Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
09/21/2004
AGENDA MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Tuesday, September 21, 2004 6:00 P.M. Council Chambers -Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road B East 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of the August 24, 2004, Minutes 5. Design Review: a. Summerhill of Maplewood (Senior Cooperative Building) - 935 Ferndale Street (Transfiguration School Site) b. Ramsey County Suburban Courthouse - 2050 White Bear Avenue 6. Visitor Presentations: None Scheduled 7. Board Presentations: a. September 13, 2004, City Council Meeting -Cottages at Legacy Village 8. Staff Presentations: a. Community Design Review Board Representation at the September 27, 2004, City Council Meeting (Summerhill of Maplewood and Ramsey County Courthouse) b. Cancellation of the September 28, 2004, Community Design Review Board Meeting c. Gladstone Strategic Planning Update 9. Adjourn DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, AUGUST 24, 2004 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Longrie-Kline called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. II. ROLL CALL IV. Chairperson Diana Longrie-Kline Present Vice Chairperson Ledvina Present Board member Judy Driscoll Present Board member Linda Olson Present Board member Ananth Shankar Present Staff Present APPROVAL OF AGENDA Shann Finwall, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary Board member Shankar moved to approve the agenda. Board member Longrie-Kline seconded. Ayes -Driscoll, Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for July 27, 2004. Board member Driscoll moved approval of the minutes of July 27, 2004. Board member Ledvina seconded. Ayes --- Driscoll, Ledvina, Olson, Shankar Abstention -Longrie-Kline V. VI. The motion passed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. DESIGN REVIEW a. Maplewood Cancer Center -1580 Beam Avenue Ms. Finwall said Minnesota Oncology Hematology is proposing an addition to the Maplewood Cancer Center located at 1580 Beam Avenue. Ms. Finwall said this project includes a 7,952- square-foot addition off the back (south) side of their building. Community Design Review Board 2 Minutes 8-24-2004 Ms. Finwall said the addition is proposed to house radiation equipment currently being leased by the cancer center and operated out of a temporary trailer that is currently parked in the back parking lot three days per week. City staff recommends approval of the design review for the Maplewood Cancer Center with conditions. Board member Ledvina noticed on the site plan that the cancer center is removing half of the bituminous on the drive access adjacent to the construction and asked if that was to provide enough room to build? Ms. Finwall said the applicant could address that when they came forward to speak. Board member Olson said on sheet E2 of the lighting plan it shows the adjacent property owners' light fixtures on the median in between the two parking lots. She asked what those light fixtures looked like, the height of the fixtures, and if they were similar to the existing light fixtures proposed for relocation? Ms. Finwall said that those lights were approved with the Markham Pond Medical Office Building and the light pole is basically the same except that it is 25 feet tall. Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Jim Jordan, Architect, Jordan Architects, One West Water Street, Suite 280, St. Paul, addressed the board. The reason they are removing the bituminous surface along the driveway is to extend the storm sewer system along the addition, which is shown on the utility plan. Board member Shankar asked if the two entrances from Beam Avenue were both to enter and exit or was it a one-way circulation? Mr. Jordan said those two entrances are both in and out with a right turn only. Board member Ledvina asked how tall the chillers would be? Mr. Jordan said the height of the chillers are roughly four foot square, there is one existing chiller that they will relocate and they will be adding a new chiller. Board member Ledvina said he noticed the building comes very close to the driveway and asked if the cancer center sees that as a concern with snow removal? Mr. Jordan said they don't see that as an issue here. Board member Ledvina said the southwest corner of the wall that faces west has no windows on it. He asked what the design rationale was for excluding the windows on that southwest corner? Mr. Jordan said that's a large x-ray room and the reason there are no windows there is for shielding purposes. Board member Ledvina said the exclusion of windows is a "use" issue then? Community Design Review Board 3 Minutes 8-24-2004 Mr. Jordan said correct. Chairperson Longrie-Kline said staff has recommended that the rooftop units be screened; she asked how they propose to screen them? Mr. Jordan said they don't have a plan yet but will look at painting the units. Board member Shankar asked if the four handicapped stalls shown on the north side were existing spaces? Mr. Jordan said yes. Board member Shankar asked if the 3 three new stalls on the south side were close to the entrance of the building? Mr. Jordan said they aren't near an entrance but are near a walkway. Board member Shankar asked if those spaces were for employee or patient parking? Mr. Jordan said that area is for employee parking. Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked if they had any alternative landscaping recommendations because of the staff recommendation not to use amur maple trees? Mr. Jordan said they would meet with the landscape architect and change that to another type of ornamental tree. Ms. Finwall mentioned somebody else in the audience wanted to speak regarding this proposal. Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked them to address the board. Ms. Pat Wolf, representing Commercial Real Estate Services, the property management firm that manages the adjacent property immediately west of the site, addressed the board. She is here tonight representing the owner of that property. The proposed addition of the original building faces west. They are not in opposition of the addition but they have had an ongoing problem with the landscaping that adjoins their two properties on the west side. The problem is there is a grade change where the cancer center driveway is and their land. The landscaping is nothing but a weed patch in that location. They have been working with the cancer center to resolve the problem and the cancer center planted some wildflowers there but it's nothing but a large overgrown weed patch and is unsightly. This situation is unacceptable and the client she represents wants to go on the record stating their opposition of this addition as long as the landscaped area is kept unsightly. Chairperson Longrie-Kline thanked the representative for bringing this issue to the CDRB's attention. Ms. Finwall showed the board some photos of the unsightly landscaped area between the cancer center property and the property to the west. Community Design Review Board 4 Minutes 8-24-2004 Mr. Jordan said the area is basically wild growth on a steep hill. Board member Olson asked if they would be willing to add this to the landscape plan and work with the city and the representative to correct this problem? Mr. Jordan said that would be a question for the owner of the cancer center. A representative of the Maplewood Cancer Center from the audience stated they would be willing to work with the city to correct the landscaped area. Ms. Finwall said she believed that area was to be maintained as a grassy area according to the original plan and hasn't been maintained over time. There could be a condition of approval placed on this design review of the submittal of a landscape plan on the west property line to be approved by city staff and the city would work with the property owner to ensure that's done. The applicant could do something similar to what the Markham Pond Development did with rocks and native plantings that require minimal maintenance. Mr. Jordan said they would get their landscape architect to draw up some plans that would be acceptable to the city and the neighbor to ensure the landscape was acceptable to everyone involved. Chairperson Longrie-Kline said although this situation doesn't have any bearing on the proposal before the CDRB it would be in good faith for the applicant to work with the city and the neighbor to make things right since this was a left over problem from the past development. Mr. Jordan said it's a separate situation but they would work with the city and the neighbor to make things right. Board member Ledvina moved to approve the plans date-stamped July 23, 2004, for the Maplewood Cancer Center located at 1580 Beam Avenue. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: (changes made by the CDRB during the 8-24-04 meeting are underlined if added and stricken if deleted.) 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant must submit to staff for approval the following items: a. Proof of submittal of a copy of final plans to the Metropolitan Council - Environmental Services Department for sewer and water access charge adjustments. b. Revised building elevations showing the screening, or at a minimum, painting of the existing and proposed rooftop mechanical equipment to ensure screening from the street and/or property located to the south (Markham Pond Medical Office Building). c. Revised landscape plan showing the followin Community Design Review Board 5 Minutes 8-24-2004 Replacement of amur maples with an alternative ornamental tree. Landscape screening in front of the around chillers located on the west side of the building if space permits. Work with the property owner to the west (Maplewood Professional Building at 1560 Beam Avenue) to ensure appropriate landscaping along the west side of the Maplewood Cancer Center property (between the Maplewood Cancer Center's drive aisle and the Maplewood Professional Building ro ert d. Watershed District approval. e. A cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. 3. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: a. Replace any property irons removed because of this construction. b. Provide continuous concrete curb and gutter around the parking lot and driveways. c. Install all required landscaping and an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. d. Screen or paint the rooftop mechanical equipment to match the building color. e. Install all required outdoor lighting. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The above-require letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1 if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spring or summer. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Board member Olson seconded. Ayes -Driscoll, Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. Community Design Review Board 6 Minutes 8-24-2004 b. Cottages at Legacy Village -Hazelwood Street Ms. Finwall said Larry Alm, representing Southwind Builders, is proposing to build 33 for-sale townhomes on a 4.6-acre site on the east side of Hazelwood Street, south of County Road D. Ms. Finwall said the project is between Hazelwood Street and the recently approved Heritage Square part of the Legacy Village PUD. City staff recommends approval of the design review with conditions. Board member Shankar said these units appear very close together and he assumed they met the city's minimum setback requirement? Ms. Finwall said this is being approved as a PUD with some variation to the city's ordinance. If the applicant had to follow the city standards they would require a 20-foot setback from each unit. As proposed the units are about 17.7 feet apart. Because it would be approved as a PUD there is some flexibility to the change in code. Board member Olson asked if the driveways were long enough for a car to park? Ms. Finwall said the driveway pads are short which had been a concern of city staff. There isn't room for parking in the driveways, however, there is on-street visitor parking on Legacy Parkway and Hazelwood Street. The applicant states the reduction in the size of the private driveways helps reduce the cost of the units. It also keeps the exterior storage of vehicles to a minimum, which is why many of the homeowners choose to purchase units like this. Board member Olson said the limited guest parking concerns her because of the proposed density and thinks it's unrealistic to think that people wouldn't have gatherings here. She wondered where the overflow of cars would park? Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked the applicant to address the board. Mr. Larry Alm, Southwind Builders, White Bear Township, addressed the board. Board member Olson asked how the applicant calculated the parking for the site? Mr. Alm said there is no overnight parking and cars must be parked in the garage. If you have a gathering there is on-street parking available. The buyers for these homes don't buy this size of a home and entertain a lot. The typical buyer for these homes are people that are retired or people that have no children. Having short driveways for these units allows them to have 58% more green space for the courtyard. Board member Ledvina asked if the applicant had building material samples to show the board? Mr. Alm didn't have samples of building materials, however, he had a colored illustration to show the board. Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked if the only extra parking would be on the street? Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-24-2004 7 Board member Olson said there is no overnight parking and there is no outdoor storage? Mr. Alm said that's correct. It's an effort to keep the neighborhood as it was built and as it was designed. Chairperson Longrie-Kline said her concern is if someone had their mother or father spend the night, and you can't park a car in the driveway, and you can't park overnight on the street, where would that person park? Mr. Alm said in the association documents it states you can receive special permission from the association to park overnight on the private street within the development but not on the public streets. Chairperson Longrie-Kline asked if the association documents were already written and in place? Mr. Alm said they can't file the association documents until the plat is filed. Chairperson Longrie-Kline said she really wants to make sure overnight parking is an option if it's needed and that it's documented in the association documentation. Board member Olson asked where the meters would be located and what type of screening was proposed for them? Mr. Alm said he hasn't proposed any screening yet because he gets in trouble with the utility company for putting things in front of the meters. Depending on how the site gets laid out the sides of each garage building will house the electric, gas, cable and telephone hook up and would be located three to four feet at the end of the garage. Board member Olson asked if the applicant would be amenable to screening the meters with a small wooden Victorian style fence to fit in with the development? Mr. Alm said they have used maintenance free fencing. The worst part about townhome developments when you add things like wooden fences is they require maintenance. Landscaping is less expensive but then there is also the growth factor and requires trimming. Board member Driscoll asked if the applicant knew what type of trees and the height and width the trees could grow to that are shown to be planted between the units. She is concerned because Ms. Finwall said there is only 17 feet between units. Mr. Alm said they would probably plant ornamental trees because they don't get too large, such as a flowering crab tree Board member Driscoll said she doesn't profess to know too much about landscaping but on the plan it calls out for an ash tree and a sugar maple, which can be large trees. Mr. Alm said that would have to be changed by the landscape architect. Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-24-2004 Board member Ledvina said having the stone go from the ground to the eave and then having another siding insert above the garage door seems too busy to him. He was wondering if you could fill the area above the garage door in with brick or use wainscoting. He has seen where the brick goes all the way up but they don't infill above the garage door, which he doesn't care for. Either the brick should run all the way up or another alternative should be to use wainscoting. The wainscoting may be a good alternative if the applicant wants to use a change of building materials. Board member Olson said she would agree with Board member Ledvina. Mr. Alm said he agreed that wainscoting may be the way to go. Board member Olson said she likes the concept and the idea of the individual units and the variety of styles and designs that are scattered through the development. The only concern she has is the onsite parking and this could spill over into a city problem if it isn't addressed correctly. Board member Ledvina said he thinks this is an interesting design; he likes the layout and thinks it's an efficient use of space and likes the idea of short driveways. People buying into this development are going to understand the concept of having the short driveways and the association bylaws. With this alley type of feeling the developer is increasing the green space and that's an efficient use of the space. He understands the concern for parking but thinks the applicant addressed that and if you're buying into this concept you understand the rules. Chairperson Longrie-Kline said with regard to Board member Olson's idea of shielding the utility meters with some kind of fencing would be a good idea. She understands the landscaping covering the meters concept, however, the board has had a problem in the past with the landscaping plan showing the meters covered but that didn't happen. Board member Shankar said his experience has been if you use fencing to cover utilities the meters get covered up but the cable and telephone hook up gets put outside the fenced area and is still visible. He would recommend the meters be put on the side of the garage and paint them to match the buildings. Board member Ledvina said the board has seen that solution but using 33 fences would not work with this development and he would agree with Board member Shankar to paint them to try and make them less intrusive or develop a screening solution with landscaping. He would be concerned with multiple meters but doesn't think that is the situation here. Mr. Alm said it would be a good idea to paint the meters and the utility meters don't care if you paint them as long as you leave the window visible so that may be a good solution to the problem. The meters have to be four feet off the ground so a person going up to the meter can read the dial easily. Board member Driscoll said she just wants to make sure the applicant reevaluates the tree species so they would not be crowding the buildings. Community Design Review Board 9 Minutes 8-24-2004 Board member Ledvina said he thinks the city staff can take a look at that situation and work with the applicant. Board member Olson said the larger trees should be okay planted at the end of the units and closer to the street Board member Olson moved to approve the project plans date-stamped July 22, 2004, for the Cottages at Legacy Village on Hazelwood Street. This approval is subject to the developer or contractor meeting all the following conditions: (changes made by the CDRB during the 8-24- 04 meeting are underlined if added and stricken if deleted.) 1. Obtaining city council approval of a comprehensive land use plan revision from BC (business commercial) to R3H (high density residential) to build townhomes on the site. 2. Obtaining city council approval of a planned unit development for this project. 3. Obtaining city council approval of the preliminary plat for this project. 4. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit: a. Have the city engineer approve the final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include grading, drainage, sidewalk, utility, driveway, parking lot and erosion control plans. These plans shall meet the following conditions: (1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with the city code. (2) The grading plan shall: (a) Include building, floor elevation, water elevation and contour information. These shall include the normal water elevation and 100-year water elevation. (b) Include contour information for the land that the construction will disturb. (c) Show sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. (d) Show all proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 on the proposed construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. This shall include covering these slopes with wood-fiber blankets and seeding them with a "no mow" vegetation rather than using sod or grass. (e) Show all retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls more than four feet tall require a building permit from the city. Community Design Review Board 10 Minutes 8-24-2004 (f) Show as little disturbance and tree removal as possible on the north, east and south sides of the site. (3) The tree plan shall: (a) Be approved by the city engineer before site grading or tree removal. (b) Show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. (c) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (d) Be consistent with the approved grading and landscape plans. (4) The developer shall be responsible for getting any needed off-site grading or drainage easements and for recording all necessary easements. (5) All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter. (6) The driveways shall meet the following standards: 24-foot width-no parking on either side and 28-foot width- parking on one side. The developer or contractor shall post the driveways with no parking signs to meet the above-listed standards. (7) The developer shall disturb as little as possible of the area along the north, east and south property lines and the applicant shall change the grading plan for this part of the site as recommended by the city engineer. b. Submit an in-ground lawn-irrigation plan to staff showing the location of sprinkler heads. c. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction. d. Submit a revised landscape plan for city approval showing: (1) As much of the existing vegetation (including the trees) remaining along the northern, easterly and southerly property lines as possible. (2) Foundation plantings near and around the buildings. Community Design Review Board 11 Minutes 8-24-2004 (3) The in-ground lawn-irrigation system. (4) Larger tree sizes (2'/Z inch-caliper instead of 2 inch). (5) Replacing the Colorado Blue Spruce with Black Hills Spruce and Austrian Pines. (6) The planting of the correct size and species of trees between the townhomes to ensure there is no overcrowding when full grown. e. Submit a revised site lighting plan for city approval. This plan shall show how the lighting on the buildings would add to the site lighting, and the plan should have additional lighting near the driveways, where they intersect the public street, so the driveways are adequately lit. This plan also shall show details about the proposed light fixtures to ensure they are a design that hides the bulb and lens from view to avoid nuisances. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the adjacent street right-of-ways and from adjacent residential properties. f. Have the Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) approve the proposed utility plans. g. A letter of credit or cash escrow for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. Staff shall determine the dollar amount of the escrow. h. The developer shall close on the purchase of the properties with the city before the city will issue a grading or a building permit for the project. The contractor or builder shall meet all of the requirements of the fire marshal and building official. j. The applicant shall obtain all required permits from the Ramsey- Washington Metro Watershed District. k. The applicant shall submit an address and traffic signage plan for staff approval. Submit revised building elevations for city staff approval. These elevations shall show the stone on the front of the attached garages to be installed as a wainscot to the height of the trim board located on the sides of the units. m. Submit homeowner's association documents for city staff approval. These documents shall specify the availability of overnight parking for the residents and quests on the private roads. 5. Complete the following before occupying the buildings: Community Design Review Board 12 Minutes 8-24-2004 a. Install reflectorized stop signs at each driveway connection to Hazelwood Street and Legacy Parkway, ahandicap-parking sign for each handicap- parking space and an address on each building. In addition, the applicant shall install "no parking" and any traffic control signs within the site, as required by staff. b. Install and taper the concrete sidewalk along Hazelwood Street and Legacy Parkway to match the driveways. c. Install and maintain all required landscaping and an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas (code requirement). d. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all interior driveways and around all open parking stalls. e. Install on-site lighting for security and visibility that follows the approved site lighting plan. All exterior lighting shall follow the approved lighting plan that shows the light spread and fixture design. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the adjacent street right-of-ways and the nearby homes and residential properties. f. Install the trails and sidewalks as shown on the approved plans and as required by the city engineer. g. The developer or contractor shall: 1. Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. 2. Remove any debris or junk from the site. 6. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project by that time. 7. Any identification signs for the project must meet the requirements of the city sign ordinance. 8. The city approves the setbacks as shown on the project plans. 9. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 10. The city will allow a temporary sales office until the time a model unit is available for use. Such a temporary building shall be subject to the requirements of the building official. 11. No units facing Hazelwood Street shall have utility rooms or exposed utility meters on that elevation. Community Design Review Board 13 Minutes 8-24-2004 12. The applicant shall work with staff to propose suitable screening for outside utility meters. This may include painting of the meters and other utilities along the side of the garaaes plus adding landscaping in front of the meters as may be needed. 13. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the city for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished landscaping by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. Board member Ledvina seconded. Ayes -Driscoll, Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Olson, Shankar There were three friendly amendments made and those have been incorporated into the conditions and are underlined per city staff. The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on September 13, 2004. Mr. Alm said they were waiting to hear the chosen light post style the city council decided on for Legacy Parkway because they would like to use the same style lighting in this development. Ms. Finwall said the city council decided on the Domas style light post with neutral colors and the decorative items on the top portion of the post. They also requested a fixture that would direct the light downward. Mr. Alm said if it's feasible for them to do that they would. Board member Olson said she would've liked to see a finished product but would agree to have city staff work with that issue. With developments as large as Legacy Village as well as this proposed development she would've preferred that the board could see the finished product. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors present. Community Design Review Board 14 Minutes 8-24-2004 VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS a. August 9, 2004, City Council Meeting (Chesapeake Retail Center) Board member Shankar was unable to attend the August 9, 2004, meeting so Ms. Finwall reported that the sign plan for the multi-tenant building was approved and the Buffalo Wild Wings restaurant building redesign was approved with discussion regarding the change in building design compared to the original design plan Board member Olson received a letter from a resident in Maplewood regarding the Transfiguration Church's proposal for a senior housing development. She asked staff to fill the board in on the proposal and the status of the project. Ms. Finwall said the planning commission reviewed the proposal to redevelop the Transfiguration Church at 935 Ferndale Street to a three-story, 44-unit senior cooperative building. The Nichols Development presented this proposal on Monday, August 16, 2004. The PC recommended denial of this proposal with a 5-4 vote. The Transfiguration Church is proposing a neighborhood meeting, scheduled for August 31, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the school basement. They will be sending notices out to the residents. That item will be heard by the CDRB at their first meeting in September and will be heard by the city council on Monday, September 27, 2004. Chairperson Longrie-Kline discussed the meeting regarding the Legacy Village Sculpture Park and the upcoming plan. Chairperson Longrie-Kline along with Board member Olson attended the meeting and she wanted residents to know the city is looking for residents to get involved with the sculpture park planning process and funding. Interested parties should contact Bruce Anderson in the Parks and Recreation Department at the City Hall. People could also go to the City of Maplewood website to find out more about the park. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Sign Code Revision Proposed Timeline Ms. Finwall reviewed the sign code study and timeline overview done by Rose Lorsung, the planning intern. This will be discussed at the meeting Tuesday, September 21, 2004. b. Reschedule the September 14, 2004, CDRB meeting due to Primary Elections Ms. Finwall had rescheduled the meeting for Wednesday, September 15, 2004, however that is the evening of the Board Appreciation dinner. The meeting has since been rescheduled for Tuesday, September 21, 2004, at 6:00 p.m. c. Gladstone Neighborhood Strategic Planning Workshop -August 26, 2004. Ms. Finwall reminded board members of the upcoming Gladstone Neighborhood Workshop Thursday, August 26, 2004, at the Maplewood Community Center Banquet Room from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Community Design Review Board 15 Minutes 8-24-2004 d. CDRB Bus Tour Review Ms. Finwall asked board members how they liked the annual city bus tour and said if they had any comments or ideas for next year's tour to let her know by telephone ore-mail. e. CDRB Representation at the September 13, 2004, City Council Meeting (Cottages at Legacy Village) Board member Olson will represent the city council on September 13, 2004. The only item to discuss is the Cottages at Legacy Village on Hazelwood Street. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:07 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Fursman, City Manager FROM: Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner SUBJECT: Summerhill of Maplewood (Senior Cooperative Building) APPLICANTS: Transfiguration Church and Nichols Development, LLC LOCATION: 935 Ferndale Street DATE: September 14, 2004 INTRODUCTION Project Description Transfiguration Church proposes to construct an addition to their church and middle school site located at 6133 North 15"' Street in Oakdale. The addition will house their elementary school students, who currently attend school at Transfiguration Elementary School located at 935 Ferndale Street in Maplewood. Because of the relocation of the elementary students, Transfiguration Church would like to sell the elementary school site. Transfiguration Church wants to support senior housing in the community. As such, they interviewed several senior housing developers for the purchase of their elementary,school site. After several months of interviewing potential developers, the church selected Nichols Development, LLC, to purchase and develop the site as a senior cooperative housing development. Nichols Development is proposing a 44-unit senior cooperative building for the 2.2-acre site called Summerhill of Maplewood. The proposed building will have three stories, 66 underground parking stalls, 12 surface parking stalls, and 14 proof of parking stalls. The units would be sold as a cooperative in which residents buy a share of the building and pay a monthly carrying fee, until the eventual sale of their unit. (Refer to the developer's narrative and project maps attached on pages 15-27.) Requests To build this development, the applicants are requesting that the city approve the following: Comprehensive plan change from School (S) to High Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3H). 2. Zoning map change from Single Dwelling Residential (R-1) to Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3). 3. Design review. BACKGROUND The applicants originally submitted plans fora 52-unit, four-story senior cooperative building. (Refer to original plans attached on pages 22-25.) Due to concerns over the height of the building by city staff and the neighborhood, the applicants revised their plans to a 44-unit, three- story building. (Refer to revised plans attached on pages 26-27.) These revised plans were presented during the August 16 planning commission meeting after city staff had notified the neighbors and the planning commission of the four-story building. Regardless of the last minute revision, the planning commission ultimately recommended denial of the comprehensive land use change and rezoning of the Transfiguration School site by a vote of 3 to 5 with one abstention. Because of this recommendation and neighborhood concerns voiced during the planning commission meeting, Transfiguration Church hoped to gain support for their revised plan during a second neighborhood meeting on August 31 and their annual church/school festival on September 11. Based on staff and neighborhood concerns, the applicants have made several changes to their original plans including reducing the number of units from 52 to 44, reducing the height of the building from four stories to three, and relocating the location of the driveway from Ferndale Street to Harverster Avenue. The community design review board (CDRB) should review the revised plans at the September 21, 2004, CDRB meeting for design elements including architectural, landscaping, and lighting and ensure that it meets all design review criteria as specified in Section 2-290 of the city code which is defined on page 13. DISCUSSION Neighborhood Concerns City staff received several responses to a neighborhood survey sent regarding the originally proposed 55-unit, four-story senior housing development. (Refer to the Citizen Comments on pages 9-12 and a-mail, mail, and petition responses on pages 36-56.) In general many neighbors supported the use of the property as senior housing, but had strong concerns about the added traffic and the proposed height of the building. I will address both issues below: Traffic: The developer states that the senior housing development will result in less traffic for the neighborhood than the property's current use as a school. They claim this is due to the fact that the number of daily trips resulting from school staff, school buses, and parents driving students to and from school as well as visitors attending the school will far outweigh the traffic generated by a senior housing development. The Institute of Transportation Engineers reports the average number of trips per day for a retirement community to be 3.3 in comparison to the average number of trips per day for an elementary school to be 1 per student. There are 274 students currently attending the Transfiguration Elementary School. The traffic comparison, therefore, is 145 trips per day for the proposed 44-unit senior housing development to 274 trips per day for the school. As the neighbors point out, however, the school's traffic is concentrated in the morning and evening hours during the school-year only. Height of Building: Most of the neighbors responding to the city's survey were concerned about the proposed four-story height of the building. They felt this design would take away from the privacy of their homes, may block sunlight, and would not be compatible to the surrounding one and two-story single-family houses. The developers originally proposed the four-story building to create as much green space on the property as possible. Currently the 2.2-acre Transfiguration School site is covered by 77 percent impervious surface including the school, various outbuildings, and the parking lot. The Summerhill of Maplewood 2 September 14, 2004 developers also felt that developing the building with four stories would allow the building to be constructed with as much distance from the existing single-family houses as possible. Again, because of the concerns expressed by city staff and the neighbors regarding the height of the building, the applicants revised their building from four stories to three, with a reduction in the number of units from 52 to 44. City staff embraces the idea of senior housing on the Transfiguration School site and finds that the revised height and architectural design of the building is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Parking One concern raised about the city's approval of yet another senior housing development is the fact that most senior housing developments do not supply the city-required number of parking stalls. This is due to the fact that there are usually less people living in one senior dwelling than a regular single ormultiple-family dwelling, creating less of a parking demand. The city's approval of these developments with a reduction in the number of parking stalls could be a problem in the future if the market no longer supports senior housing and the developments were converted to regular housing. City code requires two parking stalls per household. These parking stalls can be either within a garage, underground, or on the surface. The applicants are proposing 66 underground, 12 surface, and 14 proof of parking stalls, for an overall parking stall count of 92, exceeding the city parking requirements of 88 (44 units x 2 parking stalls = 88 required parking stalls). Revised Site Plan Setbacks The existing school and proposed senior cooperative building maintains or will maintain the following setbacks to the surrounding road edges: Harvester Ferndale St. Glendon St. Avenue Nature Center School 40 ft. 200 ft. 50 ft. 10 ft Senior Bldg. 90 ft., 7 in. 43 ft., 9 in. 40 ft. 28 ft. to 116 ft. to 70 ft., 2 in. City code requires multi-family housing buildings to maintain at least a 50-foot setback from adjacent residential properties, and a 30-foot setback from the right-of-ways. Because of the 60- foot right-of-ways surrounding the property on three sides, the proposed Summerhill building only needs to maintain the 30-foot setback to the right-of-way in order to achieve the 50-foot setback to the adjacent residential properties (i.e., 30-foot front yard setback + 60-foot right-of-way = 90- foot setback to adjacent residential properties). The applicants are proposing setbacks from the right-of-ways of 30 feet plus. The increased setbacks to the surrounding residential properties will help mitigate the increased height of the senior housing building compared to the existing school. The parking lot will maintain a 15-foot setback to the Ferndale Street right-of-way, as required by city code. For grading and drainage purposes, staff recommends that the applicants alter their Summerhill of Maplewood 3 September 14, 2004 proposed proof of parking location. The applicants should construct the northerly 14 surface parking stalls and call out the 12 southerly parking stalls as proof of parking. Drive Aisle Location Due to city staff and neighborhood concern, the applicants have revised their site plan to include only one driveway entrance off of Harvester Avenue. The proposed driveway will be located 36 feet from the Ferndale Street/HarvesterRvenue intersection, which meets city code driveway clearance requirements of 30 feet from an intersection. The new drive aisle, however, will be directly across the street from an existing single-family house. This design will lead to vehicle headlights shining into the adjacent residential house. To the extent possible, city staff recommends that the drive aisle be lined up with the existing driveway on this property, which is located approximately 100 feet from the intersection. (Refer to driveway map attached on pg 28.) Trail The applicants' revised plans show a trail on the south side of the building. This trail was designed to accommodate fire truck access to the south side of the building. The city's fire marshal has since indicated that such access is not needed as the fire trucks have access to three sides of the buildings from the surrounding roads. The trail is a good concept and should be included in the plan, however, the trail should be revised to ensure minimal grading next to the nature center and that no access from the trail be allowed into the nature center. Sidewalks The applicants are proposing afive-foot-wide sidewalk around the perimeter of the site on Ferndale Street, Harvester Avenue, and Glendon Street. This sidewalk should be required as part of the design review conditions and should be constructed within the street right-of-ways. In addition, the applicants should install interior sidewalks from all exit doors of the building extending to the street sidewalks. Revised Building Elevations City code allows multi-family buildings to maintain a height of 35 feet, or three stories, whichever is greater. The revised building elevations for Summerhill of Maplewood meet this requirement as a three-story building with an overall height of 40 feet, 2 inches to the top of the highest roof, and a mean height (height to the middle of the roofline) of 35 feet, 3 inches. The existing school building, in comparison, is approximately 18 feet in height. (Refer to the comparison cross section attached on page 29.) The increased setbacks and landscaping of the senior cooperative building in comparison to the school will help mitigate the increased height for the surrounding residential neighbors. Because of the recent revisions made to the building, the applicants recently submitted revised building elevation lacks consistency with the submitted color elevation and site plan, and appears to be incomplete. First, the colored building elevation depicts additional decks and dormers on the east and west elevations as opposed to the building elevations. Second, the site plan shows a gazebo attached to the west side of the building and 32-foot-long drive-through entryway on the east side of the building. Third, the building materials for the underground garage and upper dormer are not called out. The developer's architect is continuing to work on these elevations Summerhill of Maplewood 4 September 14, 2004 and will have more accurate elevations and building samples available for the September 21 CDRB meeting. In general, the building materials will include brick on the first two floors, stucco on the third floor, and architectural shingles on the roof. Staff finds the building to be attractive and aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. Screen Porches The Maplewood Nature Center is located to the south of the property. Because of this, Ann Hutchinson, lead naturalist, submitted comments regarding the Summerhill of Maplewood project. (Refer to Ms. Hutchinson's memorandum attached on pages 30-31.) Ms. Hutchinson requested that the developer consider offering an alternative to open decks on the units facing the nature center, as the nature center allows little or no control of mosquitoes. The developers have taken Ms. Hutchinson's advice and will include screen porches rather than open decks on all of the units. The proposed screen porches will also help with the privacy issues raised by the surrounding residential properties. The screen porches have not been shown on the revised elevations, but must be reflected on elevations prior to issuance of a building permit. Mechanical Equipment One of the concerns expressed by the neighbors over this project was the location of any exterior mechanical equipment. The revised site plan or building elevations do not depict the location of mechanical equipment. All exterior mechanical equipment must be fully screened from view of the surrounding residential properties. Landscaping Because of the recent revisions made to the building, the applicants have not had an opportunity to revise the landscape plan for the three-story building. The applicants state that the landscape plan will be prepared by the September 21 CDRB meeting. In their original landscape plan for the four-story building, the applicants proposed 83 trees and 159 shrubs on the site. Ann Hutchinson of the Maplewood Nature center recommends several changes to the original four-story building landscape plan as follows: It would be wonderful if the nature center could extend the Oak forest a few feet onto the Summerhill property as part of the landscaping plan. This would allow extra buffering of the building from the nature center and would allow additional protection in case any of the existing trees would succumb to disease or construction damage. Larger red or white oaks are suggested along the shared property line. 2. The proposed barberry shrubs should be replaced with an alternative shrub as it is an invasive species. 3. Consider adding a native prairie butterfly garden to the plan. 4. We hope that the storm water ponds will be planted as rain gardens, or with deep rooted native plants, as this will fit in better with the neighborhood and provide better infiltration. Summerhill of Maplewood 5 September 14, 2004 The nature center will be happy to help plant the gardens with school children as part of our educational storm water program. These suggestions should be included in the applicants' revised landscape plan. City code allows density bonuses for multi-family housing for the addition of underground parking, additional green space, and additional trees. The applicants proposed 44-units are based on these density bonuses; as such the developer must allocate at least 1 percent of the overall construction cost to trees. City staff will ensure this allocation on the revised landscape plan prior to issuance of a building permit. Grading/Drainage Because of the recent revisions made to the building, the applicants have not had an opportunity to revise the grading and drainage plan for the three-story building. The revised site plan does indicate that the existing impervious surface on the site is 77 percent and the proposed impervious surface after development of the senior cooperative building to be only 40 percent. This is a vast improvement for the water runoff and water quality. Erin Laberee of the city's engineering department reviewed the original grading and drainage plan. (Refer to Ms. Laberee's memorandum attached on pages 32-33.) The engineering department has stated that the revised three-story building plans appear to have addressed most of Ms. Laberee's original concerns regarding grading and drainage. However, a final grading and drainage plan must be submitted for city engineering approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. Play Area The applicants are proposing a play area for the residents' grandchildren and the neighborhood children. This will be an asset to the development and the community as a whole, and should be required as part of the design review conditions. Lighting The revised lighting plan for the three story-building shows a total of 18 exterior lights. Six are freestanding lights, four of which are 20 feet high and two of which are 12 feet high. Both of these lights are abox-style, downcast light, dark bronze in color. Overall, the lighting plan meets the city's requirements for freestanding light height and light illumination not exceeding .4-foot- candles at all property lines. However, since Summerhitl of Maplewood will be developed in close proximity to surrounding single-family residential homes, staff recommends a lower light pole and a more decorative light which is architecturally compatible to the building. Dumpster Enclosure No dumpster enclosure location or plans were proposed for this development. If trash containers are proposed to be stored on the outside of the building, the applicants must submit a dumpster enclosure plan which includes the location, enclosure height, and enclosure building materials for staff approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Summerhill of Maplewood 6 September 14, 2004 OTHER COMMENTS Lieutenant David Kvam, Maplewood Police Department (comments received after review of the original four-story building): 1. While underground parking provides a measure of security, once a thief gains entrance, he/she typically has free reign. The developer should consider installing security cameras or other measures intended to dissuade or identify potential thieves at the entrance and in the underground parking area. 2. With a 52-unit building of senior residents, the developer's assertion that there will probably be a reduction in traffic moving through the neighborhood might be correct. Even if it is not, what it should do is help spread the level of traffic out, as many residents would probably not be arriving and leaving at the same time as is the case with the school. 3. Regarding concerns about additional emergency medical services to a senior building: While it is true that elderly people generally require more medical responses, Summerhill of Maplewood will not be a nursing home or assisted living facility, but a facility for individuals who are 55 years or older. Seniors as young as 55 years old should be reasonably healthy, with no added burden to the emergency medical system. The city does not have the resources currently to handle the medical responses we need to cover now. Summerhill of Maplewood may technically be able to pay for their share of the emergency medical response use with the added tax base, but the truth is that the city simply needs more paramedics to cover the number of medical calls we receive each year. Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal (comments received after review of the original four-story building): (Refer to Mr. Gervais' memorandum attached on page 34.) Dave Fisher, Building Official (comments received after review of the original four-story building): (Refer to Mr. Fisher's memorandum attached on page 35.) RECOMMENDATION Approve the site plan, building elevations, and photometrics plans date-stamped September 10, 2004, for the 44-unit, three-story Summerhill of Maplewood senior housing cooperative to be located at 935 Ferndale Street. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant must submit to staff for approval the following items: a. Revised grading and drainage plan for the three-story building. b. Revised landscape plan for the three-story building as follows: 1) Locate and protect existing nature center trees adjacent to the site. 2) Expansion of the nature center oak savanna a few feet into the Summerhill property with the addition of large red or white oak trees. 3) Rain gardens planted in the storm ponds. Summerhill of Maplewood 7 September 14, 2004 4) Allocation of at least 1 percent of the overall construction cost to trees. 5) Barberry shrub replaced with an alternative shrub. 6) The addition of a native butterfly garden. c. Revised building elevations showing the following: 1) Gazebo/porch located on west side of the building. The gazebo and porch must be constructed of quality building materials and be consistent with the proposed senior cooperative building. 2) Front entry overhang with a clearance of at least 12 feet to accommodate ambulances and fire vehicles. The front entry must be constructed of quality building materials and be consistent with the proposed senior cooperative building. 3) Screen porches for all 44 units. 4) Consistent building and color elevations showing additional dormers and porches on the east and west elevation. 5) Screening of all exterior mechanical equipment from surrounding residential properties. d. Site plan to scale ensuring a 15-foot setback from the parking lot to the right-of- way; construction of 14 northerly parking stalls and 12 southerly parking stalls designated as "proof-of-parking"; Harvester Ave. driveway lining up, to the extent possible, with the existing driveways across Harvester Avenue; trail grading width reduced to ensure no disturbance of nature center trees; no trail access to Nature Center; interior sidewalks leading to exterior sidewalks; play area. e. Registered land survey of the property. f. Watershed district approval. g. Building material samples. h. A cash escrow or an irrevocable fetter of credit for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. 3. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: a. Replace any property irons removed because of this construction. b. Provide continuous concrete curb and gutter around the parking lot and driveways. c. Install all required landscaping and an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. d. Install all required outdoor lighting. e. Install all required sidewalks and trails. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1 of the following year if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter or within six weeks of occupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spring or summer. 5. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Summerhill of Maplewood 8 September 14, 2004 CITIZEN COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of properties within 500 feet of this site as well as properties outside of the 500-foot area if requested. Of the 68 surveys sent, 20 were returned, of which 4 were in favor of the senior housing project, 12 were in favor of senior housing but had concerns about the project, and 4 were opposed the project. (Comments were received after review of the original four- story building.) In Favor Alvin & Dorothy Geerdes, 987 Glendon Street North: We have been retired for 10 years and have lived in the same house for 40 years. We have a strong attachment to the area because it is so close to everything, 3M, schools, churches, shopping, freeways, etc. Our house is not too large and we're ready to rid ourselves of the maintenance requirements. We attended the June 17th meeting at Transfiguration and are excited about the proposed development. The units seem to be adequate for our needs and somewhat reasonable in price. We hope the project will proceed as scheduled and we believe the building will be a plus for the community. We intend to be at the council meeting to monitor the progress. 2. William & Marlene Fye, 973 Glendon Street North: We are firmly in favor of this project and highly recommend Maplewood to okay its plans. This is a very attractive and meaningful addition to the neighborhood. We look forward to meeting many new seniors to our neighborhood. 3. Jean Hoffer, 973 Ferndale Street North: I received the notice over the weekend that the Transfiguration school might be sold and a senior cooperative building would be constructed. How would I get information on this senior building as to how much a unit would cost and how to get signed up for a unit? My folks are elderly and might be interested. 4. R.E. and Renee Sauerbrey, 1000 Ferndale Street North: This is such a great thing for our neighborhood. My husband has lived here since he was 7 years old. He is now 63 years old and we have been in our home for 38 years. It would be so nice for us to move into a place like this and stay in our neighborhood. In Favor with Concerns Luis Lopez, 2523 Harvester Avenue East: I have a few concerns, first of all, special assessments and property taxes. In the flier I received there was no mention of assessments (so far) or whether property taxes would increase. I would like this issue clarified. Secondly I live at 2523 Harvester Avenue and I do not want the increased traffic. The flier mentions that the development will result in less traffic. For one, I don't believe it and I'm sure there are no studies that say it would be true. It bases it results from when the school is open, not in the evenings or the weekends or during the summer when school is out. I see very few cars during these times and that cannot be said when there is an apartment complex in the neighborhood. Lastly, if this development comes to pass, why must it be a four floor building? I would rather look at a two or three story building. () Kate Lopez: I would like to express my families concern over the proposed building of the Summerhill of Maplewood Development on Harvester Avenue. We are relatively new to Summerhill of Maplewood 9 September 14, 2004 Harvester Avenue and one of the reasons we chose to move to this area of Maplewood was for the quiet area. I know your assessment of the street traffic will not increase the traffic. The bus traffic was during off times of the day, I am not home during school hours and my two young kids were at daycare. Now with this increased traffic and our daughter starting kindergarten this year she is going to be more at risk with the increased car volume. Nothing against older people. Some day it's going to be me but some of them should not have a driver's license. I don't want to have to worry every day she gets on the bus, if someone is going to forget to stop for the bus and not see her cross the street. If you have ever spend time on Harvester Avenue, we have so many people using it as a short cut to get to Century Avenue because they do not want to have to wait at the stoplight at Stillwater and Century. People don't drive slow on Harvester Avenue, everyone is in a hurry to get somewhere. There are young kids who live in the area and it's just a matter of time before someone gets hit because of the increased traffic. We are not opposed to the building but we would like to see it in a smaller scaled back version. 2. David Schultz, 2651 Midvale Place East: Too many times once a project like this is complete the landscapes are allowed to deteriorate. Management must be held accountable to maintaining the grounds as proposed. Dead plant material and weeds cannot be tolerated. 3. Gail Zaun, 2658 Harvester Avenue: I live at 2658 Harvester and was unable to make the June meeting regarding this project. Maybe my question was answered then, but I will ask it again. My concern is the rezoning. How much of this area is going to be rezoned? I wouldn't want to see the whole neighborhood rezoned and have it fill up with multi-family dwellings, which seems to be the new trend. And how will this affect our property taxes? Your letter said the question was asked but it doesn't include the answer. 4. Sue Forrest, 2515 Harvester Avenue East: I am for the proposal, but would like to share a couple of concerns I have... I live very near the proposal site on Harvester.. so I am concerned about the traffic all year long...) know there is more traffic now during the school year, however, this will be all year long... But what I do oppose is the height of the building for this area... I feel that 3 stories would be tall enough...) am totally against 4 stories...especially for the neighbors who live across the street from this building. They would be without any sunshine half of the day. And I would like to know how this would effect my property value... We just built our house 3 years ago on Harvester, and I am very concerned about what this will do to our property value in this area... I would also like to attend the city council meeting however, I fail to see when or where it would be... Please let me know when it would be. Thank you. 5. Dave Picard, 2672 Harvester Avenue East: After several conversations with my neighbors I have come to the conclusion that the project is favored if the height of the building was not four stories tall and mature trees were used in the landscaping. 6. Jeff & Elizabeth Kringle, 910 Ferndale Street North: We received your survey, dated July 30, 2004. We wish to be included in the information about the upcoming city meeting that discusses this issue. We have two issues with the proposed development of the 935 Ferndale Street North property. 1. We are not in favor of the four-story construction. We feel four stories is too tall large and will detract from the natural beauty and general elevation of the neighborhood. It will stick out too much. We would be amenable with a three-story structure. A two-story structure would be optimal and fit best into the Summerhill of Maplewood 10 September 14, 2004 neighborhood. 2. We are not in favor of the main entrance to the facility being on Ferndale Street North. We propose that the main entrance be on Harvester Avenue for the following reasons: 1. Harvester Avenue is a direct link to and from Century and Stillwater Road/Highway 5. Ferndale is not a direct link. 2. Harvester Avenue @ Century Avenue has the stop/go lights, which control the flow of traffic into the neighborhood. 3. We don't agree that the traffic to and from this facility will be minimal. 4. Our understanding when the roads in this area were resurfaced a few years ago, that more federal/state funding were received for the resurfacing of Harvester Avenue because it is a thoroughfare to and from the school and into the neighborhood. During the resurface project Harvester Avenue was widened and more sophisticated curbing was installed with the intention of having it bear the majority of traffic into the neighborhood. For the resurfacing project all residents were assessed some $4,000 however, the residents on Harvester Avenue received $8,000 worth of work done on the street fronting their homes. Harvester Avenue is literally twice the street Ferndale Street is. As such, the same reasoning should be applied to the building of this structure, so that it fronts Harvester Avenue. We understand and are in agreement that this survey response becomes public information. We agree that this is the right type of development for this neighborhood, with the exceptions noted above. 7. Abigail Bour, 957 Edith Street: (Refer to Ms. Bour's a-mail attached on page 36.) 8. Chris Reeves, 2654 Brand Street: (Refer to Mr. Reeves' correspondence attached on pages 37-41.) 9. J.M. and Zoe Hruby, 2659 Harvester Avenue: (Refer to Mr. and Mrs. Hruby's a-mail attached on page 42.) 10. Janel and John Heroff, 940 Ferndale Street North: (Refer to Mr. and Mrs. Heroff's correspondence attached on pages 43-44.) 11. Mark McKenzie, 2676 Harvester Avenue: (Refer to Mr. McKenzie's a-mail attached on page 45.) 12. Jesse Sampair, 2658 Midvale Place: (Refer to Jesse's a-mail attached on page 46.) Opposed 1. Peter Feist, 950 Ferndale Street North: As owner of 950 Ferndale Street North, I am not in favor of a four-story building proposed at 935 Ferndale Street North. This does not belong in this single-family home neighborhood. I am especially opposed to having balconies overlooking my property restricting my privacy. 2. Margaret Kunde, 937 Glendon Street North: Do not approve this please! This would change the neighborhood from a quiet family dwelling to a busy commercial type of street of which there are already too many! This large building belongs in a different type of neighborhood than this. This area is unique and there are too few spots left for normal families to live in peace & quiet. There should be family homes built here instead. I am opposed to this because of the height. The height would block out the sight of sunrise for some and sunset for others. It would darken all surrounding homes and be an Summerhill of Maplewood 11 September 14, 2004 unacceptable sight from the nature center that shows us the beauty of nature. Not the way humans are robbing us of the beauty of nature. I am opposed to the water run off into the nature ponds that are able to stop run off from homes but not such a large building with so many occupants. The sewer system hardly handles homes here as we needed to have drainage spots put in all lots with wild flowers to cover up the large drains. The cost to all surrounding homeowners would be too high as we just had all our roads redone at a large expense and the equipment needed to build this building would certainly damage them. Even to the need to repair or resurface them and all the other unseen so called needed things by all these people the curbing and etc. We simply cannot afford any more raise in any type of taxes or unseen expenses! Our loss of privacy which is why we all love living here now would be overwhelming with traffic alone both cars and people walking by and driving constantly. The upper floors will all be able to see into our back yards even and much more! Who among you would want this enormous building with numerous people no matter what their age across from your house? Think of that or even in your neighborhood! Thank you for reading this and I hope you will consider all of these comments. 3. Joe and Mary Erickson, 932 Ferndale Street North: (Refer to Mr. and Mrs. Erickson's correspondence attached on pages 47-48.) 4. Dan Zschokke, 924 Ferndale Street North: (Refer to Mr. Zschokke's correspondence attached on page 49.) Summerhill of Maplewood 12 September 14, 2004 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site Size: 2.2 Acres Existing Land Use: School SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Single Family Houses South: Maplewood Nature Center East: Single Family Houses West: Single Family Houses PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan: School Existing Zoning: Single Dwelling Residential (R-1) Proposed Land Use Plan: High Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3H) Proposed Zoning: Multiple Dwelling Residential (R-3) CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL Design Review Section 2-290 of the city code requires that the community design review board make the following findings to approve plans: 1. That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments, and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. 2. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. 3. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. Summerhill of Maplewood 13 September 14, 2004 Application Date We received the complete applications and plans for this development on July 23, 2004. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete land use applications unless the applicant agrees to an extension. Because of revisions made to the building by the applicant, the applicants have agreed to extend city review until September 27, 2004. P\Sec25\Summerhill of Maplewood Attachments: 1. Applicant Narrative 2. Location Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Land Use Map 5. Existing Conditions 6. Original Site Plan 7. Original Grading Plan 8. Original Landscape Plan 9. Original Building Elevations 10. Revised Site Plan 11. Revised Building Elevations 12. Driveway Map 13. Comparison Cross Section 14. Nature Center Review 15. City Engineering Review 16. Fire Marshall Review 17. Building Official Review 18. Neighborhood Comments 19. Neighborhood Petition Summerhill of Maplewood 14 September 14, 2004 Attachment 1 PROPOSED SUMMERHILL OF MAPLEWOOD DEVELOPMENT Background Quite some time ago, Transfiguration Church began experiencing over capacity and operational issues relating to their school. The school operations are divided between two campuses with students in grades K-4 going to class at the building located at 935 Ferndale and grades 5-8 attending class in the facility adjacent to the church itself. It became evident that the two campuses needed to be combined into one for a number of reasons all relating to a positive and effective educational experience for the students as well as the long-term feasibility of this educational opportunity that has proven to be such a strong value to the community. In response to this need, the Church established an Expansion Committee to review the situation and to identify and explore various options, with an emphasis on finding a buyer who is willing to pay a reasonable price for the parcel as well as providing a benefit to the overall community. After several months of hard work and diligence and hearing from and interviewing several potential developers, this group of volunteers recommended to Farther Bob Hart and the Church Council that Nichols Development, LLC should be selected as the purchaser so that they could build a senior cooperative building. Nichols Development, LLC was chosen by the Church for their quality work, experience (they have financed over 27 senior cooperatives and personally developed three others), and their willingness to adapt their concept to a smaller redevelopment/in-fill site. Nichols Development, LLC, formed in March 2000, is a developer with a broader perspective and a deep understanding of both the development and financing sides of the business and operates in the following areas: • Land and site location and acquisition; • Demographics ,research and marketing; • Site planning and development; • Innovative and effective negotiations with municipalities; • Overall project management and direction; and • Management The Church and its leadership are very excited to be able to be a part of adding to the number of senior housing units to the community and Nichols Development are pleased with the opportunity to be part of the Maplewood community. Proposed Project Nichols Development is proposing to build afour-story, 52-unit senior cooperative building that would be restricted to individuals age 55 and older. A cooperative is ownership housing that provides maintenance-free living, while guaranteeing awell-maintained building (inside and out). It is financed through a 40-year HUD-insured mortgage. The insurance by HUD allows for a lower interest rate that benefits the seniors purchasing homes in the development by making it even more affordable to them. Cooperatives also become increasingly affordable over time (individual units will appreciate at apre-established rate - 2.5% per year in the case of their Summerhill of Apple Valley cooperative -compared to recent 20% annual appreciation in single family homes in the neighborhood). The reality from other cooperatives in similar areas of the metro is that seniors from the neighborhood move in to these cooperatives and free up more single family housing stock for families. APPLICANT NARRATIVE (BASED ON THE ORIGINAL 1 ~ FOUR-STORY BUILDING SUBMITTAL) The development will have a strong team of experience bringing this cooperative to reality, including the azchitects at Miller Hanson Partners and the general contractor will be Frana and Sons, Inc. Furthermore, once the building is open for occupants, Ebenezer, who have been working in the field of senior services since 1917, will be the designated building management company. In order to bring this high-quality, yet affordable, senior housing to this unique site in Maplewood, a few actions by the City will be necessary, including a change in zoning as well as the designated land use. This development of senior ownership housing and will provide great value to this neighborhood and the City as a whole. The building would feature: • 1 and 2 bedroom homes, including many with dens; featuring full kitchens with standard equipment as well as dishwashers, disposals and microwave ovens, large bedrooms and living azeas. • Amenity areas for cooperative residents, such as a community room, woodshop, library, game room, exercise room, etc. • Underground pazking. • As well the exterior will be created of handsome and low maintenance materials of brick and James Hardie cementitious siding, and metal facia and will be enhanced by extensive high-quality landscaping. The exterior design will have a human scale and will fit well into the surrounding neighborhood. This project would provide: • an alternative living arrangement for seniors who want to remain in the neighborhood • ownership housing • housing that is affordable over the long-term • multi-family senior housing on one of the few sites in the neighborhood that is appropriate for such a development Parking and Traffic This proposed senior cooperative development would have 61 underground pazking spaces for use by the owners as well as 26 surface pazking spaces in the front of the building and proof of parking for at least another 22 spaces. In regards to traffic, this senior housing development will likely result in less traffic than the property's current use as a school when you take into consideration the number of daily trips resulting from school staff, school buses, parents driving students to and from school as well as visitors. Action Requested In order to bring this quality senior cooperative housing development to fruition, Nichols Development, LLC has submitted the following applications to the City of Maplewood for review and consideration: • Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change land use classification from School to Multi-Family Applicant Narrative 16 • Rezoning to change zoning from School to Senior Housing Cooperative/Multi- Family • Conditional Use to allow for the construction of a 4~' floor ofowner-occupied units. • Community Design Review Board for review of project design details • Project Sign Placement to promote this development in the City of Maplewood. Community Input On Thursday, June 17, 2004 at 7:00 p.m., Transfiguration Church hosted a meeting, at the school site itself, of the neighbors residing around this property. Written notification was sent to all the property owners within 500 feet of the parcel. At that meeting, of which approximately 20 - 25 people attended, Father Bob Hart described the process of why the Church has chosen to sell the property and why they selected Nichols Development to build a senior cooperative on the site. Tim Nichols, President and CEO, and Chuck Armstrong, Director of Business Development described the history of Nichols Development and their work and explained the nuances of a senior cooperative. They were assisted by their architect, Link Wilson, from Miller Hanson Partners. The meeting went very well and a great number of questions were raised from which interactive dialog resulted. With the exception of concerns that this development would unfairly increase property taxes for the neighboring homes as well as if this would result in any assessments, of which there would be none, the meeting was very positive and at least two of the attendees later contacted Nichols Development and inquired about purchasing a unit in the proposed building. Since that time, one residence has raised questions regarding what is being proposed and why amulti-family building is being considered for the site rather than single- family homes. Staff of Nichols Development met with these neighbors and discussed their concerns and both sides agreed to maintain an ongoing dialog as the project proceeds through the review and approval process. ~ ~ Applicant Narrative r":ttachment 2 t 2648 1060 20,28 o a 2642 1047 ~ ~~ ,~~~~.`N P~~~ ~~' 210 1040 " 2634 2689 1 `' 288 `~ i ~ ~ rail :, ,~ 19 ^ ~ ~.~ -~ - 2580j ~ 1 e24 W 1 ~ 2677681 p 2697 s_~703 27,1`5 0 ~ 19 ~~ , ~ - -` {0~ ~~f018 1~ p 26712675 ~~ _' ~ [~ ~0 ~ - ~ 1 10 266x, ~° '-~~552 25661 ! 1~?10 _ 1~00~3 w J V ~ _ w 2655 ~ ~-.--, ©25550'; u ~ 0 1 2~ „ 0 1 2651 _ i~ ~_r' 1 ~1 P~ ~ - ''"tttt55ss ~ ' ~: ~ 2649 -~. ' i, ~ '-708 2712 '~ c~ 53~' G Z ~g~36 `'r~99~9 264-!' ,, Q~, 2b86 2698 ~ 9fl~ _ ~ O ~~ ~ ' ~ ~9~~ Z ~88 ~ 9~ ~ ~ ~~ .~~\O JP~ 2668 °'676 ~ 985 - w 9~~ ~ X82 9~ }1 ~ x58 2551 25612567257 0 4 - ~ ~ ~ - ~- ' ~ © ('l~~ 9 2541 r ~~ a g~ ~ -~50 ~ 67 2677 2687 26 2709 !Zf713 ~ -' a60f' 33 2~9 ~ ~ ~=~ `'~ ~ 9 -~ HARVESTER AVE ~5~ ~40~ 967 ~ ~ ~ ~ u, ~ I"ti. _ ~ 2,ifJ ~'~ 3 _~ o ~0 9d~ ~ - 9~263~2~ L L ~ ® 2~, 427 ~.-~~ ~ ~42 26~ X658 2672 2676 2684Q 2700 9~ 2 p o o ~~ g ®g~ ~ ~i2 ¢93~ 935 ® fl 940 9 .~ ~ © .~ a ,,-~ L7 0 g~ ~4QE19~1 931 r----- { MSG 4 ~,~ ~ 2669..:- d7 2695 W ~ }' X265 ,, fl v 2641 = ' „ ~r,9 ~ ~ ©- ~ r ~ ... ~ ~ -- _ 91 p'~ ~ ~ ~~ 27~ ~ - •~ , a -_ ~' BRAND ST __. r ' _ _W -: ~-27~ ~27 - - 0 ~ _ 2712 260 2654 2668 ®2690``694 r ~. _ Mature-Center ~ 875 J __._M__. _. [~. '-- 'r ~--- _ _ _.. ~.. - p ~~ 865 ~ 2659 2669 ~77 26~ 2695 X51 ^' ~ ~~0327~7 . ,, - ~. - ~ ~~ _ _ ~' ~ Z~~~ 25 -, SEVENTH ST N ^ W E S 18 (7 m z c D m R 1, 060 .3 2fi28 - ~ , 2sa2 : ~ ~ Attachment 3 1047 ~, ~o = i ~~~ ~ P 2' 6, 0 ; : ~ 2634 1040 a ~ ~ 5~~~~ 2 R 1 2689 250 ' 102 2 ~ _J 1 Q~ 2681 2697 703 2715 0 ~ - 1 w 2677 ~ ~ - - , -~ ~ ~ , 19 ~' __,-~ 2 n ~ f0}~ ~'1~18 1@1..7 Z 267 1 6, ~` ~~552~02~566~1~ ~~10 ~_ 1~~ w i1 10 2863~~ ~` ~ ~ _ 25~550~ ~~ 011 10 2~~ ~ 2655 261 , ~ ~- ~ ~~ - ~ 1 ~ ~--~.~ `~ J - ~ ~ N 1` i 9 6 " ~~ ~ 649 ~ 264~f ~ ~a p , , t F ~ _~~ ~ '708 2712 a W ~ 2698 ~ 9~ ~ zs~ ~ R1 z o '-~ ` _ 88 9 ~ ~ ., ~ t`- ~ 1 J P'~" © ~`~~ ; e 26'6 cs 985 p ~~ ~ ~;J ~ €58 2668 ~ o R1 9~ c7 256125672573 ~ `~ ~ !541 2551 ~82 9~ ~ o a )~J ~,] , 9 2687 26 ~ P ~ __9~ - ~_ ~ ~ 9~ ~60'P ~ -233 2'650 ~ 2~9 13 ` 270 X667 26 '~ :~ ~ Q ~ ti;i 9 ~ r a ~, ~~ ~ ~, HARVESTER AVE ~5~ ~~~i~~ 96~" ~Q_' a ? 171 ~~ L~ © ~ ~, t. ° ~3_ r' t ~ ~ ~`' 2x7042788 ~ m ~ _,g~ o ~0 94~ 26 ~~ ~, -X4 22650 2658 © _r. p ~ ~-} 2672 2676 26840 2700 943" R~ 9~~' 8~ ~1 to ~12 -~ caC~ 935 i°7 ~?~40 0 ~ 98~ ~~ c~ ~ ~4 Q© 9~ 9~ r L ,_ ~ R1 ° . n L ! 931 ~- --~ ~ , 1 ~N .N ~2~'1 PEL ~C M ~ ~2# ~~ n © ~j -1~ 925 `-_ ' 2 95 ~ ~ 6 7 2669 2641 ~. ~9 ~ ~ ~ a~7pt ~ Qr~ ~j~95 o p BRAND ST ,,. 'r ~~ ~~ 26:2654 ~ 2712 2668 °2690 694 L ~ Nature Center ~_ _ " 875 ~ r-~: I a 1- (s~Rle 1~-ttllin ~idtl~~I '~ 9 ~ ~ o 51 2659 2669 ~77 26~ 269~511 $ `'70327~I a ~ ~ / Q Q _ C:i s2~25 ~1 ~ -.J ~ SEVENTH ST ~'~~ ~~ z T N W E S Zoning Map n m z c D m 19 -~~~' 263a ttachment 4 10,3 ~-' ~~~~`NP x~2610 1040 2689 _J `~ 2588 , J `7 1~9 25g~ :~2 i ~ ~ ~y 1 ~~J 2681 2697 ~~703 2715 ~~ y I ~ ~ ~, 4 1 tD?~ w 2677 !\ ~ <. ~-i r ~ t J ~~0~19 ~ ' _ _' 2675 ~ .;:. ~ ti ~l~ ~~ •-'Id18 1~ p 2671 ,, -~ \ J z 2663 ~-, ~ `~ :i -~~552~ 2566`~~'1~ [1Q~1n~,~1 -' w 110 , \;t,-_. 2655 v u - ~ 26$1 ~_r - 2542550 '~ ~ I '~"'~ ~ 0 1 2649 ~ ~ ; /%' ~ , '`~ ,. ~ ~,___, l 1 Qo,-~ 708 2712 `~ ~ -~ 9~ 5~I ~ ~' ~ 264~`~ ~_ f~~ ~ _5~6 ` ~ ~~'~ P~ ~ , 2698 ~ z ~~' j ~ ~ 2686 o p ~ y~ ~ 1 '~ ai P~' ~~~ 1 ~ ~~ Z t~88 9~ t ~~ 268 ,~ 985 i~ _ ~~J ~J gg11 C7 ~~82 9~} ~ ±2658 ~ T~ 9~~ 2551 2561256725731I0 '~-f U ~ p ~ ~/ ,~ ~~ LJ 2541 ~~ `~9~ a g~~ 33 2'650 2~9 2~ 26 ~ 268 j 26~ 70S ~ ~ ~_7 g§~ n ~60~ i ~ 4_l HARVESTER AVE 1 ~ ~lL 1 27t~427 ~'~ LY3 684Q 2700 9~ ~ [7 J 9 ~2~7 2 895 g~ `~- © ^ -~ 27,0'1 270[7 D D ST __ f ' [To ~ 2712 2690~~2694 r S 'e ~ (5~~k ~UIQ~~In 75 C_l ~Sidfrr}i4~ ~ (~ ~5 26~j 26951l~ ~ X51 -' ~7~ ~ ~ X725 FZ7T~' JTH ST 8~3 I D w ~--; x 831 s2,~ I r n m z c D m N w~E Land Use Map S 471, i 21 \�--_P_ERKINOS VIEW ----- 11 L— w�--Wk+---W* -66 s� sa— _ss HARVESTER AVE, sT SF.----a-----'as \ �st..�—sr- `\�/r' ------ - - - - --- Nee7OVE 30114 r-------1 ` 0 7— cl w It I; --_---- — — T I—�_�----L— '� I I I I\ \ I � i ,r I• A CIO __ _' _— ='r �-- Sets \� • 74- '__ — ----_- ___, _ _ _ It -:7::_-- _� z, N W E S 21 Attachment 5 EXISTING CONDITIONS Attachment 6 _~i ~\ I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 ~ I I o I a I w I ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I y I t Q~ I I I I I _ / I n -~ I ~rt V'~ / ~~~~/ G pu a, s N W E S \~ PERF;lk05 VIEW , FiARNESTe'R A'rE. 22 ~ 47 ~..: I W 49 ~ W I I 4 I W ° I a ~ t c_ ~ I = I 1 I I I I I t t t I t I I I 1 I I I I I I ORIGINAL SITE PLAN (FOUR-STORY BUILDING) l~ I I' Attachment 7 i N W E ,\ ~~ ~, -~~___ I,- PERKINDS YIENr -"..f ~__ ~ --iez~-.__ i 23 ~` ~~ l ' r I I I I I ~ I I ~ I ! .~ r ~ ,. ~~ ~~ i ~~ I ~.,' 1vm. I I r I w J I w I ~ W I J I ~ v I W Z J ~ I 4 w I ~_ ~ I n ~ I I ~ I / I I I I I I 1 ,\ ~~~` ~ i II y I~ I~ I ~ 1 I I ~~ ~ ~~~ I\ / I~ I r'`- I ~~1 J I I I I I ~~~1 ORIGINAL GRADING PLAN (FOUR-STORY BUILDING) l;ttachment 8 i 1 \~~ _~ ~ ~~_PERF:IMDS YlEW --------------------=y---~--------' i~ ~~` \ I~ ~ r I~~I ~: I r v I ~~ ~~ 1 I ~ ~! I 1 ~ I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I I o I I z I I rr I I ~ I ~~ I I I I I ~ I I ~---4 1 I i%' I ~ ~ I I I I ,I I I v I I1. I { I x I 1 ~_ ~ I / I .Y' _ ~ f ~~ ~':~ fr i V ~--~~/J o _~~ ----_ ~; PLANT LIST: SNe Plentlnge en: lar avruw•x /1M( taaeeol M.la: azc/lnot TNEES T AaY !ar : e..ma.a •.MR~.r.d Aetum elm. Mep4 x-1/x' w It PA RmM1w. o,M,.~•wee TMma.• Petnwe A.h x-1/x' w a of lr. manta • o...M~. uw.~ x-1/x' w a eao a.w. +ia..l+ar Mar1Mn P.i t>rt a-t/r w is xa, o.t«v =e.-ae~ w.eu. lnens~ e..ww Mwlean 1-1/! w : we lme. 'Prurl.lr.• Pbn.w. taeeepp. 1-1/x w a aae le.le. ~S see: ~a sb. t-1/x' w a m SIeY~q. r.UeMMe ,I~al.w it.. L1ee t-1/r w lx eMa Pk.e da,., d.~eto aw Me. aPrue. rte- w : tas Plew w~a~• abm caws. ew. spree. rd w a ~ Ptw r..ere.. xweT PYi. r-a w SMRl1B5 e aee vrwrwe ertm.e Amrtloar Mghbu.h oma..r s or PM x oec cemrr,r. aeee. 'CemeeoW: e.or aare.a Gr.eyrr,n a e.L -et w oM Pn1..ewpe. epMMao. tseao• olmb ten.4st a or, PM x AN MrYvigw a0are.c~. 'Amah.a.' Mnoal. Mlararq.. ! Oi he • PPL Sp.p. rlavl. 'PraeN P.MI.' Pr.IrN P.U1. Um ~ erlL M ]9 RCB e.re.l. tnene~aa Mrqurprrrp RuCy ctrera MWry x OtL PM s Ps n.. weweleo '1,7o-loe• l7v-toe Praarant Sunx a or P.e e tPS Spt..e loPeMee Ltw Rilp.• lktle PrFow SpY.e : of -et e ula sb-e.. , a.naae 'Gisrra,ra' Ceien.ind aW'« x cat Pee xe sa ,A.rp.w enn.~w 's.. a..r• s.e ta..r JunO.r a cel. -ee to 5J aungau..oltr. •SrmAa' ae.na. +.~. s rd Poe e n ru.. er.Me TeurteM• Tmtee Tw s l7eL Poe 4 10 fiup ooetl.nlaib TW.q~ Ter.p aa.nMeR w. I.rn a lid. Pot 1t N M.M. 'AN Y.ryar.e.' AM"M~.1. qrb 2 C4. Pet 1 1 I I / I 1 I f I ' I 1 I ~ j I 11 I f I ~, ~ I ~ ~~f I I I I I ~ ~ I w ~ I ~ ~ 1 i ~ I a 1 ~ I ~ I 'o ~ I ~: ,~ I f I f I ~ ' i I I I I I I I I M1 ~~ I ~~y~i I ` I I 1~ f I I ~, I II 1 it I ~ u I ~ ~r\v~ J N W E S ORIGINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN 24 (FOUR-STORY BUIDLING) Attachrnent 9 EAST s:ao ~:w NORTH ~:w WEST i:,o ORIGINAL BUILDING 25 ELEVATIONS (FOUR-STORY BUILDING) s c t 4 C\ ~}arveS~~r' ~Ve• 125'-9" S C li Proposed Site 26 Attachment 10 REVISED SITE PLAN (THREE-STORY BUILDING) Summerhill -Maplewood MItLER~HAIVTON -ARTNENS Attachment 11 SHINGLES ~I.RLLIV PORCHES EAST NORTH WEST REVISED BUILDING ELEVATIONS 27 (THREE-STORY BUILDING) z 0 0 z 973 ~ 2585 957 949 937 931 ~; ~.J -- 2601 ~- i--~ L! ~____ -- - -, ..I ---- ~ J ~_ __--- N W E S ___, ~ . ~-- -~ 9~3 i - - ------ ---~, ~ -~ ~ ~ 2607 - ~---' ~-- 3 ~ ~~ ~_ HARVESTER AVE ~ ~ (~, i } ~r f ~~~ ~ ~. o ---- ---~ i_ ; i I - -' 93g5a 7" tOQo ~Q~ v~ ~c Lj o t Attachment 12 ~ P~ ~\~J P 2633 ----, --~ ------- i95fr-- 2634, 940 932 Driveway Map 28 29 Attachment 13 Fern~,Ie Sfi. COMPARISON CROSS SECTION Attachment 14 Memo To: Shann Finwall From Ann Hutchinson C~ Nature Center Staff Dobee 8!9/2004 Ree Proposed Summerhill of Maplewood Development Shann, here are our comments and concerns regarding the proposed development on the Transfiguration property adjacent to the Maplewood Nature Center. Our first choice would be to have someone use the existing building; and landscape to reduce the impervious surfaces( parking lot). Second choice, would be to see the area use as single family housing as it is currently zoned-why not small one-two story starter homes for either seniors or singles. Third choice would be this collective housing but only at two or at most three stories high. I think that four stories is too high for the neighborhood. Three would be better -but not in the c-shape section they propose -keep it to the existing shape to reduce impervious surfaces. Things we like about the plan: Returning the parking lot to green space. The rock construction entrance (on erosion control plan). Using their own land to take care of the storm water run off -especially in the form of rain gardens using Minnesota native plants. (This should be designated as such on the landscaping plan-see comment 13 bek~nr.) Concerns about the plan: 1. The building is too high. However, it would be better to retain the existing shape rather than create more impervious surfaces for water to run off. Can the building be three stories high and retain its shape or something close to it'? 2. The underground parking entrance we believe would better protect the nature center if it were on the north side rather than the south side. This would also protect the view for residents looking to the nature center. 3. It would be helpful to have the engineers do a volume ca~ulation of the water that will come off the site down Ferndale. We already have a problem with excess water fkwving down the hillside on the street to the raingarden, then washing over and eroding the trails. We want insurance that this problem will not be exacerbated by the partcing lot- another reason to move the parking lot to the north. Another option would be to move the whole building including the drive to the north several feet. NATURE CENTER REVIEW (BASED ON THE ORIGINAL 30 FOUR-STORY BUILDING SUBMITTAL) 4. The Landscaping plan shows a pipe draining storm water from the parking lot grate to the nature center hillside. This is completely unacceptable. We suggest the runoff from the grate be directed to a rain garden on the developments own property, not the nature center's properly. It would be even better if this driveway were not so close to the nature center property line. 5. I have questions about Michael lane -has it been formally vacated by the city? If so how much does the nature center retain, and how much does the development retain? We may need to do a more accurate surrey of the property line. The fence is not actually on the property line - I believe the city owns several feet on the north side of the fence. This needs to be determined. 6. Where exactly are the storm water down spouts for the building and where is that water being directed? This should be noted on the plan. Hopefully all are being directed into grass, or vegetated areas, not pavement or the nature center. Would the development consider the use of rain barrels or cistern? 7. Although the legends indicate that there are tree lines none are actualy shown on the plans. Please show them. We also suggest a tree locate along our fence line to delineate existing mature trees. How will the company protect the trees during construction? How will digging for underground parking affect the trees? This is another reason to move the drive farther from the property line; preferably to the north east comer of the lot. These trees are crucial to aesthetically buffer the proposed structure. 8. It would be wonderful if we could extend the Oak forest a few feet onto the property as part of the landscaping plan. This would allow extra buffering of the building from the view of folks on the opposite side of the pond. And would also be extra protection incase any of the existing trees would succumb to disease or construction damage. The trees should be tall trees like red or white oak or basswood. 9. Will the existing parking lot be replaced? Can all the new construction be done with out affecting the fence or spilling over onto nature center properly? The current erosion control plan shows the fence line being disturt~ed due to the pipe from the driveway grate. We would prefer no disturbance of the nature center property. 10. Consider offering an alternative to open decks on the apartments facing the nature center. The nature center alk>ws little or no control of mosquitoes. Screen porches might be a good option. 11. Currently there exists an old storm water drainage system from the school to the nature center hillside (similar to the one proposed) Can the city arrange some kind of clean up of the oki cement culvert, and officially close up that pipe? City engineers have seen that area. 12. We ask that barbeny be eliminated from the landscaping plan. I believe Ginny sent their landscaper a list of invasive speaes not to use, but am not sure if that was on the list. Consider adding a Native Prairie Butterfly garden to the plan. 13. We hope that the storm water ponds will be planted as rain gardens, or with deep rooted native plants, as this will fit in better with the neighborhood, and provide better infiltration. The nature enter will be happy to help plant the gardens with school children as part of our educational storm water Program. I hope this helps, and please call should you or anyone have any questions! ANN • Page 2 31 Attachment 15 Engineering Plan Review PROJECT: Summerhill of Maplewood PROJECT NO: REVIEWED BY: Erin Laberee, Maplewood Engineering Department DATE: August 6, 2004 Nichols Financial Development and Transfiguration Church aze proposing to develop 935 Ferndale into a senior building with 52 units and 61 underground parking stalls. The Maplewood Nature Center is located directly south of the proposed development. Currently, there is no storm sewer or ponding on site and a majority of the site is impervious surface (parking lot and buildings). The developer is proposing to construct a pond to treat runoff from the site. The following issues shall be addressed: Drainage 1. Runoff from a portion of the driveway is proposed to outlet into the nature center, via storm sewer. There is an existing erosion problem on the north slope of the nature center property. The engineer shall revise the plans to avoid direct discharge of storm water runoff into the nature center property. No pipe outlet will be permitted on Nature Center property. 2. The proposed pond outlet is shown to connect into an existing manhole at the corner of Glendon Street and Harvester Ave. The proposed storm sewer should connect into the existing catch basin on Glendon St. to eliminate disruption of the street. 3. The drainage calculations show that the post development runoff rate and the volume of runoff discharged from the site are greater than predevelopment conditions. The engineer must design the storage and treatment facilities to reduce the runoff rate and the volume of runoff dischazged to be less than the predevelopment conditions for the 10-year and 100-year storm events. Infiltration basins or other best management practices are recommended to meet this requirement. If additional Best Management Practices are not used and the NURP pond remains the only treatment for storm water runoff, it must be designed to meet NURP standards. The pond must include a 10-foot safety bench around the entire pond. The pond must meet NURP removal rate requirements. The NURP pond must remove 80% of the total suspended solids and 60% of the total phosphorus. 4. The engineer shall provide a detail for the pond outlet. CITY ENGINEERING REVIEW (BASED ON THE ORIGINAL 32 FOUR-STORY BUILDING SUBMITTAL) 5. An emergency overflow swale shall be constructed. T'he overflow swale shall be lined with a permanent soil stabilization blanket, (Enkamat, NAG C350 or equal). Indicate emergency overflow elevations on the drawing. 6. Note the NWL and HWL on the plans. Grading 1. The developer must contain the grading within the property limits. There shall be no grading allowed on the Maplewood Nature Center property. 2. The engineer shall note the top and bottom elevations of the proposed retaining walls. A building permit will be required for the proposed retaining wall greater than four feet high. A plan and a specific soil stabilization detail for the wall design will be required as part of the building permit. Landscaaing 1. The engineer shall specify a native seed mix and planting plan to be used around the pond. Misc 1. The developer shall provide sidewalk connections from the building to the proposed sidewalk along Glendon St. and Harvester Avenue. 2. The applicant shall submit plans to Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District for their review and approval. A NPDES construction permit will also be required from the MPCA. 33 Attachment 16 Project Review Comments Date: August 4, 2004 From: Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal Project: Sr. Apartment Complex (935 Ferndale) Building: Apartment Planner: Shann Finwall Comments: 1. Monitoring all parts of the fire protection system and fire alarm system will be required 2. Maintain 20 foot emergency access clearance to the building for emergency vehicles 3. Installation of fire protection system (NFPA 13) 4. Installation of fire alarm system (NFPA 72) 5. Location of fire protection needs to be accessible and clearly marked 6. Standpipes for fire department use only placed in stairwells from garage to top floor 7. Fire Department lockbox required to be mounted on the building the form for the lockbox can be obtained from the Fire Marshal Any questions or concerns please contact me. Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal City of Maplewood (651)-249-2804 FIRE MARSHALL REVIEW (BASED ON THE ORIGINAL 34 FOUR-STORY BUILDING SUBMITTAL) Attachment 17 Memo Date: July 30, 2004 To: Shann Finwall, Assoc. Planner From: David Fisher, Building Official Re: Transfiguration Church, 935 Ferndale Street An architect will be required to provide a detailed code analysis to verify the type of construction, occupant load, exit width, bathroom counts and other information required by code. The building will be required to be 100 percent in compliance with the 2000 IBC and the Minnesota State Building Code. This building will be required to be 100 percent in compliance with Minnesota State Building Code 1341 Accessibility. Provide Fire Department access around building. Van accessible parking may be required in the under ground parking. The building is required to be sprinklered per NFPA 13 and to have a fire alarm system per NFPA 72. BUILDING OFFICIAL REVIEW 35 (BASED ON THE ORIGINAL FOUR-STORY BUILDING SUBMITTAL) Page 1 of 1 Shann Finwall From: It Figures of Maplewood, Inc. [itfiguresofmaplewoodtc'D"worldnet.att.net] Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 11:32 AM To: Shann Finwall Subject: Transfiguration School Comments Hello Attachment 18 I have read through the information that you sent regarding a senior coop being built in our neighborhood. First and foremost, I do not object to the Senior coop. I do not believe that this building will have any negative effects on us financially. If we can achieve no tax increases as a result along with a higher value home due to the new construction, then I would welcome this coop. However, putting financial values aside, I don't necessarily want to look at a 4 story building in my neighborhood. I do not want any type of apartment, coop, 4-plexes, condos or any of that. I would rather have the developer purchase the lot and sub-divide it and put new homes on it instead. I feel the neighborhood would be a great place for new homes. I would think that this type of use for the lot would also increase the values on our homes. Another alternative would be for the city to purchase the lot and create a park for our children to play at. Currently, this is where they go to play. Our children would not have a neighborhood park if the one at Transfiguration is torn down. We do not allow our children to cross the busy Stillwater or McKnight to get to the parks across the way and as the nature center is a wonderful, peaceful, place to visit. It is not a place for our children to play. I understand an undertaking like this is probably not financially possible and it would certainly create more assessments. Before the senior coop is approved, I would hope that some alternatives such as these were looked at for a park or a few more homes on the lot would more asthetically pleasing than a 4 story building. Abigail Bour 957 Edith Street Maplewood, MN 55119 (651) 739-1415 FREE Emoticans for your email! Click Here! NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS (BASED ON THE ORIGINAL 8/3/2004 FOUR-STORY BUILDING 36 SUBMITTAL) Dear Shann, 03 August, 2004 My name is Chris Reeves, my wife Tina and I live at 2654 Brand Street along with our four children ages 11, 9, 7, and 3. I would like to give you a quick history of myself. I grew up at 2566 Stillwater Road, attended Transfiguration School as a child in the same classes as City Council member Jackie Monahan-Junek and currently live only feet away from this proposed project. As you can understand, I along with my family love this neighborhood and the Nature Center which our property abuts. My entire life of 42 years has been spent within a one block radius of Transfiguration School. This will be a big change for all involved and implore you and all others with the Community Design Review Board will take our opinions and/or suggestions seriously as we in the neighborhood will have to continue living with the decisions that are made, the developers will have moved on to the next project. In reading the Proposed Development Summary there are a few points I would like clarified. I quote: 1) "finding a buyer who is willing to pay a reasonable price for the parcel" What do we mean by reasonable. Relative to what, the size of the project? 2) "providing a benefit to the community" "provide great value to this neighborhood and the City as a whole." Please quantify these statements, because I also believe 8-10 single family homes qualify just as well. The concept as a whole we feel is a sound and good use for the property with some reservations. It is much better than Multi-Family low income alternatives. We understand the existing school, convent, and parking lot can not be razed and cost effectively build only 8 single family homes. That said, the scale of the project seems excessive. A four story complex is much too much. We would not be in favor of approval of the conditional use permit. Although the rezoning from R-1 to Multi-Family is acceptable. There are also concerns related to the claims that a 52 unit housing complex with support staff will have LESS TRAFFIC than an underutilized school which operates only nine months per year. I'm sorry but B.S. When planning for 109 parking spaces we find it hard to compare to an Elementary school with maybe a dozen teachers who drive, bus service for most students, some 37 pazents driving, and visitors. Let us compaze, 52units-not every resident will drive, but most will, some may have more than one car (husband, wife), service and support staff, deliveries and visitors. Our main concern revolve around these traffic claims, the impact on the Nature Center water quality and the traffic on Brand Street. Currently the school traffic via Harvester Avenue which was built with curb and gutter, striped shoulders for pedestrians and bicyclists, and a stop light at Century Avenue. Harvester is a main artery meant to handle trafFc volume and dispersal. SAFETY The design plan shows the entrance for the entire facility on Ferndale street. This means all traffic coming and going to the south and east will be utilizing Brand Street which is not as safe as Harvester Avenue. Ferndale turns into Brand Street at a 90 degree angle at the bottom of a hill, the corner is posted at 15 MPH, but many have gone through the corner, most at night, many in icy conditions, and one young girl last year actually smashed through the fence of the Nature Center. Currently only school busses with pick-ups on Brand Street use Brand Street. If the schools entrance was on Ferndale as the Summerhill proposal is we aze sure traffic patterns would be totally different. ENVIRONMENTAL Ferndale and Brand Streets were reconstructed about four yeazs ago without curb and gutter, preferring the rain water gardens to handle runoff. The unplanned increase in traffic to this corridor will have adverse affects to the water quality of the Nature Center that is the focus of the neighborhood. We all know most vehicles leak flltids of some sort, be it oil, antifreeze, and other toxic liquids that will eventually end up in the rainwater gardens. Our proposed solutions for both safety and environmental issues would be as follows. Change the vehicle entrance for the pazking garage to the north side, the same as the current use for the school. The underground parking would enter from north and the surface parking could be moved to the northeast corner of the property with the southeast corner held for reserve surface use. We know that Harvester was built as an arterial road with a wider right of way, curb and gutter, and is much safer to move traffic. At the west end of Harvester Avenue at Sterling Street the city constructed a large holding/filtering pond designed specifically to take road runoff and deal with the volume that curb and gutter can generate. The rainwater gardens do the same thing only on a smaller scale, but the Sterling/Harvester pond is perfectly suited to take the excess pollutants. 38 We are attaching revised site plans so you, the Planning Commission, and the Community Design Review Board can visualize our suggestions. We are looking forward to hearing from you and discussing this further. Sincerely, -----~_ r~ Chris an Tina Reeves 2654 Brand Street Maplewood, MN 55119 Chris Home: 651-738-2503 til 2 P.M. Work: 651-490-4470 3 P.M. til 11 P.M. 39 _~i 1 I I I 1 1 I I I I ' ~ i 1 I I I I I I I N I I p I O I 2 W I J i I I I i I ~ ~ I I 1 I I i I I I I I ' I S I I 1 i I I ;4 I I •~ I I 1 S: ~ 1 1 "+ -' f rt V'~ / ~~~ ~ ~ t'~ ._` _ i C ~~ ~ ~ y N W E S 1 ~~ PERF:IN'~+5 VI'e+ti , HAR+lcSTcR AV.. I I I ~ L7 1- I W L7 W ( 'X I i I w ? I d c I ~' W I a_ y I S I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 I I 1 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I Site Plan 40 Pat~4o~ ~ . / , ~ ~ PERE;Itis75 VI'eiti , HAn'VESTER hYE. ~~ ~~- ~ r- 1 I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I i I 1 I I I I I I I N 1 I I I a 1 1 a I 1 W I I ~ I I u I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I ~ I 1 I ~ I I I I I / I I L+ 1 1 7~ :a I I 1 s ~ I ~ :!~ / .y^ ' ~1~~iI ~1 Tc. ~U y N W E S yis~ ~ V7 ~.; I w N L•' W I a I I ~+ e 1 a y 1 _n ~ ~ 2 1 I Site Plan V 1 I 1 I I I I 41 Page 1 of 1 Shann Finwall From: J. Hruby [jhruby@fredcomm.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 9:40 PM To: Shann Finwall Subject: Proposed Development Comments - 935 Ferndale Street Ms. Finwall, would like to voice my concerns about the proposed development at 935 Ferndale Street in Maplewood. My wife Zoe and I own a house just down the block at 2659 Harvester Avenue. Specifically, our concems are: . Height of the proposed building - A four-story building is massively out of scale with the rest of the neighborhood. There is good reason for the three-story limit in the current planning restrictions-to keep buildings to a scale that is reasonable for the existing neighborhood. This concern is amplified by the fact that this four-story dwelling would sit on a hill above the Maplewood Nature Reserve. In my view, the height of this proposed building will impose on the peace of the Nature Reserve. • Number of units -Again, 52 units are simply out of scale with the current neighborhood. • Traffic - I do not agree that the proposed development will result in "less traffic than the property's current use as a school." Adding 50-80 cars to the neighborhood will result in a significant increase in traffic. Currently there is effectively no traffic for the four months of the year that the school is in recess. The traffic when school is in session amounts to only 10-15 cars per day on the average day, plus a few bus drop-offs per day. Obviously, traffic would increase dramatically were the restrictions to be lifted for this project. Only five years ago, the City of Maplewood closed the west end of Harvester Avenue with a cul-de-sac to solve the exact traffic problem that this large proposed development would now re-introduce to the neighborhood. As you know, the residents were assessed for the cost of this project and many of us were happy to pay because of the promise of calming what had become a significant traffic problem. Overall, I think there are positive aspects to this proposed development. It would supply housing to an important population. I simply think the scale of the development needs to be reduced to fit within the current zoning restrictions regarding height and the number of units needs to be lowered to reduce traffic congestion. Thank you for the opportunity to voice my concerns. Jason Hruby J.M. and Zoe Hruby 2659 Harvester Avenue Maplewood, MN 55119 Home: 651-578-0649 Mobile: 651-387-1233 8/5/2004 42 August 5, 2004 Deaz Ms. Finwall, We received your information regarding the Transfiguration School proposed development and have significant concerns with the proposed project. We live at 940 Ferndale Street N. We are directly across from the proposed entrance to the project so this project has significant impact on our home and property. We have the following reservations related to the proposed development. 1. We live in a neighborhood of single family homes. The homes surrounding the project azea are all one or two story homes. In the neighborhood there is nothing over two stories. A four story fifty plus foot high building on that site is completely out of chazacter with the surrounding neighborhood. 2. A four story building directly across the street with 25 balconies facing our home will significantly decrease our privacy not only in our front yard and our living room, dining room, and bedroom windows but because of its very height will also intrude on our privacy in the back yard. It will also block the afternoon sunshine that we value in the winter months and will have a negative impact on recent landscape projects that we have installed. 3. The front entrance is directly across from our home. All traffic into and out of the complex will pass by our home and driveway. Pazking on the property will be facing our living and bedroom windows with headlights shining in our windows after dark. When improvements were made to Ferndale Street we were told that curb and gutter were unnecessary on our streets because the traffic on Ferndale Street did not warrant curb and gutter and it was expensive. I believe with 52 units and a potential for 75 to 100 new individuals in that development that there will be a significant increase in the motor vehicle and emergency services vehicles in front of my home throughout the day and night. Harvester Avenue has curb and gutter and was designed to be the main thoroughfaze connecting the neighborhood to major arteries. It would seem that the main entrance to the proposed development and the parking should also be on Harvester Avenue. 4. The statement in your enclosed literature proposed that there would actually be a decrease in traffic near the existing property related to the motor vehicle traffic from the school. I would counter that fallacious argument with the fact that the traffic for the school occurs within the 15 minutes before and after the start and dismissal of school classes. There is rarely evening or nighttime traffic, no weekend, traffic, and no traffic during the summer months when school is not in session. There is also no emergency services traffic, no one coming or going in the middle of the night as there would likely be with the senior housing. With the main entrance directly across from our home that is another issue with the peace, serenity, and privacy that we have enjoyed in this single family neighborhood for 29 yeazs. 5. We purchased a home in this neighborhood 29 yeazs ago because it was a neighborhood that was zoned single family residence. It was close to neighborhood schools and work. We have raised our children, paid taxes and stayed here because we have not found other residences in second tier suburbs that afforded the convenience, 43 privacy and livability that has existed for us in this Maplewood neighborhood. We feel that this project threatens that peace, privacy, and livability in our neighborhood. 6. We have significant concerns related to our property value should the proposed development be approved. We also have concerns related to assessments that may need to be done to up grade the existing streets to accommodate the traffic related to the development and the increase in property taxes that may ensue. 7. We have concerns related to the environmental impact that the size of this development will have on the Maplewood Nature Center. With the parking entrance so close to the Nature Center we have concerns with the run-off of petroleum products and exhaust from the cars in the development. It appears that one of the rainwater outlets on the south side of the building near the parking entrance goes directly into the Nature Center. 8. The overwhelming neighborhood sentiment when we canvassed our immediate neighborhood was not in favor of this proposed development in its present form. (We will have a copy of that petition available at the next meeting regazding this proposal. ) 9. According to the city web site, Maplewood has 956 senior housing units in the city of Maplewood. There are two senior housing facilities within 6 blocks of the present proposed development. We have nothing against senior housing. I do believe this project would have merit in Maplewood but not at this site in the size and scope described in the proposal related to Transfiguration's property size and our neighborhood. In closing, we ask you to sit down in your living room tonight, look out your window and imagine a four story building with 25 balconies looking back at you and then tell me that this is right for our neighborhood! We urge you to deny the present proposal because it is too big for the proposed site, does not fit the chazacter or tenor of the established neighborhood, overall negative neighborhood sentiment, and issues related to privacy and traffic. Sincerely, ~~~~ Janes & John Heroff 940 Ferndale Street N Maplewood, MN 55119 44 Message Page 1 of 2 °-~-~ Shann Finwall From: Mckenzie, Mark [Mark.Mckenzie@gwest.com] Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 11:11 AM To: Shann Finwall Subject: proposed project on Harvester ave Good morning Shann, wanted to share my thoughts, and those of my neighbors, about the proposed project on Harvester Ave. Unfortunately all of the information I have seen about this project has been provided by my neighbors as I have not received any notices or otherwise in my mail. As I understand it the proposed project would include: • removing the current school and buildings owned by Transfiguration church. • modifying the current site to accommodate multi family /high density housing • building a new structure including 1 level for parking and 4 levels for residences . creating residence for 50+ new housing units My concerns are about the impact of these changes to the neighborhood (traffic, noise, "style", traditions) and the size of the structure and it's impact on the views from the existing residences. As I review the neighborhood, for at least several blocks, the only structure that would be at a similar height would be the water tower at the Beaver Lake Elementary School site. If t am missing any other 4+ story buildings please let me know. As I see it there are a few 2 story structures within a few miles, and one at 2.5 stories, but that's about it. I would certainly enjoy an opportunity to better understand the proposed project. I am concerned that the proposal has become this mature without my neighbors and myself having heard about it. While I understand that the Church and the developers are looking for the greatest return on investment, and the city would be able to add 50+ more tax payers to the current base, I think the project I have heard about is just too large for this neighborhood. If the area is to be developed as high density housing I think it would be appropriate to make the project fit it's surroundings. I would not be in favor of any project that would place the tallest building in the area in the middle of an established residential neighborhood. Please reply or call me so that 1 can gain a better understanding of the proposal and where it is in it's decision making process. As I understand, there are variances required to proceed with this project, as proposed. My neighbors and I will want to be involved in those discussions. Thanks for listening, Mark McKenzie 2676 Harvester Ave 651-739-8264 Mark McKenzie Senior Account Executive 8/5/2004 45 Page 1 of 1 Shann Finwall From: Jesse Sampair [jsampair@sampaircos.com] Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 4:14 PM To: Marvin Koppen; Robert Cardinal; Kathleen Juenemann; Jackie Monahan-Junek; Will Rossbach Subject: Transfiguration Development Thank you and/or the city staff for mailing out information to neighbors regarding the proposed multi-family redevelopment of the Transfiguration school site. The developers appear to have a first class track record, and the general concept would be a welcome land use change in our neighborhood. However, I oppose the plan in its current format for the following reasons: 1) Four stories is too tall. One of the primary purposes of zoning districts and land use classifications is to buffer land use accordingly. I believe that is specifically why the proposed rezoning class (before variances) calls for athree-story maximum height and lower unit density than the proposed project. A four-story multi-family building-which would be one of the tallest buildings in Maplewood-that is plopped in the middle of 1 to 2-story single family neighborhood, and which exceeds density standards, is not buffering land use. 2) I find the proposed development very inconsistent with existing city planning. How can the city take the environmental high road with the adjacent nature park and demand that park visitor's can not even walk their dog in the park (presumably under the guise of somehow not wanting to upset nature), but then in the same breath approve afour-story development that exceeds the city's own density standards on the adjacent parcel. This point gets back to the lack of buffer issue. I suggest the developers scale back the development to three-stories, which would also bring the unit density down to a level within city zoning standards, and make the project more compatible with neighboring property uses. Therefore, I implore you to VOTE NO for the project in its current form. ,~esse Sampair 2658 Midvale Place E Maplewood, MN 55119 651-735-1343 8/16/2004 46 August 4, 2004 Jce and Mary Erickson 932 Ferndale Street North Maplewood; MN 55119 City of Maplewood Attn: Spann Finwall Office of Community Development 1830 County Road B East Maplewood, MN 55109 RE: Neighborhood Survey -Transfiguration School, 935 Ferndale Street We just received the survey sent out from your office regarding the proposed four-story building to replace Transfigaration School. As a residern of this neighborhood, we have many concerns regarding this extreme change to our neighborhood. We are very compelled to express our dismay and objections to this project. As stated in the survey all residents within 500 feet of the school had been sent written notice of the meeting that was held on June 17, 2004. This was not the case for us, as we did not receive any notification via the U.S. Mail and I believe that we aze within the 500 as we are directly right across the street. Had we received this notice, we would have been in attendance to this meeting to voice our concerns and our strong objections to this four-story building in our neighborhood. We have been in this neighborhood for 8 years and one of the main reason to purchase our house was we were told about the "inability" for any new construction at the school would not be taking place. We am sure that the church and its leadership are very excited to be able to sell this land and have this four-story building put up, but they will not have to look out their windows and see a parking lot and this four-story building each and every day. This is only a profit for the church and its members. The amount of traffic will not decrease; our streets during the summer months aze exceptionally quiet and aze less traveled when school is not in session. With the "senior" building across the street, I believe we will see much more traffic along with many, many more emergency vehicles to contend with. It's a minimum of 55 vehicles for this building and that would not be taking into account any visitors to the building. This would be a yeaz round problem, not seasonal as it is right now. Some of our main concerns are that we see a loss of the nature center; we get to look at this four- story building daily and not to mention how this building will block sunlight. Addition of another road or re-construction of Michael Lane at the "square" corner of Ferndale and Brand Streets will only cause acciderns and/or vehicles to get stuck in the wirnertime. This is a very poorly constructed corner, cars do not stay to their respective side of the road now, and what will this new road also create? How many vehicles will need to turn azound, need assistance to get unstuck, or how many accidents do we need to contend with? 47 Page 2 August 4, 2004 Neighborhood Survey -Transfiguration School, 935 Ferndale Street They also believe that this building will free up single family dwelling, well there are many young families in the neighborhood now, and with the increase of property taxes and now afour- story building right out your window, who would want to purchase a dwelling in this neighborhood? Most homes in our neighborhood aze at least 50 years old, yet maintained very well; we will not be able to sell the house for close to market value with this "eye sore" in the neighborhood. We have already been through the construction of the streedcurbing etc that was to say the least a "nightmare". Our streets were left in disarray many times during that construction, dirt not graded, mounds of dirt to try to maneuver azound or through, sometimes not access to Ferndale either from Brand or Harvester. No pazking on the streets, per city ordinance, yet attempting to get into your own driveway was unattainable some days. Now again, we will have to live and go around another big construction project that will not better us by arty means. Does this project take in two counties? We believe that Century Avenue is the dividing line for Ramsey and Washington Counties; the enclosed map does not show the church on the Washington County side, as we believe that the church is in Washington County. How will this affect us? This is a Residential zone; why not keep it that way? Instead of putting up some ridiculous four-story building, put in some single family dwelling equivalent to the surrounding dwellings? We have over the years tried to better our residence both inside and outside for our benefit as well as our neighbors, and for re-sale had we made the choice to sell, now if we made that choice, we have to contend with this project and more than likely lose money on the sale. Who compensates us for our monetary loss? We cannot express how much we aze against this proposed project enough and still feel that we have not been kept apprised of all activities. This is a lose, lose situation for all people in our neighborhood, and it is very unjust that we have to pay the price for someone else's choice and for the church to profit from this and jump to another county, they aze off Scott-free from the mess they leave behind This project does not belong in my front yard or my neighborhood. Strongly Opposed, ,7oe a~.3fary ~'vrc~on 48 Regarding the proposed development of 935 Ferndale St. North: My name is Dan Zschokke and I live at 924 Ferndale St. North, directly across from the proposed development. First of all, I would like to say that I am all for an owner of any property doing whatever they would like on their land. I think if the owners wanted to put another school on the property or develop the property as single family dwelling it would be fine. The rezoning of the property, however, is upsetting to me and to many others in our neighborhood. We moved into this neighborhood with a school across the street. If there was a four story apartment building across the street, we would have looked elsewhere. This attitude makes us believe that our property values would go down as a result of this building going up. My family would definitely be moving as a result and not getting the equity out of our house that we might have. I think there are many families in this community and neighborhood that are in the same situation as we are. Please do not rezone this property to allow for a building of this size and purpose. Thank you for your time. Dealel Z~Gpokke ~~1~1 Z~ ,,Ay~.c, a1,tp~:~~J EECE~vE'D . p,IJG 1 0 2004 49 Attachment 19 AUG 1 6 2004 Tn: Maplewood City C'u~:inc;ii r,r.,.,to..,,.~,a vt.,,,,,;,,,. ~,,,~ ~,.,,;,,~ r,,,,•,.,,;~.~.,.,, l YlUlJL4 VV VVU 1 LGLLLLLlLLb U!!U L.VL!lLL~ ~.•V1LaltLLJJ1VLL _______________________~ We the undersigned feel that the proposed senior cooperative developt~leEit Fr ~P~t of±hP 1Vi~hnlc n~~~~lLt meat ('nrnnrut~nn un~ the TranS~b`Arat,nn Catholic Church on the property bordered by Ferndale Street, Harvester Avenue, ~ilendon Street, and the. luiaplewood Nature Center. does-not fit the- charactPr of the nPighhnrhunrl, ThP nrnnncPrfi ~fiPV~lnpn~Pnt is a fn»r ct~ry fifty unit senior cooperative huusiilg'buiidu1g. The siu~ou~~du7g wnu~lunit}~ is a neighborhood of single family homes of no more than two stories.. 1?Ve are concerned. about the effect of the development on nronertv values in the l L 1 neigl~hta~-hexad a~~d t13o e~~virnn~~~ental i~~~pact o~~ tl~e Maplewood >'+TAture C~iittir, ihi prv;~~ ill iw prt~,+Jt°+1[L ivci i ii'iii Si~ii~~ui~iij'"u' i~riwi iue uu~C Ali Ferndale and Brand Streets and Harvester Avenue. A four story building will significantly decreaTsTe tl~e pri{v~acy of the existing l~o~'ne's- in the area There are uli'Pi a~i ii}I t\~In CPtllfsll' HniiS~nb juv;~i#ty~ i3~1 ~'f~iil a~.s Si.~ar ~ivv~ ui•vu of thv ~i•upvS~u development. l1Ve the undersigned urge you to deny this present proposal and limit the .height of any development on .that site to no .more than the present nPis~hhc~rh~ci ctanrlar~l of twn ctnriPc ----a---- ------- -- - ~ -----___ - -- - - . -- _ -------- Bate Signed-O'Tl?5l~(1(14 Na[n~-e7~ ~ ~f Si~iature ~-, Address Ylioiie 2.~~/ n ~e ~~ 4. Ne.+~a~n w ~ cKr..~.. 5,~~~~~ 6.~~Ft 7. ~ose~h~ti e /Rr~ tirz. o 8. l~~~r 1 ~ ~~~. ~o,~ z~~1 ~ ~ ~ GS/-5~~-3~~ dry 73g-2~ti~ ~~ ~~ ~3f~o~ ~-~7~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~ NEIGHBORHOOD PET1TlUN (SUBMITTED AT THE 8/16/04 PLANNING COMMISSION 50 MEETING -BASED ON A FOUR-STORY BUILDING) ?~v~} I grate L1~. To: Maplewood City Council Maplewood Planning and Zoning Commission We the undersigned feel that the proposed senior cooperative development project of the Nichols Development Corporation and the Transfiguration Catholic Church on the property bordered by Ferndale Street, Harvester Avenue, Glendon Street, and the Maplewood Nature Center does not fit the character of the neighborhood. The proposed development is a four story fifty unit senior cooperative housing building. The surrounding community is a neighborhood of single family homes of no more than two stories. We are concerned about the effect of the development on property values in the neighborhood and the environmental impact on the Maplewood Nature Center. The project in its present form will significantly impact the traffic on Ferndale and Brand Streets and Harvester Avenue. A four story building will significantly decrease the privacy of the existing homes in the area. There are already two Senior Housing facilities within a six block area of the proposed development. We the undersigned urge you to deny this present proposal and limit the height of any development on that site to no more than the present neighborhood standard of two stories. Date Na<ne lature Address Phone l.~jU~ ~~},~ s~N~-,~~ ~~ ~~.~- ~~~~~. ~ ~ X38-a ~ ~~ 2. ~" ~ / yS3 ~~rN~~ ~y~ 3~-~~7~ 3. f ~ ~s~ti ~n~5iu~ ~ 1 4.x/03 ~~~~ ~oRe ~~.~~ ~,~.T-~3~d 5. ~ ~r~~~~,~v~s ~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ L ~n.ce 0i c~~' 1 ~", , r.~ GIs C~( 9 S 7. 8.~ `{ ~~ ~ ~Z11/ ~ i.S 7~~ %~cvL- ~ -z ~ 77 ~~I-~ v~-s'i~,~u~ 739 l38 ~, ~ l ~ ~ C ,~ ~,~ ,;C~-~~.~- s~i~ ~ ~~ ~- ~~~ it 9.~bY /~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 51 -c To: Maplewood City Council Maplewood Planning and Zoning Commission We the undersigned feel that the proposed senior cooperative development project of the Nichols Development Corporation and the Transfiguration Catholic Church on the property bordered by Ferndale Street, Harvester Avenue, Glendon Street, and the Maplewood Nature Center does not fit the character of the neighborhood. The proposed development is a four story fifty unit senior cooperative housing building. The surrounding community is a neighborhood of single family homes of no more than two stories. We are concerned about the effect of the development on property values in the neighborhood and the environmental impact on the Maplewood Nature; Center. The project in its present form will significantly impact the traffic on Ferndale and Brand Streets and Harvester Avenue. A four story building will significantly decrease the privacy of the existing homes in the area. There are already two Senior Housing facilities within a six block area of the proposed development. We the undersigned urge you to deny this present proposal and limit the height of any development on that site to no more than the present neighborhood standard of two stories. g'.a _ p y Date Name Sign ure _ ,/ Address Phone 1. „~, ~, 7l ~ ~ ~-`l -~,,.~~le psi 73S ~SS~s ~ ~~ ~ Zk ~~ J ~~~,3is~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ 4. a/'~, 6. ~, ___- ~. ~J3~v; ~. ~ ~ .~uwz. s. ~ ~ KC (~~~~2 lv r C?hf Go . w ~~-~ ~~~-r~ X39-iuis q ~~~~r~~ ~ 7~s- 70 ~ 52 To: Maplewood City Council g~~r ~~ Maplewood Planning and Zoning Commission We the undersigned feel that the proposed senior cooperative development project of the Nichols Development Corporation and the Transfiguration Catholic Church on the property bordered by Ferndale Street, Haor+Vester Avenue, Glendon Street, and the Maplewood Nature Center does not fit the character of the neighborhood. The proposed development is a four story ff fty unit senior cooperative housing building. The surrounding community is a neighborhood of single family homes of no more than two stories. We are concerned about the effect of the development on property values in the neighborhood and the environmental impact on the Maplewood Nature Center. The project in its present form will significantly impact the traffic on Ferndale and Brand Streets and Harvester Avenue. A four story building will significantly decrease the privacy of the existing homes in the area. There are already two Senior Housing facilities within a six block area of the proposed development. We the undersigned urge you to deny this present proposal and limit the height of any development on that site to no more than the present neighborhood standard of two stories. Date Name Signature Address Phone 2.~_.~a~ /~.,~~~ l~~N~~ 1~. y3T.~.~I-~ ~I-o~~ n 3. ~ ~~r~~ c~ S~roM ~P~ ~ ~~ G ~P~ ~or~~ S~~ . ) 3l ~-S~ `~ ~ S ,~ t~~o~- s. 6. ~. g-~ - a~f 8. ion v f'c,~.dv~~E X38-~G~Z ~ -- ,~ ~0~5 <e~d ~~9 ~5 ~ G~~~ `~~ers ~~~~ ~ ~ ~:. ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~/__ ~, is ~" ~~~~ (J ~,~~~~ ~~ o i, ~~o~L.~ s f~ ~/ ~~~ ~~~~ ~7398~2 5~S -G~~S 53 To: Maplewood City Council Maplewood Planning and Zoning Commission We the undersigned feel that the proposed senior cooperative development project of the Nichols Development Corporation and the Transfiguration Catholic Church on the property bordered by Ferndale Street, Harvester Avenue, Glendon Street, and the Maplewood Nature Center does not fit the character of the neighborhood. The proposed development is a four story fifty unit senior cooperative housing building. The surrounding community is a neighborhood of single family homes of no more than two stories. Vise are concerned about the effect of the development on property values in the neighborhood and the environmental impact on the Maplewood Nature Center. The project in its present form vuill significantly impact the traffic on Ferndale and Brand Streets and Harvester Avenue. A four story building will significantly decrease the privacy of the existing homes in the area. There are already two Senior Housing facilities within a six block area of the proposed development. We the undersigned urge you to deny this present proposal and limit the height of any development on that site to no more than the present neighborhood standard of two stories. Date Name Signature Address Phone 1. 1~~¢, h1e_~, 4~, ~e~ ~. ~ ~ ~ l ~c rr~i~ (eS~Fl11a dos ~ ~-caj01~$Ydl~~~tcq ~3~-53?3 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 54 To: Maplewood City Council Maplewood Planning and Zoning Commission We the undersigned feel that the proposed senior cooperative development project of the Nichols Development Corporation and the Transfiguration Catholic Church on the property bordered by Ferndale Street, Harvester Avenue, Glendon Street, and the Maplewood Nature Center does not fit the character of the neighborhood. The proposed development is a four story fifty unit senior cooperative housing building. The surrounding community is a neighborhood of single family homes of no more than two stories. We are concerned about the effect of the development on property values in the neighborhood and the environmental impact on the Maplewood Nature Center. The project in its present form will significantly impact the traffic on Ferndale and Brand Streets and Harvester Avenue. A four story building will significantly decrease the privacy of the existing homes in the area. There are already two Senior Housing facilities within a six block area of the proposed development. We the undersigned urge you to deny this present proposal and limit the height of any development on that site to no more than the present neighborhood standard of two stories. Date Nan Signatur Address Phone 1. ~" ~d `iF' N~- FCE ~sc~~,. ~ k«. ~~~ ,~~ .~6 To ~f,~;,~~r~.,~P G1ri' 7~ t~.1r66 2. ~. ~/ -~ ~ ~I~Te r ~ ~ ~~ z r ~~~ ~y~ /-l`~~v-~~~.r'' ~v-y !0~'~-7~%;~°~,5~ ~?I•r,~-mow ~~ 3. ~ ~1~--0 ~ ~5 t-~-~G-.~h e ~~ L G s ~ /~iic~y~L~ 73`~ 33 qG 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 55 To: Maplewood City Council Maplewood Planning and Zoning Commission We the undersigned feel that the proposed senior cooperative development project of the Nichols Development Corporation and the Transfiguration Catholic Church on the property bordered by Ferndale Street, Harvester Avenue, Glendon Street, and the Maplewood Nature Center does not-fiz the character of the neighborhood. The proposed development is a four story fifty unit senior cooperative housing building. The surrounding community is a neighborhood of single family homes of no more than two stories. We are concerned about the effect of the development on property values in the neighborhood and the environmental impact on the Maplewood Nature Center. The project in its present form will significantly impact the traffic on Ferndale and Brand Streets and Harvester Avenue. A four story building will significantly decrease the privacy of the existing homes in the area. There are already two Senior Housing facilities within a six block area of the proposed development. We the undersigned urge you to deny this present proposal and limit the height of any development on that site to no more than the present neighborhood standard of two stories. Da a ne is Add/ress Ph?one~~,~~ff,1~.~~,~ ~~ ~ r ~ ~ bs ~ ~ ~ d ~~. ~e,~P1. 7 ~S- f3 ~~~s ~~~~~~-et, 13~~33~~ 4. 5. 6. ~~ 8. 9. 56 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: Ken Roberts, Planner SUBJECT Lot Division, Conditional Use Penmit and Design Review PROJECT Ramsey County Suburban Courts Building LOCATION: 2050 White Bear Avenue DATE: September 13, 2004 INTRODUCTION Project Description David Chase of Kraus-Anderson Construction and Ramsey County, is proposing to build a 15,150 square-foot suburban courts building on the vacant city-owned property at 2050 White Bear Avenue. Refer to the applicant's statement on page 10 and the maps on pages 11 - 19. The proposed building would replace the existing county court space in the building at 2785 White Bear Avenue. As proposed, the exterior of the courts building would have colored jumbo brick, prefinished cement fiber board panels (with a look similar to EIFS), colored rock face block, metal panel siding and a standing seam metal roof. In addition, it would have two courtrooms, office space, meeting rooms and associated space for the suburban courts operation. Refer to the project plans. Requests Mr. Chase is requesting that the city approve: 1. A lot division to create a new, separate lot for the courts building. (Please see the site survey on page 14.) 2. A conditional use permit (CUP) to construct a public building. Section 44-1092 of the city code requires a CUP for a public service or public building uses in any zoning district. 3. The project design, site and landscape plans. BACKGROUND On March 8, 2004, the Maplewood City Council agreed to offer the city-owned property south of the Maplewood Community Center to Ramsey County at no cost for a new suburban court facility. On May 11, 2004, the Ramsey County Board picked the site south of Maplewood Community Center for the new suburban court facility. DISCUSSION Conditional Use Permit The city council should approve this permit. The proposed building should be attractive and would be an improvement for the courts over their existing space. This would benefit the county by improving their courts space and facilities and would be a complimentary facility to the city and county's campuses. Design Considerations Lot Division As I noted above, the city council agreed to donate the land for the new courts building to the county. To accomplish this land donation, the city must approve the splitting of its property to create a new, separate parcel with its own legal description. However, the proposed parcel (as shown on pages 13 and 14) would be landlocked. Because of this, the city and the county should enter into maintenance and access agreements for the use of the existing parking lot that is between White Bear Avenue and the new building. These agreements should clarify who is to repair the parking lot, plow the snow from the driveways, sidewalks and trails, liability responsibilities and that the users or visitors to both the community center and to the courts building may use the parking lot for ingress and egress purposes. Parking The city code does not have a specific parking standard for this type of facility. The city code, however, would require 76 parking spaces if the city considered this building as all office space. As proposed, the site plan shows 25 parking spaces to the east of the new building that the county has designated for the courts staff. In addition, the plan shows an additional 26 spaces to the east of the east lot for proof-of-parking, about 55 parking spaces in front of the proposed building for 105 total spaces next to or near this building. The project architect provided city staff with a narrative (on page 20) explaining the expected parking needs for the court facility. This narrative notes that the county now reserves 100 spaces at their current facility and that they expect to need a similar amount of parking with the new building. As I noted above, the county will have at least 76 spaces near the building (with 26 more available with the proof of parking}, which should be enough parking for most days at this facility while leaving enough parking for the community center. In addition, there should not be any reason for any parking on the landscape areas or along the driveways. Building Elevations It is important that the new court building have a design and materials that are close to or complimentary to the style and materials in Maplewood City Hall and in the Maplewood Community Center. This is especially critical on the west and north (pond) sides of the building as they will be the most visible elevations. For reference, Maplewood City Hall has an exterior that is primarily brick and tan rock-faced block and the exterior of the community center is brick, tan colored concrete block and with small areas of metal siding. The proposed exterior building materials raises some concerns for staff. As proposed, the building would have a variety of materials and colors. (See the plans on page 18 and the enclosed project plans.) They include jumbo brick veneer, tan-colored rock-faced block, gray corrugated metal siding, areas with prefinished cement fiber board panels (with a look similar to E1FS) and a standing seam metal roof. Specifically, the architect has proposed to use the corregated metal siding on a large portion of the building's elevations. Since city halt and the community center have exteriors with brick as the predominant material, it is city staff's preference that the exterior of this building have more brick and possibly more red-colored concrete block and much less (if any) metal siding. The project architect should revise the elevations accordingly. 2 Sprinkling/Irrigation Code requires that the developer or owner install an in-ground sprinkler system for any new landscaped areas. The city can waive the sprinklering requirement if there is an alternative method for watering plantings. In this case, however, the county should have the project contractor install an in-ground irrigation system for the new sod and landscape areas near and around the new building. This is a requirement that the city has for all new commercial and institutional buildings. Landscaping The county had a landscape plan prepared for the site. (See the landscape plan on page 17 and the attached plan date-stamped August 3, 2004.) This plan shows the county planting a variety of plant materials around the new building, including maple, linden and black hills spruce trees, lilac, spirea and juniper shrubs and a variety of annuals and perennials. Staff would like to compliment the county's plan, as it appears that the proposed landscaping should be a nice addition to the building and to the campus. This plan, however, was based on an earlier site plan for the project. It would be a nice addition to the site to have outdoor seating areas in front of the building (for public use) and on the east and north sides of the building (for building staff use). The applicant should revise the landscape plan to reflect the current site plan and to incorporate the recommendations of the city engineer. In addition, the project designers should include the amenities I noted above, with additional landscaping for screening and shade, into the final landscape plan. Dumpster Enclosure The project plans do not show how the county would handle or store the trash from the building. The city should require Ramsey County to install a dumpster enclosure that matches the building as apart of this project to meet current code standards. Lighting The county did not supply city staff with an outdoor lighting plan for the building and for the area around the building. It is important that the city review and approve such a plan before the contractor starts the site construction. Other Comments Building Official A building permit is required. We suggest having a meeting with the architect and the owner and will be happy to work with them. Fire Marshal 1. Monitoring all parts of the fire protection system and fire alarm system is required. 2. Provide and maintain 20-foot-wide emergency vehicle access to the building and to the site. 3. The contractor shall install a fire protection (sprinkler system) that is monitored. 4. The contractor shall install a fire alarm system that is monitored. 5. The contractor shall install a fire department lockbox on the building. The owner or contractor may get the request form for the lockbox from the fire marshal. 3 Police Department Lieutenant Dave Kvam of the Maplewood Police Department stated that the only issue that he identified with the proposal has to do with the impact on traffic. He noted, "the increase in the number of vehicles trying to tum in and out of or into the parking lot at the court building will add to the problem" (of traffic flow on White Bear Avenue). He also noted that there are a fair number of accidents on White Bear Avenue involving vehicles waiting to tum into the parking lot and that it is not an easy task to safely make a left tum onto White Bear Avenue. He concluded with "I would like to see the traffic issues given some consideration, however, even with no lane or other traffic control changes, keeping the court in Maplewood is a benefit to the police department." Ramsey County Public Works Dan Soler, the Ramsey County traffic engineer, reviewed the proposal. His comments are in the memo on page 23. In summary, Mr. Soler does not think any traffic control changes to White Bear Avenue or to the existing parking lot are warranted at this time. He did tell me on the telephone that he expects that the county will eventually need to add a fifth lane to the section of White Bear Avenue from Frost Avenue to County Road B. This section of road would then have a design similar to the parts of White Bear Avenue south of Frost Avenue and north of County Road B. City Engineering Department Chris Cavett and Erin LaBeree have reviewed the proposal. Their comments are on pages 21 and 22. COMMISSION ACTION On September 8, 2004, the planning commission recommended approval of the proposed lot split and the conditional use permit. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Approve the lot division shown on the survey on page 14. This lot division creates a new, separate parcel for the Ramsey County Suburban Courthouse facility at 2050 White Bear Avenue. This lot division approval is subject to the city and the county signing access and maintenance agreements for the property and for the parking lot(s). B. Approve the resolution on pages 24 and 25. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for the Ramsey County Suburban Courts facility at 2050 White Bear Avenue. The council bases the permit on the findings required by code and it is subject to the following conditions: All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Any future expansions or major changes to the building require the approval of a revision to the conditional use permit by the city council. 2. The city council may require the county to construct the additional parking shown on the site plan east of the east parking lot if a parking problem develops. 3. The applicant must begin construction within one year after the council approves this permit or the permit shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year. 4. The city council shall review this permit in one year. C. Approve the project plans date-stamped September 10, 2004, for the Ramsey County Suburban Courts building at 2050 White Bear Avenue, subject to the findings required by the city code. The county or the developer shall do the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Complete the following before the city issues a grading permit or a building permit: a." Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, sidewalk and driveway and parking lot plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions: (1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code. (2) The grading plan shall: (a) Include building, floor elevation, water elevation and contour information. These shall include the normal water elevation and 100-year high water elevation. (b) Include contour information for the land that the construction will disturb. (c) Show sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. The ponds or basins shall meet the city's design standards and shall include best management practices and rainwater gardens wherever practical. (d) Show all proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 on the proposed construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. This shall include covering these slopes with wood-fiber blankets and seeding them with a "no move' vegetation rather than using sod or grass. (e) Show all retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls more than four feet tall require a building permit from the city. (f) Show as little disturbance as possible on the north and south sides of the site to minimize the loss or removal of natural vegetation. (3)* All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter, except where the city engineer decides it is not necessary for drainage purposes. (4) A storm water management plan, including drainage and ponding calculations, for the proposal. (5) Make all the changes and meet all the conditions noted by the city engineer in the memo dated September 13, 2004. b. Submit alawn-irrigation plan to staff showing the location of sprinkler heads. c. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction. 5 d. Submit a revised landscape plan for city staff approval showing: (1) The planting of native grasses, flowering plants and low-level shrubs around any storm water pond(s). These materials shall extend at least four feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of each pond. (2) The planting details (including flowering plants and shrubs) for any rainwater gardens on the site. (3) The landscaping fitting the latest project site plan and showing the changes recommended by the city engineering department. e. Get the necessary approvals and permits from the watershed district. f. Submit a detailed photometric plan for all proposed outdoor lighting for city staff approval. This plan shall show how the lighting on the building would add to the site lighting. This plan also shall show details about the proposed light fixtures to ensure they are a design that hides the bulb and lens from view to avoid nuisances. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the adjacent street right-of-ways and from adjacent properties. g. The applicant shall record the following with Ramsey County: (1) The deeds creating the new lot for the courthouse. (2) Athirty-foot-wide permanent easement for the public trail across the east part of the lot. (3) The ingress and egress easement agreements between the two properties. h. Have the Saint Paut Regional Water Services (SPRWS) review and approve the proposed utility plans. Submit plans for city staff approval for any outdoor trash or recycling enclosure, if the county is going to have an outdoor dumpster. These shall include a revised site plan to show the location and elevations of all four sides of the enclosure. The gates shall be 100 percent opaque and the materials and colors of the enclosure shall be compatible with those of the new courts building. This plan shall be subject to city staff approval. j. Revised building elevations that show the use of brick as the predominant building material and more red-colored concrete block and little, if any, metal siding. k. Meeting all the conditions of the city engineering department as outlined in the memo dated September 13, 2004. I. A letter of credit or cash escrow for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. 3. Complete the following before occupying the building: a. Install new property irons to designate the comers of the new lot. 6 b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. c. Install reflectorized stop signs at each exit, ahandicap-parking sign for each handicap-parking space and an address on the building. In addition, the applicant shall install "no parking" signs within the site, as required by staff. d. Paint any roof-top mechanical equipment to match the uppermost part of the building. Screen all roof-mounted equipment visible from White Bear Avenue. (city code requirement) e. Construct trash dumpster and recycling enclosures as city code requires for any dumpsters or storage containers that the owner or building manager would keep outside the building. Any such enclosures must be 100 percent opaque, match the materials and colors of the building and have a closeable gate that extends to the ground or driveway. f. Install all required landscaping. g. Install and maintain an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas. h. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all interior driveways and around all open parking stalls. i. Install on-site lighting for security and visibility that follows the approved site lighting plan. All exterior lighting shall follow the approved lighting plan that shows the light spread and fixture design. The light fixtures must have concealed lenses and bulbs to properly shield glare from the adjacent street right-of-ways and from adjacent properties. j. The developer or contractor shall: (1) Complete all grading for the site drainage, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. (2)'` Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. (3) Remove any debris or junk from the site. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the city for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished landscaping by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. 5. This approval does not include the signs. All signs need permits from the city. 7 6. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 7. This approval does not include any future additions on the east end of the building. The developer or builder shall submit all necessary plans to the CDRB and the city council for their approval before the city may issue a building permit for such an addition. 8. This approval does include the proof or parking area shown on the site plan. The city engineer must approve the construction plans for this parking before the county starts constructing the additional parking. CITIZENS' COMMENTS 1 surveyed the owners of the 11 properties within 500 feet of this site and received one reply. Ms. Ira Schroeder at 1997 White Bear Avenue expressed concerns about the loss of green space and the possible negative impacts to traffic on White Bear Avenue. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: About 2 acres Existing land use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Maplewood Community Center and ponding area East: Ponding area and Maplewood City Hall South: Ramsey County Campus across the DNR Gateway Trail West: Multi-tenant commercial/industrial building across White BearAvenue PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: G (government) Zoning: F (farm residence) CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL CUP Section 44-442(a) states that the city council shall base approval of a CUP on the findings listed in the resolution on pages 24 and 25. Design Review Section 2-290(b) of the city code requires that the community design review board make the following findings to approve plans: That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. 2. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the sun-ounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. 9 3. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. Application Date We received the complete plans and applications for this request on August 3, 2004. The county submitted revised site plans and building elevations on September 10, 2004. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for any land use proposal. The 60-day requirement on this proposal ends October 2, 2004. Therefore, city council action is required on this proposal by October 2, 2004. p:sec14/Ram Co Court bldg - 2004.doc Attachments: 1. Applicant's Statement 2. Location Map 3. Land Use Plan Map 4. Property Line Map 5. Site Survey 6. Site Plan (Proposed) 7. Proposed Grading Plan 8. Landscape Plan 9. Proposed Building Elevations 10. Proposed Floor Plan 11. Architect's Parking Narrative 12. Erin Laberee's comments dated September 13, 2004 13. Dan Soler's comments dated August 13, 2004 14. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 15. Project plans date-stamped September 10, 2004 (separate attachment) 10 Attachment 1 Conditional Use Statement The intended property use would serve as the new location for the Ramsey County Suburban Courts Facility. It would replace the existing facility currently located in Maplewood several miles to the north of the proposed property. This property allows for continued location and operation with in the City of Maplewood with easy access and accessibility from the surrounding areas on a site that is appropriate in size and scale for such a judicial facility. The facility will include two courtrooms as well as administrative offices and services to the public from Maplewood as well as other surrounding areas. This property use would compliment the adjacent public functions provided by the City Hall and Community Center while also further developing and enhancing the area. It is asked that a conditional permit be granted for this property to allow for this particular use in addition to the proposed property division as suggested on the provided survey. Additional preliminary information is provided as scripted out by the conditional use and community design review applications. It was predetermined that no photometric plan would be necessary at this time given the agreed shared use of the existing parking lot. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT io Attachment ,? - ----- ---- ~ ~ ® AVE.N BEAIA ~~ ~~ AVE. --- o ~~M 1111PLE VIE1M AVE. z ~ AVE. ~ RADATZ '-l''` IE511~ /W 1 W ~ ~ ~ ~ obi ~ NORTH SAINT PAUL WW~ AVE. ~ ~ ~i `~i;:• iii We KOHLJiWi ~ `,=~:-_ ~ _ r~ ~ 5 AVE ~+ ,gala.,. ~ ~ tW.l ~~ _ W ~ ~ ~GEHILL RD. j ~~ ~ ooaoHr AVE Q N ' ,~ eRDOKS AVE. ~ ~~ ~ ~ P - AVE ~' ELEy AVE r GERVA6 ~ ~ ~ ~ 'G£RVAIS ~ fXiANDYIEW AVE. ~ Ci. VNONG DR Y SHERftQI AVE. ~ ~ GSTLE AHE. ~,~y "~ Lolce !r CppE ~~ AVE ~ COPE AVE. f ~ ~ ~ AVE. - ~ G- t/IRlC < AVE ~ ~ ~ LAURIE RD. • ~ LAURIE "°• ~ ~''a°g~ `A~~ _ `m W ~ ~ ~ 0' 1700' 340C ~ ~ Lu1sr ~ ~" 3 AVE. ~ ~ ~ v o ~ ~ ' e ~ o ~ co. RD. ~ e ~ ~ ®~ eLNild= AVE. ° ® ~rRla= o.r. ~ ~ ~ 0" 1 „ 2„ ~ ~ ELDR IDLE AVE. ~ ~ , l ~' _~ ~... I E- 510LLYAli AVE. -" HAI>RIS A W ROSEIMO AVE. N. ~ AN AV AVE. S couur SATE NORTH SAINT ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ 5~- ~ Hawrwr / AVE. _ A4.DRICH . U ~ ~ } AVE. ARENA W Q~ ~' ~ ®~ ? ~: ,~ 8 ~ RPLEY AVE 3~r RI PLET AV 3 ad ~ \wak~fiNd, Z ~ ~ ~ ® KN('SIw ON ~j m ~\Lalos ~' m ~n IQ~GSiON AVE. AVE. HIA AVE `~ . ~ ~ J ~J) { ~ W ~yW PRICE AYE. ~- K 2 ~ PRICE ~V~ L~~. %~ ~ 3 ~ 3 Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ nr~.+o~r W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ LOCATION MAP N 0 Attachment 3 -_ __ 6 '1732 1746 1754175$1x84''-1.774 73~ :1-737 1742 1755 1765, 171 BURKE AVE 1732 1742 175 '176tl 212~a ~---^--~ ~~ 1721 1731 1997 1732 1726 1720 1959 1989 1695 1955. 1949 1947. ~'~ 1975 PJ m m m D ~l D m Golf Course 1820 LAND USE MAP N 0 12 COUNTY ROAD B Attachment 4 I j ~,3y I ~ ~ ^~- ., a ~'' N ° , r--~ I ~ . 1 xu.a. t ~,~ %9e't ~~.~ ~ 33L5' I I 73400' ! 753' 1 90' I 77n ~ 74' ~1 7 _.--_~. --r- COUNTYROADB ------,--- ; --- ~ -,- :, q_ M ~ ~ ~ ~ .bOK + + + + ~ 1.77.16 . ^ .d3K + + RI 001 rn ~ :~ al ru a of al g '" 13K na 255 sz ~c sz~c 7-as ~c .~ .302AG 52.16 (69AGi (52 AC.) L51 AG) ~ 3' "s,, CENTER COMMUNITY ~~ ~,`'`-;r=;.. ~~1-%~- ~ :_ y l - :% ~~; i _ - te : _ r : : ~ ` ~= _ 1333 AC ~'. . , G77Y OF IiIMlENOOD 72-2'175 '~f~~'sf f' ~ = ~ ~%~ ~ :1 lJ'':~ J i4= ~ -' ~ y~ ~~ ~~~ r 1. +'.~: %:~ ~'.'.''J l,.J r f 7.42 AG r/7.: ~ y~ ~%"=-'~:~r Y.-'1~:'`'. f`- J,~~ I l ' , .i~y7r " ,. ,~ ..tea. -.;; _~:i'/._i~:. ='=="- ~`''~=~' =-~ MAPLEWOOD CITY HALL a : _ _+. m -_ ~ . G~.•~ '_ "i=ii i' ~~ _ 'Yy I ~ +T53' ~~ ~ ~J. ~` ' J \ / ~ r ' i ~ ~ ' Oq ' \ I '~ SATE _ Nl!J~ ~ ° ~_ / ~ ~°" ~_ ~- ~ ~ - ~' , - ~ - _ ~ _ ~ ~ _ Sew .-~ ~~~ - ~ ~ ~ - - - - `'-~._ DNR TRAIL -- - ~_~°' i ~ COUNTY CAMPUS PROPERTY LINE MAP 13 4 N Attachment 5 he NW C°r, of 59c. 11, lhetswt~eJ leeat ,° gt~YN.I 6]]B h t°el qp Mpgw~l pwrl~te M. Norl~.xl OuM.r er S.etlen 11, TxnM4 29. Rx9. 3I, B°mxy Cpunty. YFxxlo. 9ulN°t ~ T. 29 N., R. 22 W. t° wwlb Bea Ax. Found Rameay County Yonumenl Prepxed Bemqua et Peru ,: r 1Ne exU te].00 MI of 1M yhgl 21].00 Mt el q° Nagexl puerta el qe Nagwxl pmtw of 9xOx tt, Texgnp 39, qxq 33, gemxy Ce~nty, Y9ewwlm s°ePmt m welt. e.e. Av° + + ~~ + RN 90 ], MM O+.eO NV.9 3 y ~ MV e99.e) E. .NI ch +9 9 ee+. xv p 2 InM RC 4 Inch OM Nv. e9+.9+ S 90e. e V.E .DO S NV.3. a ).09 9Miv:f~c )iai `~ ~ Q POND + PARKING LOT ED Ty ~ MV. eP9.11 + W V. 9 .9) 900 ~ WOOD )a ~ .c ° 3 a enumgex + art°mh°.. 3 33 ] e]SOt- 6 + ]]. .ao e30' + 9os S 21J. 0 a20 S + + 30 Fool Or9in Utility and Tr°II E9nmm1 3 ~ 8 + SITE 8 z ~ + PON a 0 ~ + + + 3 + Pfxe91 2 MY M0. a 9 ~ ~ 78,861.87 ew. ft Q v. ew. _ m9)] m ,.76 Aw O + + +~ OICBI + 8 + + + 36, 79.65 w. ft + + 89 A ~. + + + + a ~ + + +`• • NW 1 L 9}N 1/ f Swc. 1t + + + + 1 V. _ ]zoo ,eo.ao uo.m s Y3]•w anm- '+a + + + gas---~~ + n ~ + vm 9, "~ ONE + _ / + o ~.5 a~ a. + yto/ 915 Z _ enanh 930 FI n 935 Bw BHumhwe th. W v ar. °f 9.a. ,.. DNR TRAIL `N9. R5.e0 T. 29 N., R. 22 W. Found R9muy Cwnty elmvm9nl SITE SURVEY 14 4 N Prap°eetl Mevwtbn el PaeN 3: the SxM le].lq txt °f 15. Ext U0.00 feel el qa Ylxt 9]].00 feet ei Uw NM5°xl Ouertn el qe Nwgxel (Rata sf Sxlbn ,+, Te.°.nb 19. rwye 32 gwnxy C1 .nts 1. Y~ '~t~ subMet m ° pamaxt x.emxl fa drplnpq an! utMty °nJ P.M.bbn tnt PVrp°x. via q. EeN ]0.x10 Mt q~°f. ieyelM Nq e rk 5eclbn 1+, Tex/~w IY, x~ 32 gmm~~AC ly. YI nx°t°.e5ulfee~e 1gIM Bea tAw. qe ~1 31].gl pl iM N°rgwl AJatw of qe Naggxt puata of Attachment 6 ~_ /o -~o~ ~ ~-~. ~ ~~-~< `` WETLANDS ~, ._ , .--. ~_ ~ ~- ~. _ s, s> - •. wns .• _ - wmnm k,ehi: - ~ :.i1= h it.~'r` .k } ~' t •rYti __.,_ .. 438'-0' -k,a e., .a J k ..~ .) J ~` 24'-0' 45'-0' 76'-0' 198'-0' #*~~ - - '~Ya na I § W SHARED PUBLIC ~ • I~~ ~ ~ *n PARKING ® 0 ~ ~-"^ „-`", ~~-~~, I II¢ 15,150 SF o - 4.'•' m I P' FOOT PRINT ~ •~ARK NG m^'m^•-~ $ ~ J w o _ ~~ _ , „~4 ~. ~ R4'-0' FFE = 907.5 c ,~ '1u~14' -- - ~ ~ t'``3 ~ _ _._~ Rd'.p. u xi ® "°~"` :0000000000 00000000 ___ ___i 4 u1 ... --~ a ~~2~ 1' '26'-0' 20'-0'8'-0' 30'-0' 336'-0' 9'-0'S'-0'19'-6' 24'-0' 19'-6' 60'-0' Bl'-0' 23'-0' 26'fi' S8'-0' 213'-0' 91 -0' 30'-0' 180'-0' 620 -0' 1 SITE PIAN r - ao-0` SITE PLAN 15 4 N Attachment 7 RM %'!~I %]i[ ~- ~ 9 '~• INV3. !00.90 ! RIM 901.]5 IRVE 90690 - X p c. . ~i~ 42 InM RCP INV. [%.90 S9 Inch EM 1 I : R)11 90415 ~ I I -9rvL. ss i9 '~ ~~ F ,~~_~ ~' $ ~ ~ irrv°~ 9o ~ `(OODED ~ I I ~ ~! I~ ~ I /I ~ •. ryVi li ,. _ _._ _ .T _. W a Ij < III w ~ ~$ I I I ,.,~ t~W ~ ~~ ° RIN no 2 i ~ [ I: j ~ ~ ~. ` ~ ~~ ~. 3 ~ ~ n pt • ~ INV. B /\ , I y ~ . ~ ~ J\ ~ I~I~ ~~ .. . i (.Y+aut.l ~ :. ~ '~.~. 5EP i p 2004 POND RECEfVED ~~_ .r r_ -~ - _ .. uewm~.. _ ~ _ \ ~_%4-~ I I ~~ ~ ai~~-~'- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ $ I i• w5'~~ / ~ I ~ I POND PROPOSED BUILDING ~~ /~ ~ ~ I ~ m~ - FFE ` ~~0 .~ ~ ~ ~ i - -_ - ~ ~ am~0isi~Rlus~f it _ ~~1\\ I ~ r ~N9d~B9\/~,]9 /~~j/~/,/ /~ -~~~ `\ ~ X99, N'a,. ~`~._ :- / / ~\ ~\ ~' ~ `_, _ . _ \ \ ._~-912 ~_ ~~//i ' ~~ \~ ;-~R.~\~.-~'` -~~ _~ =~~ _~ \~~'• _` 913 ~~ ~J ~ . Mva'°n _ - _ _. l- INV. 92590 IlIILlIY NOTES - ,u .N.te.9 m m..a m e oew r Ime nere.tl eme y. - NrNY Y ~9nic~ be0livN wtl Ynnb ~ NnNienle0l uyb9N MMN wrulnNNen. - Mvineh b Iw a mOYmun d )i' el aaw. - Runew aWno S ueM meh wntw e14 M bN ab0e0 f wM mWn. - b IM ~19Nt al ~ m M ees M 0u Cly el SL Pwi RpbnN Nelr Sullen. - Ib[v Nwt M ! quXx, sM M b aripiiol panmml sWp. - RpeY 00uNau MN h enlbM t+uONM MeliM. N GRADING NOTES p - w re..we .n..e ~ m Rew ..t.e~. m - CmbscM b nywsbb M aNe0i9, N ^~eaY. a McOUW NeYU1m1 OeeNeT F)Yni~elien m~Snlwn fxroa) 9sd sMn, Nblw r.nm M ae.b ibe neuwy at.. msNenl.n wW.. a.n ~w kl~iObMwwnurNm mI 0 Se01N in Fwt i .ma.M. ~ .peer ' mnr.b~ °' l ' PROPOSED GRADING PLAN 16 4 N Attachment 8 ~ ,.,` ~.: ;... ,. , _ _ _ _ _~~ - ,: .. SEEP _.,... . ~ ,.; -_ -- _, _~-___- _. r _.. _- -~ 15VRF ----------gam----- ._ -- ---- --- -- _ _. - -- ' ~ s 1uPO ~ ~ _. .,,. -,... , ••4 \ 35PG0 ~ ... ... ~ SSYRE v_ °~ i ~~`, 5 ISP ~ 15 HOFW - - 3 FElM ' ~ 7 HOFW ~ L .51 PO i 5 DISP ~ 903' 3 ~~ ~ ~ I 11 RUHI .. 7FEMA - ~~ - - - - - - 75CSC . PlAN1E R e '. _- 31UBR 31UBR ~ ~p 38' STMU BORDER (ttPJ 'I I ' ~ 5 UBR 7 r':uto " i I ~ I i 35YME 5'BORDER OF STMU ' i ~0 E - 3 SPGO `. I 31UP0 ~ 1 TU1M NNU ' ~, / ~ ~ ~. 5 ~ I I SEED I 18' STMU BORDER MPJ UARD ._. 9 GXiING ~ . . 1 EUCO ACRU SOD :... i ] } ~ ~ , i 7CAKA SRUHI 71 ACME SIUPO 31UPO 31U RO IAMGR ~11 HEMO I i "~ 4 PIBH 1 AMGR 1AMGR 3 SPGO 3 SYME 5 SYME ., `~ ~ SCAKA ~ ~ 7 31UP0 ~g X1 SS ~, 1 . , ~ i i SC$C - 31 PGO . ` ~ ' ~ ~~ : ~ ~ i ~ ZS CAKA B 1T "'.X T '.. .' .~. ..: - ". ' ' i A M ~ ..__ _.. ~,~y$ f" ~ ~ _ ._ _ ~ - - - ' / -. __._. _ ..__ _ ST1AU ._.- __._"...,,, ~ STMU BORDER (1YPJ SB _. . . .. .._ _. _.. 1 SYRE i . 9 _. r xr uy { ~ / "`~z' O.+ O IB'STMU BORDER (iYPJe r a..x...x x..,..... x. .. •uu ....:. X :`/~ St rx .. -__._.._. __..._ . __._ _ __. ~~- ro x \ \ 909 :: .:.' ~:.. x . 9ruc i•~ Ix' LANDSCAPE PLAN 17 4 N Attachment 9 9V'.l'~f0' nM~wJlm .WU w1o.o MI.. xon .OU. ~uI o. +1 ~!.? 4~ O.lv ____ _ - loixr ` Y~o~iulalO f4wrtw/ Y~ ~- ~ x ~ m SEP f 0 2004 ra ..w•.xn. x.rw[ w/.w11xo xeow xxv. mloll. vcxu. wIm• o,~vrof .ft wwM wMOw nL MNu WESTIXTERIORELEVATION FRON wW .i ~...m.. ~'~ ~~ ~~ caxc w.J s~as~i•a+~ mad ~•c•.ra•J uaJ Lrvxw.wu x•a•:.•m~ sw•.t~w•~ x•a•..•a•~ .o can ..nn mia.• oow w/ .u cmn.c v.xn. nw.• mxo.w wxoox v.xm mw. m ~ NORTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION POND SID w,..wx,.,.w. ,.......wss .w.Y"w.xs/...ww/mom'. ~- _ _~* Q~ _ - I ,~..~.x. ./~ .,, mx...,. ~x~. ~.. max... nom.. EAST I R EVATION REAR ~~~ ~ , ,e tw/ulo 9i[uD nxu.xf~ ./ ~'~^, uR [n~D.o - RW [.1ol1 W.T[x. uuNrw' _~._-.~.. '. ~y w ~~ 1 ~_ ..x.ow~a ..x... mu.. nx... coe.. vn.oo.`in~ wx.ow ~ s......oxr wix.w. it OUTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION SID s , .. BUILDING ELEVATIONS 18 i ~ N Attachment 10 . ==_ ~___ .o,.m„o..~ ~~ RFC' _ ....... _.. ~ ._..,..,... __.. ,~„ nw ~aw .._ ........_... -_ ~ ~` -__~F raw II ~~ ~~INS~ !SITE SECTION SEP ~ p 2004 RECEIVED E C D E F G X 1 C R _ I I I WO ENS I ENs ~ oR > taa ~ l.5 4 w w v 2 _ _ _ _ _-. _ _ _ _ I_ _ _ . _ . _ ~_ - - - - - - - - - _ - - I MIGIIC 5 URIIY %IRIIC R6NLIE OEf >r I WAKING o I ( Y I I F I I - E ______ ______ ~. E - Esr. EoxF. Wrn Ess FARING W IONG COMF. ~ CONF. [ f. PORIIC I tR ` WANING - - T I xEMtING C01 TLT. [ONF. RE[EFOON xA ~ ~ Rs~s I L - - I I -- - -- CON . ONF. CO O O O ONF. CONF. NON# GNMENi COxF. CONF. ARMIGNMFM COONi ~ 5 NNG sFAIING o O i ~ CON„ Oxf. CO ONF. ~ Q 0 ~ Q ~ O _ - _ - - - WO I HOLDING XOIDIN W qK I I OFNCE ~ xON# IGNMENT O O ARW6NMENi O ~ O COU OM X LNG COURTROOM I ~ NIE R I ~ ROOM I ~ MECN. I I I OGE A u u ATA IUDGE I ~ ~ ~ `~ I ' O _ _ T _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ O ' O ___ _ i _ _ E - _ VEGT• IUDGE IAN. sTOR - IUOGE'G VEST. i iQia CHAMB W iF b LA CIMMGER L'] 1 OFFlCE COXF. B ~ CLERK CLERK Rosa O ~ O ' TL . L~ TL • NiRY ~~ T, O ELEG 0 T. 0 0 Mo Tx g ~ FL_R~R PLA ~P~RELIMNARY FLOOR PLAN FLOOR PLAN ~7 4 N Attachment 11 5q8 Apolb Drlve, SUlte to tlnD takes, Mlonesote 55otq ht 65t-764-79~4 ~ 65t'78479~5 rorwo.drayro.eow rnridiin~ rmnmanifirr '~ , ~ drrunQlt n rrltifrrfurc /~!{f! ~ ~ QQ4 Parking Narrative •RECEIVED One of the attractive offerings of this proposed property was the ability to utilize existing parking in a joint venture with the City of Maplewood. It was understood by both parties that although this parking could not be solely dedicated towards the courts specific use it would be feasible for shared use given the high use times would not likely overlap. The Courts operational hoursare weekdays between Sam and 5pm. On evenings and weekends where the most I ikely use of the Community Center would involve higher concentrations of people, the Courts Facility is not in use. For certain dates when the Community Center may need maximum parking the Courts could adjust the case loads as needed to reduce the likely hood of conflict. A certain amount of lead time is necessary to accomplish this however such an event would likely be well planned prior to its occurrence allowing coordination to occur. It is believed that the parking requirements for the proposed Ramsey County Suburban Courts Facility are as follows. Currently the Courts reserve 100 total spaces for staff, legal professionals and the public at the existing facility. Little change is expected with relocation to the proposed property. Staff specific parking will be added to accommodate the current needs of the facility. Currently (21) stalls proposed. Future needs could increase this requirement to a maximum of {25) stalls. This includes spaces for: (14 to 18) dedicated staff, (6) for two Judges and each of their two personal staff and (1) HCAP. This area will be accessed through the existing parking lot but be separate and secure from the public. Legal professionals and the public will utilize the existing parking, Under normal circumstances (4) total public defenders and or prosecutors would utilize the existing parking in addition to any private attorney's representing any given number of clients whose court appearance was scheduled that day, Other users would include individuals paying fines, utilizing hearing services or appearing in court. This number fluctuates daily depending on case loads, and is typically highest on Monday and Thursday mornings. These needs appear to be accommodated by the Courts existing parking provisions as addressed above. The southern most area of the parking lot consists of (31) stalls (2) of which are HCAP, The area located immediately in front of the proposed property would serve as the facilities primary parking and would likely be utilized fully during operating hours. The area to the north would serve as overflow parking as needed, r~zd2 20 Attachnent ~ 2 Engineering Plan Review PROJECT: Ramsey County Suburban Courts PROJECT NO: 04-19 REVIEWED BY: Erin Laberee, Maplewood Engineering Department DATE: September 13, 2004 Ramsey County is proposing to construct a 15,150 square foot suburban courthouse on a site just south west of Wicklander's pond on the city hall campus. The site is now a community garden used by the nature center. Ramsey County is proposing the construct additional parking spaces east of the proposed building. The proposed plans show storm water runoff discharging from the site into Wicklander's pond. The applicant or their representative's shall address the following issues: Drainage The city is working on plans to retrofit the existing storm sewer system on city hall campus with best management practices. It is important that the project designer's incorporate best management practices into the drainage plan for this site. This shall include treating the runoff from impervious surfaces in an infiltration basin or in a defined swale before it discharges into Wicklander's pond. Roof scuppers should not be attached to the storm sewer; rather, flow into a Swale or basin. It is recommended that runoff from the north portion of the parking lot and the roof flow into an infiltration basin and overflow into a Swale before discharging into the pond. 2. The developer is proposing to grade a drainage swale in the city's property to the south. The developer must obtain a drainage easement from the city before doing any grading done on the city's property. Utilities The contractor shall directionally bore the sanitary force main to preserve the wooded areas. 2. The project engineer shall submit plan and profile drawings of the force main construction. This shall include all existing utilities and utility crossings. The project engineer shall submit as-built drawings to the city after the contractor has completed the construction of the force main. 3. The applicant shall obtain the necessary easements for the sanitary sewer force main from the City of Maplewood and from the MN DNR (for the area by the Gateway Trail). 21 4. The project engineer shall verify with Ramsey County the plans for the installation of the water service in White Bear Avenue. The applicant should assume that the contractor will need to directionally bore the water service. Misc 1. The applicant shall submit plans to Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District for their review and approval. 2. The contractor or applicant shall submit a traffic control plan to Ramsey County for their approval for the water main construction on White Bear Avenue. 3. The Gateway Trail right of way shall be shown on the plans. 4. The proposed layout disconnects the trail on the west side of the property (on the east side of the existing parking lot) from the Gateway Trail. The applicant shall connect the existing trail on the north and east sides of the project site to the existing trail south of the proposed building. This new trail connection shall be installed south of the proposed driveway that will be on the south side of the new building. The maximum allowable grade on a trail is 8%. 22 Attachment 13 RAMSEY Department of Public Works Kenneth G. Haider, P.E., Director and County Engineer ADMINISTRATION/LAND SURVEY 50 West Kellogg Blvd., Suite 910 St. Paul, MN 55102 • (651) 266-2600 • Fax 266-2615 E-mail: Public.Works@co.ramsey.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Ken Roberts City of Maplewood FROM: Dan Soler ~ Ramsey C unty Public Works SUBJECT: Ramsey County Court Building 2050 White Bear Avenue DATE: August 13, 2004 ENGINEERING/OPERATIONS 3377 N. Rice Street Shoreview, MN 55126 (651) 484-9104 • Fax 482-5232 AU6 ~ 7 244 RECE~VEO The Ramsey County Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed conditional use permit and site plan for the proposed Ramsey County Court Building at 2050 White Bear Avenue. Ramsey County has the following comments regarding this proposal. 1. The County is proposing to construct a new court facility at the south end of the existing Maplewood Community Center site. The addition of the new building is not anticipated to create operational problems on White Bear Avenue. The existing roadway has adequate capacity to handle additional trips generated by the site. 2. Two access points currently serve the Maplewood Community Center on White Bear Avenue. Access to the court building will be from the south Community Center driveway. This access should be adequate for the new building. 3. The proposed project will require a utility permit from Ramsey County for work within White Bear Avenue right of way. Thanks for the opportunity to make comments regarding this issue. If you have any questions or need any additional information please give me a call. 23 Minnesota's First Home Bale County printed on recycled paper with a minimum of 10%post-consumer content Attachment 14 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Ramsey County applied for a conditional use permit to build a new suburban county court facility. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property located at 2050 White Bear Avenue. The proposed legal description is: The south 183 feet of the East 420 feet of the West 633 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 14, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Subject to a permanent easement for drainage and utility and pedestrian trail purposes over the East 30 feet thereof, together with a permanent easement for ingress, egress and parking over, under and across the South 183 feet of the West 213 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 14, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, subject to White Bear Avenue. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On September 8, 2004, the planning commission held a public hearing to review this request. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The commission also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff. The commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 2. On September 27, 2004, the city council discussed and considered this proposal. The council gave everyone at the meeting a chance to speak and present written statements. They also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and from the Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit, because: The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Ptan and Code of Ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 24 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site=s natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Any future expansions or major changes to the site or to the building require the approval of a revision to the conditional use permit by the city council. 2. The city council may require the county to construct the additional parking shown on the site plan east of the east parking lot if a parking problem develops. 3. The applicant must begin construction within one year after the council approves this permit or the permit shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year. 4. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on , 2004. 25