Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989 03-02 Special MeetingAGENDA MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL 6:00 P.M., Thursday, March 2, 1989 Municipal Administration Building Special Meeting 89 - 6 (A) CALL TO ORDER (B) ROLL CALL (C) APPROVAL OF AGENDA (D) UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. 6:00 P.M., Plan Amendment and Conditional Use Permit: Gervais Avenue (BBY Partnership) - Sec. 10 (E) ADJOURNMENT JAMES P..LARKIN ROBERT L. HOFFMAN JACK F DALY D. KENNETH LINDGREN ANDREW W. DANIELSON WENDELL R. ANDERSON GERALD H. FRIEDELL ROBERT B. WHITLOCK ALLAN E. MULLIGAN ROBERT J. HENNESSEY JAMES C. ERICKSON EDWARD J. DRISCOLL JAMES P. MILEY .GENE N. FULLER DAVID C. SELLERGREN RICHARD J. KEENAN JOHN D. FULLMER ROBERT E. BOYLE FRANK I. HARVEY RICHARD A. FORSCHLER CHARLES S. MODELL CHRISTOPHER J. DIETZEN JOHN R. BEATTIE LINDA H. FISHER THOMAS P. STOLTMAN STEVEN G. LEVI N FORREST D. NOW LI N MICHAEL C. JACKMAN JOHN E. DIEHL JON S. SWIERZEWSKI THOMAS J. FLYNN JAMES P. QUINN TODD 1. FREEMAN STEPHEN B. SOLOMON PETER K. BECK JEROME H..KAHNKE SHERRILL OMAN KURETICH GERALD L. SECK JOHN B. LUNDQUIST DAYLE NOLAN THOMAS B. HUMPHREY, JR. LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGKEN, LTD FRANCS E. GIBERSON MICHAEL T. MCKIM ATTORNEYS AT LAW HERM AN LTAL EVER WILLIAM S. BRANDT VINCENT G. ELLA TRACY R. EICHHORN -HICKS 1500 NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER 2000 PIPER JAFFRAY TOWER ANDREW J MITCHELL JOHN A. COTTER K 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH 222 SOUTH NINTH STREET BEATRICE A. ROTHWEILER PAUL B. PLUNKETT BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 AMY DARR GRADY ALAN L. KI LDOW TELEPHONE (612) 835 - 3800 TELEPHONE (612) 338 - 6610 KATHLEEN M. PICOTTE NEWMAN CATHERINE BARNETT WILSON TELECOPIER (612) 835 TELECOPIER (612) 338 - 1002 JEFFREY C. ANDERSON DANIEL L. BOWLES TODD M. VLATKOVICH TIMOTHY J. MCMANUS NORTH SUBURBAN OFFICE JILL I. RY EDERS GREGORY E: KORSTAD 8990 SPRINGBROOK DRIVE SUITE 250 � CRAIG A. PETERSON LISA A. GRAY GARY A. RENNEKE COON RA€TtOS, MINNESOTA 55433 THOMAS H. WEAVER SHANNON K. MCCAMBRIDGE TELEPHONE 1612) 786 - 7117 MICHAEL S. COHEN DENISE M. NORTON TELECOPIER (612) 786 - 6711 GARY A. VAN CLEVE MICHAEL B. BRAMAN JOSEPH W. DICKER JACQUELINE F. DIETZ GAYLEN L. KNACK RODNEY D. IVES JULIE A. WRASE Reply to Bloomington CHRISTOPHER J. HARRISTHAL RONALD M. STARK,JR. SHARON L.BRENNA MARIKAY CANAGA LITZAU October 3, 1988 Mr. Geof f rey Olson Director of Community Development City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 OF COUNSEL JOSEPH GITIS JOHN A. MCHUGH RICHARD A. NORDBYE *ALSO ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN RE BBY Partnership's Written Narrative in Connection with Application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Planned Development Conditional Use Permit and Community Design Review Board Approval for Multifamily Housing Development, Maplewood, Minnesota Our File No. 15,845 -00 Dear Geoff: This letter- memorandum constitutes the written narrative required by City of Maplewood ( the City) ordinances to be submitted in connection with BBY Partnership's application for a comprehensive plan amendment, planned unit development (PUD) conditional use permit, and Community Design Review Board approval ( the Application) for a multifamily housing development ( the Development) on a 31 -acre site ( the Site) e neral l located west of the intersection of Gerva is Avenue and White generally . Bear Avenue. Charles Belgarde , Kenneth Belgarde , Bryant Belgarde , and Christopher Johnson, the principals of BBY Partnership, have substantial experience in multifamily housing development extending over 20 years. During that time period, they have developed over 4,000 units of multifamily housing in the Twin Cities metropolitan area, South Dakota, and Wyoming. Over 1,300 of those apartment homes have been developed in the 1980s, including the Cliffs at Ridgedale ( 456 units; built in 1985) in Minnetonka, Minnesota, and SpringBrook Apartments at Northtown ( 358 units; built in 1987) in Fridley, Minnesota. The principals of BBY Partnership were also involved in the initial development of two areas of multifamily homes in Plymouth, 21 Attachment 10 LANK IN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LI.NDGREN, LTD. Mr. Geoffrey Olson October 3, 1988 Page 2 Minnesota - Four Seasons Villa ( 240 units; built in 1968) and Fox Meadows (312 units; built in 1970). The following consultants have been retained by the developer, BBY Partnership, to provide assistance with the Application: Ar chitects James Me Cooperman & Associates Architects, Inc* 9800 Shelard Parkway Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441 (612) 545 -0409 Consulting Surveyors and Civil Engineers Harry S. Johnson Companies, Inc. Suite 199, Southtown Office Park 8100 Penn Avenue South Bloomington, Minnesota 55431 (612) 884 -5341 La nds ca e Architects Ernst Associates .122 West Sixth Street Chaska, Minnesota 55318 (612) 448 -4094 Traffic--En ineers and Environmental Consultants Barton- Aschma n Associates, Inc. 111 Third Avenue South Suite 350 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 332 -0421 Attorneys Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. 1500 Northwestern Financial Center 7900 Xerxes Avenue South Bloomington, Minnesota 55431 (612) 835 -3800 The information contained in this narrative report, together with the development plans submitted in support of the Application has been p prepared by taking into consideration the following: 22 LARK IN, HOFFMAN, DAILY & LINDGREN, LTD. Mr. Geoffrey Olson October 3,1988 Page 3 1. Existing characteristics of the . Site and surrounding area, including soils, topography, and vegetation. 2. Existing and proposed land uses in the vicinity of the Site. 3. Existing zoning of the Site and history of previous multifamily housing developments proposed for the Site. 4. - Relationship to the City of Maplewood Comprehensive Plan, including statement in support of request for amendment of Comprehensive Plan designation of Site from Limited Service Commercial (LSC) to High - Density Residential (Rh)9 5. The effect of the Development on the visual environment of the area, including provision of a visually appealing building design and provision of a suitable buffer between the Site and the adjacent residential neighborhoods* 6. Vehicular access, circulation, and parking and the effect of the Development on the regional and local roadway system. 7. Provision of a variety of active and passive recreational facilities, trails, open space, and distinctive landscaping. 8. Protection of on -site wetlands and provis ion of drainage and erosion control consistent with City and Ramsey- Washington Metro Watershed District standards. 9. Utilities. 10. Compliance with findings for approval of PUD conditional use permit. APPLICANT'S INTEREST IN THE SITE AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT BBY Partnership has contracted to purchase the Site which is proposed for the Development. Consistent with its past practice, BBY Partnership intends to maintain long -term ownership of the Site and the Development* EXISTING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SITE The Site on which the Development is proposed to be located consists of approximately 31 acres generally situated north of Gervais Avenue, west of White Bear Avenue, and south of Demo nt Avenue. A boundary, 23 LARK IN, HOFFMAN, DAEY & LINDGREN, LTD. Mr. Geoffrey Olson October 3, 1988 Page 4 location, and topographic survey, and existing conditions plan submitted with the Application depict the existing topographic features of the Site, including approximate size and species of on -site mature trees. Areas of steep slopes exist in the northwest and northeast corners of the Site, which serve to demarcate the property from the residential and open space areas to the northwest and northeast, respectively. A sizable node of understory trees and brush, which is found i n . the northwest corner of the Site, extends onto the adjoining property* A second area of mature trees and brush is found in the northwest to north - central quadrant of the Site opposite Flandrau Street and Bittersweet Lane. As shown on the existing conditions plan submitted with the Application, this wooded area includes 6 -inch to 18 -inch oaks, as well as 12 -inch ash, 12 -inch maple and cottonwoods* It extends to the north onto adjoining residential properties. Two • protected wetland basins are located in the extreme north - central and east - central quadrants of the Site. Soil surveys indicate that the majority of the Site is underlain by urban land - Chetek complex soils with 3 to 15 percent slopes. This soil type is representative of areas partially or completely modified by excavation, filling or development, and is suitable for multifamily housing. The remainder of the Site is underlain by Chetek sandy loam with 12 to 25 percent slopes,. ponded aquol is /h istosols , and udorthe nts (heterogeneous, earthy fill) overlying wet. substrata . Development will take place almost entirely on urban land - Chetek complex soils and udorthents. Ponded aquolls and histosols, which are poorly drained mineral and organic soils, are associated with on -site wetlands and have been largely avoided in designing the project. A small area of steep Chetek sandy loam, which lies in the northwest corner of the Site, will be partially graded to provide for parking garages and pedestrian trail facilities. As described in greater detail in the environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) submitted with the Application, special measures will be taken to protect this area from erosion and sedimentation. Groundwater investigations conducted at the Site by Braun Engineering & Testing indicate that groundwater levels underlying the Site range from 902 to 907 feet in elevation. The depth ' to groundwater varies with site topography and ranges from zero to about 41 feet. The average depth to groundwater beneath the portions of the Site to be developed is about 10.2 feet. High soil moisture content and water levels observed in some bore holes indicate that small areas of perched groundwater may exist on the Site. Such areas result from the presence of impervious, clayey soils beneath overlying sandier soils. This condition is very common in areas with variable soils. It is not expected to affect construction* 24 LA13K IN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. Mr. Geoffrey Olson October 3, 1988 Page 5 The proposed multifamily homes are not expected to have a significant P impact upon groundwater resources. No excavation below 907 feet will P be necessary for construction of the homes or garages. Excavation below 907 will occur only where the ponding area is to be constructed and for placement of utility lines and storm sewer. These activities will not impact groundwater quality and quantity. Floor elevations of the apartment homes have been set at sufficient height above the groundwater table to allow for seasonal water table fluctuations* EXISTING AND PROPOSED LAND USES IN THE VICINITY OF THE SITE The Site is bordered on the northeast by Ramsey County open space which consists primarily of protected wetlands, and on the northwest, by a single - family residential neighborhood. Immediately to the east is the Mapleridge Mall, which is anchored by a Rainbow Foods store. Immediately to the west of the Site-is an undeveloped parcel of land which is zoned residential; further to the west lies a single - family residential neighborhood and Maplewood Park. Gerva is Avenue forms the south ro erty boundary. Land use south of Gervais Avenue is primarily p p commercial and industrial. EXISTING ZONING OF THE SITE AND HISTORY OF PREVIOUS MULTIFAMILY HOUSING PROPOSED FOR THE SITE The Site is zoned Limited Business Commercial (LBC). Off ices , medical or health related clinics, and day care centers are permitted uses in the LBC district. Planned unit developments, which include apartment projects involving more than one building, are conditional uses in the LBC district. The applicant is applying for a PUD conditional use permit to allow for construction of the proposed Development. The PUD conditional use permit provides significant advantages to the City and the neighborhoods It requires development in conformance with an approved PUD plan. Pursuant to Section 36 -443 of the Maplewood Zoning Ordinance ( the Zoning Ordinance) , any change involving structural alteration, enlargement, intensification of use, or similar change not specifically permitted by the PUD conditional use permit approved by the City, requires an amended permit after public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council. This means that if the proposed Development is approved and for some unforeseen reason does not proceed, another multifamily housing development could not be constructed on the Site without following the same notification and hearing procedures that were required for the proposed Development on the Site. 25 LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGKEN,. LTD. Mr. Geof f rey Olson October 3, 1988 Page 6 Until 1983, the City's long -range land use planning for the area contemplated high- density residential use for the Site. In August 1977, the Planning Commission recommended approval of LeCon Properties' preliminary concept plan for a mixed use PUD on the Site, including 350 multifamily housing units. In so doing, the Planning Commission found that high- density residential use was suitable for the Site. This PUD project was, however, never acted on by the City Council. In September 1982, the City Council directed staff to execute letters of understanding with Woodmark regarding development of senior citizen apartments on part of the Site. This project was later moved to a site on Parkway Drive. No other specific proposals for multifamily housing on the S i t e have been considered by the Planning. Commission or the City Council since 19820 _ RELATIONSHIP TO CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, INCLUDING STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF AMENDMENT OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION OF SITE FROM LIMITED SERVICE COMMERCIAL (LSC) TO HIGH- DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (Rh) As described in the preceding section of this letter - memorandum, the City of Maplewood Comprehensive Plan ( the Comprehensive Plan) , has historically designated the Site for high- density residential uses. In 1983, the City Council initiated a rezoning of the Site from LBC to R -3 as part of a city -wide effort to bring the Zoning Ordinance into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed R -3 zoning was also consistent with previous multifamily proposals made by the former property owner which had been approved by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning of the R -3 Site after finding that R -3 zoning was consistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance; would not substantially injure or detract from neighboring property or. from the character of the neighborhood; would serve the best interest and convenience of the community and the public welfare; and would have no adverse effect on public services and facilities, such as water, sewer, police and fire protect ion, and schools* When the R -3 rezoning of the Site was considered by the City Council, neighbors expressed concerns that multifamily housing would necessitate the extension of Flandrau Street and Bittersweet Lane to south. Concern was also expressed regarding the possibility of subsidized housing on the Site in the absence of a specific development proposal. Because the rezoning was initiated by the City Council rather than by a developer, there was no site plan or architectural drawings to respond to neighbors' concerns. 26 LARK IN, HOFFMAN, DAI Y & LINDGI?EN, LTD • Mr. Geof f rey Olson October 3, 1988 Page 7 In response to neighborhood opposition, the City Council requested staff to initiate a n amendment of the Comprehensive .Plan to change the land use designation of the Site from High- Density Residential (Rh) to Limited Service Commercial ( LSC) . Although the Planning Department staff report opposed this Comprehensive Plan ame ndme nt , it was adopted Y Y b the Ci Council in June 1983. The originally proposed R -3 rezoning was also defeated. As a result of these actions, the current Comprehensive Plan designation of the Site is Limited Service Commercial ( LSC) The applicant, BBY Partnership, has applied to the City for an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan to return the Site to its original land use designation, High- Density Residential (Rh) . The factual and legal bases for this request are as follows: 1. High - density residential use is consistent with the City's historic land use planning for the Site. The appropriateness of the Site for multifamily homes was reaffirmed by both the Planning Department and the Planning Commission in 1983. A review of the 1983 record indicates that no expert testimony or studies were offered in support of the Council's decision to reguide the Site to Limited Service Commercial ( LSC) . Neighborhood opposition to the City-initiated rezoning was apparently the primary, if not the sole basis for departure from the City's long-standing land use assumptions for development of the Site. 2. Changed circumstances justify City Council reconsideration of the 1983 Limited Service Commercial ( LSC) designation. First, an experienced multifamily housing developer, BBY Partnership has contracted to purchase the Site. The developer has expended considerable time and effort to prepare development plans responsive to City, neighborhood, and state agency concerns regarding ultimate development of the Site. A neighborhood meeting has been held to obtain comments from -nearby residents on the ro osal . Second, the developer is not proposing to rezone the .Site to R - 3 . Rather, it is requesting app p p approval of a PUD conditional use permit which will assure the City and the neighborhood that the Development, if approved, will occur in conformance with approved plans and any conditions attached to approval. 3. The Site is well- suited for multifamily housing. Such housing will serve as a transition between the more intensive commercial and industrial uses to the east and south, respectively, and the low- density residential uses to the north and west. Soil and groundwater investigations of the Site indicate that the surf icial and underlying soils are suitable for the type of construction 27 LANK IN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. Mr. Geof f rey Olson October 3, 1988 Page 8 proposed for the Site. The Site is located in proximity to major thoroughfares and transit facilities. The Site is situated approximately one -half mile north of the interchange of Trunk Highway 36 and White Bear Avenue and about two to three miles south of the interchange of Interstate 694 and White Bear Avenue. Transit service exists along White Bear Avenue and Trunk Highway 360 The closest bus stop to the Site is at the Mapleridge Mall. The Site is also well- served by shopping facilities, including the adjacent Mapleridge Mall, which is anchored by the Rainbow Foods grocery store. Maplewood Mall, a regional shopping center, is located approximately two miles to the north in the southwest quadrant of Interstates 694 and White Bear Avenue. 4: Multifamily housing on the Site is consistent with housing policies in the Comprehensive Plan. For example, the housing plan element of the Comprehensive Plan states that the City encourages a variety of housing types and styles and remains flexible and open to development requests which are in accordance with this objective. The City intends to continue to use planning principles for housing areas which encourage a greater choice of housing types; preservation of natural features, such as ponds, trees, and wetlands; planned and developed open space; safe pedestrian ways and streets; conveniently located shops; and surface water control with minimal grading and site preparation. The housing plan also . states that the City encourages transitional land uses, with medium and high-density-residential development located between low- density residential and commercial or service land uses. Medium or high - density residential development should be located adjacent or in close proximity to collectors and arterials, such as White Bear Avenue and Trunk Highway 36. Multifamily housing should occur in areas not inferior to those generally used for conventional single - family housing. The character of existing residential neighborhoods should be maintained and conflicts minimized by the use of physical barriers, distances, screens, and proper physical orientation of lots and buildings. These housing policies, among others, are promoted by the development plans for the Site as described in greater detail throughout this letter - memora nd um . 5. There is a public need for additional multifamily housing in the City. As stated in the 1983 staff report, land planned for multifamily housing in the City has decreased as compared to the assumptions originally set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and probably will continue to remain constant or decrease further in the coming years. in its review of the 1983 reguidi ng of the .Site from Rh to LSC, the Metropolitan Council expressed concerns about the effect of reguidi ng of the Site on the ability of the City to Lo" LANK IN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. Mr. Geoffrey Olson October 3, 1988 Page 9 achieve the affordable housing goals and objectives set forth in its Comprehensive Plan. Land designated for High- Density Residential use (Rh) 'is le -ss than 1.6 percent of the total acreage of the City (189 acres of 11,529 acres). Moreover, two sites guided Rh have been developed for single - family housing: a site on Stillwater Avenue between Stillwater Road and Minnehaha Avenue and a site south of M i nnehaha and west of Century Avenue* Two sites guided Rm, which is intended for single- family homes on small lots, two- family homes, townhomes, and mobile homes have also developed for single - family use* These sites are located on the east and west sides of White Bear Avenue at Radatz Avenue and at the northeast corner of County Road B and English Street. Market studies performed by the Developer confirm the need for additional multifamily housing, particularly for families. Silver Ridge, an apartment project situated 3.5 miles southeast of the Site on Stillwater .Avenue, is the most comparable area development in terms of amenities, design, and unit size. Despite its recent completion, it is completely rented -up, and there is a waiting - list for some types of units. The developer's market studies also identify a public need for three - bedroom apartment homes* Only 95 three - bedroom units are ava i labl.e in the City and surrounding communities and many of these units are not comparable to the proposed Development in design, unit size or amenities. Moreover, a telephone survey of these projects indicates that only five of these units are not currently occupied. 69 As described throughout this letter- memorandum, the proposed Development will not have a significant effect on surrounding land uses. There will be no road connection between the Development and the residential area to the north. Consistent with Comprehensive Plan guidelines, a combination of distance, steep slopes, preserved mature trees, and new coniferous and deciduous plantings will physically separate the adjoining residential area from the Development and minimize views of the Development. DESCRIPT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1. Proposed Uses for the De velopment . e ve to me nt on the Site As shown on the site plan submitted as part of the Application, the Development consists of 426 high- quality, high- amenity apartment homes. All of the apartment homes will be three stories* The three -story buildings will be constructed predominantly of high - quality, earth -tone horizontal lap steel siding materials. Asphalt shingles and pref inished metal bands to match the windows will be utilized as accent W LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DAIY & LINDGIREN, LTD. Mr. Geoffrey Olson October 3, 1988 Page 10 design features. Visual interest will be enhanced by gabled roofs, and protruding rotrudin canopies over each balcony deck. Garage and surface parking will be provided* Continuing maintenance of the apartment homes and landscaping will be assured by an on -site resident manager. T he apartment artment homes are designed for single managerial, technical, and professional employees, as well as families. A unit mix of approximately 55 percent. two - bedroom units, 28 percent three- bedroom units, and 17 percent one - bedroom units is currently proposed. Laundry rooms will be provided on each floor and the residents will enjoy the use of a p arty room and a social room. Individual units will be equipped with walk -in closets, architecturally designed closet storage Y s stems , and special kitchen and bath features, such as microwave ovens and ice-makers. Each apartment home will have an indented entry and corridors will be decorated with special paint treatment. Other distinctive interior amenities include European style kitchen cabinets, Casablanca-type dining room fans, ceiling fans in master bedrooms, vaulted c e i l i n g s , and balconies. All three - bedroom apartment homes and most two- bedroom homes will have a bath and 3/4 bath; the balance of the two- bedroom homes will have a bath and 1/2 bath. Air conditioning will be p rovided throughout the Development by wall units. Energy-conserving features have also been incorporated in exterior wall construction. See Exhibit A attached for a list of interior and exterior amenities. The ro osed Development on the Site is slightly less than the maximum p p density . allowed on the Site assuming application of the current density conversion table and the landscaping credit. The landscaping credit is claimed because more than one percent of the construction cost, exclusive of land cost, will be allocated to the planting of trees. Therefore, no density variance is required. See attached Exhibit B for a tabulation of allowable number of units for the proposed Development o n the Site* 2. Effect of Proposed Development on the Visual Environ Includin p p Provision of Visually Appealing Building Desi gn and Provision of a Suitable Buffer Between the Site and the Adjacent Res idential Areas to the North and West The visual environment has been carefully considered in formulation of development plans for the apartment homes on the Site. Outside storage will be prohibited. Higher ceilings are being incorporated in the design of certain parking garages to allow for exterior storage of motor homes and, other recreational vehicles, thereby assuring a more pleasing visual image throughout the Site. 30 LARK IN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. Mr. Geoffrey Olson October 3, 1988 Page 11 In response to staff comments, the site plan has been modified to break u p the massing of -Buildings 1 and 2 and the recreation building which are located along the Gervais Avenue south frontage. Visual interest is created by the difference i n number of stories and roof height between these southerly apartment homes and the middle recreation building. The apartment homes are three stories and have a hip roof, whereas the recreation building, which separates the southerly two apartment homes, is one -story and has a low roof. Building 1 has been rotated to distinguish its appearance from Gervais Avenue as compared to the recreation building and the connections between the recreation building and Buildings 1 and 2 have been indented. The overall effect of these design changes is to make the southerly structure appear as three separate buildings from westbound Gervais Avenue at a vantage point near Rainbow Foods* Bermi ng and landscaping along the Gerva is Avenue frontage also help to create an appealing visual image. See attached colored perspective from Gervais Ave nue , for an illustration of the effect of this design change. Similar techniques have been utilized to break up the visual mass i ng , of the westerly - facing Buildings 8 and 9 and the cabana building which separates these apartment homes 4b As shown on the artist's renderings submitted with the Application, projecting balconies and other design features create a play of ins and outs, thereby enhancing visual interest of the apartment homes* Color changes in the siding and /or the trim boards will also enhance the overall visual appearance of the homes* In response to staff comments, consideration has also been given to breaking up the massing of the garages on the west and south sides of the Site. Five parking garages with 14 stalls each are currently proposed, as opposed to a previous site .plan which showed 6 parking garages with 12 stalls each. The reduction of stalls has occurred primarily in the northwest corner of the Site immediately south of the adjacent residential neighborhood, where an area originally proposed for parking garages is now proposed to contain preserved existing trees and new plantings. The setback from the parking garages to the northwest property line is now 155 feet, as compared .to the 80 foot dimension shown on a previously site plan. As shown on the grading and landscaping plan submitted with the Application, three -foot high berms and six -foot high Colorado spruce and Austrian pine plantings are proposed along the Gervais Road frontage to screen the parking garages from view. A variety of flowering trees, deciduous shrubs and annual flowers, together with a sculpture at the site entry, are proposed to create an attractive gateway to the interior homes* Provision of a suitable buffer between the proposed Development and the northerly and westerly 'adjacent residential areas was a primary objective of site planning. To address these concerns, existing major 31 LAKKIN, HOFFMAN, DAIX & LINDGIREN, LTD. Mr. Goof f rey Olson October 3, 1988 Page 12 trees on the northerly perimeter of the Site were surveyed and mapped. Single-family homes in close proximity to the Site with the clearest view of the property were identified for further study. Additional studies were conducted to' identify areas of the Site to be preserved and to identify areas in which new berms and plantings would be effective in maximizing screening. Based on that information, the consulting surveyor and engineer, architect and landscape architect prepared development plans to and visually separate, to the maximum extent feasible, the physically proposed Development from the neighboring residential areas. Several layers of buffer protection are proposed to achieve optimum screening. The first layer of buffer protection is that portion of the existing slope and existing tall mature trees (approximately 40 feet tall) on the Site and adjoining properties which will not be disturbed by the _P ro osed Development. The second layer of buffer. protection consists P P of a landscape berm and /or planting buffer which will be installed on the Site to supplement existing preserved vegetation. Coniferous trees ranging in height from 10 feet to 12 feet at planting are proposed to provide year -round greenery* These trees are expected to achieve about 5 feet of additional height for each five years of growth. The next .layer of buffer protection consists of shade trees and flowering trees which are proposed to create an overall pleasing visual image. The last layer of buffer protection consists of boulder retaining walls, large deciduous shrubs and small deciduous shrubs in the northwest corner of the Site directly opposite garages 14 and 15, and coniferous trees, shade trees, and flowering trees directly north of Building 6 which are intended to further screen views from the northerly adjacent residential area. F ive cross -sect ions have been prepared from the following locations to illustrate the visual effect of these layers of buffer protection: Section A -A, from 2522 Flandrau, looking southeast toward Building 7; Section B -B, from 2527 Bittersweet, looking due south toward Building 7; Section C -C , from 2527 Bittersweet, looking southeast toward Building 6; Section D -D, from 2526 Bittersweet, looking south toward garage 11; and Section E -E, from 1733 Gervais, looking due east toward the day care facility and garage 1. These visual studies demonstrate that during the summer months, a combination of distance, slopes, existing preserved trees, new berms, and new coniferous plantings, lantin s will screen the garages and apartment homes from the view of the closest residences. During the winter months, most views will remain screened by coniferous plantings, although portions of the homes will be glimpsed through the vegetation* After completion of the proposed Development, approximately 60 percent of the Site will consist of open space, landscaped areas, or 32 LARK IN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. Mr. Geoffrey Olson October 3, 1988 Page 13 recreational amenities. This includes approximately 7.15 acres or 23 percent of the Site which will be - undisturbed by the proposed Development* 3. Vehicular Access, Circulation and Parking, and Effec of the Pro osed De'velo ment on the Regional and Local R S stem. The proposed Development on the Site will have access to Gervais Avenue at three locations. No access is proposed to Demont Avenue, Fla ndrau Street, or Bittersweet Lane to the north* A traffic study of the Development was conducted by Barton - Aschman Associates, Inc., as part of the environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) for the Development. This study included trip generation and trip distribution analyses, together with a more detailed examination of the capacity, operation, and function of the Gervais Avenue and White Bear Avenue intersection to the east of the Site. A summary of the study's findings and conclusions is included in this letter- memorandum . The proposed 426 -unit Development will generate 153 trips in the p.me peak hour and 1 daily trips* This compares to 620 p.m. peak hour trips and 3,880 daily trips which would be generated by a permitted office development on the Site at maximum allowable density ( 400,000 square feet)* Office use, therefore, represents a 300 percent in p.m. peak hour trips and a 100 percent increase in daily trips, as compared to the proposed multifamily housing Development* Approximately 80 percent of the Development's inbound trips in the p.m. peak hour will approach the Site from the east, with the remaining 20 percent approaching from the west on Gervais Avenue. P.M. peak hour exiting traffic is expected to distribute 60 percent to the east and 40 percent to the west. A more detailed capacity analysis of the intersection of Gervais Avenue and White Bear Avenue was also conducted as part of the EAW. This study indicates that the current intersection, which operates at Level of Service C+ will continue to operate at this same high level of service in the year 1991 one year after full development of the project. Additional studies of Gervais Avenue west of Kennard will be undertaken by the applicant's traffic consultants, if requested by Y Cit staff prior to the Planning Commission meeting. As described throughout this letter- memorandum, parking is provided in garages and surface parking' lots. Nine hundred Seventy -five ( 975 ) parking spaces are provided consistent with ordinance requirements. Four hundred twenty-six (4 26) spaces are located in parking garages, consistent with the 1 :1 ordinance requirement-and 549, spaces are located . i n surface parking areas. Parking garages will be constructed of the same exterior materials as the apartment homes* 33 LANKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. Mr. Geof f rey Olson October 3, 1988 Page 14 4. Provision of A Variety of Active and Passive Recre ational Facilities, Trails, Open Space, and Distinctive Lan dscaping. A variety of active and passive recreational facilities, trails, and open space has been incorporated in the proposed Development. Distinctive exterior amenities proposed include outdoor swimming pool, tennis courts, volleyball court, shuffleboard courts, basketball courts, P utting green, park -like courtyards, including picnic and barbecue areas., several small playlots, as recommended by staff, including wooden playground structures, ponds, and open lawn areas. Walking and jogging trails, including a Vita exercise course are also shown on the submitted development plans. Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and recommendations of staff, if desired by the City, the on -site private trail system can connect with future public trails to Maplewood Park to the west and to Mapleridge Mall to the east. Additional indoor recreational facilities will be provided in the recreation building located in the southern quadrant of the Site including sauna, whirlpool, indoor swimming pool, steam room, game room, and exercise facilities. As shown on the grading and landscape plans submitted as . part of the Application, finished grades will provide varying topography throughout the Site. Landscape boulder retaining walls, and extensive new plantings are proposed. Proposed plant species range from juniper, yew, arborvitae, and Russian cypress evergreen shrubs to small deciduous shrubs, such as potentilla and viburnum, to large deciduous shrubs such as dogwood and a uo nymus , to coniferous trees such as Colorado spruce and Austrian pine, to flowering trees such as crab apple, amur maple, and Japanese tree lilac, to shade trees such as autumn purple ash, gree nsp i re linden, ma rsha l l ' s ash, and sugar maple, to flowers such as dayl i ly , tulip, and f leecef lower. 5. Protection of On - Site Wetlands and Provision of Drainage and Erosion Control Consistent with City and Ramsey - Washi Metro Watershed Distr Standards As described in greater detail in the EAW prepared for the Development, the Site includes four wetland basins whose on -site acreage ranges from .17 acres to 2.03 acres. Two of these wetland basins, which are located in the northeast quadrant of the Site, collectively comprise Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Protected Wetland 62 -150. The proposed Development has been designed to protect the state - protected wetland basins from adverse development impacts* No filling of either of these wetland basins is proposed. Subject to further analysis, a protected waters permit application will be submitted to the DNR to allow for P lacement of a small area of pedestrian walking trail on a boardwalk along the wetland's border, installation of stormwater outlet 34 LA1?K IN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGi?.EN, LTD. Mr. Geoffrey Olson October 3, 1988 Page 15 structures, and temporary operation of machinery along a small portion of the wetland during construction of retaining walls and /or rip -rap slope stabilization structures above the wetland's ordinary high -water mark. Impacts from these activities are expected to be minor. The Site also includes two small topographically perched wetland basins which are not state - protected wetlands but which do fall within the permitting jurisdiction ermittin of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. These basins will be eliminated and replaced by an excavated pond elsewhere on the Site. Both of the affected basins are marginal in a number of wetland functions, including wildlife habitat. Information included in the EAW for the Development indicates that alteration of these isolated wetlands which totally comprise approximately 1.57 acres, falls within an existing nationwide Section 404 Corps permit. In response to staff comments, setbacks from the northerly protected wetland basin to Building 5 and an activities building have been increased, as compared to previous plans. The current setback from the activities building to the pond is 12 feet as compared to 7 feet, and the current setback from Building 5 to the pond is 20 feet, as compared to approximately 15 feet. - In addition, reconfiguration of structures and reduction in the originally proposed number of units have also reduced the elevation difference between these buildings and the pond, which is a more preferable design solution. The extent of this change is shown on the submitted site and grading plans* The proposed Development also includes drainage and erosion control measures consistent with City and Ramsey- Washington Metro Watershed- District standards and responsive to DNR and Corps of Engineers concerns. For a more detailed discussion of the proposed drainage and erosion control plans, see the EAV7 submitted with the Application. 6. Utilities. As shown on the utility plans submitted as part of. the Application, municipal water f a.c i l i t ies are located in Gerva is Avenue* These facilities have adequate capacity to serve the proposed Development*-- evelopment . Wastewater fro_ m the Development is currently proposed to flow to the north to tie into an existing ten -inch municipal sanitary sewer facility. Because the City's existing comprehensive sewer plan raises. a q uestion about ultimate capacity of this sewer line, the developer is cooperating with the City in a study of the existing and projected .capacity of this facility. This study is expected to be completed within the next one to two weeks. 35 LARK IN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. Mr. Geoffrey Olson October 3, 1988 Page 16 7. Compliance with Findings for Approval-of PUD Condit Use Permit. The development plans, together with the pictorial and textual materials submitted with the Application, indicate that the proposed Development on the Site meets the findings contained in Section 36 -442 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding approval of a PUD conditional use permit as follows: (a) The proposed multifamily housing on the Site will be in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan, assuming approval of the developer's companion request for amendment of the Comprehensive Plan designation of the Site from Limited Service Commercial MSC) to High - Density Residential (Rh)0 See p receding sections of this letter - memorandum for a statement in support of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment* (b) The establishment or maintenance of the proposed Development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare. As described throughout this letter - memorandum, multifamily housing is an appropriate use for the Site. High- quality, high- amenity apartment homes for families and single managerial, technical, and professional employees are proposed. 1989 rents are expected to be $550 to $630 for a one-bedroom apartment home, $6 5 0 to $730 for a two-bedroom apartment home, and $750 to $ 830 for a three - bedroom apartment home. An on -site resident manager will assure continuing maintenance of the homes and grounds. Multifamily housing will provide a transition between the more intense business and industrial uses to the east and south and the residential uses to the west and north. The Development is not expected to have a significant effect on surrounding uses for the reasons set forth throughout this letter- memorandum. (c) The proposed use -will be compatible with the character of the existing zoning district. A Planned Unit Development for multifamily apartment homes is allowed in the LBC district. As discussed throughout this letter- memorandum, a PUD conditional use permit provides a greater degree of control than a rezoning of the Site to R -3. The PUD conditional use permit assures that development will occur in conformance with the approved plans and any conditions attached to approval. Any change in the approved development requires new public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council and a showing that approval of a new PUD conditional use permit meets Zoning Ordinance findings. If , on the other hand, the 36 LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY SAC LINDGKEN, LTD. Mr, Geoffrey Olson October 3, 1988 Page 17 Site were rezoned to R -3 and the approved Development did not occur, another apartment project would be a permitted use and as such entitled to issuance of a building permit as a matter of right, assuming conformance with other Zoning Ordinance requirements* ( d) The proposed Development will not depreciate property values. p The .developer has conducted a number of studies of property values of single-family residential areas located in close proximity to high-value multifamily rental housing. These studies which will be available for the Planning Commission hearing, indicate that single- family homes in proximity to high -value multifamily re nta 1 housing appreciate at equal or greater rates as compared to single - family homes not located adjacent to multifamily rental housing. (e) The proposed Development on the Site will not be hazardous, detrimental, or disturbing to present and potential surrounding land uses. The EAW submitted with the Application indicates that the proposed Development meets noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Lighting will be shielded and directed downward and will not spill over onto adjacent residential properties. Odor and fumes are not expected to be generated by the proposed Development. Stormwater runoff is expected to be accommodated in on -site facilities and existing municipal systems and is not expected to affect neighboring properties. The architectural design of the apartment homes, together with the extensive bermi ng and landscaping proposed, will assure an attractive image of the Development and will minimize views from neighboring residences* (f) The proposed Development will not create traf f is congest ion, unsafe access or parking needs that will unduly burden area properties. On both a p.m. peak hour and daily basis, the proposed Development generates substantially fewer vehicular p trips than an office development which is a permitted use under the existing LBC zoning. A detailed study of the Gervais /White Bear Avenue intersection, which is expected to be the primary intersection affected by the proposed Development, indicates that adequate capacity will be available to accommodate development trips. Completion of the proposed Development is not expected to change the existing high hgh level of service at this intersection* Further study of Gervais Avenue west of Kennard will be undertaken in cooperation with . staff , if requested during the review process. 37 LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. Mr. Geoffrey . O1 so n October 3, 1988 Page 18 (g) The multifamily housing on the Site will be served by -essential public services such as streets , 'pol i.ce and fire, utilities, schools, and parks. Police and fire protection is available to serve the property and the Development includes a number of on -site private recreational facilities to minimize off -site burdens on public parks. As recommended by staff and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the development plans include a private trail system which can connect in the future to a public trail facility Maplewood Park to the west of the Site. Municipal water facilities are available to accommodate the proposed Development. The capacity of the receiving sanitary sewer line to the north of the Site and of area schools are under further study. Ar (h) The use will not create excess ive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services. The developer has not requested revenue bond or tax increment financing assistance for the Development. If improvements to local roadways or sewer facilities are required, it is expected that such improvements would also be required for a permitted use office development on the Site* 'In any event, the Development will P Y a its fair share of any public improvements which are required to serve the Development and properties within an improvement district within which the Site may be located. (i) As described throughout this letter- memorandum, the proposed Development preserves two on -site state - protected wetlands and preserves much of the slopes and existing mature trees along the northerly perimeter of the Site* Twenty -three percent (23 %) of the Site will remain undisturbed by the proposed construction. After development of the proposed apartment homes, approximately 60 percent of the Site will consist of preserved ponds, slopes, and mature trees, and open space, recreational amenities, and new berms and plantings. ('J ) An EAW has been prepared for the proposed Development. It concludes that the project does not have the potential for significant adverse environmental effects. Refer to the EAW for further detail. (k) Although the Z o ni n g Ordinance authorizes the City Council to approve substantial variances from the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance for planned unit developments, the proposed Development does not require any variances from the Zoning Ordinance. LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. Mr. Geoffrey Olson October 3, 1988 Page 19 If you have a n y questions concerning the proposed Development or this narrative, please feel free to give me a ca 11. Sincerely, Linda He Fisher, for LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. cc: Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Ken Be lgarde Scott England Gene Ernst Dick Schabert Dan Lutenegger Ron Peterson Chuck Rickart LHF:AXO 39 EXHIBIT A TO NARRATIVE INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR AMENITIES PROPOSED PROPERTY LOCATION: West of the intersection of G e rva i s Avenue and - White Bear Avenue in the City of Maplewood NUMBER OF UNITS: 426 total, composed of: 74 One bedroom units (17.47) 233 Two bedroom units (54.77) 119 Three bedroom units (27.9 %) GARAGES: 416 standard surface garages 10 R..V. garages 549 surface parking AMENITIES: Bath and 3/4 in all three bedroom units and most two bedroom units Bath and 1/2 in the balance of. the two bedroom units Euro -style kitchens Walk -in closets Architecturally designed closet storage systems Panel doors Dishwashers Microwaves Drapes Ice makers Casablanca -type dining room fans Vaulted ceilings Ceiling fans in master bedrooms Exercise facilities Saunas Whirlpools Steam Room Social Room Game Room Billiards Large screen television Television Lounge Cable television Tanning Beds Party Room Day care Indoor swimming pool Outdoor swimming pool Water features Wood playground structures 40 Proposed Property Page 2 AMENITIES : - Two tennis courts (Continued) : Racquet ball courts Volley ball courts Basketball court Shuffle Board Putting Greens Vita Course Jogging paths Horseshoe pits Picnic and barbeque areas Landscape rock retaining walls Park like courtyards • Mature landscaping Mini - storage and RV storage Indented unit entries in corridor Decorated corridors 2x6 exterior wall construction Double wall staggered stud soundproofing in party walls Gyperete, sound insulation and sound channels between f loons KCB: bb 9/27/88 41 TO: Geoffrey Olson, City of Maplewood Community Development Director FROM: Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. DATE: November 4, 1988 RE: Studies of Effect of High - Quality Multifamily Rental Housing on Property Values of Adjacent Single - Family Homes Introduction The following summary win is a of two value studies prepared by this Y p office. The objective of these studies was to determine the effect of multifamily rental housing on adjacent single - family residential property values. Two different methodologies were used for the property value studies: (1) sales price and (2) market value appreciation. 1. Sale Price Study Methodology A multifamily development in Maplewood. that is comparable, for property value assessment purposes, to BBY Partnership's proposed multifamily housing at Gervais and White Bear Avenue is Century Ridge. Because Century Ridge was built in 1987, there is no history of market value changes which can be used to evaluate the impact of the apartments upon adjacent single- family residential property values. The Sale Price Study quantifies the impact. in another manner. First, the Multiple Listing Service was searched for the addresses of single - family p • • g • h were sold 'in 1988. Two homes i n the vicinity of Century Ridge which homes were identified ;. 2689 Mayer Lane and 2695 Mayer Lane. These two homes were selected Y l cted because the are within 300 feet of Century Ridge and 42 Attachment 11 DAVID J. PEAT JAMES P. LARKIN HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. FRANCIS E. GIBERSON ROBERT L. HOFFMAN LA MICHAEL T. cKI McKIM JACK F. DALY CHARLES R. WEAVER D. KENNETH LINDGREN ANDREW T N RE N ATTORNEYS AT LAW HERMAN L. TALLE WILLIAM S. BRANDT WENDELL R. ANDERSON VINCENT G. ELLA .GERALD H. FRIEDELL TRACY R. EICHHORN-HICKS ROBERT B. WHITLOCK ANDREW 'J MITCHELL ALLAN E. MULLIGAN 1500 NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER 2000 PIPER JAFFRAY TOWER JOHN A. COTTER ROBERT J. HENNESSEY BEATRICE A. ROTHWEILER JAMES C. ERICKSON 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH 222 SOUTH NINTH STREET PAUL B. K EDWARD J. DRISCOLL JAMES P. MILEY BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431 MINNEAPOLIS MINNESOTA 55402 RA AMY DARK R GRA DY ALAN L. KILgOW GENE N. FULLER KATHLEEN M. PICOTTE NEW MAN DAVID C. SEL LERGREN RICHARD J. L E GR KEEN TELEPHONE (612) 835 TELEPHONE (612) 338 CATHERINE BARNETT WILSON JEFFREY C. ANDERSON JOHN D. F LLME TELECOPIER (612) 835 TELECOPIER (612) 338 DANIEL L. BOWLES ROBERT E. TODD M. VLATKOVICH FRANK I. HARVEY TIMOTHY J. MG RICHARD A. FORSCHLER JILL 1, FRIEDERS CHARLES S. MODELL NORTH SUBURBAN OFFICE GREGORY E. KORSTAD CHRISTOPHER J. DIETZEN CRAIG A. PETERSON JOHN R, BEATTIE LINDA H. FISHER 8990 SPRINGBROOK DRIVE, SUITE 250 LISA A. GRAY GARY A. RENNEKE THOMAS P. STOLTMAN 55433 THOMAS H. WEAVER STEVEN G. LEVIN COON RAPIDS, MINNESOTA SHANNON K. MCCAMBRIDGE FORREST D. NOWLIN (612) 786 -7117 MICHAEL S. COHEN MICHAEL C. JACKMAN TELEPHONE DENISE M. NORTON JOHN E. DIEHL GARY A. VAN JON S. SWIERZEWSKI TELECOPIER (612) 786-6711 MICHAEL B. BRAMA RAMAN THOMAS J. FLYNN JOSEPH W. DICKER JAMES P. QUINN JACQUELINE F. DIET2 TODD 1. FREEMAN GAYLEN L. KNACK STEPHEN B. SOLOMON ROONEY D. IVES PETER K. BECK JULIE A. WRASE JEROME H. KAHNKE to Bloomington CHRISTOPHER J. RRISTHAL SHERRILL OMAN KURETICH Reply RONALD M. STARK, , JR. GERALD L. SECK SHARON L. BRENNA JOHN B. LUNDQUIST MARIKAY CANAGA LITZAU DAYLE NOLAN THOMAS B. HUMPHREY, JR. OF COUNSEL JOSEPH GITIS JOHN A. MCHUGH RICHARD A. NORDBYE M E M O R A N D U M „ALSO ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN TO: Geoffrey Olson, City of Maplewood Community Development Director FROM: Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. DATE: November 4, 1988 RE: Studies of Effect of High - Quality Multifamily Rental Housing on Property Values of Adjacent Single - Family Homes Introduction The following summary win is a of two value studies prepared by this Y p office. The objective of these studies was to determine the effect of multifamily rental housing on adjacent single - family residential property values. Two different methodologies were used for the property value studies: (1) sales price and (2) market value appreciation. 1. Sale Price Study Methodology A multifamily development in Maplewood. that is comparable, for property value assessment purposes, to BBY Partnership's proposed multifamily housing at Gervais and White Bear Avenue is Century Ridge. Because Century Ridge was built in 1987, there is no history of market value changes which can be used to evaluate the impact of the apartments upon adjacent single- family residential property values. The Sale Price Study quantifies the impact. in another manner. First, the Multiple Listing Service was searched for the addresses of single - family p • • g • h were sold 'in 1988. Two homes i n the vicinity of Century Ridge which homes were identified ;. 2689 Mayer Lane and 2695 Mayer Lane. These two homes were selected Y l cted because the are within 300 feet of Century Ridge and 42 Attachment 11 ly LAKKIN, HOFFMAN, DAEY & LINDGREN, LTD. the apartments can clearly be seen from the homes. These homes are three - bedroom ramblers. They are referred to in the study as the "Adjacent Properties." The sale price and market value for both homes were found in the Certificates of Real Estate Value on file at the Ramsey County Assessor's office. The percentage that the sale price exceeded the assessor's market value was calculated for each of the single- family homes that collectively comprise the Adjacent Properties. Next, a control group of single - family homes ( the Control Group) was P selected to compare to the he Properties. The Multiple Listing Service was searched to identify the Control Group.. Five criteria were used to select the Control Group homes. The homes had to be: 1. 3- bedroom; 2. Ramblers; 3* Located in the same area and neighborhood as the Adjacent Properties (Section 1 Township 28, Range 22, in Maplewood); 4. Sold in 1988; 5. Not within view of Century Ridge Apartments. Application of these criteria to the Multiple Listing Service data base generated a list of six homes. The Certificates of Real Estate Value and the Ramsey ounty Assessor's office records were consulted to obtain the • Y for each home* The percentage sale price and the assessor's market value p that the sale price exceeded the assessor's market value was calculated for each Control Group home. Results The sale prices. for the Adjacent Properties exceeded the assessor's market value by 15 percent and 10 percent. The sale prices for the Control Grou p homes exceeded the assessor's market value by an average of 13 percent. Consultations with realtors from Merrill Lynch who listed the Adjacent Properties indicate that no downward adjustments were made in the realtors' market comparison of these homes due to their close proximity to Century Ridge Apartments. These listing agents received no adverse comments fr om prospective Y ros ect ive bu ers about the . proximity of Century Ridge to the Adjacent Properties. 2695 Mayer Lane was on the market 11 days before it sold; 2689 Mayer Lane was on the market 69 days before it sold. 43 LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DAIX & LINDGREN, LTD. This corn p ayes with an average of 77 days on the market for the six Control Group homes which were not within sight of Century Ridge Apartments* SALE PRICE ADJACENT PROPERTIES (SOLD IN 1988) Section 1 T28, R22 Year Address Built 2689 Mayer Lane (1959) 2695 Mayer Lane (1959) Sale Price (SP) in 1988 85,000 81,000 Market Value (MV) in 1988 7 3 , 900 15 % 73,800 10% Percent SP is above MV SALE PRICE CONTROL GROUP (SOLD IN 1988) Section 1,T28, R22 2. Market Value Appr eciation Study Methodolo Properties surveyed are located in Maplewood, White Bear Lake, Roseville, p surve Y Plymouth, and Bloomington. First, a control of single - family homes, surrounded exclusively by single - family homes ( the Control Group) , was ' group p selected in each of the cities listed above. The market value of each home in the Control Group p g for a period of eight years (1981 -1988 inclusive) was obtained from the ( 44 Market Year Sale Price Value (MV) Percent SP Address Built (SP) in 1988 . in 1988 is above MV 48 O'Day (1955) 73,000 64,600 13% 2525 Mayer (1956) 76,000 76,000 0% 2625 Mayer (1959) 80,400 73,600 90 47 Ferndale (1956) 77,000 59,500 29% 2567 Upper Afton ( 1955 ) 79,900 75,400 6% 211 Brookview Ct (1973) 90,000 74 0 ,400 21% Average % SP is above MV = 13% 2. Market Value Appr eciation Study Methodolo Properties surveyed are located in Maplewood, White Bear Lake, Roseville, p surve Y Plymouth, and Bloomington. First, a control of single - family homes, surrounded exclusively by single - family homes ( the Control Group) , was ' group p selected in each of the cities listed above. The market value of each home in the Control Group p g for a period of eight years (1981 -1988 inclusive) was obtained from the ( 44 LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD• appropriate assessor's office* Percentage increases in property values were calculated for each home and an average increase for each group was computed* Next, a group of singl y e -famil homes located adjacent to high - quality multifamily rental housing was chosen in each of the cities listed above. This g rou p g of single-family homes was designated the "Comparable Group." A s with the Control Group, the market value for each single - family home within the Comparable Group was obtained for a period of eight years (1981-1988 inclusive) and appreciation percentages calculated and averaged. Results: Maplewood: In the C y p City of Ma lewood, the Control Group consisted of single- family g homes in Stanich Highlands subdivision.: The Comparable Group consisted of single-family homes in Hi llcrest Gardens adjacent to Greengate Apartments. Co ntrol Group homes appreciated by an average of 18.5%. Comparable Group homes appreciated by an average of 20.5$. White Bear Lake: In the City of White Bear Lake the Control Group consisted of single - family Sunny dale in Sunn dale subdivision. The Comparable Group consisted of single-family le -famil homes in the Dotte' s Plat and Rearrangement of White Bear Park subdivisions adjacent to Cherry Court Apartments* of homes a rec fated by an average of 23.2%. Comparable Group Control Group pp homes appreciated by an average of 23.3 %0 Roseville: In the City of Roseville, the Control homes in Joy's Rice Street Addition* single - family homes in the Bossard Apartments. Control Group homes appreciated by an homes appreciated by an average of 21 Group consisted of single- family The Comparable Group . consisted of Plat 3 adjacent to Palisades average of 21.5%. Comparable Group %0 (4.) 45 LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALy & LINDGREN, LTD. Bloomington: In the City g it of Bloomin ton, the Control Group consisted of single- family homes in Jacobsen -Quist Addition. I The Comparable Group consisted of single-family homes in Pebblebrook West adjacent to Pebblebrook Apartments. Control Grou p homes appreciated by an average of 26.6%. Comparable Group homes appreciated by an average of 26.5 %0 Plymouth: In the City of P1 outh , the Control Group consisted of single-family � • Comparable Group homes in Imperial Hills 7th Addition. The C p p consisted of single-family homes in Oakwood Manor adjacent to Plymouth Colony Apartments* .Control Grou p homes appreciated by an average of 20.6% Comparable Group homes appreciated by an average of 22.2$0 The following table summarizes the results of the Market Value Appreciation Study: Conclusion From Sale Price S tudy and Market Value Appreciation Study The Sale Price Stud and the Market Value Appreciation Study show that multifamily housing does not depreciate property values of adjacent 46 (59) Comparable Control Multifamily Group Group city Housing % Increase % Increase Maplewood Greengate 20.5% 18.5% White Bear Lake Cherry Court 2393% 23.2% Roseville Palisades 21.0% 21.5% Bloomington Pebblebrook 26.5% 26.6% Ply Plymouth Colony 22.2% 20.6% Plymouth Oakwood 1890% 20.6% Conclusion From Sale Price S tudy and Market Value Appreciation Study The Sale Price Stud and the Market Value Appreciation Study show that multifamily housing does not depreciate property values of adjacent 46 (59) LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DAIY & LI-NDGKEN, LTD. single-family housing. In many cases, single - family homes surrounding multifamily housing exhibited greater percentage increases than Control Group homes. In all cases, actual sale prices and property value percentage increases for the Adjacent Properties /Comparable Group were comparable to actual sale prices and property value percentage increases p for the Control Groups* 47 LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. MAPLEWOOD COMPARABLE GROUP SINGLE - FAMILY HOMES IN HILLCREST GARDENS ADJAGMT To GRFENGATE Ap (BUILT 197 4 ) SECTION 14, T29, R22 Average Appreciation = 20.5% (�.l 48 ( Year Percent Address Built) 1988 � 1981 - Ap reciati.on 2175 Ripley Avenue (1937) 61,500 54,198 13.5% 1812 Furness Street (1959) 79,900 67,229 1809% 1736 Furness Street (1938) 62,100 52,555 18.2% 1842 Furness Street (1972) (1967) 67,800 72,100 53,423 60,500 2699% 19.2% 1846 1850 Furness Furness Street Street (1937) 73 , 000 56 , 542 29.2% 1880 Furness Street (1936) 57,600 50,418 1493% 1890 Furness Street (1938) 66 , 600 54,884 21.4% 1900 Furness Street (1937) 61,800 50,288 22.9% Average Appreciation = 20.5% (�.l 48 LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. MAPLEVWD CONTROL GROUP STANICH HIGHLANDS SECTION 14, T29 R22 Address 127 Ruth Street 1721 Ruth Street 1`713 Ruth Street 1699 Ruth Street 1686 Stanich Place -� 1694 Stanich Place 1708 Stanich Place 1714 Stanich Place 1980 Price Avenue ( Year Percent Built) 1988 1981 Appreciation (1954) 60,300 51,991 16.0% (1954) 64,600 56,412 1495% (1954) 71,000 55,474 2892% (1955) 64,300 53,361 2095% (1972) 67,000 58,343 14.9% (1968) 70,500 59,124 19.3% (1954) 63,200 51,320 23.20 (1960) 65,000 56,210 15.8% (1969) 76,700 66 14.9% Average Appreciation = 18.5% 8 . f 49 LAR KIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. WHITE BEAR LAKE COMPARABLE GROUP SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN =E'S PLAT AND REARRAN GEMENT OF WHITE BEAR PARK (BUILT 1963) t SECTION T30 , R22 Average Appreciation = 23.3% �g.� 50 (Year ' . ' Pe rce nt Address Built) 1988 1981 Appr eciation 40 1 5 Hazel Street North (1948) 83,000 66,628 24.6% 4035 Hazel Street North (1948) 71,800 56,127 27.9% 4055 Hazel Street North (1971) 87,900 65,627 33.9% 4075 Hazel Street North (1971) 75,800 60,684 24.9% 4079 Hazel Street North (1971) 72,800 57,539 26.5% 2132 County Road F East (1959) 77,100 64,083 20.3% 2126 County Road F East (1949) 81,300 65,217 24.7% 2118 County Road F East (1955) 66,300 57,637 1590% 2092 County Road F East (1960 ) 70 200 55,135 27.4 2131 Dotte Drive (1972) 85,800 71,678 19.7% 2068 Dotte Drive (1967) 95,000 75,791 25.4% 2050 Dotte Drive (1959) 76,100 66,198 1590% 2046 Dotte Drive (1959) 114,600 91,735 2499% 2040 Dotte Drive (1956 ) 68 58,299 17.2% Average Appreciation = 23.3% �g.� 50 LARK IN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. WHITE BEA LAKE CONTROL GROUP SUNNYDALE SUBDIVISION SECTION 26, T30, R22 Address 3890 Van Dyke Street 2061 Roth Place 2069 Roth Place 2075 Roth Place 2099 Roth Place 2105 Roth Place 2111 Roth Place 2121 Roth Place 2127 Roth Place 2133 Roth Place 2104 Roth Place 2098 Roth Place 2090 Roth Place 2084 Roth Place ( Year Percent Built) 1988 1981 Appreciation (1954) 79,700 62,692 27.2% (1954 ) 69 , 400 57 , 782 20.2% (1954) 64,900 53,686 20.9% (1954) 68,200 55,679 22.5% (1956) 74,500 58,407 2795% (1954) 68,200 55,396 23.1% (1955) 70,200 56,146 25.1% (1956) 66,700 55,577 20.0% (1956) 71,800 59,932 19.8% (1956) 74,900 59,967 24.9% (1955) 72,300 58,004 24.8% (1954) 68,400 55,139 24.1% (1954) 75,600 62,494 21.0% (1956) 77,100 61,776 24.8% Average Appreciation :-"- 23.2% (101 51 LARK IN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. ROSEVILLE COMPARABLE GROUP SINGLE- FAMILY HOMES IN ED BOSSARD ADDITION PLAT 3 (BUILT 1972) SECTION 12 T29, R23 Average Appreciation = 21% C ll � 52 ( Year Percent Address Built) 1988 1981 - Appreciation 491 County Road B West (1964) (1962) 102,600 79,600 85,570 62,330 2090% 27.7% 2185 Cohansey 2189 Cohansey Boulevard Boulevard Soule (1969) 78,100 59,320 3197% 23.1 2193 Cohansey Boulevard (1974) (1971) 76,200 75,600 922 61,922 61,948 22.0% 2199 Cohansey 2211 Cohansey Boulevard Boulevard (1972) 73,900 65,701 12.5% 2219 Cohansey Boulevard Boule (1973) (1975) 76,100 71,200 63,198 1 63J85 20.4% 12.7 2229 Cohansey 2239 Cohansey Boulevard Boulevard (1973) 79,300 66,561 19.2 Average Appreciation = 21% C ll � 52 LARKIN, HOFFNIAN, DALY & LI- NDGREN, LTD. ROSEVILLE CONTROL GROUP JOY'S RICE STREET ADDITION SECTION 12, T29, R2 Average Appreciation = 21.5% (12.) 53 ( Year Percent Address Built) 1988 1981 Appreciation 2339 Hand Avenue (1968) 83,000 69,175 20.0 0 2321 Hand Avenue (1957) 81,00 63,304 28.0% 2313 Hand Avenue (1959) 65,000 55,289 1896% 2307 Hand Avenue (1956) 65,900 54,296 21.4% 2293 Hand Avenue (1957) 67 , 300 54,719 23 * 0% 361 Minnesota Avenue (1956) 66,000 55,414 19.2% 2292 Western Avenue (1958) 119,800 99 , 774 20.1% 2304 Western Avenue (1970) 83,800 68,491 22.4% 2322 Western Avenue (1938) 67,200 55,486 21.1% Average Appreciation = 21.5% (12.) 53 LANK IN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. BLOOMINGTON COMPARABLE GROUP SINGLE - FAMILY HOMES IN PEBBLEBROOK WEST (BUILT 1975) SECTION 18, T27, R24 Average Appreciation = 26.5% (13.� 54 ( Year Percent Address Built) 1988 1981 Appreciation 4210 Pebblebrook Drive (1979) 104,300 80,900 28.9% 4200 Pebblebrook Drive (1977) 101,600 76,200 33.3% 4120 Pebblebrook Drive (1977) 103,100 97,200 6.1% 4110 Pebblebrook Drive (1974) 129,600 101,200 28.0% 4100 Pebblebrook Drive (1976) 107,800 84,000 28.4% 4020 Pebblebrook Drive (1974) 125,400 96,200 30.3% 4010 Pebblebrook Drive (1974) 125,800 97,200 30.5% Average Appreciation = 26.5% (13.� 54 LAIRK IN, HOFFMAN, DALY & L.INDGI?EN, LTD. Address 8, 40 12th Avenue South 8900 12th Avenue South 8850 12th Avenue South 8840 12th Avenue South 8830 12th Avenue South 8812 12th Avenue South - :8800 12th Avenue South BLOOMINGTON CONTROL GROUP JACOBSEN -QUIST ADDITION SECTION 11, T27, R24 ( Year Percent Built) 1988 1981 Appreciation (1953) 79,800 60,400 3290% (1953) 70,300 54,200 28.60 (1953) 72,900 53,600 36.0% (1953) 67,800 55,300. 22.6% (1953) 66,200 53,300 24.2% (1952) 70,500 57,700 22.3% (1953) 66,400 54,900 21.0% Average Appreciation = 2696% (14.) 55 LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DAEY & LINDGREN, LTD. PLYMOUTH COMPARABLE GROUP SINGLE - FAMILY HOMES IN OAKWOOD MANOR SUBDIVISION (BUILT 1972) SECTION 30, T118 R22 Average Appreciation = 2292% Cl 5.� 56 ( Year Percent Address Built) 1988 1981 Appreciation 1835 Merrimac Lane North (1962) 74 , 200 60 , 200 23.3% 1825 Merrimac Lane North (1960) 73,000 58,700 24.5% 1815 Merrimac Lane North (1960) 88,900 71 24.6% 1735 Merrimac Lane North (1966) 80,700 64,900 24.3% 1725 Merrimac Lane North (1965) 86,500 74,600 16.0% 1715 Merrimac Lane North (1966) 65,800 53,400 2393% 1705 Merrimac Lane North (1963) 78,500 65,600 19.7% Average Appreciation = 2292% Cl 5.� 56 LAKKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, L TD. PLYMOUTH CONTROL GROUP IMPERIAL HILLS 7TH ADDITION SECTION 30, T118, R22 Average Appreciation = 20.6% LHF:AX4 �16` 57 (Year Percent Address Built) 1988 1981 Appreciation 2025 Urbandale North (1970) 139,000 111 25.1% 2105 Urbandale North (1970) 106,600 85,600 24.5% 2115 Urbandale North (1972) 121,200 97,900 2398% 2125 Urbandale North (1970) 105,300 85,500 23.2% 2205 Urbandale North (1973) 114,700 101 13.6% 2215 Urbandale North (1970) 95,300 82,000 16.3% 2225 Urbandale North (1969) 96,200 81,400 18.20 Average Appreciation = 20.6% LHF:AX4 �16` 57 MEMORANDUM TO:. City Manager FROM: Director of Community Development SUBJECT: The Effect of Multiple Dwellings on Adjacent Single — Dwelling Home Values DATE: February 7, 1985 Whenever a hearing for a multiple dwelling adjacent to single,dwellings is held, g nei hbors always argue that their property values will depreciate. To question this belief is like arguing against motherhood or apple In order to separate fact from myth, I have done some research. The following is a list of the only studies I could find . i n the metro area: 10 The City of Coon Rapids (1978 -81 data) - -city assessor This study compares the sales ratio (assessor's value /average actual sales price) of single dwellings over the whole city versus single dwellings adjacent to apartments, double dwellings and home occupations. The result is that there was no significant difference in the value of homes. 2. The City of Brooklyn Center (1982 -83 data) - -city assessor This is a similar study to that done in Coon Rapids. This study also found no significant difference in the value of single dwellings adjacent to multiple dwellings versus the average value of single dwellings city— wide. It is interesting to note that , parks had a s l i g h t l y negative effect on ad jacent home values. 3. A stud y by the Boscl ai r Corporation for the City of Bloomington (1960 -70 sales data from Bloomington, New Hope, St. Louis Park and Edina) This study shows that homes adjacent to multiple dwellings had a slightly, higher value 4. A study by North Star Appraisal for the City of Savage (1980 sales data from Apple Valley and Burnsville) This study was based on the effect of quad developments on adjacent single dwellings. This study also found that there was no adverse effect on the property values of adjacent homes. There was also no increase in marketing time. A survey of - ad homeowners found a posi ti ve attitude toward the q uads. Homeowners did not feel the projects reduced their property values, polluted their vision or increased the number of undesirables in the neighborhood. 0 Attachment 12 58 A study by Lafayette and Pierce, Inc. - -real estate appraisers for Castle Design and Development Co. (1984) This stud y is based on a proposed eight— building,64 —unit apartment development i n '1a P 1 ewood called Sterling Glen. This study found that the apartments would not be a deterrent to the overall marketability or value of adjacent homes. f% - - "I - - - = --- Council should not base denial of a multiple dwelling project on the negative effect on adjacent property values, unless there is something specific about a project that differentiates it from multiple dwellings in general. Available of studie g s do not show a negative effect on property values or marketing time of adjacent homes. cc: Council Planning commission HRA CDRB Associate planners 59 Concerns regarding development of proposed Belgrade housing complex: 1. Proximity of proposed walking /jogging trail to Bittersweet Lane cul-de-sac could promote additional automobile traffic on Bittersweet Lane b non-residents of the nei wishin to use this trail. Also, trail appears to be very close to wetland area and surely will be a disturbance to protected wildlife. 2. What would be the 'impact on Maplewood schools of several hundred children who would take residence at the Bel complex? Overcrowding? Increased property taxation? 3. What are the guarantees that rents, which supposedly are onl affordable b the " managerial, technical professionals will not become subsidized, thus allowing lower-income families to take up residence there. Low- income housing would deprec iate property values of the surrounding residential nei and result ion a g reater number of children in the complex. 4. With cutbacks in public service, it would seem unlikely that cit service departments will be able to deter increased crime in our area, which will result b addin additional permanent residents. 5. It seems that Gervais Ave. located to the west of the Bel entrances/exits would not be ade to accommodate traffic resulting from the building of the Bel housing complex. Traffic con around the Mapleridge Center and the 'intersection of White Bear Ave. at Gervais Ave. is already a major inconvenience, and accidents are not uncommon. 6. As discreet as the parking facility 'li is supposed to be, it is bound to detrimentally affect surrounding r idential housing'. As residents of 2575 Southlawn Drive; re sidential we are constantly aware of the bri lighting of Mapleridg Center. The Belgrade housing complex will be much closer to our property than Mapleridge Center is, and an tr to illuminate 31 acres of land is bound to disturb nei 7. At the nei meeting called b the developers, it was stated that it would take approximately three y ears to construct the 426 apartment complex and do landscaping. That is a lon time to be inconvenienced b bulldozers and other construction noises. And what g uarantee do we have that developers won't run . out of funds and chan building plans in mid-stream. Respectfully, Mark and Sandra Peterson M �� V ��1 2575 Southlawn Drive ` r� Maplewood, MN 55109 60 Attachment 13 0 At the time of the report, questions remained unresolved as the the adequacy of the present sewer service to handle the new proposed apartments on the 31 acre tract, Also, in the report, it said: At the present, there are no plans to extend any streets north - vard to connect to Bittersweet or Fland.rau. This does not xxxx mean that there is a permanent guarantee that this wouldn't happen in the future. At the meeting - vTith the city council , the neighbors were unanimounous in stating their opposition to rhd. and favor for Limitied Commercial Service. That opinion is unchanged, LCS provides a tax base without any of the accompanying pressures put on social services, such as fire, police, etc. Businessmen are good neighbors: we cannot guarantee the same for the proposed apartment dwellers . I love our comunity the way that it is with everything from pheasants to deer in our backyard, Even more, I love to look out the front tit indow and see all of the small children being able to ride their tricycles, etc. on or near the street without a great fear of heavy or fast traffic. I am sure that the T&,ax parents of these children bought in the area for the same exact reasons . I was ill and unable to tbix attend the most recent meeting with the proposed developers of the land, BBY . However, I vas told that the meeting between the affected area residents and the city council, in 1983, was taped. If that is true, the Council members need only listen to that tape to know how the residents of the area feel. Some of the residents of 1983 have moved and some new people have moved in. However, the consensus of the present neighbors is the same as it was in 1983 In con clusion , my voice says to leave the proposed development of those 31 acres to Limited Commercial Service. 61 Attachment 14 CITY OF 118"88 MAPILL--AEWOOD 1830 E. COUNTY ROAD B MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA 55109 OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 612-77 7 0-4560 October 10:1988 NE IGHBORHOOD SURVEY Joseph Zappa, et al 2522 f 1 andrau St. St. Paul, MN 55109 This survey is to get your opinion on an application the City has received to develop property in your neighborhood. The application is for an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan, Planned Unit Development and Design Review of 426 apartments on Gervais Avenue. The current zoning and City plan limits the site to office uses. (See enclosed map) The applicant is BBY Partnership. Your opinion is needed to assist the City staff and Planning Commission in preparing a recommendation to the City Council. Once this survey is completed, you will be notified of any public hearings. Please indicate your opinion and comments below and return only this cover letter (and any attachments on which you have written), to me in the enclosed postage —paid envelope by October 20, 1988. I f y ou would l i k e further information, pl ease call me at 770 -4560 between 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. Thank you for your comments. They will be given careful consideration. GEOFF OLSON, AICP — DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GO /njm Enclosures I am in favor of this proposal because I have no comment. )L I o0ect to this pror)asa l be use If ou object, describe below or draw on a enclosed map any changes that would make y this project acceptable. If no changes would make it acceptable, how should this . property be developed ?. (Please use reverse side if more room is needed) Attachmexrt 15 (Project: Gervais Apartments) 62 L/ W 0000.6 Ile h o i l 14 iii Ir dip Cl Ol w �4t C 4,00. ".00* 7 iiiiio�jjjpp mill IL 'UZdecc.ee,P/ vp �G/ AW l�O 9- �/'"" �%�'"'� • ���o �,�D �(�:x. �o-�.P "i `�Q E�. �u...�tiQ�, IL e Io, CA� '044 AOIC 'Z� eP 64 l it o-.�� 7 <,�,.� - z C� a�u .��,�f� � a r 4 P dop L..- (/ „ '• /,� /�'t � da.odo• �J "0001%06 14 �6 III 65 IWO �C nn 1 O CCAL� ii - •1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT WHEREAS, B B Y Partnership has initiated an amendment to the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan to change land use designation from limited service commercial (Lc--')C) to high density residential (Rh) for the fol1owing described property: Lot 5, Block 1, Mapleridge Mall ; and the east half and west half of Lot 1, E. G. Rogers' Garden Lots; and Lot 2, except the south 300 feet thereof E. G. Rogers' Garden Lots WHEREAS, the procedural history of this plan amendment is as follows: ' °. ^ 1. This plan amendment was initiated by B B Y Partnership. 2. The Maplewood Planning Commission held a public hearing on , 1988 to consider this plan amendment. Notice thereof was published and mailed pursuant to law. All '- persons present at said hearing were given an opportunity to be heard and present written statements. The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that said plan amendment be is 3. The Maplewood City Council considered said plan amendment on , 1988. The Council considered reports and recommendations from the Planning Commission and City staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL that the following plan amendment be approved on the basis of the following findings of fact: a. This site is well-suited for apartment use and is consistent with the City's policies for the location of high density residential (1) This site would be a transitional land use between low density residential and commercial/industrial uses. (2) It would be compatible with City policy to preserve the site's significant natural features. (3) It is located adjacent to a collector street, church and shopping, and is within walking distance of Four Seasons Park. b. The City's Housing and Redevelopment Authority has found this project is consistent with the City's housing policies that encourage a diversity of housing types. The proposal also addresses some of the 67 Attachment 16 concerns that have been expressed in the HRA's recent annual reports. For example, this project would: (1) replace the three-bedroom rental units that were lost when the McKnight Townhouse development converted to owler-occupied units a few years ago, (2) replace some of the planned RH, Residential High Density acreage that has been designated for other uses in recent year,s, <3) provide at least 74 of the 106 additional housing opportunities needed to comply with the City's 1980 to 19?(-) modest-cost housing goal and (4) provide some upper-income family rental units. c. This project would have no adverse effect on surrounding properties: (1) The apartments would be screened and buffered from the single-family homes to the northwest by steep slopes, and existing land proposed vegetation. (2) Studies show that there will be no adverse effect on property values attributable to this project. (3) There would be no traffic from this project through residential streets. d. A 400,000 square-foot office development which is allowed under the existing zoning and land use plan for the site, would generate two to three times more traffic during the P.M. peak hour and about 65 percent more average daily traffic than the proposed multi- family housing development. This would create congestion with the turning lanes at White Bear Avenue and Gervais Avenue. e. This site was designated for RH use from 1973- 1983. The Planning Commission recommended approval of a 350-unit apartment project in 1977 and the City Council gave concept approval to an elderly housing project in 1983. Adopted this Seconded by day of Ayes-- , 1988. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a regular meeting of the Cit Council of t,he Cit of Maplewood, Minnes was dul called and held in the council chambers in said cit on the da of 1988 at 7 p.m. The following members were present: The following members were absent: WHEREAS, B B Y Partnership initiated a conditional use permit for a planned unit development multi - famil housing in a district located at Gervais Avenue in Maplewood, Minnesota, which facilit is proposed to accommodate a 426-unit apartment dev with recreation . building, activities building, cabana building and da center at the following described propert Lot 5 BI ock- 1 9 Map eridge Mal I ; and the east hal f and west half of Lot 1 E. G. Rogers' Garden Lots and Lot 2, except the south 300 feet thereof E. Go Rogers' Garden Lots WHEREAS, the procedural histor of this conditional use permit is as +01 1 ows: im This conditional use permit was reviewed b the Maplewood Planning Commission on November 21, 1988. The Planning Commission recommended to the Cit Council that said permit be 2a The Maplewood Cit Council held a public hearing on 198 Notice thereof was published and mailed pursuant to law. All persons present at said hearing were given an opportunit to be heard and present written state The Council also considered reports and recommendations of the Cit staff a Pl anning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL THAT the above-described conditional use permit is approved for a multi- famil housing planned unit development on the basis of the following findings of fact: in The use is in conformit with the Cit comprehensive plan and with the purpose and standards of this chapter* 28 The establishment or maintenance of the use will not be detrimental to the public health, safet or general welfare. (It wil I W Attachment 17 ' in fact, generate less traffic than tt use for which it is presently guided.) 3. The use would be located, designed, maintained and operated to be compatible with the character of that zoning district. The planned unit development conditional use permit guarantees that development will take place in conformance with the approved plans and attached conditions.) 41 The use would not depreciate property values. (Studies have shown that high-quality multi-family rental apartments do not depreciate adjacent single-family homes. Refer to the memos on pages 42 and 58.) 5. The use would not be haz��dous, d�trimental or disturbing to present and potential, surrounding land uses, due to the noise or general unsightliness. levels will be within acceptable standards established by MPCA. Lighting from parking lot facilities will be shielded and directed downward. Ex�s.ting topography plus proposed berming and landscaping will minimize views fromneighboring residences northwesterly of the site.) 6. The use will generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and shall not create traffic c.ongestion, unsafe access or parking needs - 1-1 w�ll cause undue burden to the area properties. (The majority of traffic produced from the project will exit to White Bear Avenue. Traffic studies at tlhe intersection of Gervais and White Bear Avenues indicate that it will continue to operate at an acceptable level of service one year after completion of the development. There will be no traffic on local streets.) 7. The use will be serviced by essential public services, such as streets, police, fire protection, utilities, schools and parks. (Adequate utilities are availa, the proposed development. School needs are under study by school district to resolve deficiencies.) B. The use would not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and servioes; and would not be detrimental to the welfare of the City. (Th(ere are no requests for tax increment financing assistance or for revenvme bonds. If any public improvements to roadways or sewer facilities are required, the developer will be assessed his fair share.) 98 The use would preserve and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. (Two on-site wetlands are preserved by the development, as well as slope and tree preservation along the northerly perimeter of the site.) 10. Based oh the environmental assessment worksheet prepared for this project, the use would not have the potential for significant edverseenvironmental effects. An environmental impact statement would, therefore, not be required. 70 Approval is subject to the following conditions: i, Adherence to the site plan and conditions approved by the community design review board" Future changes to the site plan-may be approved by the board. 2, All uses shall conform with the R-3 zoning district re 3. Noise levels shall not exceed PCA standards at any residential property linen 4^No' storage of recreational vehicles, boats or Adopted this day of , 198 . Seconded by Ayes-- STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF RAMSEY � SS. CITY OF MAPLEWOOD � I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed clerk of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of the City of Maplewood, held on the day of , 198 , with the original on file in my office, and the same is a full, true and complete transcript insofar as the same relates to a conditional use permit. Witness my hand as such clerk and the corporate seal of the city this day of , 198 ^ City Cl erk Cit of Mapl ewood 71 12.1 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency November 3 0 , 1988 Mr. Geoffrey Olson Planning Director 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 Dear Mr. Olson: Re: Maplewood Multifamily Housing, Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) p y The EAW on the referenced project has been reviewed by staff of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). While the preparation of an environmental impact statement on a project of this magnitude does not appear warranted, we believe that the following water quality concerns should receive further attention concerning the need for additional mitigation of environmental effects, prior to the granting of permits or approvals for the project. A comprehensive plan amendment will be required for the project to change the project site designation from a Limited Service Commercial (LSC) land use to a High-Density Residential (Rh) land use designation. Planned Unit Developments (PuD), which include apartment projects involving more than one building, are conditional uses in the LSC district. Approval of a PUD conditional use permit is being pursued by the developer for the project. The staff i s concerned about the high density of the apartment units being proposed and the correspondingly high percentage (46 percent) of impervious surface associated with the project. our staff recommends a reduction in the unit density f the project prior to City approval including a reduction in • Y a of 25 percent to 35 percent, which is impervious surface area to within a range � p more typical of suburban multifamily or single family residential developments that the MPCA staff has reviewed in the recent past. The staff is also concerned that specific design characteristics for the storm water detention basins are not provided in the EAW. It appears that a substantial freeboard would be required for these basins to meet the projected runoff rates. In addition, it appears that sufficient attention may not have been g iven to water quality protection in the design of the project. For example, we would recommend that storm water not be discharged directly to the Department of Natural. Resources protected water 62 -150, a type 3 wetland. Instead, additional detention capability should be constructed on site to provide greater protection against sedimentation from soil erosion due to construction and attendant water quality impacts. Phone: 520 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 Regional Offices • Duluth /Brainerd /Detroit Lakes /Marshall /Rochester Equal Opportunity Employer Mr. Geoffrey Olson Page Two At page. 18 of the EAW it is stated that basins 3 and 4 are not Minnesota protected waters and, thus, fall within the permitting jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers nationwide permit. This is not .necessarily the case. The EAW should have stated what type'of nationwide permit is required for the project. Please contact Louis Flynn at 612/297 -3364, regarding any MPCA requirement for 401 Certification of the project. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments please contact Marlene Voita of my staff at 612/296 - 72750 Sincerely I y Clifford T. Anderson Director office of Planning and Review CTA /1 V: mf 1 cc: Mr. Gregg Downing, Minnesota Environmental Quality Board Mr, Louis Flynn, MPCA, Division of Water Quality I Maplewood Housing and Redevelopment Authority Minutes 11-15-88 B. Gervais Avenue Apartment Development The developer's attorne summarized this -proposal - I t was explained that no financial assistance would be re from the Cit The project will consist of 426 units (74 one bedroom, 233 two bedroom and 119 three bedroom units) The rents would range +rom $550 to $630- for the one bedroom ' units up to $750 to $830 for the three bedroom un its e The of, recreational - development would also c a variet oriented 'amenities. I Staff pointed out that the project is consistent with the policies in the housing a land use location of multiple -dwelling within the housing policies that state that encourage development that increases housing st amenities and price the communit 9 P I an that govern the the communit and with the city shoal d the diversif y of ranges available within Commissioner*Carlson moved and Commissioner Connelly seconded- that the HRA recommend that council find that the Gervais Avenue housing project is consistent with the City a housing pol icies that encourage a diversity of housing t The proposal also addresses some .of the concerns that have been expressed in the HRA's recent annual reports. % For e%oot amp le, this project would: 1) repla ce the three bedroom rental units' that were lost when the McKenight Townhouse development converted to owner - occupied units a f ew years . a 2) replace some of the planned Rh residential high d ensity acreage that has been designated for other uses in recent y ears 3) provide at I east 74 of the 106 additional housing opportunities needed to comply with the City's 1980 to 1990 modest-cost housing goal and 4) provide some upper-income famil rental units. Olazel Ridge contains some upper income units but Haze F ridge is restricted to older adul t residents.) Motion carried, a .all with Commissioner Schmit abstaining. C. Truth-In-Housing Code Staff es; pla-kined that the Cit Council had ask-ed the HRA to review the meritc; of -Acinntinn ��- Planning �ommission Minutes 11-21-88 from Ramsey to determine if improvements will be ' - Afton Roads intersection needed at the ight �n� L w prior to this p ��ect~s c�st�ction. ' A -Axdahl Ayers Commissioner Avers d yes- , , ' ' Barrett, Cardinal , Dempsey, Fischer, Larson SiqMUndik Commissioner La d Planning Commission recommend an en�&ron enr m . al �-sessment worksheet be done. =n� Commission dahl Ayers , rdinal seconded , - - Barrett Cardinal , D empsey, Fischer, ^� �. � ^ ` arson, Sigmundik B. Gervais Avenue (Maplewood Multifamily Housing) Plan Amendment PUD Secretary Olson presented the staff report, Linda Fischer, representing BBY Partnership, gave a presentation. Also present was Ken Belgard, Harry Yaffe, representatives of BBY Partnership; Scott England and ' senting the architect for the James Cooperman" rePre project; Gene Ernst, representing the landscape architect; Dick Schabert, representing the surveyors and civil engineers; Chuck Rvkirk, representing the traffic engineers; and Ron Peterson, who prepared the environmental assessment worksheet. A commissioner asked if the developer had considered underground parking. Ms. Fischer said that the architect's experience was that garages would meet all needs of the residents. Donald Larson, 2554 Bittersweet Lane, said he didn't believe 3M personne l would be renting units in this ffi i t its rented at compl��x, �s they �lready have su c en units locations which are closer to the 3M offices. Bill Burns, 2527 B'ittersweet Lane, read a signed petition from surrounding property owners ners who are objecting to this project's development, asking that this proposed development not be appr^oved. Joe Zappav 2522 Flan v� drau said this proposed development Planning commission Minutes 11~21-88 . will place t � - many - people in too small an erea. Mr r~~ . �a� � also cited the �etropolitan Council's information r of amltiple housing in some areas, ' regarding over-building �or a - f d~to the findings required Mr �appa� re erre ._ _ ^ ' - -- l d unit development and conditional use permit -for a p anne cited his objections. Judy Burns, 2527 Bittersweet Lane, said she received information from the Metropolitan. Council stating the vacancy rates for the metropolitan area have risen at their highest steadily over the past few years and a re level at present and she indicated this would create problems and a decrease in taxes for Maplewood. vacancy p i t Several other people commun ca e d objections to this development concerning assessments for sewer and roads, flooding in the /a, decrease in property 'values, and additional traffic problems. In response to a question by a commissioner, the applicants explained their plans for buffering or berming on the west side of the site. Commissioner Cardinal moved the Planning Commission recommend: 1 Denial of the resolution which amends the land use ^ plan from LSC to RH, based on the following: ' a, The developer does not consider Mr. Cavanaugh's property to the west. b. The developer has not shown the need for the development of rental property on this sitert would be created on Highway 36. CE Traffic problems d. The developer has not shown a phasing plan for the gradual development of the property. Commissioner Dempsey seconded Ayes--Axdahl , Cardinal , Dempsey, Barrett Nays--Ayers Abstentions Sigmundik Commissioner Cardinal moved the Planning Commission rec ommend denial of the resolution which approves a Planning Commission Minutes' 11-21-88 . conditional use permit +or one year for this project, based on the reasons . or the denial of the plan amendment, � �wd�hl Cardinal Commissioner Dempsey seconded Ayes-� , , ' Dempsey v Larson, Sigmundik, Barrett Nays-Ayers Commissioner Fischer had to leave during the discussion and did not vote. VI. VISIT R PRESENTATIONS ' VII. CunnuwI VIII. NEW BuSI A, Street and Al I e Vacations: Walter Street Associate Pla ner Randall Johnson esented the staff report said the would ike to have t - vacation documents filed as soon as possible n order to .11 the property. Director Of Publ ic Works �---.en ider repl d that the drivewa to 1096 Frost done a Commissioner A mo ed the Planning Commission recommend: is Approval of the r olution to vacate Wa lter Street between Frost and Fenton A nues. Approval is on the basis that: a. The st''== is n t needed for area traffic b. C s� _ y stree access to 1- 6 Frost Avenue would re part* ipation in th costs and, therefore, Would not b eme genc vehicle acc ss can be guaranteed over an =^ i st i ng dr .,e,,_,` � dwelling b | before Maplewood was ' ed. The driveway accesses have been used --- +oithout p ` -\safety incident over the yearss Community Design Review Board -4 - Minutes 11-29-88 h property li from the -' Cub Foods fro t of the site to the west line of e � / ings ' the south side e �outherl� in g b~ on� = ,' ^`' , -�-_-- - 0 feet east of truck m�,trance for a distance of ' � the fron(t lot line. 13. All green areas shall be sodd , except for those areas behind,Cu Foods and east o the site which shall be sod or.seeds 192 All required -- and properly maint ined. 20. Al I re p ant ma rials that die shall be replaced b the owne wit.. n one y ear. 21 p< +\ r zzeo �� .9. %- i n g S.'-qns shall be provide ar that is disturbed due to this J_ All public boul odded. ion s cons -rLkC:t hall res red and res .2.3. The dock are on the s uth side of the building shall be screened from Rice tree'%-. in a manner accPptable to the Review Bo rd. a form accept bl e to staff in the amount of 150% of the estimated co t.o+ an site i vements that are not complete R eview ^p '-' - ' ' permits 26n Al uel pumps shall be toward he rear of the site. Board. Member Anitzberger seconded all Be Plan Review - Maplewood Housing Apa tments Gervais Avenue Linda Fischer, representing BBY Partnership, said the applicant was in agreement with al of the conditions of the staff recommendation. Ms. Fischer did atsk +or clarification on the recommendations concerning the public trail easement and the bus stop and shelter. Board Member` Deans moved approval of pl �n� date-stamped ed N o vem ber 18, 1988, subject to the following conditions: Community Desi1@n Review Board _5- _ Minutes 11-29-88 . 1. Approval of ax conditional use permit and a land use plan amendment by the City - Council . 2. All trash dumpsters shall be in screening enclosures with a 100% opaque wooden gate and shall be a color and material compatible with the buildings Enclosures shall be protected by concrete-filled steel po sts , or the equivalent, anchored in the ground at the --- ' the structure. front corners o+ e ru . If the enclosure is masonry, the protective posts may be omitted. The design and appearance of these enclosures shall .,be subject to staff approval. 3, Any exterior building or roof-top equipment shall be � decoratively screened and hidden from view. ' A. An erosion control plan, acceptable to the City Engineer, shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a » grading permit for erosion control during construction. - 5. Parking areas 'all be striped and all bituminous areas shall have continuous concrete curbing. Parking ` lots shall be kept in a continual state of repair. 6. If construction has not begun within 18 months o' approval, board review shall be repeated. 7. Site security lighting shall be provided and shall be directed or shielded so not to cause any undue glare onto adjacent properties or roadways. 8~ If any adjacent property is disturbed or property irons removed due to construction of the site, that property shall be restored and irons replaced by the applicant. 9. The landscape plan shall be revised as follows: a. The area from the north end of the day care building's play yard fence to the midpoint of the r. *, garage shall be planted heavily with evergreen trees. b. All development landscaping shall have an underground lawn sprinkling s provided. c^ Existing trees at the north end of the site shall b' protected during construction by snow fenc1ng. 10. Prior to obtaining a building permit, the applicant Community Design Review Board '6- Minutes 11-29-88 . shall verify in writing that at least one percent of the construction cost will be spent on the planting of trees. 11. Prior to obtaining a building permit the applicant shall provide staff with a tentative schedule for the construction or installation of all common-ground amen (landscaping, play areas, pathways, recreational buildings, etc.) so there will be a clear understanding as to when completion is expected. All screening along the north and west lot lines shall be - completed within the first year of construction. 12. All required landscapeareas shall be continually and properly maintained. ^ 13. All reqUired ' materials that die s hall be replaced by the owner within one year. 14. Reflectorized stop signs shall be provided at the exits. Handicap parking signs shall be provided at all handicap spaces. The Director of Public Safety shall approve interna7 directional and traffic safety signs within this development. 15. All public boulevard that is disturbed due to this construction shall be restored and resodded. 16 Final grading, drainage and utility plans shall be approved b the City Engineer prior to issuing as building permit. 17. Sanitary sewer service for the project shall be provided by a pump station discharging to Manhole 22 in District 27 at the southwest corner of the site. The pump station will be built and maintained by the developer. I.S. The developer shall construct a two-inch-thick bituminous overlay on Gervais Avenue from Kennard to Hazelwood. Construction to be coordinated with the City Engineer. 19. Internal paths for the western group of apartment buildings, as well as an internal hard surface pathway s)/stem fOr Buildings 7 B, 9 and 10 shall be con��tructed within one of 70% occupancy. Cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit representing 150% of project cost for the pathways shall be submitted to the City, prior to issuance of the first building permit' 20, The s.ite plan shall be revised to provide. at least Community Design Review Board Minutes 11-29-88 feet of separation between apartment buildings and 1�� ee o sz*para �n � � parking spaces. 21. Identific � ion signage is not part of this approval. Sign p f rop��als shall be approved by st�f, unless Design Review Board or City Council approval is required. 22. The bituminous trail along Gervais Avenue shall be placed within the right-of-way to allow publ ic use of this trail f rom the westerly Rainbow Foods driveway to the applicant's westerly lot line. This pedestrian-way shall be constructed so that it blends into all driveway grades. _ 23. A public trail easement shall be provided between ~ the north property corner of the site to the open space and to Gervais Avenue , subject to staff approval, 24. All utilities, such as outdoor meters ,^shall be screene from eye-level view. 25. A paved bus stop and shelter shall be provided along Gervais Avenue. The design, location and identification signage of this bus stop shall be subject to staff approval app ^ 26. The minimum habitable floor area for each dwelling shall meet the requirements as stipulated by Ordinance Subsection 36-122 (b). 27. Each unit shall have 120 cubic feet of miscellaneous storage space provided, in addition to normal closet space. 28. A six-foot-tall , 807. opaque, decorative wood fence shall be installed a1ong the west side of the playground area north of the day care building. ' 29. The applicant shall provide a monetary guarantee, in a form acceptable to staff, in the amount of 150% of the estimated cost of any site improvements that are not completed by occupancy. 30. Brick will be added to all apartment buildings at the rear elevation at one central section, subject to review and approval by staff. Board Member Erickson seconded Ayes--all MEMORANDUM TO: - City Mana FROM: Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) LOCATION: Gervais Avenue APPLICANT: BBY Partnership OWNERS: Estate of H. Stanley Wessin PROJECT: Maplewood Housing DATE: December 16, 1988 SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The applicant is requesting approval of a comprehensive plan amendment from LSC, limited service commercial to RH, residential high density and a conditional use permit for a planned unit development. Reason for the Re g _UeS?t The developer would like to build an apartment project. The site is zoned LBC limited business commercial. This district is limited to office and day care centers. Rather than apply for a rezoning, the developer is applying for a PUD~ Multi-family PUD's may be approved in any zoning district by conditional use permit (CUP). A CUP for a PUD is only for a specific use and site plan, whereas a rezoning to R-3 multiple dwelling would allow a variety of multiple-dwelling uses and plans. A plan amendment is needed for two reasons: 1^ Section 473.865 Subdivision 2 of State Statutes states that "a local governmental unit shall not adopt any official control or fiscal device which is in conflict with its comprehensive plan. . all 2. One of the findings required by City Code for approval of a conditional use permit is that "the use is in conformity with the City's comprehensive plan. . .^ Since this site is designated for LSC use and apartments are not included, a plan amendment is needed, Descr-i tion of the Project The PUD consists of 426 apartment units-'74 one-bedroom units, 233 two -bedroom units and 1:9 three-bedroom units. There would be twelve three-story buildings, 25 garages, a one-story recreation building, cabana and day care*center. A variety of Active and passive recreational facilities, trailsand open spaces would be provided. An on-site private trail system will connect with future trails to Harvest Park to the west and M*apleridge Mall to the ea$t. The proposal will not infringe on wetland basins located in the northeast quadrant of the /mite, except for an elevated boa rdwalk along the margin of the wetland. An additional excavatedponding area will be provided on the site. BACKGROUND Th site was planned for high density residential use from at Yeast 1969 until 1983. The following is a brief history of i 1 f this it prev ous proposals or s s e and City actions: DATE REQUEST ACTION 1977 LeCon Properties requested �� on Planning Commission prel approval for approved. Project was mixed PUD including 350 dropped before the City multi-family housing units. Council considered it. 1982 concept Approval for Wood_ City Council approved mark, Inc. to construct the concepts apartments for elderly housing. (This project was later dropped.) 1983 City initiated rezoning of Planning Commission site from LBC to R-3 to recommended approval, bring zoning ordinance into but City Council denied compliance with the compre- it. There was strong hensive plan. neighborhood opposition. Council then amended the plan to LSC. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL There are no specific criteria for a plan amendment decision, Any change in the land use plan should be consistent with the goals, policies and objectives in the City's comprehensive plan. Section 36-442 (b) of City Code requires that approval of a conditional use permit shall be based upon ten findings. (Refer to the findings in the resolution on page 69.) EIISCUSSION This project presents a difficult decision because of the strong neighborhood opposition. Staff feels that this project would be � at least as good as an office development a*nd would be better in terms of traffic generation. The project is consistent with the City's comprehensive plan policies, the historical designation o+ 'this site for high density residential, and-the findings in . the City Code for a conditional use permit. The site is well suited for apartments--it is located on a major collector street, close to a major arterial , church, park and shopping, and would be buffered from adjacent homes by landscaping and typography. The* proposed rent . s, recreational facilities, tenant amenities and interior design indicate that this project is aimed at middle- income singles and families. Rents would range from $550 to $830. RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve the resolution on page 67, which amends the land use plan from LSC to RH. Approval is based on the following findings: a. This site is well-suited for apartment use and is consistent with the City's policies for the location of high density residential: (1) This site would be a transitional land use between low density residential and commercial /industrial uses, (2) It would be compatible with City policy to preserve the site's significant natural +eatures.n (3) It is located adjacent to a collector street, church and shopping, and is within walking distance of Four Seasons Park. b. The City's Housing and Redevelopment Authority has found this project is consistent with the City's housing policies that encourage a diversity of housing types. The proposal also address*es some of the concerns that have been expressed in the HRA's recent annua1 reports. For example, this project would: (1) replace the three-bedroom rental units that were lost when the McKnight Townhouse development converted to owner-occupied units s few years ago, (2) replace some of the planned RH, Residential High Density acreage that has been designated for other uses in recent years, (3) provide at least 74 of the 106 additional housing opportunities needed to comply with the City's 1980 to 1990 modest-cost housing goal and (4) provide some upper-income family rental units. c. This project would have no adverse effect on surrounding properties: (1) The apartments wOUldbe screened and bu+feredfrom the single-family homesto the northwest by steep slopes, and existing and proposed vegetationn 3 - (2)` Studies show 'tha there will be no adverse effect on property 'valLies attributable to this proJect. (3) There would be no traffic from this project through residential streets d.A400,'square office development, which is allowed under the existing zoning and land use plan for the site, would g . enerate two to three times more traffic during the P.M. peak hour and about 65 percent more average daily traffic than the proposed multi-family housing development. This would create congestion with the turning lanes at White Bear Avenue and Gervais Avenue. e. This site was designated for RH use from 1973-19838 The Planning Commission recommended approval of a 350-unit apartment project in 1977 and the City Council gave concept approval to an elderly housing project in 1983. 2. Approve the resolution on page 69 which approves a conditional use permit for one year for this project. Approval is on the basis that this project would meet the ten findings for a conditional use permit. (Refer to the resolution for specific findings.) Approval is subject to the following conditions: an Adherence to the site plan and conditions approved by the Community Design Review Board. Future changes to the site plan may be approved by the board. b. All uses shall conform with the R-3 zoning district requirements. c. Noise levels shall not exceed PCA standards at any residential property line. d~ No outdoor storage of recreational vehicles, boats or trailers. 4 CITIZEN COMMENTS Neighborhood surveys mailed to the 30 owners of propertiems within 350 Feet of the proposed development. Of the 22 returned, four were in favor of the request (these included Mapleridge Mall, the property owner and nearby church), 17 were in opposition and one had no comment. Those in favor made the following comments: . 1" Prefer housing , instead of business. 2^ Seems to be a well thought Out proposal and an appropriate land use for the site. A summary of comments of those in opposition are as follows: � 1. There is a glut of apartment rental units; no need of massing housing here. ' 2. Too many resident and too many buildings for such a small area. ' - - 3. Problems with overcrowded schools, traffic congestion on Gervais and White Bear Avenue and surrounding streets. 4. Increase in crime, noise at all hours of the night with people coming and going constantly. 5. The large scope of the development is absurd. The neighborhood clearly expressed its wishes and opinions in 1983. 6, People financing apartment complex may not be the owners in five years, what guarantees do we have? 7. LSC provides a tax base without any of the accompanying pressures� put on social services. Businessmen are good neighbors, we cann�t guarantee the same for apartment dwellers. 8. Proximity of proposed walking/jogging trails to Bittersweet would promote additional auto traffic on Bittersweet by nonresidents of neighborhood using trails, 90 Rents could become subsidized and lower-income families move in and depreciate our house values and increase the number of children in the complewx. 10. Lighting glare from the project will effect us. 11. It will take three years to construct the project and do landscaping. It is too long e« time to be inconvenienced by bulldozers and noise. 12. Steel siding and asphalt shingles, exterior should be brick and cedar shingles to go with the natural area. ` 5 13_ Traff ic counts-. parking spaces available but generating 153 p.m. peak trips? 14, Would like to see single-fami1y housing, 1ight industrial office building or 200-unit housing_development. Several sample letters of opposition are attached on pages 80 through 66w � REFERENCE SITE DESCRIPTION The subject property has 31 acres with approximately 1 feet of frontage along Gervais Avenue and an average depth of about 1 feet. The subject property is undeveloped and contains four wetland basins, two of which are significant in size, one m*+ the basins is a protected wetland and is located in the extreme north-central portion of the site. The other large wetland basin is a City storawaterpond and is found in the east- central quadrant of the site. Steep slopes exist in the northwest and northeast corners of the site. VEGETATION Trees and brush are found in the northwest corner of the site and extend into the adjacent property. Mature trees consisting of 6-8 inch oaks, 12-inch ash, 12-inch maples, and cottonwoods are found on the northwest to north-central quadrant of the site. There are also small nodes of insignificant trees scattered throughout the site. A variety of "scrub" trees such 'as b xelders and poplars are found in the north-central portion of the site and some very large cottonwoods are found along the southwest property line. SURROUNDING LAND USE Immediately to the east of the subject property is Mapl e*ridge Mall which is anchored by a Rainbow Foods Store. To the north is Ramsey County open space, which consists primarily of protected wetlands. There is a single-family residential neighborhood to the northwest and immediately to the west of the site is an undeve1oped parcel of land which is zoned residential . Adjacent lands on the southwest corner of the site contain single-family residences. Further west lies a single-family residential neighborhood and Four Seasons Park. Land south of the property across Gervais Avenue is primarily commercial and industrials PAST ACTIONS This site was rezoned from SC, shopping center to LBC in 1969. The LBC zone at that time allowed apartments. In 1973, the City adopted its first comprehensive plan and designated this site for RH, high density ,residential use. InAuguSt1977,a request was made by LeCon Properties for approval of a mixed PUD including 350 multi-family housing units. The Planning Commission approved the preliminary concept plan but the project was never tonsidered b the Cit Council. In September 1982, the City Council gave concept approval to Woodmark Inc. to construct apartments for elderl housings 7 (This project wa's 1ater dropped.) Since 1982, no other specific proposals for multi-family housing on the site have been considered by the P]anniog Commission or City Council. In April 1983, the City initiated a rezoning of the site from LBC bring the i di into to R-� to r ng e zon ng ordinance n o compliance with the comprehensive plan* The Planning Commission recommended approval of the R-3 zoning, but when R-3 zoning of the site was considered by the City Council , neighbors expressed concern regarding the possible extension of their streets through the site bringing multi-family housing traffic through their neighborhood, They were also disturbed that subs'dized housing on the site could be a possibility since there were no specific development plans. In response to residents' concerns , the City Council denied the rezoning and appr/ved a comprehensive plan amendment from RH to L8C. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Densit Allowed density = 34.0 people/net acre Project density = 33.8 people/net acre (assumes a bonus for providing 1% of the construction cost in trees) Land Use Policies The proposed project is in compliance with the comprehensive plan's housing balance and mix policies For the following reasons: 1. The comprehensive plan states: "The City shall encourage transitional land use with medium and higher-density residential development located between low-density residential and commercial or service land uses." The proposed site serves as a transition between the commercial /business warehouse laod use to the east and south, and the low-density residential areas to the north and west* 2. In Section 74-2 "The City shall utilize the following policies: "Ensure residential development which is compatible with features of the natural environment, axnd accommodate development without destroying environmental features and natural amenities"" The proposed project preserv'es natural features such as wetlands and tree preservat.ion to the north and northwestO � 3a In Section 74-5 comprehensive plan policy shouldig N "Accomplish transition between distinctly different types of residential land uses in an orderly fashion to avoid creating a negative (economic, social or . physical) impact on adjoining developments." Conflicts are minimized between single-family residences to the north and west and proposed multi-family housing to the south because of changes in site topography, preservation of natural vegetation and the'proponent's own proposal for additional berming, screening and buf+ering. 4. In Section 74-12, "High-density residential areas should be located adjacent to or in close proximity to collectors and ' arterials." The site is located in close proximity to major thoroughfares (White Bear Avenue and Highway 36) and Gervais Avenue is designated a major collector in the Comprehensive Plan. 5. The project is also in compliance with residential development design objectives in the comprehensive plan. "Pedestrian ways should he planned and developed to connect homes with schools and open space." The proposed site plan provides trail linkage with Four Seasons Park to the west and Mapleridge Mall to the east.8 There are two criteria for evaluating a project against the City's housing goals--affordability and diversity. Affordability: 1. The housing plan calls for the provision of 620 new housing units to be made available to low-to-moderate income households b etween 1980 and 1990. Low-to-moderate income is defined as affordable for households that earn 80 percent or less of the area median income. In 1988, the area median income for a family of four is $40,700. As of October 31, 1988, 888 new low- to-moderate income housing units had been made available in Maplewood" The excess of 268 units has been applied to the City's modest cost housing goal that is described below. 2^ The housing plan also calls for the provision o+ 785 new housing units to be made available to modsst_incomehouseholds between 1980 and 19908 Modest income is defined as a+fordable +'or households that earn 110 percent or less of the area median income. As of October 31, 1988, 411 new modest-cost units were �11 made available. These units, together with the. 268 excess low- to-moderate income units, leaves 106 additional modest-cost units to be provided by 1990. This project would provide at 1east 74 ' modest-cost units. Housing Diversity: The Housing goals and objectives in the comprehensive plan state: 1. "The City should continue to encourage and plan for a wide variety of housing types." The Proposed project provides a mlx of 1-, 2- and 3-bedroom units as well as a variety of types of units. 2. "The City should continue to use planning principles for housing areas which encourage planned and developed open space... conveniently located to schools land shops." After completion of the proposed development approximately 60 percent of the site will consist of open space, landscaped areas or recreational amenities. It is well served by the adjacent Mapleridge Mall and is two miles from Maplewood Mall . ` These goals should be accompanied by a policy of planning for a certain percentage of the City's housing stock to be something other than single dwellings.. In 1985, the Metropolitan Council adopted a goal that called for each metro area community to plan for about 41 percent of its housing units to be something other than single dwellings. At the end of 1987, 38.2 percent of Maplewood's housing units were nonsingle dwellings. If the City were to be fully developed under its present land use plan, about 44 percent of the City's housing units would be something other than single dwellings. The prem1ses for this policy is that the long-term stability of the community's tax base depends, in large part, upon its ability to r e n attact a�d rtai residents of all ages. To do so, a diversity of housing styles must be available to accommodate households in each stage of the life cycle of housing needs. The HRA met on November 15 and came to the following conclusion: The Gervais Avenue housing project is consistent with the City housing policies that encourage a diversity of housing types. The proposal also addresses some of the concerns that have been expressed in the HRA's recent annual reports. For example, this project would: (1) replace the three-bedroom rental units that were lost when the McKnight Townhouse development converted to owner-occupied units a few years /ago, (2) replace some of the planned RH, residential high density acreage that has been designated for other uses in recent years, (3) provide at least 74 of the 106 additional housing opportunities needed to comply with the City's 1980 to 1990 modest-cost housing goal and (4) provide some upper-income family rental units. (Hazel Ridge contains some upper income units but Hazel Ridge is restricted to 10 U *' adult residents.) Park in q There are 975 parking tpaces provided in garages and surface parking lots. 852 spaces are required by ordinance. 426 spaces are located in parking garages and 549 spaces located in surface parking areas. There would be 123 more surface parking spaces than code requires. Traffic and Access Access for the development will occur at three locations from °~ Gervais Avenue. Gervais Avenue is a major collector in the ^ comprehensive plan. According to the proponent, the proposed 426-unit development will generate 153 trips in the p.m. peak hour and 1,785 average daily trips. A trip generation rate of 4.1 (ITE Manual) was applied. Staff believes the trip generation rate will be closer to 6.1 (ITE Manual). Statistically, this is a more accurate measure of probable trip generation rates for apartments in a suburban area. Nevertheless, proposed development are significantly less t| peak hour trips and 3,880 average daily trips generated by an office development at maximum on the subject siten figures for the ian the 620 p.m . which would be allowable density While some project traffic will pass through the residential neighborhood to the west, the bulk of traffic will use White Bear Avenue, due to the configuration of the Hazelwood Avenue and Highway 36 intersection. It appears that there will be no significant increase in congestion at the corner of Gervais and White Bear Avenues. The proponent's traffic study indicates that the intersection will continue to operate at an acceptable level of service after one year of full development of the project. mb/bbypart.mem 1. Land Use Plan 2. Zoning/Property Line Map 3. Site Plan 4-8. Section Views 9. Typical Elevation 10. Applicant's Letter 11. Applicant's memo on property values 12. Memo: The effect of Multiple Dwellings on AdjacL*nt Single- dwelling Home Values 13-15. Opposition letters 16. Plan Amendment Resolution 17. CUP Resolution 18. EAW (separate attachment) 19. Plans (separate attachment) 11 • , Interchange Vadnals Heigh ; 1 �� v • �--�r� n;:4 " C w a t Co u � •. W O • dW C • major collector Q" d C i . -• �- to lo • o. a. ,i s c • •. M C \ :? n. ar BW i 1 �� v • �--�r� n;:4 " C w a t Co u � •. W O • dW C • o u u C ... - O • u 0 7 E • s • m • 1 ` rrtijtt o r � a BSc M . , os • OS • t RL. ao� Ls a go 1 �= i HAZELWOOD 4 LAND USE PLAN Attachment 1 N 12 Interchange MEZ • ma jor s r aft saw us �� It stogy •.•, r •_. ' ` , •— •E�et�ttrr --�l3 �—c- — r—:a�r • T "",9 � 0U � � � •5.5 : V . 10 Pif AL Ift _ • . 1 ' ' e h 1 �Oy ,t•' .,. j�1r1� 1 `.s_�t� . • INS IN S r�w , , .a+y •1 1 '� = 1 a• • A•� K 1 t do "; 3 �. 1 ►+... (• ♦� •a1t t, 1 11 / i 1 4 f t r w a! •. • t`sti1L t a` B i ; ° dE b .• lir.,.• •r •1 • .• '� •: h1 � 1 - � .. +• ... t • aac � It _ (u) _ • — . (• 11 I • of. J•. _ e T M 1 W4 f .• • v rim Id V C•Y • •1 ar \ • • 1 - / •. •.. • Wr 1/}• , • �1! f �V) i r rl �. ��1 1 • ' �1 » • • . y �� �'.�• • _ . � • x.n P �! Jet a 1AV )IN 040-0 0 an . ( x.1 as p•t s ` o • �• •� •.•"..� two r BC - �.� � 1 . n t TI \ / $ 1� a... • IM = 0u� ► O : ^ ♦ l'. t 1 = . r (V ' 1. >;' •. •'► • ..1tSL� 1' � 1`\ 1r. .. So ow. l.r 1 •• US (at IND. 1110 ' �j • w tom' od !�►1 •� - Ill N !b 1: l \ U . ro . ; -. • CIP84 SPACE w . t t•1(r ! r r 011 I .:.; _ • 1 • s 00 • 1. ••+1 ` i I o1 w r A W N t11 " 1 'S.. ••i�f r ri. ``• N: I • . 1 - I 1-0421 AID • 1 1 1 • 'I ' �,U '+ ' � Mr • s IW K ` ♦ t �11�•l♦1� �/ �q \ - • RI ld _ AIR i . •• - - y .c r (� •� .. Q' :,3, of _ _ t . 1 W 04 Loon - 111! • :'. `• • -.. , ; '11 111 1 3 1 111111 - ` � 1 t s 1 r �• � ll � r � � :I •rs...r�r�•,••r • 1 S. 1. /•� (•t ........ /.r .. LB O •• •l.i).r C, a � , " r • \l.)1 • • wr r•+•w p... .� • � � � ��• � j: �• 11 I��Ali /1111 1l�U11 1 • � 1 t1f (.� � • � � � � O - Q I., on .11 •t . I •ou LBC I C. f481 V ' • • ` • ~ M • 4 i = •• `. {�/11/1111111i111�1 111, , • EL .. • E VENT H 1 •. j t1 /1111111111/111tIILUU1t NCO— OWN got top ssa.. r =� - • air'_"-" - - r . s • � ;� Y w 1 t • Wl f Ot► yl hat wt 1)•) • ; Y AIR • - �'� r . o A � _ v r V - O - .__._. 4 1U iiitiiiT '� : 1: • e . a • , ` Q t - J� ('1 • : , .... SECn9t�i � EY MA . _ ' & ,ro,RH L•1 w �, !- �- R1 • '��' 1 •L BC -• MAPt 00,15 . SING .. as .I r tl V 1 = E •'' E� a - �a�n+ 1■•r�r •.� •) ��� % �•0,- // • 1 11 111111 / 111111111 t ,( 111 /1 /rr�111ii11itiRiltll•111f)_ rtrii111t111j ti11111/1 11/ 1/ 11 1111//11/1111i11it.TT1111ilT17 11111iIU 01111 /111111��s1a��ERVAJS�0 IT --•- - . _,� l.ttttl�.� _ _ _� - ���� •J .•4 T"�•'f�• �= .• � . ` ���'r'�...� -��' �'S :t .L. ♦� ; • I•rvL�J •/ �• • - j . ' r • ;• •.• •` - •f (• • � • � 1 (� � 1 I �I,F:: `:,••:.•� �;,• f .I I •'....•. f�1 •• �_is.Q /t1• d �r 1 - - 4 ' S o . K ••. .• qty • i i • t ! �.••- 7 f •�1 • •• ` s r •' �• • • •' � •• 1•` �nAN1T MAJ ' • •� � J.• 1'•. /'.�►t.° : ' : ' �I•�:.. ate. -�..1 J _ — _ 'Z • I• • • •:. � •.• • . � •r �. ••. `i• i - •• I � •. mow w � • � � •• � ,•.� :. • � i • • • • 1 . • •• Section Views through AA, BB, Zoning Key CC. DD and EE are shown on R -1 =Single Family Attachments 4 -8 F =Farm Residential LBC�— Limited Business Commercial BC =Business Commercial PROPERTY LINE" / ZONING MAP • 13 Attachment 2 N I _ _ �• _ a r. ..�_ � . ,�,, � ,a,.� , • . �AZ�I►�� � . ��w �.r �'-�` -' } is �il�ri����w�rr�Ir # . . �• �- �. ..• r/ ...��. s � •• � • r . , ... � � � , �`c,.� . t � '•• ` � � ` . -"►+r� '° \;�Jii.�1.� �' • �� • t •♦ •. i•La � � L r. ! 7� ` i F .� .� � � .. ` i ��• . , , � ��t 7 � � � � I��� •� � � ts; �� � ' - . _ Q this t � ` � � � � • �:'`J �• , ; ` �� �• :_ e ti :, a ,�' .fir' �' , • � � . � � � , t��•'� �' ��• �� ' ` / � ��`.� - a v � � ��� -• r, Sir � �• . �° �� - �'` ,. .. � �. ! ' • � • � � •-� f ' . ^ : t . • /'' ^) �; , � '� � � � 4 ,� , Jam, ; ; ✓,. .. fir ,� y f rJ _ �' ' t A �� � /� ` �' .. �., � . � '• � G � � - -�r► i�,�._ ♦ ems' � ��, � ' -♦ :' �- u �► �';- ■ ;�, ., .. a � rye •�� .- c r �� r . .,, rrrrr�s sr�r • ... • . -- rrrrir�■r rr�r � rrrrwww rirr .. _ .:. ... •« i G7CSCS© 4 D S r.rrr.....r� ��... r � irrr�aar� r�rr � �r�r��r��r� � r��rr� � � rr���rrrr� � wo� MAPLEWOOD HOUSING C+ C+ sy n - (D - c+ rO MAM I : i iii Ll L: id It il 1. -IJ.- : - -': i, I - L -!! C+ C+ (D "I C+ My SEC"Wl WW"W MAPLEWOOD HOUSING.- ul s v � w iea t c'+ SECTION C-C c+ vRr+�r MAPLEWOOD HOUSING �® �- an of m C T LLIA _II:IILII_-il.:; i I d i�M �fl'I�t1llT 7 ris+rr D C a c+ SEC710H wr -rte MAPLEWOOD HOUSING ®® a" of mwotsw000m .�so�. .�••.. so%Wft ambsoft" 2" *AWN" an_ ; MrA&I.t - - .0 Oi SEC710H wr -rte MAPLEWOOD HOUSING ®® a" of mwotsw000m .�so�. .�••.. so%Wft ambsoft" 2" *AWN" an_ ; LO Y. C* co - -- /OOPOS O DAt CAA[- - - all, 1N TO wAmot x • 1 •••+ I �� • 4w • • ��� top �•i • r Y • .w W COW wwwom o . r oa w.w It /ll • 1 i f • - 2=1 RAW DOE At 1132 ONWAS SECTION E-E • /r-r-4r MAPLEWO GID CITY OF MAPLE C*% soT viais� D C+ C+ n (D C1" T0; N 0 -C H n D r m r m C D H C) Z ew. wwnom W, KNIT butiAMl. Cry►i �) 40AA.a, l w rte: Sutb Ld OA&TUAW&AA mow ALA- 44=1% 9W APAA2"& ' bV<JX%ej CL►4ti A OL • AMN1 -T 464"&CLA* T ap"414ap mo t. FMiM Vt&p11 MIFIAL. 41016` _ I ti r i ml ID W.Z � ML C+.1�1oMGL — ID ID M ED TR&PW4.40 -&TAL- C�•+Gty! �:. END tJ.& /ATIDMJ rltC+►�T e�E VI.TION s4 UNrT D1.11L 'Dt" Cry ��� UNIT boo.DI AG cry 4C.04a Va a f E