Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
214624
J Original to -City Clerk PRESENTED BY 3 ORDIN Council File No. 214624— Ordinance No. 12555 —By Frank L. Loss — An ordinance amending, the Zoning �1 Code, Chapters 60 to 64 inclusive, of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, per- --- 4604 4 taining to Use Districts, Height Dis- tricts and Rezoning of Certain Prop- erties in the City of Saint Pa,:l as NO. amended. This :n emergerc i- nance renderF ;•,2essary - S preservation "NANCE NO. health, and The Count Does Ordain{ 11 An ordinance amending the Zoning Code, Chapters 60 to 64 inclusive, of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, pertaining to Use Districts, Height Districts and Rezoning of Certain Properties in the•City of Saint Paul, as amended. This is an emergency ordinance rendered necessary for the preservation of the public, peace, health, and safety. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT.PAUL DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. That the Zoning Code, Chapters 60 to 64 inclusive, of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, pertaining to Use Districts, Height Districts,_ and Rezoning of Certain Properties in the City of Saint Paul, as amended, be and the same is hereby further amended so as to rezone the following described property from "A" Residence District to "C" Residence District, to —wit: Lots 10 thru 14, Block 20, Battle Creek Heights Plat 3 (Site No. 1 bounded on the north by Burns Avenue, on the east by McKnight Road, on the west by unimproved Winthrop Street and on the south by unimproved Rounds Avenue); Lots 9 thru 13 inclusive, Block 21, Battle Creek Heights Plat 3 (Site No. 2, located on the east side of unimproved Ruth Street between Burns Avenue and North Park Drive); Block 16, Battle Creek Heights Plat 2 (Site No. 3, bounded on the north by Rounds Avenue, on the west .by unimproved Winthrop Street,.on the south by North Park Drive and on the east by McKnight Road), Section 2. This ordinance is hereby declared to be an emergency ordinance rendered necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health, and safety. Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force upon its passage, approval, and publication, Yeas Councilmen Dalglish Holland Loss O Mortinson Peterson Resen-- Mr. President (Vavoulis) Attes City Clerk 1M 6-62 X22 OCT 3 1963 Nays Passed by the Council 6 Tn Favor C> Against %%— OCT 3 1963 Mayor DnpUeate to Printer ORDINANCE 21469,E PRESENTED BY COUNCIL FILE NO. ORDINANCE NO. An ordinance amending the Zoning Code, Chapters 60 to 64 inclusive, of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, pertaining to Use Districts, Height Districts and Rezoning of Certain Properties in the City of Saint Paul, as amended. This is an emergency ordinance rendered necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health, and safety. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. That the 4oning Code, Chapters 60 to 64 inclusive, of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, pertaining to Use Districts, Height Districts, and Rezoning of Certain Properties in the City of Saint Paul, as amended, be and the same is hereby further amended so as to rezone the following described property from "A" Residence District to "C" Residence District, to -wit: Lots 10 thru 14, Block 20, Battle Creek Heights Plat 3 (Site Igo. 1 bounded on the north by Burns Avenue, on the east by McKnight Road, on the west by unimproved Winthrop Street and on the.south by unimproved Rounds Avenue); Lots 9 thru 13 inclusive, Block 21, Battle Creek Heights Plat 3 (Site No. 2, located on the east side of unimproved Ruth Street between Burns Avenue and North Park Drive); Block 16, Battle Creek Heights Plat 2 (Site No. 3, bounded on the north by Rounds Avenue, on the west by unimproved Winthrop Street, on the south by North Park Drive and on the east by McKnight Road. Section 2. This ordinance is hereby declared to be an emergency ordinance rendered necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health, and safety. Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force upon its passage, approval, and publication. ucT 3 1963 Yeas Councilmen Nays Passed by the Council Dalglish Holland Tn Favor Loss Mortinson Peterson Against R,ose 1963 Mr. President (Vavoulis) OCT 3 Approved: Attest: City Clerk Mayor inl 6-62 X22 r, City of Saint Paul, Minnesota PETITION TO AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 5840, THE BUILDING ZONE ORDINANCE The signer should appraise himself of the uses permitted under the new classification before signing this petition. For further information about the re- zoning of property, call the Board of Zoning Office Ca. 4 -4612, Ext. 251. (Please type or print) Date: July 12., 1963 TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL % the City Clerk City of Saint Paul, Minnesota Pursuant to Section 23, Ordinance 5840, we, the undersigned owners of two - thirds of the several descriptions of real estate situated within 100 feet of the real estate afkected, hereby acquiesce; and we, the owners of 50% or more of the 9 frontage to be reclassified, petition your Honorable Body to rezone the following described property: (legal description and street address) Battle Creek Heights Plat No. 23 Block 16 - Battle Creek Heights Plat Now 3, Block 20, Lots 10,ll,12,'13, &14 and Block 21, Lots 9,10,11,12 & 13 from a "•A 'District to a C, District, for the purpose of installing, constructing and /or operating the following: (describe briefly the proposed facility) Apartments As to B.C.H.P. #21, Block 16 and B.C.H,P. #3, Block 20 Lots 10 thru 14- RECORD OWNER SIGNA'I'IIRE LOT ' BLOCK ADDITION G n n n 0 Battle Creek Development l thru battle Creek Heigh Co. 9 20 Plat No. 3 Battle Creek Heigh- City of Saint ? aul/ 17 Plat ' 2 �+ O� Battle Creek HHeigh City of Saint Paul 21 IPlat No. I ' Q.c As to B. C.H.P. #3 Blo k '21 Lots 9 10, Oil 22 and-L3 n Battle Creek Development 2 thru Battle Creek Height Co 8 21 Plat No. 3k Battle Creek Height Cit of Saint Paul 18 Plat No 2 PKA Battle Creek Heigh- Cit,y of Saint Paul 1 21 Plat No h��Qr �l V[LLC vi minne5vtia� County of Ramsey )ss Joseph E. Dillon being first duly sworn, deposes and states that he is the person who circulated the within petition consisting of one pages };tbat the parties described above are the owners respectively of the lots placed imul6d•iately following each name; that this •petition was signed by each of said owner&, in.,the presence of this affiant, and that the signatures above are the true _a k,cprrect signatures of each and all of the parties so described. Subscri ;beet .-and sworn to before me -this f - °� ,,��' day of Ju . Dakota Notary Public, jTgftgM My Commission expires Feb. 12, 1970 Page 1 of 1 pages. r �tnxcrhr� rr Approved as to form 7/2/54 �0r2ry Y't ":. v, .015 , kota c�, _� jf'r.' Office of the Corporation Counsel a ExPi F_ 4 `1,2, 197 .t Z -1 7/2/54 �UL 2 y 9963 CaY SAlnf- ;s No.3 M ;s .s Y. �• ff l� s s ,s f 1pl.AUL.; MINNES"OTA 1. FORSBERG UR -, S VEYOR, A (0 4 51.0 WORC 50.0 5QO 50.0 50. 5-W _ 550.46 Td_l�l �168-' Oz 9B - - 2-F 1 2741 �70 7 V� Ak 4 cay ?700-?(, 0 N t0 LO "Co co 0 u to 10 14 V) (n 41(3 470 50 39 E 900 /,5 T 00 `6 ; > . go? � 311" � J2L_ ld C Fri '0 0 0 C) 25 C) LO -1 " 12 13 C\1 16=,35:L0, d L, 6 T=120.90 to R= 770.19 14034'30't IT= 242.84 24o.48' ox, tv"94z;. Jill' 2,11 ?0 0 ;16 NDS, .170A cJ N.E.CORNER OF THE N.E. 1/4 2-28-22 OF fl,40 ES0TA$'_ C-0U,•!T*Y OF RXASEY) S.S. IEFORE ME THE ON THIS _DAY or,,,� Ce e4 A.D. 1963 E -ARED-OLEN M AY ANVEVERETTA C. TERRY WHO EACH UNDERSIGNED FIRSONALLY APPE E N r . N(i ClUlY S',V)RN $A.YTHAT THEY ARE RESPECTiVEt2lLTHE PR SIDENT ' A D ECRETARY O� -SOTA CORPORATION INAMED IN THE NiE SAIFIE CeREEK DEVELOPMENT COM PAN A KN&I G Cz,`iTIF1 CATE AND THE SEAL AF F, lXE0 T:) SAME INSTRUMENT 1S THE CORP(I-RATE 0' 'iA!D CORPM.ATION AND THATSAID ft)'TRUNIENT WAS SIGNED AND SEALED IN BEH't-F C� F E N T �Otl BY AUTHORITN : IT3 BOARD OF D[RECTORS AND SAID PRESID ... ....... N.E.CORNER OF THE N.E. 1/4 2-28-22 OF fl,40 ES0TA$'_ C-0U,•!T*Y OF RXASEY) S.S. IEFORE ME THE ON THIS _DAY or,,,� Ce e4 A.D. 1963 E -ARED-OLEN M AY ANVEVERETTA C. TERRY WHO EACH UNDERSIGNED FIRSONALLY APPE E N r . N(i ClUlY S',V)RN $A.YTHAT THEY ARE RESPECTiVEt2lLTHE PR SIDENT ' A D ECRETARY O� -SOTA CORPORATION INAMED IN THE NiE SAIFIE CeREEK DEVELOPMENT COM PAN A KN&I G Cz,`iTIF1 CATE AND THE SEAL AF F, lXE0 T:) SAME INSTRUMENT 1S THE CORP(I-RATE 0' 'iA!D CORPM.ATION AND THATSAID ft)'TRUNIENT WAS SIGNED AND SEALED IN BEH't-F C� F E N T �Otl BY AUTHORITN : IT3 BOARD OF D[RECTORS AND SAID PRESID Cn 0- w o OD 4 Ir Nuo O� 0 IpB°ag� -4 ®7 0° ° f ° e �- w. 94Q43 28 �, 0 ° , 89 m s2� o6E , 335.1 , o_ WINTHROP T f S879 54!W 60.00 3797' t$ r ; o ua N (D I w Ip O I 0 rfl Q i I 1 A + C� W O E j 1 c _I N O P^ o ° a Id I N °52'E 0 I ��qq • lf I ► f 15752, A) /� 1 302.04 '33.7 26 °�6, oco S5�_48E N N U 0 co 00 qop -j I (a %%- N ON 10 V C) C 60r p 42,j Co 4 ° -4 N4 05 N051E ° 1 _3.74 260.00' N oNi cn m m -1co W Ca0 0 s o IV V / ^ N v t o I l...... i0�° rn � cD o � o`° 7i . N °`x"205.00 57412 I S S � 30 670.76' -MCsoo,hl Ep 177 N BS -59 E - 25.00 KNIGHT ROAD � - ZE m m D r- m m m elz 0 m_ m r- 0 v 3 m z -i O m m co ,o N mn O i to I m op p �7 0 w o. a o$ ?, I M _... G v, z ' W ... v to Z m C7 O j�s -i 0 —I '� - G7 1 � 1 -• m m rn rn m= 1 , 1 z O m D N m 6m7 -i -< _n _ O X� m m D U) cn l L cn vmD �'m =i � „ -•l _ m Ir Nuo O� 0 IpB°ag� -4 ®7 0° ° f ° e �- w. 94Q43 28 �, 0 ° , 89 m s2� o6E , 335.1 , o_ WINTHROP T f S879 54!W 60.00 3797' t$ r ; o ua N (D I w Ip O I 0 rfl Q i I 1 A + C� W O E j 1 c _I N O P^ o ° a Id I N °52'E 0 I ��qq • lf I ► f 15752, A) /� 1 302.04 '33.7 26 °�6, oco S5�_48E N N U 0 co 00 qop -j I (a %%- N ON 10 V C) C 60r p 42,j Co 4 ° -4 N4 05 N051E ° 1 _3.74 260.00' N oNi cn m m -1co W Ca0 0 s o IV V / ^ N v t o I l...... i0�° rn � cD o � o`° 7i . N °`x"205.00 57412 I S S � 30 670.76' -MCsoo,hl Ep 177 N BS -59 E - 25.00 KNIGHT ROAD � - ZE m m D r- m m m elz 0 m_ m r- 0 v 3 m z -i O m m r N mn op p �7 0 w o. a o$ o G v, > (n v to Z m C7 O -I -i 0 - G7 -< m x m�� m m m rn m= 1 z O m D N m 6m7 -i -< _n _ O X� m m D U) cn l cn vmD �'m =i � „ -•l _ m m � -+ 0 z OM ;uZa:0°rn n m Om m cn PG-) D N m u-li U m � m z� --,-, D O x -1 co c� noNCmnNNmmD r m -t cu- I cn < � D K m m m > --j m D p z0 r _ MO ° Z c ...1 m < m m O F m O M n cn m m n m v DC — •lmmz r OFFICE OF CITY CLERK BUREAU OF RECORDS 386 City Hall and Court House St. Paul 2, Minnesota 5s 1963• Mr. Donald L. Lais, Corporation Counsel. Dear Sir: MRS. AGNES H. O'CONNELL City Clerk HAROLD J. RIORDAN Council Recorder <1462Z Sept, 10 1 R JE C R I E Y 1 SEP 5 - 1963 CORPORATION CUUNSEL The City Council requested that you draw an ordinance, or ordinances, granting the pet' on for the rezoning of certain property in the Battle Creek He � Plat -$js.' 3, as more fully described in the attached petition and letter of H. C. Wieland. Very truly yours, r ry 2y'Zerk C� CITY OF SAINT PAUL - MINNESOTA 8. .......................... ......................... ......................... ..................... .......................... ...................... ...................... ......................... .......................... ............................. ............... :•.::?ftD OF ZONING, CITY OF SAINT PAUL "' "' •:iXiRNSI:pd; 251 -252 -233 1213 CITY HALL AND COURT HOUSE SAINT PAUL 2, MINNESOTA September 5, 1963 Mrs. Agnes H. O'Connell City Clerk Building I Dear Madam: This is inithe matter of the petitions (2) of the Battle Creek Development Corporation to rezone from "A" to "C" residence properties described as follows: Lots 10 thru 14, Block 20r(Site # l bounded on the north by Burns Avenue, on'the east by McKnight Road, on the west by unimproved Winthrop k� cn b unimproved Rounds Avenue; Lots 9 thru 13 inclu- of unimproved Ruth Street k.16 Site # 3) bounded on iiprove throp Street, on the :Knight Roa id pro- s I izz, /J Ad opted by the. nnci i gg_ r or ed the petitions suffi- he owners of 11 of a possible i Yeae radius having signed the Nays ble 12 (757o) tracts of land DALGI S.H`" signed the petition. $OLLA a petitioner ultimately intends I,OI gg ment buildings, four of-which ;ies in height. The total num- ORTINSON i develop Site # 2 with five 12 stories in height, one six- ht. The total number of units ROSEN bed a proposal for Site # 3 at PRESIDENT (AVO.T ' ies are as follows: Site # 1 ception of nine platted lots I approximately 844,000 square feet. ig a combined frontage on the IUe and North Park Drive of 1,452.73 resulting in an area of approxi- 8 sts of an entire city block and (feet. The combined area of the ire feet, or 44.2 acres. and 3 are as follows: North and across Burns enue; -a_ ad single - family residences, also a large tract of commercially zoned an , east and across McKnight Road is vacant land located in the Village of Maplewood, south and across unimproved Battle Creek Development Corp. Page 2_' North Park Drive is land recently acquired for the extension of Battle Creek Park; west and across unimproved Winthrop Street is vacant land reserved for a future Junior High School site. For Site # 2, the surround- ing area land uses are as follows: north and across Burns Avenue are re- cently constructed single and two - family residential uses which front on Burns Avenue; east and adjoining is the proposed future school site; south and across unimproved North Park Drive is land recently acquired for the extension of Battle Creek Park; west and across unimproved Ruth Street is vacant land classified in the "A" residence district and future Battle Creek Park property. The Board of Zoning considered this matter at its regular meeting on August 15, 1963 and recommends the granting of the petition to rezone the above described property to a "C" residence district. Sincerely, ` H. C. Wieland Secretary Board of Zoning HCW:FGI Enc. Z. F. 5262 CC:-Mr. Janes July 26, 1963 CITY OF SAINT PAUL CAPITAL OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE To the Council City of St. Paul Gentlemen: JAMES J. DALGLISH, Commissioner THOMAS J. KELLEY, Deputy Commissioner 113 Court House, Zone 2 CApital 4 -4612 ® -- I have checked the attached petition, filed in the matter of rezoning Block 16, Battle Creek Heights Plat No. 2, and Lots 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14, Block 20, Battle Creek Heights Plat No. 3. Property located as follows: Surrounded by Burns Avenue, McKnight Road, North Park 'Drive, and Winthrop Street, from Class "All Residence District to Class "C" Residence District, and find that said petition is sufficient. Re: File 16121 c.c. Mr. Schroeder, City Architect Mr. Wieland, Planning Board Yours very truly, 9"oiw . James J. Dalglish Commissioner of Finance ELTOR A. DEHN Valuation Engineer J. WILLIAM DONOVAN Assr. Valuation Engineer VERNON E. RUDE Chief Cashier PAUL F. DESCH Chief Clerk JUL 2.9 1963 CITY PLAIVIaNG Sain* July 26, 1963 To the Council City of St. Paul Gentlemen: CITY OF SAINT PAUL ELTOR A. DEHN CAPITAL OF MINNESOTA valealion Engineer J. WILLIAM DONOVAN DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE Asst. Valuation Engineer VERNON E. RUDE JAMES J. DALGLISH, Commissioner Chief Cashier THOMAS I KELLEY, Deputy Commissioner PAUL F. DESCH Chief Clerk 113 Court House, Zone 2 CApital 44612 °® I have checked the attached petition, filed in the matter of rezoning Tots 9, 105 115 12 and 13, Block 21, Battle Creek Heights Plat No. 3. Property located as follm7s: On the east side of Ruth Street from Burns Avenue to North park Drive, from Class "Ali Residence District to Class "Cis Residence District, and find that said petition is sufficient. Re: File 16120 c.c. Mr. Schroeder, City Architect Mr. Wieland Planning Board Yours very truly, 9�D . James J. Dalglish Commissioner of Finance Cl�'y L 29 9963 .. r>_ _ _i STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR REZONING OF PROPOSED BATTLE CREEK APARTMENTS AREA, To His Honor Mayor George Vavoulis and Members of the St. Paul City Council: We, the following listed residents and property owners of the City of St. Paul, as attested to by signature and address, do hereby request your consideration of our views and position in the matter of the proposed rezoning of Battle Creek Heights, Plat Number 2 (hereafter referred to as the "Battle Creek Apartments Areari) from the present Class A Residential (single and double unit residences) classification to Class C Residential (multi -unit, apartments) classification. We urge that due and proper con- sideration be given to the following pertinent aspects of the rezoning request: 1. Prior to and at the time we purchasedour homes in the Scenic Hills Addition Number Two (the area bounded by Ruth Street, McKnight and Hudson Road and Burns Avenue), the Battle Creek Apartments area property under consideration for rezoning was zoned Class A Residential. A primary consideration in our decisions to purchase our properties was the fact that the adjacent property was zoned Class A Residential and that all reasonable expectations were that this area would remain so classified. In addition, explicit and overt assurances were made by the developers of Scenic Hills Addition Number Two, namely the Cardinal Construction Company, that the adjacent property to the south was to be developed as Class A Residential. 2e At the present time over one hundred private dwelling units are owned and occupied by the tax payers and property owners of the Scenic Hills Addition. Under the proposed rezoning plan for the construction of 1,330 apartment units will come the inevitable .undue congestion and traffic attendant with such a mass housing development. Considerations of public safety as affected by vehicular traffic and complete dis- ruption of the private residential nature of the area are paramount in this rezoning request, 3, The destruction of the private residential nature of the existing homes constructed in the Scenic Hills Addition Number Two area will most definitely cause a reduction in property valua s of these homes. Hand in hand with this will be a substantial reduction in the property tax revenues from the present Scenic Hills homes, which must be off set against any anticipated increased tax revenues from the proposed Battle Creek Apartments. s • ti ei F #ge 2 of 5 Pages 4o The site of the future public junior high school is located within the property under consideration for rezoning. We understand that it is the intention of the city to retain some seventeen acres in the area, but that the school site is crowded in between apartmrent sites number one and two and a private golf course. We question the wisdom of this decision on three points: (a) A school site in the shadows of 12 and 16 story apartments is hardly the best setting for a public school. (b) Is it necessary to crowd a public junior high school into a seventeen acre area so as to accommodate a private golf course? (c) What assurances do we have that once the process of shifting the school site has begun, that it will ultimately remain Within the immediate area of Scenic Hills addition. Again, we must point out that the location of the public junior high school site in its present location, surrounded by private residences was an important factor in our decisions to purchase our homes. 5. The crux-of the issue in this rezoning petition is that of the rights of private property ownerso Consonant with the purchase of private property is the right to use and enjoy it as one sees fit within reasonable limits. Directly affecting the use, enjoyment and value of private property is the adjacent and surrounding property and the use to which it is put. With the amendment of the cityts zoning code so as to remove the right of abbuting property owners to file remon- strance petitions, such property owners can only rely upon the collective conscience of the City Council members. This we most earnestly beseech you to do in denying the request to rezone the Battle Creek Apartments area. 6. Roil 7o 8. 9. 10. 11. 1,2. 13, 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19., 20.. 21 22 23. 24* Page 3 of $ Pages r"IffiN ffiopl Page 4 of 5 Pages 26. 33._ 34✓ 3� . W, a) aoa s oS 41. 42. F 43 44 45 46 480 T .1 . I - Page 5 of 5 Pages im 1� -f 520 L -Ili 580 59* 60, STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR REZONING OF PROPOSED BATTLE CREEK APARTMENTS ARFA, To His Honor Mayor George Pavoulis and Members of the St. Paul City Council: We, the following listed residents and property owners of the City of St. Paul, as attested to by signature and address, do hereby request your consideration of our views and position in the matter of the proposed rezoning of Battle Creek Heights, Plat Number 2 (hereafter referred to as the "Battle Creek Anartments Arean) from the present Class A Residential (single and double unit residences) classification to Class C Residential (multi -unit, apartments) classification. We urge that due and proper con- sideration be given to the following pertinent aspects of the rezoning request: 1. Prior to and at the time we purchased our homes in the Scenic Hills Addition Number Two (the area bounded by Ruth Street, McKnight and Hudson Road and Burns Avenue), the Battle Creek Apartments area property under consideration for rezoning was zoned Class A Residential. A primary consideration in our decisions to purchase our properties was the fact that the adjacent property was zoned Class A Residential and that all reasonable expectations were that this area would remain so classified. In addition, explicit and overt assurances were made by the developers of Scenic Hills Addition Number Two, namely the Cardinal Construction Company, that the ,adjacent property to the south was to be developed as Class A Residential. 2, At the present time over one hundred private dwelling units are owned and occupied by the tax payers and property owners of the Scenic Hills Addition. Under the proposed rezoning plan for the construction of 1030 apartment units will come the inevitable undue congestion and traffic attendant with such a mass housing developwnt. Considerations of public safety as affected by vehicular traffic and complete dis- ruption of the private residential nature of the area are paramount in this rezoning request, 3. The destruction of the private residential nature of the existing homes constructed in the Scenic Hills Addition Number Two area will most definitely cause a reduction in property values of these homes. Hand irr hand with this will be a substantial reduction in the property tax revenues from the present Scenic Hills homes, which must be off set against any anticipated increased tax revenues from the proposed Battle Creek Apartments, E #ge 2 of 5 Pages 4, The site of the future public junior high school is located within the property under consideration for rezoning. We understand that it is the intention of the city to retain some seventeen acres in the area, but that the school site is crowded in between apartment sites number one and two and a private golf course. We question the wisdom of this decision on three points: (a) A school site in the shadows of 12 and 16 story apartments is hardly the best setting for a public school. (b) Is. it necessary to crowd a public junior high school into a seventeen acre area so as to accommodate a private golf course? (c) What assurances do we have that once the process of shifting the school site has begun, that it will ultimately remain within the immediate area of Scenic Hills addition. again, we must point out that the location of the public junior high school site in its present location, surrounded by private residences, was an important factor in our decisions to purchase our homes. 5. The crux of the issue in this rezoning petition is that of the rights of private property owners. Consonant with the purchase of private property is the right to use and enjoy it as one sees fit within reasonable limits. Directly affecting the use, enjoyment and value of private property is the adjacent and surrounding property and the use to which it is put. With the amendment of the cityts zoning code so as to remove the right of abbuting property owners to file remon- strance petitions, such property owners can only rely upon the collective conscience of the City Council members. This we most earnestly beseech you to do in denying the request to rezone the Battle Creek Apartments area. A//Gu-✓ — l. 2. 3. 4e 5.� IM10 Page 3 of Pages ry 10, LO X3 11. 12. 13: a �� 15 • o� 16. o 17. ��, a y �L 1s. 19. 20 21, 22, 23. 25, 1��� 26. 27. 28 29 30 31. 33. c, 34. - 35. •D 37. 38. 39. ' 40. 41. 471� 42 �l Y U r a, Page 4 of 5 Pages H � � •vti pit `.!g 01 'i i a,le - y3 r• w I I - Page 5 of 5 Pages 0 43. 44. Ilk" A-. —xo-q ► 45. 46. 47. 11%A Z4,f 48 4 5o. 52* 530 54. 550 1 58. 59* 600 �Z'7 I V.- .J, STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR REZONING OF PROPOSED BATTLE CREEK APARTMENTS AR FA To His Honor Mayor George Vavoulis and Members of the St. Paul City Council: We, the following listed residents and property owners of the City of St. Paul, as attested'to by signature and address, do hereby request your consideration of our views and position in the matter of the proposed rezoning of Battle Creek Heights, Plat Number 2 (hereafter referred to as the "Battle Creek Apartments Area ") from the present Class A Residential (single and double unit residences) classification to Class C Residential (multi -unit, apartments) classification. We urge that due and proper con- sideration be given to the following pertinent aspects of the rezoning request: 1. Prior to and at the time we purchasedour homes in the Scenic Hills Addition Number Two (the area bounded by Ruth Street, McKnight and Hudson Road and Burns Avenue), the Battle Creek Apartments area property under consideration for rezoning was zoned Class A Residential. A primary consideration in our decisions to purchase our properties was the fact that the adjacent property was zoned Class A Residential and that all reasonable expectations were that this area would remain so classified. In addition, explicit and overt assurances were made by the developers of Scenic Hills Addition Number Two, namely the Cardi,xlal Construction Company, that the adjacent property to the south was to be developed as Class A Residential. 2. At the present time over one hundred private dwelling units are owned and occupied by the tax payers and property owners of the Scenic Hills Addition. Under the proposed rezoning plan for the construction of 1,330 apartment units will come the inevitable undue congestion and traffic attendant with such a mass housing development. Considerations of public safety as affected by vehicular traffic and complete dis- ruption of the private residential nature of the area are paramount in this rezoning request. 3. The destruction of the private residential nature of the existing homes constructed in the Scenic Hills Addition Number Two area will most definitely cause a reduction in property values of these homes. Hand in hand with this will be a substantial reduction in the property tax, revenues from the present Scenic Hills homes, which must be off set against any anticipated increased tax revenues from the proposed Battle Creek Apartments. n 1. 2, 3. 4. 5. 6. RPgge 2 of 5 Pages 4, The site of the future public junior high school is located within the property under consideration for rezoning, We understand that it is the intention of the city to retain some seventeen acres in the area, but that the school site is crowded in between apartnsent sites number one and two and a private golf course, We question the wisdom of this decision on three points: (a) A school site in the shadows of 12 and 16 story apartments is hardly the best setting for a public school, (b) Is it necessary to crowd a public junior high school into a seventeen acre area so as to accommodate a private golf course? (c) What assurances do we have that once the process of shifting the school site has beguns, that it will ultimately remain within the immediate area of Scenic Hills addition. Again, we must point out that the location of the public junior high school site in its present locations, surrounded by private residences, was an important factor in our decisions to purchase our homes. 5. The crux of the issue in this rezoning petition is that of the rights of-private property ownerso Consonant with the purchase of private property is the right to use and enjoy it as one sees fit within reasonable limitso Directly affecting the use, enjoyment and value of private property is the adjacent and surrounding property and the use to which it is put. With the amendment of the cityts zoning code so as to remove the right of abbuting property owners to file remon- strance petitions, such property owners can only rely upon the collective conscience of the City Council members. This we most earnestly beseech you to do in denying the request to rezone the Battle Creek Apartments area, Page 3 of 5 Pages T, _? 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13, 14. 15• 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 7914 G f 1 !f _.�xr..,i ...........- ....-- ...... .���a�. C- /, / ": , 25 26. 27. 28, 29. Page 4 of 5 Pages A / //> 0 310&, OIL -,;2) 3 -a )v,� 33. 34• 37. 30.0 39• 400 41. 42. Page 5 of 5 Pages 430 444 450 46 47. 480 4-9. 5©. 530 54* 550 560 5,70 580 59* 600 RECEIVED ,. N7 PAUL, MINN. In 'AAYOR'S OFFICE AM CEP 3 1963 'M �I818I�IU1�1$I�I�I'�I�I� St. Paul, Minnesota August 30, 1963 Honorable Mayor a va dk is: and Members of he Council. Gentlemen: The rezoning of the land formerly used by the City Work Farm, Burns Ave., Upper Afton Road & McKnight Road, will come up for hearing in a few days. I wish to register my opposition to selling this property for apartments. The people who bought homes in the Scenic Hills area and along Afton Road had assurance that that area would continue to be one - dwelling homesites. Why can't the city hold this beautiful wooded acreage for park and future school use, or a public swimming pool and playgrounds. There is very little NATURAL beautiful country space left for city folks. There is other land available in that vicinity for apartment purposes. If the apartment promoters want land - why not purchase the land at White Bear Ave. and Hi -Way 12. Why sacrifice the work farm land to them at a cheaper price and they will turn around and reap a huge profit from it. I see no sense in the city buying the Hillcrest Golf Course at this time. If another golf course is wanted - why not build one on the work farm land that the city already owns and save the taxpayers. Save the land at the work farm for home- owners and our future citizens. Your consideration and favorable action- to,not zone this property for apartments will be appreciated. Yours very truly, Mrs. Helene D. Pittorf 244 W. Baker Street St. Paul ?, Minnesota 'RECEIVED ' S iN 1' PAUL, r INN. - -'' In MAYn;R'S OFFIC'� 3mcompmy AM AUG 301963 ' m GENERAL OFFICES • 2501 HUDSON ROAD • ST. PAUL 19, MINNESOTA •�18� 2��31L1Yi' I�III¢I�IS Coated Abrasives and Related Products Division Q, 1 J d� d� k �9d3 a- h Q3e),, - � - C/.::" MINNESOTA MINING AND [MANUFACTURING COMPANY � � 2 c,,; SEC IVES �a MINN. • !T� ; - of sr SSA Ilia\ OFFICE a�I9c7a. �e �1, P 5 1963 ' \ 1�� Y ' M h Q3e),, - � - C/.::" MINNESOTA MINING AND [MANUFACTURING COMPANY �.i� 1p p. 2, ,n.'2, 6-51,9 'EIVED G I/ UL, mINN. In NIA's' L; OFFICE AM SEP 4 1963 'M —,4111-�- ;, VYkC-4-,--J-AL, etnx � r w� a y? Y.: ej CA—) c �— v-�^- oc �+n �c �C_el • G.�J 2�t�- i . ;'N, � • , - .f' , :- . =+' . t - FS - •I.4y^Y �?r.yy±• -Mti - - ♦ _ •- _ 1. , _ - °�: • $� R -,City, 0 'Saint P60" EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT ~ t °OFFICE OF. T_HEL MANY °O ,.., CITY HALL AND° COURT HOUSE, r ` • y 4 : ` .. - _ ST. PAUL 2; MINNESOTA ,September : 4-;. 19.63 41 IF r' _ - _ y -• ,� " .. - - "� _ter, ��•'-. ± }, .n�. • _ .q'i,' ,,, • • . ..' _ _ sti - yy... -- ,��5! is 1w ,. , _ ' x. , • �'{ , . • '{ - ^ - Y - •fir- �i1. _ 1 . _- _ _ r ` rJ�t, ,� -- ,' -- . - • .s,{ ... Mrs:. Mariiyr! °''M McC4'r T t ��` t.: - •. ., i. - - �,s tic . • '� _2,0q2: SceniPlace:R { ,,,• _ , 1 h .±' '' St# . Paul, :Minnq�s.ot4 55119 ` Dear Mrs . McCat3►`. k ', Thank :,�iau' fox' writing to me • -as Ygii Yid-, des a : of • - September 3rd y' "and, •I can Rcertain -1 to d -yo r o cern. I ' ean" only aataire:_ you, that -the ac 11 a ei:gh very °. .carefully in this mattex+; I am i sorry+' "ou , fho ld ' nql de n you 1 tter° omniei�s ,such , a " ney y., ' p.o1,' t eal tn' eu erin d d' sinterest .' in-'.the' a: ";. S� na be n' Ma or' whenever is a coast v o de ing` r zon n A, ave. 'always eked the' ' - Co c�,_ to �o ut and �i w't e pr posed- rezoning an_ d to_ weigh - v y areful'ly th recb en at on, • of ;the Planning Board and, e on ng Boa d: We�:t y d e best, jpb sae can in.;pro- ,' •' Oct ir�g .the,':pub ,c to M . %a bid, ;for express3;ng ".your .point ' o f _ view. Your. letter - wi -1 b s ted.- to the entire City Council for` consideration: t > s .. z_ ,° . ' • Sincerely _ GEORGE J.: VAV©ULIS _ _ ^` 'MAYOR . !' 4s. '3 ` .. `Sry. ., _I,! 1 � , • ` `wt . ` ``�'' -r iCd��r- . ,� - ` +', , -+ - -tt - � - • [ ` r'" "-- STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR REZONING OF PROPOSED BATTLE CREEK APARTMENTS AREA, To His Honor Mayor George Vavoulis and Members of the St. Paul City Council: We, the following listed residents and property owners of the r City of St. Paul, as attested to by signature and address, do hereby request ' your consideration of our views and position in the matter of the proposed rezoning of Battle Creek Heights, Plat Number 2 (hereafter referred to as the "Battle Creek Apartments Area") from the present Class A Residential (single and double unit residences) classification to Class C Residential (multi -unit, apartments) classification. We urge that due and proper con- sideration be given to the following pertinent aspects of the rezoning request: 1. Prior to and at the time we purchasedour homes in the Scenic Hills Addition Number Two (the area bounded by Ruth Street, McKnight and Hudson Road and Burns Avenue), the Battle Creek Apartments area - }property under consideration for rezoning was zoned Class A Residential. A primary consideration in our decisions to purchase our properties was the fact, that the adjacent property was zoned Class A Residential and that a"11 reasonable expectations were that this area would remain so classified. In addition, explicit and overt assurances were made by the developers of Scenic Hills Addition Number Two, namely the Cardinal Construction Company, that the adjacent property to the south was to be developed as Class A Residential. 2. At the present time over onw hundrQd,private dwelling units are owned and occupied by the tax payers and property owners of the Scenic Hills Addition. Under the proposed rezoning plan for the construction of 1,330 apartment units will come the inevitable undue congestion and traffic attendant with such a mass housing development. Considerations of public safety as affected by vehicular traffic and complete dis- ruption of the private residential nature of the area are paramount in this rezoning request, 3. The destruction of the private residential nature of the existing homes constructed in the Scenic Hills Addition Number Two area will most definitely cause a reduction in property values of these homes. Hand in hand with this will be a substantial reduction in the property tax revenues from the present Scenic Hills homes, which must be off set against any anticipated increased tax revenues from the proposed Battle Creek Apartments. 2. 3., 4. 5. 6. IpAge 2 of 5 Pages 4, The site of the future public junior high school is located within the property under consideration for rezoning. We understPmd that it is the intention of the city to retain some seventeen acres in the area, but that the school site is crowded in between apartment sites number one and two and a private golf course. We question the wisdom of this decision on three points: (a) A school site in the shadows of 12 and 16 story apartments is hardly the best setting for a public school. (b) Is. it necessary to crowd a public junior high school into a seventeen acre area so'as to accommodate a private golf course? (c) What assurances do we have that once the process of shifting the school site has begun, that it will ultimately remain - within the immediate area of Scenic Hills addition. Again., we must point out that the location of the public junior high school site in its present location, surrounded by private residences was an important factor in our decisions to purchase our homes. 5. The crux of the issue in this rezoning petition is that of the rights of private property ownerso Consonant with the purchase of private property is the right to use and enjoy it as one sees fit within reasonable limits. Directly affecting the use, enjoyment and value of private property is the adjacent and surrounding property and the use to which it is put. With the amendment of the city's zoning code so as to remove the right of abbuting property owners to file remon- strance petitions, such property owners can only rely upon the collective conscience of the City Council members. This we most earnestly beseech you to do in denying the request to rezone the Battle Creek Apartments areao " a,, I u PaFte 3 of 5 Pages • � i �� ! �� �' Me m �J d� WIir�� � � r 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30, 31. 32. 33. 34.. 35 36., 37. 38. 39• c . v Page 4 of 5 Pages Mj--� r i t, . 1 H Page 5 of 5 Pages AM 45. 460 47e 48. 49. 50. 51. "4 52. 530 54. 55. 560 570 580 590. 6o. t STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR REZONING OF PROPOSED BATTLE CREEK APARTMENTS AREA, To His Honor Mayor George Vavoulis and Members of the St. Paul City Council: We, the following listed residents, and property owners of the City of St. Paul, as attested to by signature and address, do'hereby request your consideration of our views and position in the matter of the proposed rezoning of Battle Creek Heights, Plat Number 2 (hereafter referred to as the "Battle Creek Apartments Area ") from the present Class A Residential (single and double unit•residences) classification to Class C Residentia]. (multi -unit, apartments) classification. We urge that due and proper con- sideration be given to the following pertinent aspects of the rezoning request: le Prior to and at the time we purchasedour homes in the Scenic Hills Addition Number Two (the area bounded by Ruth Street, McKnight and Hudson Road and Burns Avenue), the Battle Creek Apartments area property under consideration for rezoning was zoned Class A Residential. A primary consideration in our decisions to purchase our properties was the fact that the adjacent property was zoned Class A Residential and that all reasonable expectations were that this area would remain so classified. In addition, explicit and overt assurances were made by the developers of Scenic Hills Addition Number Two, namely the Cardinal Construction Company, that the adjacent property to the south was to be developed as Class A Residential. 2e- At the present time over one hundred private dwelling units are owned and occupied by the tax payers and property owners of the Scenic Hills Addition. Under the proposed rezoning plan for the construction of 1030 apartment units will come the inevitable undue congestion and traffic attendant with such a mass housing development. Considerations of public safety as affected by vehicular traffic and complete dis- ruption of the private residential nature of the area are paramount in this rezoning request, 3. The destruction of the private residential nature of the existing homes constructed in the Scenic Hills Addition Number Two area will most definitely cause a reduction in property values of these hgmese Hand in hand with this will be a substantial reduction in the property tax revenues from the present Scenic Hills homes, -Rhich must be off set against any anticipated increased tax revenues from the proposed Battle Creek Apartments. Fgge 2 of 5 Pages 4. The site of the future public junior high school is located within the property under consideration for rezoning, We understand that it is the intention of the city to retain some seventeen acres in the area, but that the school site is crowded in between apartment sites number one and two and a private golf course. We question the wisdom of this decision on three points: (a) A school site in the shadows of 12 and 16 story apartments is e hardly the best setting for a public school. (b) Is it necessary to crowd a public junior high school into a seventeen acre area so as to accommodate a private golf course? (c) What assurances do we have that once the process of shifting the school site has begun, that it will ultimately remain within the immediate area of Scenic Hills addition. Again, we must point out that the location of the public junior high school site in its present location, surrounded by private residences, was an important factor in our decisions to purchase our homes. 5. The crux of the issue in this rezoning petition is that of the rights of-private property ownerso Consonant with the purchase of private property is the right to use and enjoy it as one sees fit within reasonable limits. Directly affecting the use., enjoyment and value of private property is the adjacent and surrounding property and the use to which it is put. With the amendment of the city's zoning code so as to remove the right of abbuting property owners to file remon- strance petitions, such property owners can only rely upon the collective conscience of the City Council members. This we most earnestly beseech you to do in denying the request to rezone the Battle Creek Apartments area. 1. 3. 4. 5. 6. 9 Page 3 01 5 Pages 7. 8. 99 12. 13. 15. 17. 180 ,'x. o7i 19. 200 22. 23. O� �l v� /�'r�r►1� // ��(�►P��c 0° /.3� /:?`)� + =v. °�l`� "� f ��. Page 4 of 5 Pages 25 26. 27. 28. 29. 300 31. 32. 33• 34.. 35.... _ 36• 37. 38. 390 4010 41. 42. Page 5 of 5 Wages 43. 44". 45. 46 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54.� 55. 560 570 58. 59. . 60. 1st 2n I Laid over to 3rd and app A pted Yeas Nays eaa Nays MOM Dalglish Holland olland Loss f Loss �ortinson 0 ortinson Peterson VVV eterson U Rosen - Oftugm - \Vr. President Vavoulis r. President Vavoulis O • ptJgLISHED