HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-06-24 CDRB Packet
AGENDA
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
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 Minutes:
a.May 27, 2014
5. NewBusiness:
6.Design Review:
a.Approval of Design Plans to Convert Day’s Inn Building into Senior Housing, 3030
Southlawn Drive
7.Visitor Presentations:
8.Board Presentations:
9.Staff Presentations:
10.Adjourn
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, MAY27, 2014
1.CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Ledvinacalled the meeting to order at6:00p.m.
2.ROLL CALL
Absent
Boardmember, Leo Burger
Absent
Boardmember, Bill Kempe
Boardmember,Jason LamersPresent
Chairperson,Matt LedvinaPresent
Boardmember,Ananth ShankarPresent
Staff Present:
Tom Ekstrand,Senior Planner
3.APPROVAL OF AGENDA
BoardmemberShankarmoved to approve the agenda as submitted.
Seconded by BoardmemberLamers.Ayes -All
The motion passed.
4.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairperson Ledvina had a correction to the minutes on page 3, b. 5. the word plant should be
paint.
Chairperson Ledvinamoved to approve theApril 22, 2014,CDRBminutes as amended.
Seconded by BoardmemberLamers.Ayes –All
The motion passed.
5.NEWBUSINESS
None
6.DESIGN REVIEW
a.Approval of Design Plans and a Parking Reduction Authorization for Mudslingers
Coffee Kiosk to be Located at Bachman’s 2600 White Bear Avenue.
i.Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand gave the report and answered questions of the board.
ii.President, Van Harvieux, Peak Investments, LLC,representing Mudslingers, addressed
and answered questions of the board.
May 27, 2014
Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes
1
Boardmember Lamersmoved to approvethe plans date-stamped May 19, 2014, for the proposed
Mudslingers’ drive-up coffee kiosk in the Bachman’s northerly parking lot located at 2600 White
Bear Avenue. This approval allows a parking reduction of 10 parking spaces since the site has
an abundance ofparking available and they have not experienced any parking shortages.
(changes to the motion are in bold and
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
underlined)
1.Approval of design plans is good for two years. If the applicant has not begun construction
within two years, this design review shall be repeated. Staff may approve minor changes to
these plans.
2.The applicant shall comply with all conditions of the building official, assistant fire chief, health
officer and engineering department.
3.A single material for the brick wainscot shall be used.
4.The applicant shall work with staff the final color rendering that compliments the
Bachman’s building.
Seconded by Chairperson Ledvina..Ayes –All
The motion passed.
b.Approval of Design Plans for a Major Motor Fuel Station Setback Including a Building
Setback Variance and Two Parking Lot Setback Variances for a Proposed Holiday
Station Store, 1285 Cope Avenue East.
i.Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand gave the report and answered questions of the board.
ii.CEO, Steven Linn, Linn Companies, representing Holiday Station Store, 1285 Cope
Avenue, addressed and answered questions of the board.
Councilmember Marylee Abrams requested to speak further regarding variances and how design
elements with the variances can protect the residents in the area such as the lighting and head
light concerns.
Boardmember Lamers moved to adopt the resolution approving the following setback variances
for the proposed Holiday Station Store building and parking lot: a ten-foot building setback from
the north property line (code requires 30 feet and 20 feet is proposed) and a ten-foot parking lot
setback for the parking lot from the north and east property lines (code requires 15 feet and five
feet is proposed). These variance approvals are based on the following findings:
a.The proposed use would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning
ordinance since the wide boulevards on the north and east would provide substantial building
and parking lot setbacks on those sides.
b.The proposed commercial use is consistent with the commercial classification of the
Maplewood Comprehensive Plan.
c.The applicant is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner that would otherwise
not be permitted by the city’s major motor fuel station setback requirements. The plight of the
landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner and
the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality.
May 27, 2014
Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes
2
BoardmemberLamers moved to approve theplans date-stamped April 25, 2014, for the Holiday
Station Store to be located at 1285 Cope Avenue East. Approval is subject to the applicant doing
(changes to the motion are in bold and underlined)
the following:
a.Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project.
b.Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant must submit to staff for
approval the following items:
A revised landscaping plan showing landscaping along the English Street and Highway 36
sides of the site. Also, the applicant shall move the three Colorado Blue Spruce that were
proposed on the south side of Cope Avenue onto the site. The landscaping plan shall
also meet or exceed tree-replacement requirements. The site shall have in-ground
The earth berms along the Cope Avenue frontage shall be at least
irrigation provided.
three feet tall.
A revised site plan providing for all customer parking spaces to be 10 feet wide. There
must be a total of 36 parking spaces. Parking spaces designated for employees may be
nine feet wide and shall be signed as such. Handicapped accessible parking spaces shall
comply with ADA, American’s With Disabilities Act requirements.
A revised building elevation plan indicating that only the north side of the building and the
northerly, highway-frontage freestanding sign, shall have the blue LED accent light bands
applied. All lighting fixtures on the under-side of the fuel island canopy shall be recessed
so their lenses do not drop beneath the bottom of the canopy.
A revised photometric plan which meets all city lighting requirements.
A plan to either paint roof-top mechanical equipment or to possibly screen it, as code
requires, from nearby homes.
c.Signage on the property is not part of the design review approval. The applicant shall apply
for sign permits to be reviewed by staff.
d.Comply with all requirements of the engineering report dated May 5, 2014.
e.All work shall followthe approved plans and these conditions. Staff may approve minor
changes.
f.Matching blue awnings to be included on the north side of the car wash to be
consistent with the other elevations.
Seconded by Chairperson Ledvina. Ayes –All
Boardmember Shankar made a friendly amendment the berm on the south side of the property
be increased to 3 feet in height.
The motion passed.
May 27, 2014
Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes
3
c.Approval of the Building and Site Remodel Plans for the Former Hostess Store at 2146
White Bear Avenue
i.Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand gave the report and addressed and answered questions of
the board.
ii.CEO, Steven Linn, Linn Companies, representing the Baby Zone and owner of the
Holiday Station Store location, 1285 Cope Avenue, addressed and answered questions of
the board.
BoardmemberLamersmoved to approve theplans date-stamped May 15, 2014, for the
proposed building, site and landscaping renovations to 2146 White Bear Avenue. Approval is
subject to the following conditions:(changes to the motion are in bold and underlined)
1.Approval of design plans is good for two years. If the applicant has not begun construction
within two years, this design review shall be repeated. Staff may approve minor changes to
these plans.
2.The applicant shall comply with the conditions noted in the engineering report by Jon Jarosch
dated May 14, 2014.
3.The site plan shall be revised to include the following for staff approval:
a.A sidewalk along the White Bear Avenue frontage subject to the city engineer’s and the
Ramsey County traffic engineer’s approval.
b.
Relocation of the handicap-accessible parking spaces to place them along the front
(The
sidewalk with the appropriate ramping and cross-hatched loading space provided.
applicant shall work with staff to possibly relocate the handicap-accessible parking
along the front of the building relative to the building code)
4.The applicant shall provide an irrevocable letter of credit or cash escrow in the amount of 150
percent of the cost of installing the landscaping, before getting a building permit.
Seconded by Chairperson Ledvina.Ayes –All
The motion passed.
7.VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
None
8.BOARDPRESENTATIONS
None
9.STAFF PRESENTATIONS
None.
10.ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by Chairperson Ledvinaat7:35p.m.
May 27, 2014
Community Design Review Board Meeting Minutes
4
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Melinda Coleman, Interim City Manager
FROM:
Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
DATE:
June 6, 2014
SUBJECT:
Approval of the Following Requests:
1.AConditional Use Permit to Allow Multi-Family Housing in a Business
Commercial District at the Days Inn Building, 3030Southlawn Drive
2.A Parking Reduction for Fewer Parking Spaces than Required
3.AUnit-Size Reduction Variance
4.Design Plans
Introduction
Albert Miller is proposing to convert the 120-room Days Inn west of the Maplewood Mall into 115
units of senior housing. Mr. Miller is proposing a mix of assisted living and memory care
apartments.This proposal includes a parking reduction from 230 parking spaces to 73parking
spaces and a unit-size reduction from 580 square feet to a memory care unit range from 312
square feet for memory care units to 364 square feet for studio unitsto 640 square feet for one-
bedroom units.
City code allows multi-family housing in BC (business commercial) zoning districts by
conditional use permit (CUP). Refer to the attachments.
Requests
A CUP for multi-family seniors housing in a BC zoning district.
A parking waiver for fewer parking spaces than code requires. Code requires 230 parking
spaces. The applicant proposes73.
A unit-size reductionvarianceto provide memory-care unit sizes beginning at 312 square
feet.Code requires a minimum of 580 square feet.
Approval of building, siteand landscaping plans.
Background
1977: The community design review boardapproved the plans for this building as aHoliday
Inn.Construction began that year.
Discussion
CUP Consideration
The zoning ordinance requires that the city council findthat all nine “standards” for CUP
approval be met to allow a CUP. These standards for approval are:
1.The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be
inconformity 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 or cause 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 generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not
create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets.
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
scenicfeatures into the development design.
9.The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects.
Staff does not see any reason why this use would not fit the above criteria. Our mainconcern,
though,has been whether this conversion to senior housing is appropriate in a heavily
developed commercial area. Would the Myth Nightclub be a suitable neighbor to senior
citizens? Would this use be compatible with the commercial activity surrounding the
Maplewood Mall?
Police Chief, Paul Schnell, raised concerns also about compatibility with the possibility of
memory-care residents “walking off” from the facility. Staff asked the applicant to respond to
Chief Schnell’s comments which are in black and the applicant’s reply is in blue.
Is there a targeted senior clientele they could hope to attract to this facility over others.
In other words, how does their expected resident population compare to what might
otherwise go to a new facility, like a White Pines type facility?Is there any difference?
The Senior Living facility at the Maplewood Hotel aims to attract people needing memory
care or assisted living services at an intermediate cost when compared to other senior
living facilities.Presumably, the facility would be attractive to people who want quality
care and living but cannot afford the premiums of a facility like the Seasons of
Maplewood which is just across Southlawn Drive from the current hotel.
Given their desire to target memory care type residents, I’m interested in their facility
security and staffing plan.Patient walkaways can be a very time consuming call for
service.
This is a very reasonable concern, and one that is critical to the operation of a
successful memory care facility.The layout and operation of the facility including
internal circulation, door hardware, and 24-hour staffing will be situated to prevent
patient walkaways.Memory care patients are locked in and secluded to specific areas
of the facility and cannot leave unless escorted by a staff member. Also, residents in
memory care will have access to the outside areas labeled as “Memory Garden” on the
plans.The Gardens similar are to the interior, these outside areas designated for
memory care patients will be locked and monitored to prevent walkaways.To put it
simply, these residents are locked into certain areas of the facility and cannot leave
unless escorted by someone with approved access.Finally, the24-hour staff will have a
protocol in place toget residents evacuated from these locked areas in the event of a
fire or other emergency.
However, with all these measures in place, patient walkaways do happen on rare
occasion.We are aware of one instance at the Shores of Lake Phalen where a patient
escaped and to our understanding, was found by staff and brought back to the
residence.In cases where a particular patient attempts to walk away on one or more
occasions, they can be equipped with a monitoring device that would send an alarm with
theirlocation if they leave the facility.
Broadly, the proposed development use seems and feels contrary to the general retail
and entertainment specific to the area. Given the land use in the IMMEDIATE area, I
wonder if residents of the facility would or could have reduction in quality of life based on
noise and traffic in the immediate area
We agree that the proposed use may seem contrary to many of the adjacent properties.
However, the Seasons of Maplewood is located just across Southlawn Drive from the
Existing Hotel.
Also, many of the adjacent properties would be ideal for residents and visitors of the
facility.People coming to visit family members could use the Mall and adjacent
businesses.Also, the public library and adjacent park across Southlawn drive could be
used by both residents and guests.
An anecdotal bit of information: we areon the national search team from Ryan
Development (a component of Ryan Construction) as they try to take senior housing to a
national level. Our firstproject together is near the Arbor Lakes Shopping district in
Maple Grove. Nationally Ryan Development is only searching for sites that are adjacent
or part of large suburban shopping districts.
Density
Being that the site is zoned BC and guided C (commercial) there is no set density maximum
established for multi-housing. Staff reviewed this proposal with the city attorney and he advised
that, being that the zoning ordinance allows multi-family development in a BC district, staff
should use their best judgmentin determining a reasonable density. The proposed density of
this 115 unitfacilityonthe 6.7acre site would be 17 units per acre. This equates to the
comprehensive plan’s density for HDR (high density residential). The density allowed in areas
guided as HDR would permit a density range between 10 and 25 units per acre.
Staff has no issue with this density. Seniors facilities such as the proposed one have the impact
of a much lesser density since most of the residents do not drive and largely stay within the
facility.
Parking Reduction
City code requires that apartment buildings have two parking spaces for each unit. One of
which must be a garage space. With a proposed 115 living units,the code would require 230
parking stalls—115 garage spaces and 115 open parking spaces. The applicant is proposing
73parking spaces.
Staff agrees that the proposed 73 parking spaces would be an adequate amount of parking
spaces. The city regularly determines that senior housing facilities do not require two spaces
per unit as code requires for family housing. As example, the recently completed Shores
assisted-living and memory-care facility on Frost Avenue, with 105 units, was approved to have
24 outdoor parking spaces and 28 underground garage parking spaces totaling 52.
Unit Size
The applicant has provided the following justification for the unit sizes:
We request a variance due to the fact that this type of facility does not require larger units
because so much spaceis dedicated to common areas.In assisted living and memory
care facilities, residents tend to spend most of their free time in the common spaces, using
their personal rooms mostly for resting.Meals are served in common areas sothe rooms
do not require large kitchens.Activities are set up in the common areas and conducted by
staff so little room is needed in the individual units for social activities.When looking at the
proposed floor plans, you’ll notice when compared to a typical multifamily housing project,
there is significantly more common space dedicated for this facility.
The city has allowed smaller unit sizes in the recent past primarily for memory-care units as
shown in this comparison:
Project NameNumber of Units(includes memory care)Approved Unit Size
Comforts of Home42(15 MC)221 to 360 sq ft
Lakewood Commons100(30 MC)425 sq ft
The Shores105(32 MC)433 sq ft
The Seasons150(30 MC)382 sq ft
Proposed Days Inn Conversion115(54MC)312to 640 sq ft
The senior-housing industry, however, has moved toward smaller room sizes since it has found
that the larger spaces are not needed for assisted-or memory-care units. The city has allowed
smaller unit sizes for assisted and memory-care units fairly regularly with recent projects as
noted above.Staff does not find a problem with this request for these units.
Building Design
The applicant proposes to repaint the existing brick-embossed concrete block and stucco, repair
the damaged retaining wall and repair the damaged trash enclosure. These are welcome
changes.
Parking Lot Removal
The northerly parking lot would be removed with a driveway connection retained between the
Mall Ring Road and Southlawn Drive. The area of parking lot removal will be restored with
grass. The northerly east-west driveway that would remain would be curbedwith an up-right
six-inch curb and gutter.
The applicant alsoproposes toremove the driveway on the west side of the buildingand
landscape this area.
Site Lighting
The applicant is not proposing any changes to the site lighting.
Landscaping
The site would be re-landscaped with a considerable amount of plantings around the entire
building. As mentioned, the northerly parking lot will be restored with grass except for keeping a
paved area for the east-west driveway connection.
Department Comments
Building Official
Nick Carver,buildingofficial, stated that, because this is a “change of use,” it requires that the
applicant comply with all current codes.
Engineering
Refer to the engineering report by Jon Jarosch, staff engineerdated June 6, 2014.
Fire Marshal
Butch Gervais, assistant fire chief, stated that the applicant will need to comply with all current
state and local fire codes.
Police
Paul Schnell, police chief, commented about this proposal. Chief Schnell’s comments were
discussed above under the CUP Consideration section above.
Budget Impact
A possible impact to the city could be if the police are needed to respond to callsabout a
memory-care resident “walkaway.”
Recommendations
A.Approve aconditional use permit resolution to allow multi-family seniors housing in a BC
zoning district. Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to the
following conditions:
1.All construction shall follow the site plan date-stamped June 2, 2014approved by the
city. Staffmay approve minor changes.
2.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.
3.The city council shall review this permit in one year.
4.If there is a need for additional parking spaces in the future, the applicant shall revise the
plan to provide additional parking stallsto meet their needs, subject to staff approval.
5.The applicant shall comply with the conditions stated in the engineering report dated
June 4, 2014.
6.The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the city’s building official, assistant
fire chief andhealth officer.
7.This permit allows 115 senior housing units consisting of assisted living and memory
care units. Minor changes to this unit count may be approved by staff.
B.Approval of a parking waiver for fewer parking spaces than code requires, allowing73
spaces. This proposal for 115 units of senior housing would require 230 parking spaces.
The city finds that the proposed reduction to 73 parking spaces would be sufficient for this
assisted-living and memory-care seniors housing facility since seniorhousing facilities do
not require the amount of parking needed for typical multi-family housing needs.Should a
parking shortage develop in the future, the applicant shall revise the plan to provide enough
to meet their needs, subject to staff approval.
C.Approval of a variance resolution to allow aliving-unit size reduction. This variance allows
memory-care living units beginning at 312 square feet.Code requires a minimum of 580
square feet. This variance is based on the findings that:
1.Memory-care housing facilities do not require the amount floor area that would be needed
for typical multi-housing developments. Therefore, smaller unit sizes would be in
harmony with the general purposes of the zoning requirements based on the industry
standards forsuch housing.
2.The proposed assisted-living and memory-care seniors housing facility would be
consistent with the comprehensive plansince the Plan encourages the city to provide life-
cycle housing for its residents.
3.The proposed unit sizes for memory-care units is reasonable since the city ordinance
does not accommodate or address living-quarter sizes for senior citizen housing or
special needs housing such as for memory-care residents. The city’s requirements for
studio or one-bedroom housing units are excessive for those with intensive-care or
memory-care housing needs.
D.Approval of the plans date-stamped June 2, 2014, for the Days Inn Hotel Conversion to
senior housing. Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1.Approval of design plans is good for two years. If the applicant has not begun
construction within two years, this design review shall be repeated. Staff may approve
minor changes to these plans.
2.The applicant shall obtain a conditional use permit from the city council for the proposed
housing facility in a BC (business commercial) zoning district.
3.The applicant shall complete the site improvements as proposed in the plans. This
includes all landscaping, trash enclosure upgrades, retaining wall repair, building painting
and parking lot and driveway changes and improvements.
4.After its removal, the old parking lot surface shall be restored to lawn and kept maintained
and mowed.
5.The applicant shall comply with the conditions noted in the engineering report by Jon
Jarosch dated June 4, 2014.
6.The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the city’s building official, assistant
fire chief and health officer.
7.The applicant shall obtain approval of a parking waiver from the city council before
beginning this project.
8.The applicant shall provide an irrevocable letter of credit or cash escrow in the amount of
150 percent of the cost of installing the landscaping, before getting a building permit.
Reference Information
Site Description
Site size: 6.7acres
Existing land use: The Days Inn
Surrounding Land Uses
North:The Myth Nightclub
South:Maplewood Mall parking lot and ring road drive
East:Maplewood Mall and Mall parking lot
West:Southlawn Drive and Ramsey County Public Library
Planning
Land Use Plan designation: C(commercial)
Zoning: BC(business commercial)
Code Requirement
Section 44-512 (1) of the BC zoning district states that a conditional use permit may be granted
for “all permitted uses in the R3 district.”
Findings for CUP Approval
Section 44-1097(a) requires that the city council base approval of a CUP on nine findings. Refer
to the findings for approval in the resolution.
Findings for Variance Approval
State statute requires that in order to grant a variance, the city council must determine that the
proposal is found to be:
(1)In harmony with the general purposes and intent of the official control;
(2)Consistent with the comprehensive plan;
(3)When there are practical difficulties in complying with the official control. “Practical
difficulties” means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable
manner not permitted by an official control. The plight of the landowner is due to
circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner and the variance, if
granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Application Date
The application for thisrequest wascomplete onJune 2, 2014. State law requires that the city
decide on these applications within 60 days. The deadline for city council action is August 1,
2014.
Attachments
1.Conditional Use Permit Resolution
2.Variance Resolution
3.Location Map
4.Land Use Plan Map
5.Zoning Map
6.Applicant’s Letter of Requestdated May 19, 2014
7.Site Planof Existing Conditions
8.Site Plan Proposal
9.Building Elevations
10.Engineering Report dated June 6, 2014
p:sec2N\Hotel Conversion Days Inn Property\Days Inn Conversion to Senior Housing PC
Report 6 14 te
Attachment 1
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Albert Millerhas applied for a conditional use permit to put a multi-housing seniors
housing facility in a BC (business commercial) zoning district;
WHEREAS, Section 44-512 (1) of the BC district requirements states that a conditional
use permit may be granted for “all permitted uses in the R3 district.”
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property located at 3030 Southlawn Drive.The property
identification number of this property is:
022922220010
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
1.OnJune 17, 2014, 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 everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written
statements. The planning commission also considered the reports and recommendation of
city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council _______this
permit.
2.On ____________, 2014, the city council considered reports and recommendations of the city
staff and planning commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council _________ the above-described
conditional use permit, because:
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 or cause 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 generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not
create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets.
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.
Attachment 1
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 date-stamped June 2, 2014 approved by the
city. Staff may approve minor changes.
2.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.
3.The city council shall review this permit in one year.
4.If there is a need for additional parking spaces in the future, the applicant shall revise the
plan to provide additional parking stalls to meet their needs, subject to staff approval.
5.The applicant shall comply with the conditions stated in the engineering report dated
June 4, 2014.
6.The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the city’s building official, assistant
fire chief andhealth officer.
7.This permit allows 115 senior housing units consisting of assisted living and memory
care units. Minor changes to this unit count may be approved by staff.
The Maplewood City Council _________ this resolution on _______, 2014.
Attachment 2
VARIANCE RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Albert Millerapplied fora variance from the minimum unit size requirements for
multi-family housing developments. Mr. Miller is requesting that the minimum size ofmemory-
care living units in his proposed senior housing facility start at 312 square feet in area;
WHEARAS, city ordinance requires a minimum multi-family unit size of 580 square feet;
WHEREAS, this variance appliesto the property at 3030 Southlawn Drive. The property
identification number for this property is:
022922220010
WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows:
1.The planning commission held a public hearing on June 17, 2014. City staff published a
notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as
required by law. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing an opportunity
to speak and present written statements. The planning commissionalso considered
reports and recommendations from the city staff. The planning commission
recommended that the city council ________thisvariance.
2. On _____________, the city council considered the recommendations of city staff and
the planning commission and the testimony of persons present at the meeting.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council _________ the above-
described variances since:
1.Memory-care housing facilities do not require the amount floor area that would be
needed for typical multi-housing developments. Therefore, smaller unit sizes would be
in harmony with the general purposes of the zoning requirements based on the industry
standards for such housing.
2.The proposed assisted-living and memory-care seniors housing facility would be
consistent with the comprehensive plan since the Plan encourages the city to provide
life-cycle housing for its residents.
3.The proposed unit sizes for memory-care units is reasonable since the city ordinance
does not accommodate or address living-quarter sizes for senior citizen housing or
special needs housing such as for memory-care residents. The city’s requirements for
studio or one-bedroom housing units are excessive for those with intensive-care or
memory-care housing needs.
The Maplewood City Council ________ this resolution on _________, 2014.
Attachment 3
Attachment 4
Attachment 5
Attachment 6
Attachment 6
Attachment 7
Attachment 8
Attachment 9
Attachment 10
Attachment 10
Attachment 10