HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-10-02 PC Packet
AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,October 2, 2012
7:00PM
City Hall Council Chambers
1830 County Road B East
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Agenda
4. Approval of Minutes
a.September 18,2012
5.Public Hearings
a.7 p.m. or later: Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Right-of-Way
Vacations for a Proposed Senior’s Housing Apartment Building by Azure Properties, North
side of Roselawn Avenue, East of McMenemy Street
6.New Business
7.Unfinished Business
8.Visitor Presentations
9.Commission Presentations
a.Commission report for the city council meeting of September 24, 2012. Chair person Fischer
was scheduled to attend. There were no planning commission items to review.
b.Upcoming city council meeting of October 8, 2012.Commissioner Wensman is scheduled to
attend. Items scheduled for review are the resolution of appreciation for Gary Pearson and
the discussion of whether to proceed with a reinforced-turf parking ordinance for residential
use.
10.Staff Presentations
11.Adjournment
DRAFT
MINUTESOF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
1.CALL TO ORDER
A meeting of the Commissionwas held in the City Hall Council Chambers and was called to order
at 7:00p.m.byChairperson Fischer.
2.ROLL CALL
Paul Arbuckle, CommissionerPresentat 7:01 p.m.
Al Bierbaum, CommissionerPresent
Joseph Boeser, CommissionerPresentat 7:07 p.m.
Tushar Desai,CommissionerPresent
Larry Durand, CommissionerPresent
Lorraine Fischer, ChairpersonPresent
Dale Trippler, CommissionerPresent
Absent
Stephen Wensman, Commissioner
Staff Present:
Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
3.APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Staff added 10. b. Update on RSI Recycling Project.
CommissionerTripplermoved to approve the agenda as amended.
Seconded by CommissionerDesai.Ayes –All
The motion passed.
4.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
CommissionerTripplermoved to approve theAugust 21, 2012,PCminutes as submitted.
Seconded by CommissionerBierbaum.Ayes –All
The motion passed.
5.PUBLIC HEARING
None.
6.NEW BUSINESS
a.Ordinance Revision –Reinforced TurfParking Ordinance for Residential
Properties
i.Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand gave the report and answered questions of the
commission.
September 18, 2012 1
Planning CommissionMeetingMinutes
The following were comments and questions raised by the commission during the
discussion:
Are there any other cities that allow the Reinforced Turf Parking Ordinance for Residential
Properties?
Is it expensive or relatively inexpensive to install reinforced turf parking? It should be simple to
know who has approval for reinforced turf parking and have a spread sheet of the addresses to
monitor.
It looks like grass and people driving by don’t know the difference. It should not be allowed in
residential. If people want to have parking spaces they should pave it or putgravel down.
If someone wants to use this reinforced turf parking do they have to go through an application
process for approval?If there is no permit the city won’t know who is using thesystem.
Are there requirements where RV’s and boats can parktemporarily? Temporary parking spots
rather than parking on the grass is preferred. A commission member stated it causes more
problems thansolutions.
A concern is the potential of oil drip contamination going direction into the ground.
Have there been any requests for this type of system yet?
Commissioner Bierbaummoved to deny the reinforced turf parking for residential use.
Seconded by Commissioner Durand.Ayes –Chairperson Fischer,
Commissioner’s Bierbaum,
Boeser, Desai, Durand,
& Trippler
Nay–Commissioner Arbuckle
The motion passed.
b.Resolution of Appreciation for Gary Pearson
Commissioner Trippler moved to approvethe resolution of appreciation for Gary Pearson.
Seconded by Commissioner Boeser.Ayes –All
The motion passed.
This goes to the city council on September 24, 2012.
7.UNFINISHEDBUSINESS
None.
8.VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
None.
September 18, 2012 2
Planning CommissionMeetingMinutes
9.COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS
a.Commission report for thecity council meeting of August 27, 2012. Commissioner Durand
was scheduled to attend. The items reviewed were the wetland setback variance for 1978
Kennard Street and the RSI Recycling conditional use permit.The city council approved the
wetland setback variance. The city council tabled RSI Recycling with conditions. After the
councils review, RSI Recycling withdrew their application for the location in the old Wipers
Recycling building. Staff is waiting to find out what the plan is for RSI Recycling to possibly
move to another location in Maplewood.
b.Commission report for the city council meeting of September 10, 2012. Commissioner
Bierbaum was scheduledhowever,there were no planning commission items to review at the
meeting.
c.Upcoming city council meeting of September 24, 2012. Commissioner Fischer is scheduled to
attend. The resolution of appreciation for Gary Pearson will be presented at this meeting.
There will also be a joint meeting at 5:15 p.m. that evening with the city council and the
boards andcommissions regarding the Gladstone area.
10.STAFFPRESENTATIONS
a.Update about improvements at the Gladstone Savanna and Public Safety
Training Center
i.Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand gave a brief update on both projects.
b.Update on the RSI Recycling Project
i.Staff had given the update under commission presentations.
11.ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Fischer adjourned the meeting at 7:40p.m.
September 18, 2012 3
Planning CommissionMeetingMinutes
MEMORANDUM
TO:James Antonen, City Manager
FROM:Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
Chuck Ahl, Assistant City Manager
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Vacations
SUBJECT:
Votesneeded:(A 4/5 vote of the city council is requiredfor Comprehensive Plan
amendment; 3/5 vote is required for rezoning approval; 4/5 vote is required
for vacations)
LOCATION:North side of Roselawn Avenue, East of McMenemy Street
DATE:September 21, 2012
INTRODUCTION
Requests
Azure Propertiesis proposing to build a 71-unit senior’s apartment building on the north side of
Roselawn Avenue across from St. Jerome’s Church.
To build this apartment building, the applicantisrequesting the following approvals:
1.A comprehensive land use plan amendment from LDR (low density residential) and P (park)
to HDR (high density residential).
2.A rezoning from R1 (single dwelling residential)to R3 (multiple dwelling residential).
3.Right-of-way vacations for:
The easterly 10 feet of Edgemont Street adjacent to the proposed site.
The southerly half of the alley east of Edgemont Street.
The applicant will submit their site, architecturaland civil engineeringplans at a later date. Refer to
the attachments.
Reasonsfor the Requests
The proposed changes, if approved, would:
Increase the allowed density for this property to 25 units per acre, which is needed to support
the proposed apartment development of 71 apartment units(the proposed comprehensive plan
change from LDR and P to HDR).
Provide multiple dwelling zoning to allow apartment development (the proposed rezoning from
R1, single-dwelling residential, to R3, multi-family residential.
Vacate right-of-way which would give Azure Properties additional land area for their total site
size needsand eliminate unneeded right-of-way.
1
Azure Propertieshas proposed to buy .9 acres of adjacent city property to incorporate into their
total site acreage if the above requests are approved. They would then have 2.58acres for their
apartment site.
BACKGROUND
Previous Right-of-WayVacations
May 29, 2001: The city council vacated the Arkwright Street right-of-way north of Roselawn
Avenue.
February 21, 2012: The planning commission considered the applicant’s right-of-way vacation
requestsfor:
The easterly 10 feet of Edgemont Street
The full width of Arkwright Street
The alley lying between Edgemont Street and Arkwright Street
The planning commission moved to approve the vacations of the alley and Arkwright Street. They
did not recommend approval to vacate the easterly 10 feet of Edgemont Street. (Note: Last
February, Arkwright Street was assumed to be existing street right-of-way. Following thatplanning
commission meeting, stafffound it wasvacated in 2001.)
DISCUSSION
Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment
Land Use Plan Goals and Objectives
When considering a change to the land use plan, staff always looks at whether the proposal is
supported by the goals of the comprehensive plan and whether the use is compatible with the
neighborhood.
The comprehensive plan lists goals and objectives for housing development in Maplewood. The
comprehensive plan encouragesthat the quality of housing in residential neighborhoods is
maintained to meet the needs of current and future residents.To accomplish this goal, thecity
must have a variety of housing types for ownership and rental for people in all stages of the life
cycle.The comprehensive plan also promotes and supports “housing diversity.” The
comprehensive plan states that “the city will make efforts to provide for the housing and service
needs of the elderly and disabled.”
Neighborhood Compatibility
Many of the nearby property owners oppose this proposal. Theyurge the city council to leave the
land use plan classifications and zoning unchanged. They do not feel that a three-story apartment
building for seniors is appropriate for this neighborhood.
2
Stafffeels that this proposal would be compatible with the neighborhood. The proposed site is
primarily surrounded by undeveloped property with a storm-water holding pondabuttingto the
northeast. The land across Roselawn Avenue is St. Jerome’s Catholic Church which is a
compatible neighbor to a senior’s apartment building. The applicant’s existing senior’s apartment,
Rosoto Villa on Roselawn, is a quiet neighbor with very little activity to impose on neighbors. The
main neighborhood impact that staff foresees isthat of its larger presence—a three-story building
vs. much smallersingle family homes.
The owner of the vacant property on the west, Kathleen Delaney, has concerns. Staff spoke to her
attorney, Mr. Mark Jacobson, and he questioned whether 50 feet would suffice for access to his
client’s property with street right-of-way typically 60 feet wide. Though 50 feet of right-of-way
width is slightly narrower, it still is sufficient width to accommodate a 32-foot-wide paved roadway
with nine-foot-wide boulevards on either side.If Edgemont was constructed in the future, it would
likely even be considerably narrower than 32-feet since it would be a very short street. Also,
narrower streets are found to be better to lessen runoff impact and provide more green space.
Staff has includeda letter from Mr. Jacobsonreceived earlier this year when the applicant had
previously applied for the right-of-way vacations.
Staff has seen that senior’s apartments fit well into residential neighborhoods. Examples are the
Suite Living at Highway 36 and Hazelwood Street, Summerhill of Maplewood at Ferndale Street
and Harvester Avenue as well as Rosoto Villa on Roselawn.There is typically very little activity
around senior housing developments so their impact on neighborhoods is not an issue.
Park Land Purchase by Azure Properties
Azure Properties approached the city to purchase some of theabutting undeveloped city land to
add to thesite acreage. The city presently has a purchase agreement with the applicant which is
dependent on theproposed land use plan amendment, rezoning and vacations.
The Maplewood City Council,along with the Maplewood Park and Recreation Commission,
previously acknowledged the importance of retaining park land that has been developed and
available for the use of all Maplewood residents and property owners.The continued development
of this valuable public resource is a very high priority for the City.Maplewood acquired and
developed our park system mostly through a system of fees on new development. Because
Maplewood is 95-98percentdevelopedthe continued reliance upon development fees is no longer
a reliable funding source.In order to assure the continued funding of park development, the city
should continually evaluate the existing park land system to determine whether available property
that is currently under-utilized,undevelopedor found not to be needed for park purposes, such as
the case with this property,can be sold for re-development activities, such that funding can be
realized and made available on a city-wide basis for the further development of our park system.
This approach is consistent with the council’s goal to identify alternative funding sources for park
development on a financially sustainable basis.
It is staff’sposition that the Roselawn Park proposal is an appropriate balance of this approach.
This property, though guided as “Park,” was never planned for development as a city park.It was
always being held in city ownership for pond purposes.The sale of about 20percentof this city
propertywill provide the Park Development Fund with over $235,000 for use in the development of
parks throughout Maplewood.The property being considered for sale was originally purchased as
a storm water pond and still functions in that capacity. It should have been guided as G for
3
“government” rather than P for “park”since it was never planned by the city to be a developed city
park.The remaining portion of this city property will still remain to be guided as a parkif Azure
Properties purchases land for their development.
Housing Density/Number of Apartment Units
The proposed land use plan amendment to HDR is to allow ahigherdensity for the proposed 71
apartment units.At the proposed site size of 2.58 acres, however, the HDR land use density
proposed wouldonlyallow 64.5 apartments (2.58 acres x 25 units per acre = 64.5 apartments). In
order to build the proposed 71-unit apartment building, the applicant also plans to provide
underground parking which would gain them a density credit of 300 square feet of assumedlot
area for each underground parking space. In this case, they would need to provide at least 38
underground parking spacesto achieve this density credit.
Rezoning Request
Staff is not supportive inapproving R3 zoning. If the land use plan is amended to allow high
density development for the proposed senior’s apartments, and R3 zoning follows for the
construction of apartments, this will not assure that senior’s apartments would be constructed.
Once the R3 zoning is in place, any typeof multiple-family development could happen.
Staff feels that the proposal for R3 zoning should be denied forthe reason just stated. A more
suitable alternative would be to recommend approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) for a
planned unit development (PUD) to specifically restrict future development to seniors housing.
This would eliminate any possibility for another form of multiple-dwelling housing being built on this
site, without council approval,that may not be compatible with this area.
The advantage of approving a CUP for a PUD is that the citycouncilcan place conditions on their
approval, whereas,we cannot place conditions ona rezoning to R3.
Findings for CUP Approval
The zoning ordinance requires that the city council find that all nine “standards” for CUP approval
be met to allow a CUP. In short, these state that the use would (refer to the resolution for the
complete wording):
Comply with the city’s comprehensive plan and zoning code.
Maintain the existing or planned character of the neighborhood.
Not depreciate property values.
Not cause any disturbance or nuisance.
Not cause excessive traffic.
Be served by adequate public facilities and police/fire protection.
Not create excessive additional costs for public services.
Maximize and preserve the site’s natural and scenic features.
Not cause adverse environmental effects.
The proposed senior housing complex would meet these criteria provided the city council amends
the land use plan to HDR. Staff does not see any conflict with these findings for the development
of a senior housing project.
4
Conditionsfor CUP Approval
In 2000, the city approved the development of the RosotoVilla on Roselawn senior housing
complex southeast of the subject site. At that time,the dedication of drainage easements for area
drainage needs was not completed.
As a condition of abandoning a portion of the storm water pond and the sale of that land to the
applicant, the city should require that the applicant complete the drainage easement dedications
for his RosotoVilla property and also an abutting portion of the St. Jerome’s Church property.
Without afirm condition that these easements be dedicated for the overall drainage improvements,
the portion of the stormwater pond area that the applicant would purchase should not be given up
and sold.
As conditions for a CUP, the city council should require the following prior to issuing a grading or
building permit and also as a condition of the sale of this property to the applicant:
1.Drainage easements, as approved by the city engineer,must be dedicated at no cost to the
city, over the southern portion of the Rosoto Complex consistent with area drainage plans.
2.Drainage easements, as approved by the city engineer, or a plan to acquiresaid easements,
must be completed with St. Jerome's Church that could include a plan to use the St. Jerome's
Church for recreational purposes, but must be part of a long-range plan for drainage of the area
storm water ponds.
3.These conditions shall be a part of the final deed exchange of the sale of the city land to the
developer and may be revised by the city engineer as deemed necessary to solve the area
drainage improvements with the intent of protecting areaproperties from flooding from large
drainage events.
Vacation Requests
To vacate street and alley right-of-way, the city council must find that it is in the publicinterest.
Edgemont Street
The proposed vacation of the easterly 10 feet of Edgemont would gain the applicant
3,200 square feet of additional project area and would allow a 10-foot setback reduction from
Edgemont Street. It would also allow him to move the building 10 feet further from the pond to
more easily meet wetland buffer requirements. There would still be 50 feet of right-of-way
remainingfor street-width accessto serve the property west of Edgemont should Ms. Delaney wish
to develop her property.
Alley
There is no reason for the city to retain this alley for any traffic or access purpose. Mr. Schreier
applied to vacate the south half of this alley. City staff is recommending the vacation of the north
half as well to avoid a remaining land-locked alley right-of-way.
5
Neighbors’ Comments
The neighbors that replied oppose the proposed development. They stated concerns about the
loss of wildlife habitatand protecting the environment,decrease in property value,incompatibility
with single dwellings and traffic increase.
Staff’s Comments
Environmental Concern
Staff does not feel that there would be harm to the environment, though, it would displace animals
that live on this undeveloped land.
Property Value Impact
Staff contacted the Ramsey County Assessor’s office earlier this year during the review of the
street and alley vacations. Stephen Baker, of the Ramsey County Assessor’s office, provided the
following input last February when the city previously considered the vacation requests:
“In our experience we have not seen that buildings of this type have had a negative impact on
values of existing nearby property. This location appears to be a transitional location with an
arterialstreet andexisting commercial activity. Thiswill serve to further minimize any potential
impact for the new senior building. To date, I am not aware of an instance where we are adjusting
our assessed value of an existing property due to the presence of a nearby 3-story senior
apartment building. A more specific statement would require that we perform an analysis which
would require preliminary site plans and exterior elevations of the proposed structure.”
TrafficImpact
Staff does not feel that there would beany negative neighborhood impact dueto traffic.Roselawn
Avenue is designed to carry 15,000vehicle trips per dayand has a traffic volume presently of up to
8,000 trips per day.Senior housing developments do not create a significant increase on roadway
usage.With the proposed 71-unit senior’s apartment building, traffic is estimated to increase to
390more vehicle trips per dayaccording to the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip
Generation Manual.
Compatibility with Single Dwellings
As stated above, staff has seen that senior’s apartments fit well into residential neighborhoods.
Examples are the Suite Living at Highway 36 and Hazelwood Street, Summerhill of Maplewood at
Ferndale Street and Harvester Avenue as well as Rosoto Villa on Roselawn. There is typically
very littleactivity around senior housing developments so their impact on neighborhoods is not an
issue.
6
City Department Staff Comments
Engineering Department Comments
Refer to the January 31, 2012 engineering report from Steve Love, assistant city engineer.Any
conditions recommended by Mr. Love should be followed if the city council approves the vacations.
Refer to the September 7, 2012 engineering plan review from Jon Jarosch, staff engineer. Mr.
Jarosch states that complete civil engineering plans mustbe submitted for review when the
applicant submits for design approval.
Police and Fire
There are no issues with this proposal, but the applicant must meet all applicable codes and fire
safety requirements.
Building Official
Meet all applicable codes when the plans are submitted.
RECOMMENDATION
A.Adopt the resolution amending the comprehensive land use plan classification from LDR (low
density residential) and P (park) to HDR (high density residential) for property on the north side
of Roselawn Avenueeast of Edgemont Street. This property consists ofthe property including
the easterly 10 feet of Edgemont Street to,and including,vacated Arkwright Street. Approval is
based on the following reasons:
1.A goal of the Maplewood Comprehensive Land Use Plan is to strive for a variety of housing
types for people of all stages of the life cycle.
2.The comprehensive plan also promotes and supports housing diversity. The plan states
that the city will make efforts to provide for the housing and service needs of the elderly and
disabled.
This action is subject to the approval of this land use plan amendment by the Metropolitan
Council.
B.Deny the proposed rezoning from R1 (single dwelling residential) to R3(multiple dwelling
residential because:
1.The city cannot apply conditions to a zoningchange and, therefore, prefers a conditional
use permit approval process to which the city council can attach conditions.
2.The proposed project approval would require the dedication of drainage easements for area
drainage needs from the applicant.That could not be achieved with by changing the
zoning of the property.
7
C.Approve a conditional use permit for a planned unit development to allow the constructionof a
71-unit senior housing complex on the proposed site. Approval is based on the findings
required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions:
1.The proposed use must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the
permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year.
2.The city council shall review this permit in one year.
3.Complete plans for the 71-unit senior housing complex shall be submitted to the city for
review and approval. These plans shall include detailed architectural, civil, lighting,
landscaping, site plansand any other details needed for that review as may be
determined.The site shall be designed to comply with the City of Maplewood stormwater
ordinance.
4.Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, drainage easements shall be
provided, to be approved by the city engineer,dedicated at no cost to the city, over the
southern portion of the Rosoto Villa complex consistent with area drainage plans.
5.Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, drainage easements shall be
provided, to be approved by the city engineer, or a plan to acquiresaid easements, must
be completed with St. Jerome's Church that could include a plan to use the St. Jerome's
Church for recreational purposes, but must be part of a long-range plan for drainage of the
area storm water ponds.
6.These conditions shall be a part of the final deed exchange of the sale of the city land to
the developer and may be revised by the city engineer as deemed necessary to solve the
area drainage improvements with the intent of protecting areaproperties from flooding
from large drainage events.
7.Any revision to the proposed senior-housing development concept shall be subject to the
approval of the city council.
8.If the applicant has not started this development after two years, ordinance would require
that this permit shall terminate. Should that occur, the zoning would revert to R1 (single
dwelling residential) and the city council must then consider possibly amending the land
use plan again to LDR (low density residential) or possibly approving permanent zoning to
R3 (multiple dwelling residential) for this property.
D.Approve the resolution vacating theeasterly 10 feet of Edgemont Street and the alley east of
Edgemont Street onthe north side of Roselawn Avenue. Approval is because it is in the public
interest to vacate theserights-of-way since:
a.Allowing the use of the easterly 10 feet of Edgemont Street for the applicant’s proposed
apartment development would make it easier to meet wetland setbacks on the east side of
the site.
b.The remaining 50 feet of right-of-way is sufficient to provide a streetto the property on the
west side of Edgemont Street should that land develop.
8
c.The alley east of Edgemont Streetis not needed for traffic use or vehicular access.
These vacations are subject to the applicable conditions stipulated in the engineering report
by Steve Love dated January 31, 2012.
NEIGHBORS’COMMENTS
Staff surveyed the 41 surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the proposed site for their
opinion about this proposal.We received nine replies—eight were opposed and one had no
concern or comment.
Opposed
Please refer to the written responses from the following:
Mark Jacobson representing Kathleen Delaney
Amy Dorn-Fernandez
JoLynn Giles
Janet Johnson
Bud Sorenson and Sandra Nesseth
Ronald Tu
Lorraine Littlefield
Herbert and Agnes Toenjes
No Comment
The St. Paul Board of Realtors has no concerns with regards to the proposed project.
(Eric Meyers, St. Paul Board of Realtors)
9
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Proposed site size: 2.58 acres
Existing Use: Undeveloped
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North:Undeveloped city-owned property
South:Roselawn Avenue and St. Jerome’s Church
West:Undeveloped Edgemont Street and undeveloped single-dwelling residential property
East:Undeveloped city-owned property
The nearest single dwellings areacross the Edgemont Street right-of-way to the northwest.
PLANNING
Existing landuse plan:LDR and P
Proposed Land use plan:HDR
Existingzoning: R1
Proposedzoning: R3
Findings forRezoning
Section 44-1165 of the zoning ordinance requires that the city council make the following findings
to rezone property:
(1)Assure itself that the proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of this
chapter.
(2)Determine that the proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of
neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood and that the use of the property
adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded.
(3)Determine that the proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the
community, where applicable, and the public welfare.
(4)Consider the effect of the proposed change upon the logical, efficient, and economical
extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire
protection and schools.
(5)Be guided in its study, review and recommendation by sound standards of subdivision practice
where applicable.
10
Findings for CUP Approval
Section 44-1097(a) requires that the city council base approval of a CUP on nine findings. Refer to
the nine standards for CUP approval included in the attachments.
Findings for Right-of-Way Vacations
State statute requires that it be found to be in the public interest.
APPLICATION DATE
Theapplication for this request was completeon August 24, 2012. State law requires that the city
take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a land use proposal.City council
action is required on this proposal by October 23, 2012.
p:\sec17\Azure Properties Senior Apts Plan Amendment Rezoning&Vacations PC Report 912te
Attachments:
1.Land Use Plan Map
2.Zoning Map
3.Proposed Site Location Map and Vacation Proposal Map
4.Site Plan
5.Building Elevations
6.Applicant’s Written Narrative
7.Correspondence from Mark Jacobson representing Kathleen Delaney
8.Correspondence from Amy Dorn-Fernandez
9.Correspondence from JoLynn Giles
10.Correspondence from Janet Johnson
11.Correspondence from Bud Sorenson and Sandra Nesseth
12.Correspondence from Ronald Tu
13.Correspondence from Lorraine Littlefield
14.Correspondence from Herbert and Agnes Toenjes
15.Engineering Report from Steven Love dated January 31, 2012
16.Engineering Report from Jon Jarosch dated September 7, 2012
17.Land Use Plan Amendment Resolution
18.Conditional Use Permit Resolution
19.Right-of-Way Vacation Resolution
11
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Attachment 4
Attachment 5
Attachment 6
Attachment 7
Attachment 8
Attachment 10
Attachment 11
Attachment 12
Attachment 13
Attachment 14
Attachment 15
Attachment 16
Attachment 17
LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Azure Properties is requesting that the Maplewood City Council approve an
amendment to the comprehensive land use plan from LDR (low density residential) and P (park)
to HDR (high density residential).
WHEREAS, the proposed changefrom LDR to HDRapplies to the properties located at on
the north side of Roselawn Avenue that include the following public rights-of-way and parcels: The
easterly ten feet of undeveloped Edgemont Street abutting Lots 16 to 23, Block 6, Magoffin’s North
Side Addition to St. Paul;Lots 16to 23, Block 6, Magoffin’s North Side Addition to St. Paul, and;
the undeveloped alley lying east of Lots 16 to 23, Block 6, Magoffin’s North Side Addition to St.
Paul.
WHEREAS, the proposed changefrom P to HDRapplies to the properties located at on the north
side of Roselawn Avenue that include the following parcels and vacated public rights-of-way:
Lots 8 to 15, Block 6, Magoffin’s North Side Addition to St. Paul, and; vacated Arkwright Street
lying east of Lots 8 to 15, Block 6, Magoffin’s North Side Addition to St. Paul.
WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows:
1.On October 2, 2012, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff
published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the
surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the
hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning
commission recommended that the city council ________these land use plan
changes.
2.On ___________, 2012 the city council discussed these land use plan changes.
They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and
city staffand the opinions of the public.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council ___________ the above
described changes for the following reasons:
1.A goal of the Maplewood Comprehensive Land Use Plan is to strive for a variety of housing
types for people of all stages of the life cycle.
2.The comprehensive plan also promotes and supports housing diversity. The plan states
that the city will make efforts to provide for the housing and service needs of the elderly and
disabled.
This action is subject to the approval of this land use plan amendment by the Metropolitan Council.
The Maplewood City Council _________ this resolution on ____________.
12
Attachment 18
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Azure Properties has requested approval to rezone property on the north side of
Roselawn Avenue for a 71-unit senior apartment development;
WHEREAS, the Maplewood City Council determined that approval of a conditional use permit for a
planned unit development was a preferred option for land-use approval to assure the provision of
drainage easements for neighborhood stormwater drainage needs;
WHEREAS, this permit is for the following described properties:
The easterly ten feet of undeveloped Edgemont Street abutting Lots 16 to 23, Block 6, Magoffin’s
North Side Addition to St. Paul; Lots 8 to 23, Block 6, Magoffin’s North Side Addition to St. Paul,
and; the undeveloped alley lying east of Lots 16 to 23, Block 6, Magoffin’s North Side Addition to
St. Paul.
WHEREAS, thehistory of this conditional use permit revision is as follows:
1.On October 2, 2012, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff
published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The
planning commission gave persons at the hearing a chance to speak and present written
statements. The commission also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff.
The planning commission recommended that the city council ___________the conditional
use permit revision.
2.On __________, 2012the city council discussed the proposed conditional use permit.
They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city
staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council ____________ the above-described
conditional use permit for the following reasons:
1.The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in
conformity with the City’s Comprehensive Plan 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 orcause a
nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust,
odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general
unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances.
5.The use would not exceed the design standards of any affected street.
6.The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets,
13
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 no more than minimal adverse environmental effects.
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1.The proposed use must be substantially started within one year of council approval
or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for
one year.
2.The city council shall review this permit in one year.
3.Complete plans for the 71-unit senior housing complex shall be submitted to the city
for review and approval. These plans shall include detailed architectural, civil,
lighting, landscaping, site plans and any other details needed for that review as may
be determined. The site shall be designed to comply with the City of Maplewood
stormwater ordinance.
4.Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, drainage easements shall be
provided, to be approved by the city engineer,dedicated at no cost to the city, over
the southern portion of the Rosoto Villa complex consistent with area drainage plans.
5.Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, drainage easements shall be
provided, to be approved by the city engineer, or a plan to acquiresaid easements,
must be completed with St. Jerome's Church that could include a plan to use the St.
Jerome's Church for recreational purposes, but must be part of a long-range plan for
drainage of the area storm water ponds.
6.These conditions shall be a part of the final deed exchange of the sale of the city
land to the developer and may be revised by the city engineer as deemed necessary
to solve the area drainage improvements with the intent of protecting areaproperties
from flooding from large drainage events.
7.Any revision to the proposed senior-housing development concept shall be subject to
the approval of the city council.
8.If the applicant has not started this development after two years, ordinance would
require that this permit shall terminate. Should that occur, the zoning would revert to
R1 (single dwelling residential) and the city council must then consider possibly
amending the land use plan again to LDR (low density residential) or possibly
approving permanent zoning to R3 (multiple dwelling residential) for this property.
The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ___________, 2012.
14
Attachment 19
VACATION RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Azure Propertiesapplied for the vacation of the following:
The easterly 10 feet of the Edgemont Street right-of-way lying west of Lots 16-23, Block 6,
MAGOFFIN’S NORTH SIDE ADDITION TO ST PAUL;
The south half of the alley located within Block 6, MAGOFFIN’S NORTH SIDE ADDITION
TO ST. PAUL;
WHEREAS, the Maplewood City Staff is also recommending the vacation of the north half
of the alley located within Block 6, MAGOFFIN’S NORTH SIDE ADDITION TO ST. PAUL;
WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows:
1.On October 2, 2012, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff
published a notice in the Maplewood Review. The planning commission gave
everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The
planning commission recommended that the city council _____ these requests;
2.On ________, 2012, the city council considered reports and recommendations from
the city staff and planning commission.
WHEREAS, after the city approves these vacations, public interest will go to theabutting
owners of the following properties:
1.The vacation of the easterly 10 feet of Edgemont Street: The owner of Lots 16-23,
Block 6, MAGOFFIN’S NORTH SIDE ADDITION TO ST. PAUL.
2.The vacation of the alley: The abutting ownersof all the properties in Block 6,
MAGOFFIN’S NORTH SIDE ADDITION TO ST. PAUL.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council _______ the above-described
vacation for the following reasons:
It is in the public interest to approve these vacations since:
1.Allowing the use of the easterly 10 feet of Edgemont Street for the applicant’s proposed
apartment development would make it easier to meet wetland setbacks on the east side of
the site.
2.The remaining 50 feet of right-of-way is sufficient to provide a street to the property on the
west side of Edgemont Street should that land develop.
3.The alley east of Edgemont Street is not needed for traffic use or vehicular access.
15
These vacations are subject to the conditions stipulated in the engineering report by Steve Love
dated January 31, 2012.
The Maplewood City Council _________ this resolution on _________.
16