ynn Snowshoe Boxwaod •south of tree Marillac N •S Winthrop . (1) (S� indicates tne wiath at c4e weeternmust end oC the nereet. (2) (M) indicaces the srid�3 in the csiddle ot the aucet, (3f (El indi�aces the aidth at ti�e ea9eernmost end of the atreec. (4) (Nl indiceles the width at tha northemmont end of the etreet. <5} t� indieatd the width at tha aocthernmosi end ot the sa�eet Widih of Driving Stcrface (fo the nearest foot) 11 2Q I6 (� (2�� (E)g 26 I2 I4 io 26 IO ia �s 15 rtfnl lT'/ 12 18 18 16 18 I6 Q`j) io 16 IQ is (M1 24 fM) 12 is 16 16` 18 16 � 10 Z6 1� (S)ff nc��9 laJ 16 16 22 20 18 (Si � ��#i�l� F6LE � � � • � � Supp. No. 16 716 3� MFlY-13-1998 10�20 FROM CITY RTTORNEYS OFFICE TO 92283314 � P.95 �� ( H � See °age 85 ki • ''-�,�- " , �. � • ry- — 3 ' . ! g ti .��:� ?0.YF115]�PC^ � " ti, S+TtIf z '-'t_� 2' ' � � t- K�..ti' . _ 2 .. � •= . VCG'°: J Q� � C � � �§ 5 ��L.]a .... ' �l E a � " '� >�E',�'Y MK � a -, � 5 �' i = ��i ,�a � - _ Y " v } -' . .� ..._--._ . r1 . �.`_ .e.E ri � � � ' � E�t?,... #-MCpnG.:E J^ .35' _ � 199FJi NIM IG. ; `� � � EF • m " .Y� � .'.. 0. . . ��...4a.i�uc._ i"J� -� ..` >"" �.ant g c y 5 �� t xuttw. � c ;� iDaG`�.li:wavE Y �...i qG6 K �q� ,C . � r �PaARNW' e ... � �� j... ��.L+n.. ..5.'.` 'tY _'" - . . ." . meici . . °" � ya <�' " t`YWY iu4 : 'prye� `i.�— . ..tiN �8�l+iE ;, wCM aCNiN:aoO? � � �� S:AI � � S} ,. �y }iWR � ...�Maiix+E ifY�NQt� � . c - ' . . ye l�ytj y �.. .. st � fo<ESac[ Y � ` .\. � . � �BOa.. } L4WE4Fl�. .. 1 V�l 1`I (oy .�jax,:dWTO �= i . � � � � �� p � Py' H� � � 39� . '-�� V ... , tj o�a��.. '�°' w.rdu � T�.:v �.CrL�n .., p ��ac ��1`bro � , ` , � T . .( ...'... g .. : " ~ j.'`� .. .`{ ° YkGP c ' � '" _ .n. .a ; "�W .� r.F 0 v -. ��".n qD JC �, '%tppT:; � S� � � �.u: � .. � �MO� P ' ° 6z Y .. � . .� � %T' .<' :..:\.. ! _=... ' e � s. xjb - ' �..�_� � �'�_^`yu" g : � , . .... . "_" _' ' � uHiini "'�ji':.�-. ` . . _ , =i�., � . � �p� m ,:c � � _.... .._e .. .. ...6 ' " ' .\ �• �5�� I l l� � . c F 'M � M�('NQCO lF � _ � � >: � t :':.u,'r,iJ,aGJA ,�' ._ 5. "A�1lA� � .. ', . 4z ° C � L..� �. �� ? 3 uu!� � ace',rtw v .:� 'y .aw '� - I �.yiao9c� •. ' 9 c ' , a W . . . Y Y. Ci=� i a �. t � � x -. . 'tLd � � '0 '' 'S - % .. 25 ]� 1 � � ..l 3 P'�,� i i � � �� alMt�•.�f144 s%NRI�(�f:H i�`wl�J�� .�' } , s �cA ' - va.RLCEO� +� � i�� `\ si� � � �. �d c �� S tAMW000 ��`` : �YE ` Y 2 ! '.,MS � --A-F _A'+r , `4i l/.YV —' ' < } � , 4' 15� ' .1 .f a py G �bCC E`. ? �'.0 :.9 vS'Y r'9L � C � ` ~N p�� ' .. ^a y Y � n�l.'.w uyO�F a S �WEPf�T a� _� � � �I . t' x Y FYC � Z� M9FPMl S s o_:' - Z? ' . wsa. Gt�t� ' . - �. 'F"�;, . �581.,vl:sr, � 'v" �.`., y�S�+%` a a`` � ..i� �� r y �� . . ` � �9AL:N'Pr T V'� b'F� .�.... .�lN�cN1V w4 F... � �'`' �y � '� ` _ � 7E MCM41900"' lYE - ^; . 4 .._._:� SFYM1t� • � ,` �— \ \ . ' Sl _ � a � ' = 4'x,g °_ T ^� =, : . _ � 5 � V, �� •q a � _ v 3 Yn McYIE �C. Y�:� W. + • �T �� }� �°� ' .. ' �0� ` "'" �L:_'�'�: s."�G� ��__ u �� r� Pa ' I .Q y fi � �� y � � , b � 4 �'� 3 4 IONFKILSTCP `�: �.�. r � = � ;1� OD' v � nE�G*�iit+� � C ',� �f: y � 1 . �' MnOCt �i y Jy ¢ �,.J � j =� � �H r x � � r F v � � ' � .. `� ,., _1:�, 1� _ , . e;x � � 'T2. Laka ; - . a . .. � � . mn�n o <.�..... sc+". �` a ' �.. y �\ : �� :��.� � � � � .� � ... `,, � J "a �M,�'� � g , � �`1� �"'��'E � --,.� GNVEP :� AYE. : \ �1 0 : � v UPt W . . � ' ` � 1 g �,:`�, �`'s t 1f�P1:.��l�/��3� 1 � \ `` {' 9J Y . � `\`\ J . P , ` . !125 ` .�e � � \ ` �:, 1� 0 76�1 , \ �.� ' �. . � , : s . ♦ . _....$._.._...._-.��_t_ . _ .4._��-�� . _' �{.., . " W ' "' ____" �._-� f " � '.�\\ � �. .' . •C Ni H . .\ . _`� � ' L\ `�'. \ \ R.1asSF�COUV7Y .-.,,. `` 1.— �� , .. T r.`�: ..• ��i :.\�t. �ASMM4�0�[60lY+Yf-'6F'S` �78L ` m �� .Jx�'Inu'�� ti fv. } t � .- .'.;Z� gNtFT �:x � ..' �_ _ YVti� •� `� � i • �._'` Y : ;.�v� ; �\ ;, 1 :sa� `,i, ' N��V�'�R �° _; ,� � l�R �O \ n � � �/ ` . �i,?� y ,� �� . •�� ':: V� }1 i \ t Q�, . � uGx�yv ....... �.. } � tvillsF ?S : i �� ' / � clYettarcn � •; � � � a � a : �!� ,� �\ ` � �.__ G - �. � j � :C :, t� � 1... � �� i .� �� CU'EiFRY �� . .•(. p : :1 .! , a 1 _ � � f ��'� � �/ ' � � } : /} � � � � � ^} � � � �� C ;� i� , `3�`3_.¢5 .��. tLAD.an-. j x: . , f Y t � ' �: i�' �� 1 :I�+�T `�. ��V V V C11 ��.r . O, . hSTRf �'� . ME . � f.��` ' � � _ � ` .. 1OR141{ 6 +� j��;;� • ; i f ��475 ': --�--� ` s ,Y �'o YAO K�"YiW . l� � \1Q00 A�'"Y 3B 1 � Yr ��iw Gf+n.t�W � - ..� s :`.� � uam : "�,__ �C ! �. Pase 98 See Page !11 a�u�ne�vl.uaa '� � MAY-13-1998 10=21 FROM CITY ATT�RNEYS OFFICE T� 92283314 P.06 . . • . . . ':_ ... i l,� : - � �. � . . . , o . � _ -,�, .i . . OTD 'i 9 . .. v _..'. O 1 . �� d �' �.:' ' �� . . ��-�� ,_ � . . ��':: 'R�,... _ .r' ��> � � = ai j+ �.' � � � � _ 3 - ��,.. �~ �39 .°�:r ��' � '� �.. �. a � , o > ��:;, ` ,� � a�� {: , �a ' ' pd ;0 F.�e G � � t . .r � � q S wo 1 .:. "�� tL. �_ Y <. -„ — i � � � '� ' _ F f �.;f � � i �� = �° !�� 1 2 � � � ' ' ! ( � : c � ;d + ^ ' °a� .;. _. � � �: � � i I � .� �-°,,. :.{ ; � i �' i � � , ':.�, , . I � ' I t � ►, � ;>: =:�:` ='; _ � I , � _ , t. :�:;�:•;'_ :s . , � i � , �`-�:: :%;::-�. .,::�, T ;=: � � � � � I � a� .►,Q .+�, . _ � ' , :. ��', . r;,.�' _ _":�,. • , �;; . .. � � 1 f. +�;}�,E�':`' �i�� a, �',2 Y.j. „ • � }� i EC . � I � \' Y • �` ' .��'•� t �'. i � � 1 � � _ 3 .: � .: - �.•;!� �SJY . �1_: J �� ,t:'.�.: st�: � �; :: _ _ � r . � – � v � __G. - "� '; . ', ' � �,. � ' � _ �� .. � �ll I , r 4 � �� • _ �� iw ' I o- a {{ �� { °�' r { I sG I t �. a � � i� '�' �' I� _ . ' i�l �~1 . � (.�� ► a�i t , I . ( 1= t�c�� t �; �� ❑0 1 i i , E 3 � � � a a , -- . ._� � 1 �� ' . ~ I : e it � ( . . b S. ' ° � ' � �! � J � '� � � � � , .. l .' .�:� ' . ' � � f F �I ( � ' � 4 �_ i �� r . � �:. e � � ta � i � . �` `r �� .r __ r_ Y ___� . ` - , _ . � 3 � . . �' - i � ---7-I � �. � . � ' ,�2J t ��ISJV'I�TL . �.�� r � - s : ' �3 • � �v�� F . � ' b��. �� .. . - : :.s' ;... _:.�::.rtiii:.' � , � � � S.�e ..�,.r :f,l•D. •+Q� Yt,9 ' ��,- � � .?k',e`� �: • :,9�?t'.� •' >`?+�<'' _ _ , -, �' � . . _ . . •. . . . � ' � � .. ^ . � _ _ :�ti;�"';I:t:''— . . .�.:' .�� .: �_� . . _.� • . .... r '�.�. ' • .. . . .. . .. ... . .. .. . ��: .. . . . > ... . r . .. =��y..:.:g � TOTAL P.06 � i ' RECEIVED APR 2 � 1998 ZONiNG Kady Dadlez 25 W. Fourth Street I 100 City Aall Annex St. Paut, MN 55102 Deaz Planning Administrator, Steven Darmer 575 South McKni�ttt Rd. St. Paul, MN 55119 April 20, 1998 �., . � � _ ;, �' '? � �� .� �� ( I am writing this to show my support for Amo1d Fritche and his opposition to the splittin� of the lot located at XXX Wlggins. I cordially request that you reconsider this decision and not allow this lot to be split. I feel strongly about this due to a lack of good faith by the contractor, monetary issues, the quality of the neighbor, and destruction of the environment. Lack of good faith This contractor ao eed to a plan a year ago. At that time these issues shou]d have been resolved. I now see this as an attempt to slide in additional modifications. I was not involved I the original discussions, at that time I felt the contractor should have more freedom. But now that I see his attitude and the effect this is having I feel some action is needed. Besides not following through on this agreement T have called the building inspecYoT twice about code violations. Monetary issues The only advantage in splitting this lot is to allow this confractor to make more money. The only reason to allow this lot to be split is to improve the neighborhood or increase revenue to the city. We aze not responsible for his bad inveshnents, he should have had these issues xesolved before now. This split will degrade the neighborhood so there is no advantage there. I also feel that the sma]ler low priced, mazginal homes will degrade the neighborhood resulting in reduced property valves and therefore reduced revenue to the city. Quality of the neighbozhood This contractor has no concern for the neighborhood and what happens to it. He is on to the third home while the second is still a shambles. There is no drive, sidewallc, or land scaping. He has lefr behind ;adder;, scrap p:ast:c an3 scaifold w-�ti: it i; needEd. The lack oi concem will resuit in a series of homes tnat do not fit in and are not maintained. Destruction of the Environment The continued deshvction of this envirorunent is havin� a drastic effect on the wild life and the enjoyment of this wild life. He has made no effort to try and assist in preventing this destruction, even to the point of not piling things over game trails. Therefore, I would greatly appreciate it if you could fmd it feasible to repeal this approval to split XXX Waggins and maintain the original agreement. Zoning File Number:98-091 Zoning File Name: Amold Fritsche Sincerely, V C/ �— � 630 Hillwood Ct., St. Paul, MN 55119 April 17, 1998 St. Paul Planuing Commission c/o Kady Dadlez 25 W Fourth St., 110o City Hall Anaex St. Paul, MN 55102 Re£ Lot split for a�cx Wiggins Road (Lot 5, Blosk 1; Willenbring Woods Addition) Zoning File #: 98-091 Dear Pianning Commission, RECElVED APR 2 0 i998 ZONING I am writing in support the Appeal to the Pianning Administrator's decision to approve a tot split for the property in question. The reasons for my opposition to split ttus lot aze: 1, The Highwood Plan adopted by the.City stipulated tbat the nat�ccai environment be preserved in any new development. The developer of this property has not shown the willingness to abide by ttris plan and has repeatedly tried to circumvent the wishes of the neighbors and pas[ decision of this Commission and the City Council on this matter. Splitting this lot into two wiil only add to the destruction of this natural properry 2. There is no detailad compliance plan to nLmi�e environment dvnage, including preservation of the native fem, to support tlus lot split. I have been a resident of District 1 for over 20 years. My decision to build my current house in Highwood azea ten years ago was influenced ]azgely by the natural woaled surroundings. The developer for my area fore$o the opportunity to develop the property in question, citing difficuhies in building and retaining the nabiral beauty of tfie environment. I do not oppose to new development in my neighborhood, if it is done in accordance with Iocal reguiations and enhancement to neighborhood beauty. I do object to the developer's disregard for the neighborhood and the environment. I urge the Plauning Commission to exercise your fiduciary responsibility to past decisions on this subject and to the neighborhood as stipulated in the Highwood P(an. Thazik you for your time and understanding Sincereiy, � � �Dart Moy � �� i � i.i � � �� --,"--"'_ '"' � � • � _ -� 38 i�. ' �/��, i�� c�.�,�,sr U� � Z�f� ��r F� LE _`�?'�__ � %�fj�l : f�4 f�r i �ci e.� �i� f� ;��.a->��t c� . RECEIVE[� J - � � � • S%- . ��t N APR 2 2 1998 ,�� sTi i9 ZONlNG �E: � z �.,, �y � i� y�_�9i /-12i✓atc! Fr�-y�s"tby LCT 5✓'/.?' ��,fi 5—. �SIUcK /' Wl7t yl.C�i� �'�. , q f �td„�-�� ,� xy �. � � .�<<_«l /�2c./' G'vn,ni;'.sf,�bn� -� w�3h f° e,rP��r�'"' �y � c e�n 4l� �f- J �.-t Sf'l� f-, ��,,-� vi7zh/t 7� a�ttr,1=�/ ��t.s /t�.�,n�, t- vuiJy� G.1lL 7`ci fv��t '�`�t /'/ann.A� Gd�s?.hil�l2�i7��s �lJ✓zv,v✓; ��Pt:Pi�%l � nr� �� . frf.n✓2 4 4�t .I�/. 7�. G b8/��v� 'L/�w�t t w<��Jd C'c>x f Y�`Z. �'c'a..%f. �F�J S'4.PP.c.�nrf.h�r �;y' fh.3 ..: +'[ d'e.�-��/ /1 r. �� Llr.ilr nr:�. //i, j Cr.p 7�f_'�r cfrr',%� c'/G� ;� �'//'e4cly cv� q °� n., v/fl'%Cr"f'}/ o�� '.�flr.f - F'c.r lt.l C.;�r- i S a�,� m/l�, yy y � / � /. `nY ��.��c�- �r��ct.a� ,� -t�.3 ,+ di q� �'�i7� Gsq d 1-F'c'c, T f�Z qK� jyrri� �C�n1✓J?✓v/,��j —, 7 / ��i � t �C re iac�"_ %k y l -r'xf Z lz:t Csz rlk�rcc` Mrai'f �°rr �'-h,� �tr�2!/tFi ;�✓� � n� 7�(� i�i C'/'ta/r�' f�t f'F:'c rn ;•✓ial /-Jc VR ��lc �"ti /7 (2 fY. � c ,�( _ � `f!, �zS �'- 1�� %�w.e�' cf �c�z c lrt�:d j �vi� �i��i. '� :,.�ilc� �-� i'"� CGF �� 't�Y' t✓e:y�yss��_� tGr� 7 �lre�, t� !7e c_ �/� fir✓ �/k.y i n f� Y� �d'1 1 � -�u�rl�� , /I o L. 7� � cr �r6P��f �- !.e I��zr� s� �f�t%'d"�e� F 1'1 � ��?iz ".�../. i<,.rr� ur-c „�<> c� ihl� /. / f-�/ :tic � f<�z �i-� �-� G✓�, v /r>r/1' � �S'fr�c-f' �{r4iJ v �f ?(w;;. ,� D � C= t, i� � n� /ea ✓el rh r.-✓ ��J t l��Y! f� %rU' G/ " �� '{��GZ� OUf (�/i di/'«/.!�'7F f1/r� st •�-�e/' o��i yi e��s/r. �u�'' �� u.o.� i ��- ; 1 % Lr4 n /c Y�� r �� Zt)��G FIL� ��__�-� __ PLANNZNG COMMISSION STAFF RSPORT � =: � 3==== � _____ ___________��__ • 1. APPLICANT: ARONLD FRITSCHE FILS # 98-091 DATE OF HSARING: 04/24/98 2. CLASSiHSCATION; Appeal of Planning Administrator's Decision 3. LoCATION: XXX Wiggins Road 4. PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 5. LEGAL D$SCRIPTSON: Lot 5, Block 1; Willenbring Woods Addition 6. P&ESBNT ZONING: R-1 ZONING CODS R8F8RSNCH: §64.300(j) & §67.304 7. STAFF INVESTIGATSON AND REPORT: DATB: 4/17/98 �Y: Kady Dadlez S. DATS AfiCESVBD: 04/02/98 DEADLSNS FOR ACTSON: 6/1/98 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- A. HIIRPOSS: To consider an appeal of the planning administrator•s decision to approve a lot split. B. PARCEL SIZB: This slightly irregularly shaped parcel has 25 feet of frontage on Wiggins Road, has an average width of 277 feet, and a depth of 328 feet for a total lot area of about 86,600 square feet (2.03 acres). The two lots created by the lot split have Che following dimensions and area: Parcel A has I2_5 feet of frontage on Wiggins Road, is 249.5 feet in width, and 139.09 feet in depth for a lot area of about 39,029 square feet (.896 acres); Parcel B has 22.5 feet of frontage on Wiggins 22oad, a width of about 292 feet, and a depth of about 164 feet for a total lot area of about 49,57i square feet (i.i38 acres). C. SXISTING LAND IISE: The property is currently vacant. D. SIIRxoIINDiNG LAND vSS: The property is surrounded by single family homes in R-1 and R-2 zoning districts. E. ZONING COD$ CITATION: Section 67.304 of the zoning code permits the planning administrator to approve Iot splits provided six conditions are met. These conditions are identified in finding #2 of this report. Section 64.300(j) of the zoning code states that the p].anning administrator's decision is subject to appeal to the planning commission. The planning aommission must conduct a public hearing on the appeal within 30 days of the receipt of the appeal by the planning commission. F. HISTORY/DISCIISSION: There are several zoning cases Concerning this property. 7.'he cases involve a 4.9 acres parcel along McRnight Road that was the subject of site plan review and subdivision applications. • � _� �� , � 5 1 � ; J `• � J • � Zoning File #95-�91 Page Two In 1995 a site plan review application was made for a proposed 11-lot subdivision of the 4.5 acre parcel. The planning commission denied the site plan because it was not consistent with the city's Tree Preservation Ordinance, with preservation of environmentally sensitive areas including a fem grotto and wetland, and with protection of adjacent and neighboring properties relating to storm water drainage. The planning commission's denial was appealed by the applicant to the city council. The city council upheld the planning commission's decision and denied the appeal. The aity council also denied a request at that time for preliminary and final glat approval for the proposed subdivision of land finding that the subdivision did not con£orm to the requirements of the zoning code. In 1996 the city council approved a final plat of the property czeating six lots. The city council approved the plat subject to the condition that the developer receive approval from the city for plans to construct the driveway and utilities from Wiggins to the westerly lots (Lots 5 and 6) prior to approval of any building permits for Lots 5 and 6. These improvements were made late in 1996. It is Lot 5 of the plat approved in 1996 that is the subject of the current appeal. G. DISTRTCT COIINCiL RECOMMENDATION: `The District 1 Community Council had not taken a position on the appeal at the time the staff report was dra£ted. H. FINDING5: 1. On February 11, 1998 Donald Willenbring applied for a lot split to divide one parcel into two (divide lot 5 into parcels A and B). The proposed lot split was reviewed by city staff including individuals from PED, Public Works, and the Water Utility. On March 6, 1998, upon review by city staff finding that all conditions required for a lot split were met, the planning administrator approved the request. 2. Section 67.3�4 of the Saint Paul Zoning Code permits the planning administrator to approve lot splits without platting provided the following conditions are met. a. The Zot or lots have frontage ou an existing improved street and access to municipal services, This condition is met. Both of the lots have frontage on an existing improved streeC and access Co oity sewer and water. b. The lot or lots to be divided are previously platted Zaad. This condition is met. The property to be divided was previously platted land. A plat for the property was approved by the city council in 1996. r c. THe lot or lots meet the miaimum staszdards for Zot midth and area for the zoaing district in which they are located. � � Zoning File #96-091 Page Three This condition is met. The two lots meet the minimum standards £or lot width and area in the zoning district (80 feet of width and 9,600 square feet of lot area are required). Parcel A has a width of 249.5 feet and a lot area of about 39,000 square feet Parcel B has about 292 feet of width and a Zot area of about 49,OD0 square £eet. d. The division of the lots sfialI not cause a remaining part of a Iot Eo become a separateIy described tract which does not meet the miaimum standards of the zoaiag districC fn whzek it is 2ocated or whiclx does not have street froatage and access to muaicfpal services. This condition is met. Both lots meet the minimum standards Eor the R-1 zoning district and have street frontage and access to municipal services. e. The divisioa does not resuSt in a split zoning classification on a single lot. This condition is met. Both lots are zoned R-1, residential single family. f. The division does not result in the creation of a nonconforming strueture or use. This condition is met. The property is currently vacant. A s3ngle family home is planned for each o£ the lots. 3. While the final plat approved by the city council in 1996 created six Iots, nothing in the subdivision ordinance prevents svbsequent subdivisions by platting or lot split, provided all of the conditions are met. In this particular case staff found all of the requirements ' £or a lot split to be met and appraved the division administratively. Subsequent subdivision by platting would require city council approval. 4. Section 64.300(j) of the zoning code states, Planning administrator's decision/appeal to commission. The grant or denial of approval by the planning or zoning administrator is subject to appeal to Che planning commission by any person, firm or corporation, or by any office, department, board or bureau affected by a decision of the planning or zoning adminisCrator within thirty (3D) days after the decision appealefl £rom shall have l�een served either in person or by mail upon the owner of the property which is the subject matter of fhe decision. The planning commission shall conduct a hearing on the appeal within thirty (30) days of the receipt oP the appeal by the planning commission. I. STAFF RECObII+�NDATIOx: Sased on findings 1 through 4 staff recommends the planning commission deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the planning administrator to approve the lot split. � U lJ _ � 42 g�-s�5 � i APPUCATlON FOR APPEAL Department of Planning and Economic Development Zoning Section 1100 City Hall Annex 25 West Fourtl: Street Saint Paul, MN 55102 266-6589 APPELLANT Name �aen�a�'D �2, Address �,2/73 ffuns�� D #�/7 City s'f'� /�A-u � St.�'±� Zip Ss ��9 Daytime phone � S'� -/� �s I PROPERTY Zoning File Name Lcl �`«�N ��•`�G wooJ f}7>D. ��v LOCATION [aT " Address/Location G��,°rr.°.✓s ,Q�� d" R�ccK ! ��-�c�.�gz.�• � of fhe Zoning Code, to / ( S! �l9 i z7 � on � (a 2C{..� � , 19� Fife number: ` — Q � (date of decision) TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the: u Board of Zoning Appea{s ❑ City Council under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section ?�DC� Paragr appeal a decision made by the f�[..AN�i(/n/l-� H!J !1/� . Gf20UNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Soard of Zoning Appeafs or the P{anning Commission. /! 0 � L: "TV !r1"�t�f A� j ht` j�.]jM.�•J�sr ��SG; dF �p �LQ Fy{�'/`� �O�'J C/L („V �Lt� � 2 ��` P�'! h'..Q % y � C� l� �O �-ri 1 �.Ci �, ,� E. ;4 �D ° T , r prJ e� fi-s �coTi a.r� F a Ta t`Y3 � Th� w, r.c�. � a � � �� LoTS �=a2 �r.�z5 trj W+aS t7 � V� D'zD 7� , �= !n DNE o /}PRov;=� Pttf . L� ,, �ridc� . Gi t�/ Lv+�.nlC, L_ E , nhN � t�uRchRSe f�JQT `7T :L WAS Iv�-� �Y L�UiLL��B��' �� NO! Q. � u ,� v I=t- 2�rn a L�� on>�� oN� �mn- W�CT � T �-w� Cc� C�-r.i �Il r�1 0...! W ArT �Q � , y �, i � � (zo P �.R7 y . Q°✓+� i.iJ Tt Y S b,� 7 t I Attach additiona! sheet if necessary) Applicant's Qate Y" 9�City agent_� �'2`�43 � ��l� F�LE ��__!� _�� Ca-� sP��- �.��d c� �cw,vt;,,, J �-d,w�� i �� 2 � C�'RTIF`ICA TE OF SUR VEY FOR WILLENBRING C0. ' N B9'S3' 1T E Zg�p ___ r:aw_____ . .. —_• , �___________________ .. ' ovwa¢ i u�Ure � " ' [nssv i, — . 4 2i �.' �� c �YILLENBRING PARCEL B IFE4�IIJ8 ACRfS . � �� 3 � ' : 5 ' HLOCK "�' Sq 5` 6 s 3 '� 8� e.wxc v_ `r.� E�i � G" J� 5 8 z ��QUJ 1 ADDITION S N 89'S1'S�' E • 33]CO i PAftCEL A wF£A�0.896 �CAES • � SCALE 1' _ }C `� M'� C4R: ER. �0� 3 � OExO*FS iR PFU er �� p�� WIM4tR SFT /.!q 4A�KC0 8Y p�C NNBER 1]168, NZESS OirvERwSE 3 • oe.wtcs xox avE w�vuear ra� �� SUYVE'tORS iq�L �.ro. ��Si. e➢�30� � 1 c � �: ti" w....a a �mr. _ s.% CCRnER tOT 5 � q �K" � ___,_• ,. N ' ? ' tii5o � _ _ "— �SBASPOYW 262W {VCGGINS � � OAK � ftILLS I WIGG[NS q I y . i ROAD LAND DESCRIPTION � YEqE9T �RiFT THAT iN5 AIRYEY WAS PWYARE� BY ME OR MOFR Cvrn � y y�me+< � NY �tECi SlHRVSqN MD Mai 1 Au A OIAY PEG6iEiEA l?AA Cx . m X:e�uMa.xcrLN ARVEYIXt M9ER TfE l0.W$ OF RE $iAiF O! AnNE50YA Fwz ian.fsM�� 1 a�� :>= ' ¢ e�.ereflai �eeNr4 �AT•z �3 __�{/l CIIYOF54fYTPRL'L f [[ROY Bpfi�SiAVEYOR . c.. � J.IZ;U• 4YJVSDiA LICENSE Ml�ER 10)AS � Ft+�n�i� SOHLEN SURVEYING & ENGINEERING,INC ' �(A PNKEL 1 T; et p0't of ta[ 5, B�ack 1. W11,LEM^0.1NC "W�5 0➢��TICC+. Re¢eC CoVnty. M ne ata, IL:nM1 Euiterly nG $out�e�ly tne el :n^ Eezer:OeE I�nes. Cvnrcnc:ny at tne So�tN.ext orner f sa�tl lot 5; ne w M1o�th 89 0e9�eex 51 � s 0l e Ja East, alang tne Sovt� I�ne et saiC t t 5. E�ztantt a! $ 50 tee[ to trte p;�nt el peginn�ng o( I�nea�fo D< Qescr:OeE; tncnce W�t� 46 6eyrCea 18 minutez 11 s onES Evst, e O�stence 3�.92 �ttt: ' Te�Ce Noit� W Ee9«<s t] m nut¢a ]5 5 O�<s Weit, pa�nllel v�tt� t�e�East ��ne I o�E Lot 5. a E�slonce ot 39.G9 1aet, t.e e Norin 89 Y� rnt b s nGS Eoat, a eutance ol 2J] 00 feet to me Nort�.est eorne� ot bt S�BIOCk 1. a( se'tl WILLE�2rtIM: wfQlS �.W'T(IX+ antl fne�e [em��natin9. ppiCEl B ��-585 � � r� e�n.k _ t�t a,-�-- ��„� 06 -w�.� � e� — ividi c.A,�es ��rovec� Lo#- sPli �r o� (��- 5 �9� Oq�b 79 7, pON� � w`L �� N gR1 • � t23) ! (27) .. o '1 � .. i.t 05U �I�� 'i 9 �� parcei F� A�� W ��pS � . ...-. .� _ _. _ 5 ._ _ .._. _ � I ' C22) I o � �roPosCd }�r�l !} � - I . i 1 � r ia> 2 (19 l �so 3 czo> 4 ,�� , tA `" ' �� " - , za 2 � i c� a� 4� 3 .0�� , °' / v � � �. h m .3>�. _ �„ � 3 9.ta �� 5y i 77 o j 4 >8� Z ;28 o ROAD .�j 1• —�� „ (a-3) � ��7 t32. / 2 � 9 e j 102.4} I a.3C ,?9 � ... 4.SZ l2� � � \Z � N bo , 12B � ° '2 '�� " �.. � � � ...� � h <z91 � � ' ,r' (4z) t3} ! 3 iz� se 28 ��, _ , �>a �,. � cS� .� Zt,��f�� ►�.E `��t�8_ � 45 �__� � � �J � � SUNRAY-BATTZECREEK-HIGHWOOD �'�� IAZEL PARK HAUEN-PROSPERITY HlLLCREST 3. WEST SIDE 4. AAYTON'S BLLJFP 5. PA7'I�TE-PHALEN 6, NORTH EI�'B 7. 8. 9. 1Q. 11. 12. 13. 14. is. 16. 27. THOMAS-DALE SL7MMIT-LJNiVERSITY tiYF.ST SEVEN'1�I COMO HAMLINE-ivIIDWAY ST. ANI�EIONY PARK MEIZRIAM PARK-LEXII3GTON HAMLINE-SNELLING MACALESTER GROVEI.AND HIGHI.AI�TD SUMMI'I' HIT.L DOWNTOWN � ZONiNG FILF a&`t�i HAMLIhrE ., CITIZEN PARTTCIPATTON PI.ANNIPTG DISTRTCI'S --,-- . � � � � �-� � -- ` � � � :._'•-_--z --... _ - -- __- _ _ _ - - ___ - - _= `==° =- _� --- -- - - - .... - -- ,.......-:� _-- - ° — ,-._... _ _,. - _ :-- - - - -- -=-- - - --- - - - , _ � _. ,. y _ : . r-- _-- ------- - --- - - :i_:_- - — - - -- .... ` e.-- --- _ -- �__ _-'.� -- _ ------ - - -- "-.,,;.,.:._,._ r --`_ — ....._�..�_- ---- ---- -- — ..-��"� ` __ _- -- - --_ _ c—__`:� __ --"".,:- -_- _------�- - -- -'---- ____ � ,. . _ a= ��" . _ - -- . � i-.-- .= 1'" ;� ._�. ;- ::' ...'.. '__ ' ""_,_' _ ' _ '__ °% ' _ _ v - ' ' " ' •' Y• ' ' _ - G_ _ _ ' .. .. . 1 � - J � - .t '�,.' _'_ < =.�� ;_"_ _ ., �-:• _� ' \ �,-'_'�" .._ ' _ _ '_"_ _ '-' r . " - _ ' ' - t =_ —_ _" '_ _'__ _ c_ ' ., , ___ � _- __ _ ' ____ Y �_ L 1 . ^ - '• ..'. Z'. -___ _ _ � =ac�'. �_ C....-.? �... : : �� - _-_- _ _- _ _ "- ' _ __ ___- _'_ '_ -_'- �. � e. :.f�.:^ + . . . . .., - -� �. __ ___ . .._.:. � ' F - : ', : '__ " "_ _ _ _ _ _ _ "' _ _ _ - _ M1= - _ _ . ' ?i. ^�� ,'.. ' ' "" . _ ' _ _ _ _ _-.' _' __ ' _ _ " ' _" _ _ _"_ .. ' '� . -?t.�: :'`� ?". � ' _ - ' r .._ -� ; " ' _ _ _ _ '_ "- "_ _ ._..:..- . . , �,... z'^ ' ______ ____ _ _ "-_ __ _ _- _"" ' ' _ _ "' ' � " . , n __ __- _. _ ___ _ __"_' �.. __ _ . �._.r.�% i, ,1.,,,..•,"t.�-`v,—=',--- -- — �'—' '�� --- — � - -- _ —'� ��a�--::� . .J �: _ _ .. . � -- > >,�,,,-�. .,=�^_-__ __-_ ____ - - _ ==== -_ . - - _ -; _ -_-_ . � !� '� '� p s ; ._ : i�" l = �"� i l` � - _ _ — ____ -- - __ - � 1,—�,— ,'-`,�'= � .I�'. �� \ I' p —� r -.: :'`..�:«. r . __ . ' � -' _ _ _ _ _ .= l' ..J"/::',V `� - _ �� \\`� \ _ 1^l; :_...., ♦� • ./ �r:� q • ,:�.- r' . '`�_ _ _—_'- __ = � ,�-\,--.�. _-i_.�',.,.r - _- . . :. �:-:-,::,..: � �,`�. :,.�'��.�� ^ �c • 4,� _==` _"°L�.._ _-_ _ _ �. . " ."�"�"` i=l �---,�'�, � `- _ : \-� l_.�, - ^�-..--_.�'t�_r-- - _'_ - --� _... � � 1'� ' . c �' '� I?•.. �.�- �" �._._ _' -- - '_ -___�_� � _ T , ' \�, : . - \�� _ �- `,>�.+'./-".:�,T�-� ..._._'_ - -T' = ;.`�- {j' l-G=._:�� __' ' �'� +�. ... " .."' . (�'"� __ " �[ - .i �'- ','_` ":� y b�..\ "� J - __ __ < __ '_ �.\ .. �• �> . '" _J,�- 3.1�.. .• �` • � .'' .' � ' i =_ ...., ;—T== .... . _- _;'�\ .. �'�_ '-__•. .. ........ _ __ "_ _- � '' , � , ,_ �. . �..: - : . ' ... ._ . � - - � . _ . :. �J ! ^;, -" -' � :�:.':�=P ��.o>v� ,— \�i -- ,. , -__- ! :_'.- �\ C ' .._ `�i,� �: - �., -.,�..� _ ., I - `,�'-� ,� .-. � � . _ . s \' ' ..:" �..� I '. \.. , � '_i��'-' :.._ ..'._,.,= __ �, ` %�. �� , '*.:." `� �� • ;. 7 � .�_ 1 i t , � '� .—... __.,��....,:� ..r� ..� �,:'t' °,..:-� _�� :��-"�. _� °�`�- !��'�, ..._ � �.� / i� �� ( ; i�� ..__./ � .� ,_l _...^..__. _ ,.. . � C. ! i.,- � .! .—✓: _""^ � ..% '� ` ,\q `..ti. , \, � .��'�\(\� i ___ _-�1_ . ;: _ _ . ; '\ ,�\ . e i . : : � � . . . ° � . =� � . , \\" \\ . �_. � • I � , _ _� j i ..•_ �• . \�\ u ' \\\ \• . �� j M1/��,_ ... �a. '` � \ '-� . � ..~., r. _ .� . �,�, , , _ ...... . _ " ' '. _ __' "' _' ' .�. �'ti. �`:\�� "„-'^ .,�: ^:z`��` ��,, . ' ' : " . .. S _.\ I �� . ��-f:.� �' �> �.. •� �'*� .��_ � j- � 4 �y � - \ '"�'� ^ �'l'��\'�11�\ 1 \ �r � �' \ \ 1 ..� . �. � . � �y � ,\:'. . ... .._ . n . . . �.�:.^ , .� = JC '� �� `= .. . ' ,. , ` • _ .. �`�',,\'��`�,:'.. ��, i .' � �� .:�' �'._'u'�-j�_ .�;:` �=�_.=-i�� "'� �'; : � �� i�,.. � . ��. c) �� '�' i -. .... ,j� _, ` � p f � - �"" �lt' ;i " � , —"_ � �J' _ t�\/_;(';'' �. ( "i _ ...��;� ( .� y � '�=%—_�—�_--_ \ ._ ,',' .� (� �'\ _�� ',C..�--,�..___��-'. �'.. � �.`� � , � '� — •-°-,:r,� _._ .—. �{ _ =��-.�c� "'`� ;=� � v �.� . � � �;�;� :�b =s,=_i� � ir=.: `i=_� �.�� .'� �� i - _— ��-��.��' • '1.. .Y�_,'_r � - �..-_ ....,..,--- � _ ,� 7,s" ": 1 _ ,�� • ' : ,4 �I � � I • � '•' II \ . �. l y l C � ' • �, \'i ,! w' � �`�..\�.._ ��\ � �;�� .�,z ti � _ ., -. ��_ �.:.F , i 1 `� _ ' • `1` � �•� — _ _ s`-s' _ - ' _ _ " _ _ ..�+�-� �� ` j(� � {•``-` 4 � Y 5 .� � 1f < � � �.-.� ��a .: :� _ �� i �` i • �� r I �� ..� C;::i F � . : � `� 1� - .7 �.� �n 3 � " •<`� : �-�� l �� ~ � .�.,�,�a.-� . :' `'��`-- �� ■ �� BATTLE-CREEK DIS7RICT 1 �N �=, 4-� l7 � i � a i� _ � O ! � I �__ � � I I 0 � i . ' - ' � I m �` � �.� � � �. V � �,� 0 i � O O � � O � J / � � q � 0 ' p O � p O / � O � O � �� O O v 0 °I�j o . � j .��. ° T1 w � O � O O v J — O _ O _ O � O J O � O T O p o i c� o/ � � �, o Q � O I O I t � � - � 0 l,oT I �T�_ ��3 � 1 Lo7� � � O O O 0 � v 0 C� s �- � t.�f 5 • l APPLICANT fr1�SG�. �Trin� LEGEND PURPOSE—��1� .�� zoning disirict boundary s � F1LE #_ "lE "Oq � pqTE �1'1�" �14 � subjed property n"' o�n�'- PLNG. DlST � MAP # �� t�� o one fami(y ••^ commercic ��''� � hvo family ♦ .�.. industrial �' �-+: °=" .`� jz muitipie family d$ V vacant ....�:_..... . . � Q - - - t n�n - -- _, C�] �