HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002 09-23 City Council Manager Workshop PacketAgenda # ---°
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager
FROM: Thomas Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan
LOCATION: White Bear Avenue between Ripley Avenue and Larpenteur Avenue
DATE: September 12, 2002
INTRODUCTION
Hillcrest Village Smart Growth Study
The Metropolitan Council and their design consultants, together with the cities of St. Paul and
Maplewood, have developed a - neighborhood redevelopment land use plan for the Hillcrest
Shopping Center and the contiguous part of Maplewood north of Larpenteur Avenue. This plan,
called the Hillcrest Village smart growth site, was developed over the past 1 Y2 years. Also
involved with the development of this plan were interested property and business owners.
The Met Council presented this plan to the public on April 25, 2002. Refer to the Hillcrest Village
g
plan on page 8 and the design criteria for redevelopment in the attached booklet entitled
Proposer! Urban Design Standards. Since April 25, the Cities of St. Paul and Maplewood have
held informational meetings with their respective neighborhoods that would be affected by this
plan. Refer to the Citizen Comments on .page 4.
Staff also asked the planning commission, community design review board (CDRB) and housing
and redevelopment authority (HRA) for their comments and to forward a recommendation on the
Hillcrest Village plan to the city council. I have summarized their comments below as well as in
the Past Actions on pages 5 -7.
Request
Staff is requesting that the council decide whether the city should adopt the redevelopment plan
for Hillcrest Village, some variation of it or to not develop a plan at all.
BACKGROUND
Refer to the Past Actions starting on page 5.
DISCUSSION
Planning Commission Comments
The planning commission did not recommend approval, but offered the following comments:
1. St. Paul and Maplewood should work together on the implementation of this plan.
2. The realignment of N. St. Paul Road and the mixed -use concept are good ideas.
1 Work with Ramsey County to iron out traffic and pedestrian -movement concerns.
1
4. We must make sure that there is enough parking provided for the apartments.
5. Consider a traffic study to determine the appropriate number of traffic lanes on streets.
6. Would the housing density meet our guidelines? This question must be answered
7. How will we implement this? What if existing businesses want to stay? Will they be
grandfathered in?
8. The plan seems to direct traffic away from White Bear Avenue to the back streets. Good
idea.
9. The mix of land uses is a good idea.
10. There is some doubt that this area will truly be used as a strong pedestrian area. People
will still drive to and from this redeveloped area.
11. The apartments must have underground parking to alleviate parking problems.
12. Where will snow be stored? How will snow removal be handled?
13. How will overnight parking be handled? Maplewood does not allow overnight parking. St.
Paul does.
14. A traffic study should be prepared.
15.. This area is in need of a facelift. Some properties are becoming an eyesore.
16. There are enough cars already taking up space in the parking lots and streets along Van
Dyke Street.
17. An additional building in front of the Plaza Theater is not a good idea and infeasible.
18. Residential units surrounded by housing may not be desirable.
19. There would be a loss of existing affordable housing that is good viable housing now.
These would be replaced with new multi- housing that probably would cost more than the
homes are worth now.
20. How would this redevelopment take place? Eminent Domain? Buy out by developers?
CDRB Comments
The CDRB recommended approval of this redevelopment plan in concept. The CDRB expressed
strong concern that they be actively involved in drafting future design guidelines for Hillcrest
Village.
HRA Comments
The HRA did not recommend to support or to deny this plan, but raised the following questions
and issues:
1. How would snow be removed with a lot of street -side parking?
2. Traffic would be noticeably increased.
3. Is there a market for the proposed housing? They have reservations about this.
4. It may be a disservice removing existing viable housing for new housing.
5. The future building on the Plaza Theater site does not seem feasible.
6. The plan should include, at least show, the Jr. Achievement block.
7. Can the existing infrastructure handle these changes?
Final Development Plan
The Hillcrest Village redevelopment plan consists of 98 townhouse units, 291 apartment units, 10
single dwellings, 36,400 square feet of office space and 151,300 square feet of commercial
space. In Maplewood alone, there would be 16 townhouse units, 129 apartment units, 36,400
square feet of office space and 76,000 square feet of commercial space.
2
The concerns expressed by the advisory groups warrant study. Questions about whether the
streets, storm sewers and utilities can handle redevelopment must be studied and answered.
Regarding density, the proposed 16 town homes. and 129 apartments would exceed -
Maplewood's density requirements.. On the 3.5 acres proposed for these uses, the land use plan
would only allow 7 town houses (at. the current low- density ratio) and 53 apartments (at the high -
density ratio), not the 145 units proposed. Approval of this redevelopment plan would require
amendment of the comprehensive plan.
The city council should decide if the Hillcrest Village redevelopment plan is a priority of theirs
before staff spends a good deal of time on such issues. There was also considerable
neighborhood opposition to this plan at our June 18 informational meeting. The general
consensus of those in attendance was that their neighborhood was basically fine as is.. Some
did recognize the need for a "face lift" but most were concerned about .losing their businesses
and livelihood.
Conclusion
This plan would be used as a guide for Maplewood and St. Paul redevelopment activities. The
design criteria the Maplewood planning staff is drafting will also become part of the development
guidelines for Hillcrest Village. The Maplewood City Council needs to review the plan, decide if
they agree with this plan or would like to change it in some way. The council may also choose
not to pursue the adoption of the plan.
The Met Council has said that Maplewood would be considered more favorably for rant funds if
. y, ,g .
we adopt this plan or a close variation of it. They realize, of course, that each city's council may
not find all aspects of their redevelopment plan totally to their liking. The Met Council would
hope, though, that the smart growth concepts and design elements depicted in their plan would
be promoted by each city. (There are six smart growth redevelopment sites throughout the
metro.)
RECOMMENDATION
Consider whether to adopt the Metropolitan Council's Hillcrest Village redevelopment plan, a
variation of this plan or not adopt a plan at all.
3
CITIZEN COMMENTS
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS
Maplewood's Nei ghborhood Meetin
On June 18, 2002, the Maplewood planning staff hosted a neighborhood meeting at city hall to
present the Hillcrest Village plan to the residents along White Bear Avenue between Frost
Avenue and Larpenteur Avenue as well as the owners of the involved business properties on
White Bear Avenue and Van Dyke Street. The majority of those attending this meetin g were not
in favor of any redevelopment. Many wanted to know when redevelopment would happen and
how much they would be paid for their properties. Business owners wanted to know what would
happen to their businesses during redevelopment. Refer to the comments on P a 9 es 12 -13.
Staff also mailed questionnaires to the 116 property owners that would be affected by this
proposal as property owners or nearby neighbors. We received 10 replies. Refer to P a g es 9 -11.
St. Paul's Neighborhood Meeting
On June 1 9, 2002, the St. Paul PED staff held a 'neighborhood informational meeting. Virginia
g 9
Burke, of St. Paul's staff, told me that the residents and business owners in St. Paul had a more
favorable response than Maplewood received. The Met Council's redevelopment Ian remains
the refers P P
preferred plan. Ms. Burke explained that there was support of this plan by residents,
business owners and groups like the White Bear Avenue Business Association and
neighborhood planning councils.
It should be noted that St. Paul is working with Centex Corporation for the redevelopment of the
P p
Hillcrest Entertainment Center (formerly Hafner's Bowl) property into multiple-family housing.
P Y . 9
El
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Study Area Size: 15.06 acres
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: Junior Achievement, Perkins and South China Island
South: Larpenteur Avenue and the Hillcrest Shopping Center in the City of St. Paul
East: Woodland Hills Church
West: Single Dwellings
PLANNING
Zoning and Land Use Classifications
Six properties totaling 2.58 acres in area north and west of the Pizza Hut are currently zoned and
planned for R1 (single dwelling residential).
The remaining parcels totaling 12.48 acres in area are currently zoned and planned for BC
(business commercial). The only exception is the northeast corner of Van Dyke Street and
Larpenteur Avenue on the Woodland Hills Church property, which is planned as C (church).
PAST ACTIONS
On April 26, 2001, the Metropolitan Council, Calthorpe and Associates (an urban planning group)
and HGA (a local architectural firm) held a workshop at Woodland Hills Church in Maplewood. .
This workshop allowed area residents, business owners and St. Paul and Maplewood staff and
government personnel to participate by offering their desires and preferences on how they would
like this area to redevelop.
On May 24, 2001, the Met Council held a follow -up meeting at Woodland Hills Church to present
the consultants two development alternatives they created from input received at the April 26
workshop.
On July 2, 2001, the planning commission reviewed the two development alternatives and had
the following comments:
Features the PC liked
1. Realignment of North St. Paul Road to meet White Bear Avenue at a right angle.
2. Grocery store.
3. The walkablelbikeable aspects of the plans.
4. The large neighborhood square ( "village green" concept).
5. The townhouses, provided they are affordable to the average person and not overpriced.
6. Attempts at traffic calming and slowing on White Bear Avenue.
I
Features the PC did not like
1. The potential nuisance of parking spaces behind buildings visible to residential units.
2. Possible difficulty for the elderly or disabled in having parking in back, unless there are
back doors.
On July 9, 2001, the city council reviewed the two concept designs and concurred with the
planning commission's comments.
On November 13, 2001, the Maplewood City Council passed. a development moratorium for that
portion of the Hillcrest neighborhood in Maplewood. This moratorium will allow staff to
coordinate the development of design criteria for this area with all interested parties and smart -
growth participants. This moratorium expires on November 13, 2002 or at such time as the city
council adopts amendments to the city's zoning ordinance, zoning map or comprehensive plan.
On April 1, 2002, staff presented the final Hillcrest Village plan to the planning commission for
their information. Since this presentation was informational only, no action was taken.
On April 22, 2002, the staff presented the final Hillcrest Village plan to the city council at the
council /manager workshop to update them on the plan. No action was taken.
On April 25, 2002, the Met Council gave a presentation of their final draft of the Hillcrest Village
g
plan to the public at Woodland Hills Church.
On June 18, Maplewood planning staff held a neighborhood informational meeting to get
comments about the Hillcrest Village plan.
On June 19, 2002, the City of St. Paul Planning and Economic Development (PED) staff held
their neighborhood informational meeting.
On August 13, 2002, the CDRB discussed the Hillcrest Village plan and recommended approval
of this redevelopment plan in concept. The CDRB expressed strong concern that they be
actively involved in drafting future design guidelines for Hillcrest Village.
On August 13, 2002, the HRA discussed the Hillcrest Village plan but did not move to support or
deny. The HRA expressed several concerns and questions, however. In summary, their
comments were:
1. How would snow be removed with a lot of street -side parking?
2. Traffic would be noticeably increased.
3. Is there a market for the proposed housing? They have reservations about this.
4. It may be a disservice removing existing viable housing for new housing.
5. The future building on the Plaza Theater site does not seem feasible.
6. The plan should include, at least show, the Jr. Achievement block.
7. Can the existing infrastructure handle these changes?
Lei
On August 19, 2002, the planning commission discussed the Hillcrest Village Ian and had the
P
following comments:
1. St. Paul and Maplewood should work together on the implementation of this P lan.
2. The realignment of N. St. Paul Road and the mixed -use concept are good ideas.
30 Work with Ramsey County to iron out traffic and pedestrian movement concerns.
4. We must make sure that there is enough parking provided for the apartments.
5. Consider a traffic study to determine the appropriate number of traffic lanes on streets.
6. Would the housing density meet our guidelines? This question must be answered.
.7.' How will we implement this? What if existing businesses want to stay? Will the y be
grandfathered in?
8. The plan seems to direct traffic away from White Bear Avenue to the back streets. Good
idea.
9. The mix .of land uses is a good idea.
10. There is some doubt that this area will truly be used as a strong pedestrian area. People
will still drive to and from this redeveloped area.
11. The apartments must have underground parking to alleviate parking problems.
12. Where will snow be stored? How will snow removal be handled?
13. How will overnight parking be handled? Maplewood does not allow overnight parking. St.
Paul does.
14. A traffic study should be prepared.
15. This area is in need of a facelift. Some properties are becoming an eyesore.
1.6. There are enough cars already taking up space in the parking lots and streets along Van
Dyke Street.
17. An additional building in front of the Plaza Theater is not a good idea and infeasible.
18. Residential units surrounded by housing -may not be desirable.
19. There would be a doss of existing affordable housing that is good viable housing now.
These would be replaced with new multi - housing that probably would cost more than the
homes are worth now.
20. How would this redevelopment take place? Eminent Domain? Buy out by developers?
p: com_dvptlmiscelilhillcrst.8'02. mem
Attachments:
1. Metropolitan Council's Hillcrest Village Final Concept Plan
2. Questionnaire Replies
3. Comments from Property Owners
4. Proposed Urban Design Standards (separate attachment)
7
.CONCEPT
REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN
o oa aoo' 300'
March 15, 2002
Commercial /Office Building
Attachment 1
W
M
Z
W
Mixed -Use Building > r
Residential Building Q
r
r7 Future Commercial Building +
Indicates Number of Stories BLOCKS Eta & Eib
Q i 1 491 F Commercial
O
w J
�_____ F Office
W + + 36,400.
28 Apar tmcnt Units
o i 351 Of Street Surface Sp c
z . r
r t W a +
r YUI,C' tiv) ±L'lVri7kIN:Tlia > +
BLOCK W1 +
a
12,900 SF Commercial
16 Townhome Units ' 1 _ 1� r
a F� '� r BLOCKS E2a & E2b
42 Off- Street Surface Spaces r
13 SF Commercial
101 Apartment Units
57 Off - Street Surface Spaces
LARPENTEUR ;;AVENUE
BLOCK W2 BLOCK E3a
16,800 SF Commercial - -- - - i _ _ _ + 21,700 SF Commercial
71 Off- Street Surface Spaces,' 1 - --*4® i ^ 1 42 Apartment Units
r v) r 81 Off - Street Surface Spaces
r L _'' "� 1
C A L I F O R N I A A V #.* ,. `�
BLOCKS W3a & W3b + i `k=' e 1
BLOCK E3b
17,400 SF Commercial 1 } R r +
L Be 0 19,400 SF Commercial
4 Single - Family Units r
+ 8B 44 Apartment Units
50 Off - Street Surface Spaces + r r � 71 Off - Street Surface Spaces
+ + r 177 r
` C r.
t
IDAHO AVE
- - •t LJ'. ii h S ..
BLOCK W4 1 `+ r 1 BLOCKS E4a & E4b
38 Apartment Units L -------- -1 8 8 L ------------ i 10 Townhome Units
16 Off - Street Surface Spaces 1 1 - i 1 2 Single - Family Units
+ + + 38 Apartment Units
IOWA AVE }
0 FT 77 F-71
BLOCKS W5a & W5b i 1 1 i BLOCKS E5a & E5b
+ +
16 Townhome Units '- - - - -- -i 8 ® ------------ 22 Townhome Units
2 Single - Family Units r 1 8 S 8 i 1
+ + r + 2 Single - Family Units
FM Im
HOYT AVE
BLOCK W6 + + r r
---- - - - - + r t BLOCKS E6a & E6b
-f .
12 Townhome Units r _________ __________
22 Townhome Units
1
�• Met ropolitan Council
ammcl, Grccn wd Abrahamson, Inc. H I L C H E ST VILL AGE
M etropolitan
of Maplew
Caltho a Associates Smart Growth Twin Cities ry
!rP City of St. Paul
8
Attachment 2
HILLCREST VILLAGE QUESTIONNAIRE 07/10/02
Of 116 questionnaires sent out, 10 people responded as follows:
1. 1 like the concept of redevelopment for this area: 4 Yes 4 No 1 Unsure
Mary Sturm, 1759 White Bear Ave, Maplewood, 651 -777 -6009 (home) 651- 296 -5485 (work
"Unsure, not afraid of added housing, but not sure of design mix."
1789 T. Boftad, 6 -7 -02: "No.
Tschida, 1721 White Bear Ave, Maplewood: "Yes."
Kent Wilcox, 1779 White Bear Ave, Maplewood: "No."
Anonymous: "Yes."
Anonymous: "Yes.n
A. concerned Maplewood Resident: "Yesn
Ken Schwaltz, Performance Transmission & Machine, 1735 Van Dyke St., Maplewood: "No.�
Rose Ulrich, Meister Investments, 651 - 777 -7184: "No."
.2. I agree with the proposed locations for business and residential uses.
2 Yes 2 No 5 Comments
If not, what would you like to see changed?
Mary Sturm, 1759 White Bear Ave, Maplewood, 651- 777 -6009 (home) 651 - 296 -5485 (work):
"Keep North St. Paul Road in place. Leave existing housing in place."
1789 T. Boftari: "Keep business separate from housing. This plan reminds me of old (turn -of-
the- century) neighborhoods in Chicago, Ili., built before cars, when people walked to stores,
work, etc., lived over their bakery, behind their Mom & Pop grocery store, rarely left the
neighborhood, except to go downtown on the trolley or `el'. Also they didn't have checking accts
— check cards or credit cards or pc's.»
Tschida, 1721 White Bear Ave, Maplewood: "Encourage commercial use."
Kent Wilcox, 1779 White Bear Ave, Maplewood: "Too much traffic as is! This plan would re-
route traffic making White Bear Ave. more congested!"
Anonymous: "Yes.
A concerned Maplewood Resident: "Yes"
Ken Schwaltz, Performance Transmission & Machine, 1735 Van Dyke St., Maplewood: "No.
Face lift on White Bear Ave and leave Van Dyke alone.
Rose Ulrich, Meister Investments, 651- 777 - 7184: "No."
9
3. 1 like this plan because:
Mary Sturm, 1759 White Bear Ave, Maplewood, 651 -777 -6009 (home) 651- 296 -5485 (work):
"Some green space — that's good.
1789 T. Bottari: "We could use a little spit and polish.
Anonymous: "Area needs a face lift.n
Rose Ulrich, Meister Investments, 651 -777 -7184: "I don't like anything about it.n
4. 1 don't like the plan because:
Mary Sturm, 1759 White Bear Ave, Maplewood, 651 - 777 -6009 (home) 651 -296 -5485 (work):
. "Seems so abstract this is causing clear anxiety tends to cause folks to let property run down
due to uncertainty of future. Neighbor already muttered that he wouldn't put another dime into
his _house if the intention was to take our homes gradually or right now for other uses."
1789 T. Bottari: "Where's White Castle, Jerry's Chicken, Steve's Market (he's getting better),
the Dollar Store, Snyder's etc? When people are force to move out they don't come back. Is
the plan child friendly?
Tschida, 1721 White Bear Ave, Maplewood: "Don't want too much low income housing."
Kent Wilcox, 1779 White Bear Ave, Maplewood: "Traffic noises, traffic congestion and low,
income housing attracts problem families.
Ken Schwaltz, Performance Transmission & Machine, 1735 Van Dyke St., Maplewood: "If the
people in the Hillcrest and Maplewood community want to redevelop this community let them do
it the way they want to not thru the Metropolitan Council."
Other Comments:
Mary Sturm, 1759 White Bear Ave, Maplewood, 651 -777 -6009 (home) 651 -296 -5485 (work): "it
doesn't look much like what the neighbors planned at early meetings and the business owners
sure seem upset. Change is difficult but it's the unclarity of this plan that is exacerbating that.
Also don't replace $100,000 homes with $170,000 townhomes and call it affordable housing.
Also the uncertancy about piecemeal dev do it all or nothing."
1789 T. Bottari: "1 live on White Bear Ave., have since 1976. 1 don't know what plan you have
for my part — more mix ? ?? More traffic? County 5 coming through from Century Ave (120)?
Kent Wilcox, 1779 White Bear Ave, Maplewood: "Area businesses concerned that they will be
`forced out'."
10
A concerned Maplewood Resident: "No more tattoo shops. No `Mr. Nice Guy drug
paraphernalia type shops. No adult book/video stores. A good grocery store like Kendell's or
Knowlan's. NOT Steve's warehouse No more Chinese restaurants — we have enough now.
Nor more bars or liquor stores. 'No "hang -out" shops.- Well lit — well patrolled area. No sex
offenders. No traffic detoured to residential streets.. I. look forward to seeing the area :beautiful —
but not. a lot of businesses that we don't need or want in the area. Office space yes — good
reputation businesses."
Rose Ulrich, Meister Investments, 651- 777 - 7184: "If the east side of Larp & White Bear in
Maplewood is such an eye sore - start with Xcel and the phone co. putting the utilities
underground. That would be an improvement alone. It probably would be best if you find the
money first and start buying us out.
P: /com_dvpt/Hillcrest Village Questionnaire
11
Attachment 3
HILLCREST VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS 6/18/02,
1 } Larpenteur. resident: "Noway."
2) Brad .& Marian Whitney, 1763 East Larpenteur: "1. Concern about ro e
P P P rtY
value.. 20 Concern with inability to say no. 3. Concern on time frame of
development. 4. Roundabout."
3) Jean Nelson, 2201 Birmingham, Maplewood, MN 55109: "The northeast
corner of White Bear & Larpenteur needs a face Lift more so than any
businesses on van Dyke but it appears the owners of the property do not
understand that these meetings are for input. And they also said we have no
intention of fixing up the property.. They could at least be a little more open to
the concept — of appearances and be willing to work with the community and
not against it. I live in Maplewood but work on the St. Paul side of the
proposed project at H &R Block. There needs to be a balance of commercial
and residential. We were originally in Hillcrest which leaked and the new
front may look ok to the public but if you go -in the back. rooms — the walls are
falling apart — hundreds of electrical and phone wires everywhere — inside is
a dump. We are now in Hafner Center and the structure of the building is a
g
little better but also needs improvements."
4) Nathan Block, Plaza Theatre, (651 -503- 0434): "1 agree that somethin g needs
to be done to White Bear Avenue. I would prefer that it not displace the
Plaza Theatre.. I would love the city to intervene so that I _could purchase the
small parcel of land on which the Plaza resides from Woodland Hills Church.
So far, the church is unwilling to sell. I want to keep giving the community of
Maplewood /St: Paul an affordable alternative to seeing movies."
5) Gary and Claudia Lonetti, 1956 Price Ave, Maplewood, MN, 55109, 651 -777-
8220: "6- 18 -02. We do not want subsidized and (low income) housing.
Keep the businesess but fix them. up, including, do- some landscaping. Take
a close look at sinnage and class it up. There is nothing wrong with No. St.
'Paul Rd. except it needs to be re- surfaced. "
6) R. Meissner: "1 agree that the Ave needs to be redone so keep up the good
work. Most of the Ave is rented with absent landowners. All the tenants can
be replaced in new units (business units)."
7). David L Johnson, 1743 White Bear Avenue, Maplewood, MN, 55109: "Plan
for more commercial /office bldg on White Bear Ave and less resident housing
on W hite Bear Ave."
8) Ken & Jackie Schwartz, Performance Transmission & Machine, 1735 Van
Dyke St.: "Against the proposal completely. Area needs facelift. Why don't
we see what St. Paul agrees to? That's the area that really needs work."
9) Len & Irene Klein, 1741 E. Larpenteur: "Plan not acceptable."
10) Gene Tschida, 1721 W.B.A.: "Start with redevelopment going further up
W.B.A. on residential side."
12
11) North Suburban Tile & Carpet, 1715 Van Dyke St.: "We don't w ant ant to move._
Redevelopment of 'our street will, close our business.. We need help keeping
hborhood � � ',
the neighborhood clean and safe. The buildings don't cause this problem.
12) Minn. Health Family Physicians, 1814 No. St. Paul Rd.: "No. t •
S .Paul Rd. is a
dangerous intersection. It is hazardous for our employees to cross the street
to SA, over the last 5 years we have had homeless eo le sleep in the
P P P.
wooded area behind the old Berger King building and trash is dumped off
monthly. Traffic crosses through Blockbuster parkin lot all day long. Junior
9 Y 9
Achievement parking would be an option for us if plowing a walk way for
people and a safer North St. Paul Rd or another option would be to close the
road allow us to purchase more land for parking."
13) Rose Ulrich, Meister Investments: "Show us the money and we'll be out."
p: /com_dvpt/Hillcrest Development comments
13