Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-08-18 PC Packet AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, August 18, 2015 7:00 PM 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. July 21, 2015 5. Public Hearing a. 7:00 p.m. or later: Consideration of Vacation of Public Easement, Jack Schwartz, 2105 English Street North b. 7:00 p.m. or later: Consideration of Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Planned Unit Development Revision, Public Easement Vacations and Lot Division, Conifer Ridge Apartments, County Road D East, between Hazelwood Street North and Kennard Street 6. New Business 7. Unfinished Business a. Consideration of Ordinance Amendment to Allow Temporary Outdoor Sales in BC (business commercial) Zoning District 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations a. July 27, 2015 city council meeting 2016-2020 Capital Improvement Plan Resolution of Appreciation for Al Bierbaum b. August 10, 2015 city council meeting – Commissioner Dahm 1870 East Shore Drive, Planned Unit Development Revision c. August 24, 2015 city council meeting – Commissioner Donofrio Ordinance Amendment to Allow Temporary Outdoor Sales in BC (business commercial) Zoning District d. September 14, 2015 city council meeting – Commissioner Kempe Conifer Ridge Apartments, County Road D East 10. Staff Presentations 11. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JULY 21, 2015 1. CALL TO ORDER A meeting of the Commission was held in the City Hall Council Chambers and was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Arbuckle. 2. ROLL CALL Paul Arbuckle, Chairperson Present Frederick Dahm, Commissioner Present Tushar Desai, Commissioner Present Absent John Donofrio, Commissioner Allan Ige, Commissioner Present Bill Kempe, Commissioner Present Dale Trippler, Vice Chairperson Present Staff Present: Michael Martin, Economic Development Coordinator Daniela Lorenz, Planning Intern 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Seconded by Commissioner Kempe. Ayes – All The motion passed. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Kempe moved to approve the July 7, 2015, PC minutes as submitted. Seconded by Commissioner Ige. Ayes – Chair Arbuckle, Commissioner’s Dahm, Ige, Kempe & Trippler Abstention – Commissioner Desai The motion passed. 5. PUBLIC HEARING a. 7:00 p.m. or later: Approval of Planned Unit Development Revision for Overflow Parking Lot, The Shores at Lake Phalen, 1870 East Shore Drive i. Economic Development Coordinator, Mike Martin gave the report and answered questions of the commission. ii. Greg Johnson, Maplewood Senior Living, LLC, representing The Shores of Lake Phalen, 1870 East Shore Drive, Maplewood, addressed and answered questions of the commission. July 21, 2015 1 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chairperson Arbuckle opened the public hearing. 1. Jason Zerwas, 1866 East Shore Drive, Maplewood, addressed the commission. Mr. Zerwas was unhappy that there isn’t enough parking for this development and it’s difficult to maneuver delivery trucks and campers when there are so many cars are parked on the street. As someone who lives in this area the 16 parking stalls are not enough to take care of the parking problem. Chairperson Arbuckle closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kempe wanted to offer an amendment to the staff conditions as a letter p. stating The applicant and applicants engineer will work with staff to expand parking beyond the 16 spaces to 26 or more. Commissioner Kempe amended it again to expand the parking beyond the 16 parking spaces to the maximum allowed. Seconded by Commissioner Trippler. Ayes – Chairperson Arbuckle, Commissioner’s Dahm, Desai, Kempe & Trippler Nays – Commissioner Ige Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the revised conditional use permit for a planned unit development resolution to allow an additional 16 parking spaces be added to the property located at 1870 East Shore Drive. Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and subject to new conditions the following conditions (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out, are in bold and underlined): a. The engineering department shall review and determine approval of all final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall comply with all requirements as specified in the city engineering department’s June 7, 2010 review and the city engineering department’s July 10, 2015 review regarding the overflow parking lot. b. All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped May 24, 2010, and with revisions as noted in this approval and the overflow parking lot shall follow the plans date-stamped July 2, 2015. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. City staff may approve minor changes to the plans. c. The project is approved with 28 underground and 24 40 surface parking spaces. This is a parking reduction of 158 142 parking spaces (210 parking spaces are required per city code) d. The project is approved with a 147 square foot floor area reduction in the required unit floor area for the memory care and assisted living studio units (580 square foot units are required per city code; 433 to 578 square foot units are proposed). e. The project is approved with a 20-foot front yard setback along Frost Avenue for the one-story dining room and kitchen portion of the building (30-foot front yard setback required per city code). f. The project is approved with a 5-foot side yard setback along the south property line for the overflow parking lot (20-foot side yard setback is required per city code). g. The project is approved with storage space of not less than 30 cubic feet for the memory care and transitional care units (120 cubic feet of storage area per unit required per city code). July 21, 2015 2 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes h. All signs on the property must be approved by the community design review board. i. Approval is conditioned on the owner constructing or funding a Gladstone neighborhood entry monument sign at the intersection of Frost Avenue and East Shore Drive. j. Approval is conditioned on the applicant implementing interior or exterior signage which reflects the previous use of the property as the St. Paul Tourist Cabin site. k. The approved landscape plan and tree preservation requirements shall be subject to monitoring by city staff to assure compliance. Minor modifications to these plans shall be subject to review by staff while major modifications shall require city council approval. l. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of city council approval or the permit shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year. m. The city council shall review this permit in one year. n. Approval is conditioned on the owner submitted a revised site plan for the overflow parking lot showing location, size and species of trees that will be removed due to the construction of the parking lot. Application must follow city’s tree preservation and replacement requirements. o. A sign shall be installed indicating the overflow parking lot is for employee parking only. p. If site conditions and ordinance requirements allow, the applicant shall maximize the amount of parking spaces that can be added to the overflow parking lot. Seconded by Commissioner Dahm. Ayes – Chairperson Arbuckle, Commissioner’s Dahm, Desai, Kempe & Trippler Nay – Commissioner Ige The motion passed. Commissioner Ige voted nay because he didn’t think the original proposal was handled correctly to begin with regarding the amount of units and the parking that should have been provided when originally built and he still doesn’t believe the parking problem is going to be resolved. This item goes to the community design review board for July 28, 2015 and is tentatively scheduled for the August 10, 2015 City Council meeting. 6. NEW BUSINESS a. Approval of Resolution of Appreciation for Al Bierbaum i. Planning Intern, Daniela Lorenz gave the report. Commissioner Desai moved to approve the resolution of appreciation for Al Bierbaum. Seconded by Commissioner Kempe. Ayes - All The motion passed. 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. July 21, 2015 3 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 8. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. 9. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. July 13, 2015, city council meeting – Chairperson Arbuckle - 1955 English Street, Public Easement Vacations - 2020 Rice Street, Maplewood Collision Center, Conditional Use Permit Both were approved by the city council. b. July 27, 2015, city council meeting – Commissioner Dahm - 2016 – 2020 Capital Improvement Plan - 1870 East Shore Drive, Planned Unit Development Revision (has been moved to the August 10, 2015 meeting) - Ordinance Amendment to Allow Temporary Outdoor Sales in BC (business commercial) Zoning District - Resolution of Appreciation for Al Bierbaum Commissioner Kempe requested that commissioners be called on by the chairperson before speaking. (Just a reminder to the Chairperson to please state the commissioner’s name who made the motion and who seconded the motion. Also a reminder to the commission to please put your microphone on before speaking aloud.) 10. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Planning Commission Meeting Cancellation August 4, 2015 due to National Night Out – No Report 11. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Arbuckle adjourned the meeting at 8:03 p.m. July 21, 2015 4 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes MEMORANDUM TO: Melinda Coleman, City Manager FROM: Michael Martin, AICP, Economic Development Coordinator DATE: August 11, 2015 SUBJECT: Consideration of Vacation of Public Easement,Jack Schwartz, 2105English StreetNorth Introduction JackSchwartzis requesting a vacation of apublic drainage and utility easement that runs through hisproperty at 2105 EnglishStreet.The drainage and utility easement is five feet wide and is north of a 32.5 foot gas pipeline easement. Request Vacate drainageandutilityeasementon this property,which is located at 2105 English Street. Findings for Approval To vacate an easement, the city council must find that it is in the public interest. Vacations require a four-fifths vote from the city council to approve. Discussion Mr. Schwartz is requesting the city vacate an existing drainage andutility easement that runs under a small portion of the garage on the property he owns at 2105 English Street. The issue with the easement is causing difficulties with Mr. Schwartz’s ability to refinance his mortgage. The MagellanPipeline Companymaintains a 32.5 foot easement across the south boundary of his lot. Magellanhas confirmed with the city its’ plans to vacate the portion of their easement that the garage lies over. Commission Actions August 18, 2015: The planning commission will be reviewing the proposed easement vacation. Budget Impact None. Recommendations A.Adopt theresolution vacatingthe drainage and utilityeasement, since: 1.It is in the public interest. 2.There are no utilities located in the easement and it is not being utilized. This vacation is conditioned uponthe following: 1.The applicant meets all and any conditions within Steve Love’s July 30, 2015 report. Reference Information Site Description Site Size:0.3Acres Existing Land Use: Single family home Surrounding Land Uses North: Single family homes South: Single family homes East:Single family homes West:Single family homes Planning ExistingLand Use:Low Density Residential Existing Zoning:Single Dwelling(r1) Attachments 1.Drainageand Utility Easement Vacation Resolution 2.Location Map 3.Certificate of Survey 4.Applicant Letter 5.Assistant City Engineer Steve Love’s July 30, 2015 Report EASEMENT VACATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Jack Schwartz,applied for the vacation ofadrainage and utility easementat his property located at 2105 English Street North. WHEREAS, on August 18, 2015, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent a notice to the abutting property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also considered reportsand recommendations from the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council _________this request. WHEREAS, on ______________, 2015, the city council reviewedthis request after considering the recommendations ofstaff and the planning commission. WHEREAS, after the city __________this vacation, the public interest in the property will go to the adjoining property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council ___________the above- described vacation because: 1.It is in the public interest. 2.There are no utilities located in the easement and it is not being utilized. This vacation is conditioned uponthe following: 1. The applicant meets all and any conditions within Steve Love’s July 30, 2015 report. The Maplewood City Council _______this resolution on_____________, 2015. Attachment 2 Maplewood Heights Kohlman Lake Hazelwood Sherwood Glen Parkside Western Hills Gladstone Hillside Beaver Lake Battle Creek Vista Hills Highwood Carver Ridge Maplewood, City of Maplewood 2105 English Street - Public Easement Vacation Maplewood, Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i- cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, Overview Map USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community, City of Maplewood, Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Attachment 3 Attachment 4 Attachment 5 Engineering VacationReview PROJECT: 2105 English Street COMMENTS BY: Steven W. Love, Assistant City Engineer DATE: 7-30-2015 The applicant is requesting a vacation of a 5.0 foot wide drainage and utility easement that was dedicated to the public over Lot 13, Block 4, aspart of the HILLS AND DALES plat. This property is located at 2105 English Street.The following are engineeringreview comments for requested vacation: Comments The south 32.5 feet of the property iscovered by an existing gas pipeline easement. The 5.0 foot wide drainage and utility easement lies northerly of and adjacent to the gas pipeline easement. The request is being made because the residentistrying to refinance the mortgage on the existing house. A survey was done that shows the small portion of the garage was built over the drainage and utility easement and into the gas pipeline easement (see attached survey).Prior to the title company approving the refinance they are requiring the issue with the garage being within an easement to be cleaned up. Staff spokewith Megellan Pipeline Company and confirmed that Megellan plans to vacate the portion of their easement that the garage lies over. There are no existing public utilities within the 5.0 wide drainage and utility easement. Therefore, it is recommended that the city proceeds with vacating the existing 5.0 foot wide drainage andutility easement over Lot 13, Block 4, as established by the HILLS AND DALES plat. - END COMMENTS - MEMORANDUM TO: Melinda Coleman, City Manager FROM: Michael Martin, AICP, Economic Development Coordinator DATE: August 12, 2015 SUBJECT: Consideration of Conifer Ridge Apartments, County Road D East, between Hazelwood Street North and KennardStreet A.Comprehensive Plan Amendment B.Planned Unit Development Revision C.Public Easement Vacations D.Lot Division E.Design Review Introduction Project Description Peter Stalland of Conifer Ridge Apartments, LLC is proposing to build three, three-story 50-unit apartment buildings on the north end of the Legacy Village development.According to the developer, the150 units willbe upscale, market rateresidential apartment units with underground parking with each building. Request The applicant is requesting the city council approve a comprehensive plan amendment, a revision to the planned unit development (PUD), vacation of two storm sewer easements, a lot division and design review. Background July 14, 2003: The city council approved the Legacy Village PUD, comprehensive plan amendment, tax-abatement plan and preliminary plat for Legacy Village. September 8, 2003: The city council approved the final plat for Legacy Village. October 23, 2006: The city council approved a preliminary plat for townhomes onthis site. The plat consisted of 91 lots. The plat was never finalized orrecorded. 1 Legacy Village Development History Since the council approved the Legacy Village PUD, the following projects have been approved or built: Heritage Square Townhomes (220 units) Heritage Square 2nd Addition (81 units) Wyngate Townhomes (50 units) The Seasons Seniors Apartment (150 units) Ashley Furniture (completed) Kennard Professional Building (completed) Maplewood Legacy Park (completed) Ramsey County Library (completed) Legacy Shoppes Retail (pending) Discussion Comprehensive Plan Amendment Compatibility of Uses The proposed land use plan change from medium density residential (6.1 to 10.0 units per net acre) to high density residential (10.1 to 25.0 units per net acre) is compatible with the surrounding areas. The original 2003 approval, slated this site for 96 townhome units and an office building to be located on 1.5 acres in the northeast corner of the site. While the office site fitsthe original “mixed-use” concept of the Legacy Village PUD, development of this use has yet to be proposed since the 2003 approval. In 2006, the city council approved a 91-unit preliminary plat for townhomes but that developer left the project and final plat was never approved. The proposed use of market-rate apartment buildings provides an additional housing choice to Legacy Villages while maintainingdensities consistent with the rest of the area and clustering developmentto preserve a large percentage of the site’s natural features. Graphic – 1 2006 –City Council approved preliminary plat,above 2 Density This site is 12.5 acres, of which 11.2 acres are considered developable. For 150 units, the net density of this site would be 13.4 units per acre (UPA). This density is consistent with nearby development. In addition, Sec. 44-300(1) of the city’s zoning ordinance provides density credits for underground parking. The net acreage for calculating density is allowed to beincreased by 300 square feet for each parking space that is provided under the principal use structure. With 150 underground spaces being provided, 45,000 square feet can be added to the site’s net acreage. This would technically put the developable area for this site at 12.2 acres with a net density of 12.3 UPA. Displayed in the table below are densities for surrounding housing developments – for comparison purposes no density credits have been factored in. A map illustrating this table has also been attached to this report. Table – 1 Residential Plat NameUnitsNet AcresUPA (Density) *Cardinal Pointe1086.416.8 *Mapleridge Apts1004.920.2 *Emerald Townhomes121.210.1 *Pineview Estates725.712.6 PROPOSED Conifer Ridge15011.213.4 Cottages at Legacy334.27.9 HeritageSquare22016.213.6 Seasons Senior1503.050.8 Heritage Square II13110.312.7 LEGACY VILLAGE TOTAL53433.615.9 AREA TOTAL97663.015.5 *Indicates non-Legacy Villagedevelopment Land Use Plan Change Summary In consideration of the compatibility of uses with the proposed change and with the little affect on the overall density, staff supports the proposed comprehensive plan revision. Planned Unit Development Revision Past Proposals As stated, the original2003 PUD approvalslated this site for 96 townhome units and an office building to be located on 1.5 acres in the northeast corner of the site.The closest this approved concept came tomoving forward was in 2006 when a preliminary plat was approved by the city council. Since 2006, no official applications have been made regarding thissite until now. In 2008, the original developer brought before the planning commission and city council for discussion a revised concept for this site which included: Afour-story, 113-room hotel A three-story, 49 unit multi-family housing structure (rental or ownership not defined) 3 An 18-unit townhome project A 15,500-square-foot day care facility This concept was never forwarded for official city review. In 2013, a different developer brought before the planning commission for discussion the idea of developing workforce housing on this site. Again this concept was never submitted for official city review. Impacts on Neighboring Property Values Many of the neighborhood responses regarding this project were concerned about a negative impact on surrounding property values. Staff contacted Stephen Baker Ramsey County’s Assessor for a response. Mr. Baker had his residential appraiser Thomas Larson review this proposed project. Mr. Larson’s comments are below. The properties adjacent to the proposed Conifer Ridge Apartments are all detached townhouses or attachedtownhouse style condominiums. In the area of the study, there is external obsolescence from the nearby commercial properties, highway noise and overhead power lines. The proposed construction appears to be similar in usage to existing, in that it is higher density residential, and similar in construction grade to what already exists in the area. While it is impossible to predict with complete accuracy whether construction of upscale, market rent apartments will impact valuation of existing properties, we can note examples that have already occurred in the past. An example that the Maplewood city planner is likely already aware of is the Beaver Lake Townhomesproject located just east of Beaver Lake. This project was built prior to the (residential)pullback that started in 2007. Prior to completion of this phased project, the developer asked the city for a variance that allowed for the construction of upscale rentals on the remaining, unbuilt sites. At the time, townhomesowners objected that it would have a detrimental impact on their valuations, especially in light of the fact that the proposed apartments would block the view of Beaver Lake for some of the townhomes owners. A review of the recent sales in the Beaver LakeTownhomesproject shows that values have declined approximately 15-20% from prior to construction of the apartments to the present, which is similar to the loss in value for the market in general during this time period. Townhomesandcondo units near the proposed Conifer Ridge Apts., where no apartments have been yet constructed have realized a similar loss in value over that same time period. In this case, the apartment construction near the Beaver Lake Townhomesproject appears to have had very little impact on the valuation of existing property. Ordinance Review 1.Storage Space:Ordinance requires a minimum indoor storage space of 120 cubic feet per unit. The applicant’s plans have indicated the three underground parking garages will each have 20 storage units that will be at least 5 feet by 5 feet – each unit would be approximately 200 cubic feet in size. Staff would encourage the applicant to reconfigure the storage space areas of each building to maximize the number of units that would have access to these spaces. 4 2.Visitor Parking:Ordinance requires a minimum parking requirement of two parking spaces per unit, with half being covered spaces. The applicant’s plans meet this requirement. However,while city ordinance does not have any requirements for visitor parkingprevious Legacy Village PUD approvals have required one visitor parking space for every twounits. Many of the proposed surface parking spaces are shown as 10 feet wide where ordinance requires a minimum width of 9.5 feet – a few additional spaces for visitor parking could be added by narrowing the proposed spaces to ordinance minimum. In addition, there is space between the two parking lot areas to add additional visitor parking. 3.Unit Sizes: In the applicant’s letter, he states that each building would have 29two- bedroom units, 20 one-bedroom units and one studio unit. The two- and one-bedroom units meet city ordinance for minimum unit size. The proposed studio unit would be 544 square feet where ordinance requires minimum unit sizes of 580 square feet forefficiency or one- bedroom units. A planned unit development allows the city council to approve flexibility from the requirements above. Planned Unit Development Revision Summary Staff does not have any overall concerns with the proposedPUD revision to approve the site for three apartment buildings. The PUD conditions for the townhomes and office/clubhousemust be revised, however, if the council approves the change to apartment buildings for thissite. Public Easement Vacations The applicant is requesting approval to vacate two existing storm sewer easements. These two easements were aligned to supportthe 2003 and 2006 approvals. Unless the exact 2003 or 2006 townhome concept was built on this site, vacations are likely needed regardless of what is developed on this site. The developer would dedicate new storm sewer easements to support this development. See the attached engineer’s report for more information. Lot Division The applicant is requesting the property be divided in two to create a western parcel and an eastern parcel.Two of the proposed buildings would be on the 8.7 acre westernparcel. One of the proposed buildings would be on the 3.8 acre eastern parcel. The proposed lot division does not create any issues with the city’s comprehensive plan or zoning ordinance. Design Review Architectural The proposedapartment buildings would be attractively designedbut staff would like to see more effort put into matching some of the design elements found elsewhere in Legacy Village. The applicant’s plans propose the use of cement board lap siding for the upper two floors and board and batten cement board for the lower floor. Staff would recommend the applicant add brick or stone into the elevations to match design elements found in the nearby townhomes. In addition, some type of architectural feature should be added to the gable areas on the buildings’ third level. 5 Building Setbacks The proposed building setbacks meet city ordinance requirements but are not consistent with the reduced-setback concept approved for the rest of Legacy Village. However, density and massing has been a stated neighborhood concern regarding this development and pushing the development away from the front property lines will help alleviate this issue. In addition, the applicant worked with the natural features of the site, including meeting the minimum setback requirements from the wetlands on site, so this worked to dictate building placement. The two buildings on the south end of the site will be approximately 280 feet away from the nearest residential structure. The building on east side of the site would be setback approximately 190 feet from the nearest residential structure. Graphic – 2 2015–Proposed site plan, above Sidewalks The existing sidewalks along Hazelwood Street, Kennard Street and County Road D East are to remain in place. As would the trail along the south property line of the site. Wetland Setbacks In an effort to protect the natural features located on the site, the applicant has designed the site with full wetland setbacks instead of averaging the setback dimensions which is permitted by city code. There is a Manage A and a Manage B wetland located on the northern end of the property. According to the city’s wetland ordinance Manage A wetlands require, at minimum, a 100 foot setback from any structure and Manage B wetlandsrequire, at minimum, a 75 foot setback from any structure. According totheapplicant’s plan the site meets all required minimum setbacks. For more information regarding the wetland setbacks please refer to Shann Finwall’s environmental report, dated August 12, 2015, attached to this report. 6 Soils During previous reviews of this site a stated neighborhood concern was that there were poor soils on this property. Determining soil quality for construction is a function of the building department’s review when permits are applied for. The provision of a detailed soils analysis should be provided to the building official prior to construction beginning on this project. If poor soils are found for construction, corrective measures must be taken or the site plan must be revised regarding building and possibly driveway placement. Landscaping In order to be consistent with the original 2003 Legacy Village approvals, overstory trees must be planted along the west side of Kennard Street and the eastside of Hazelwood Streetat an average of 30’-40’ on center. In addition, screening, either with a fence or landscaping, must be provided between the parking lots and the adjacent property lines. The ordinance requires screening to be at least 6 feet tall and 80 percent opaque and landscape screening can be done with a mixture of berming and vegetation. The landscape plan calls for 148 replacement trees, 900 native screening and foundation plants, and several other non-native shrubs that don’t count toward the tree replacement requirement. Overall, the applicant is replacing 895 caliper inches of trees on the site, with 694.30 caliper inches of replacement trees remaining. To mitigate the trees further, the applicant has agreed to remove all of the buckthorn from the site and pay for the management of that buckthorn over a three-year period. Department Comments Engineering Please see Jon Jarosch’s engineering report, dated August 10, 2015, attached to this report. Environmental Please see Shann Finwall’s environmental report, dated August 12, 2015, attached to this report. Building Official, Nick Carver Applicant must meet all Minnesota State Building Code requirements. Fire Department, Fire Marshall Butch Gervais Fire protection and alarm system will be required and the alarm system would be required to be monitored. Fire Department Lockbox would be required. Fire Department access road would be needed and can be adiscussion issue when it gets to the permitting of the parking lots. Police Department, Chief Paul Schnell No issues 7 Parks Department, Jim Taylor This project falls into the apartments with 5+ units category, meaning it does not matter on a bedroom mix. Therefore the parkavailabilitycharge for this development would be as follows: 150 Units X $1,980.00 = $297,000 Commission Review August 18, 2015: The planning commission will be reviewing this proposed project. August 25, 2015: The community design review board will be reviewing this proposed project. Budget Impact None. Recommendations A.Adopt the resolution approving the comprehensive land use plan amendment from MDR (medium density residential) to HDR(high density residential) for the12.5-acre parcel in Legacy Village.Approval is based on the following reasons: 1.The proposed development is compatible in density and in character with the adjacent residential developments. 2.A goal of the Maplewood 2030 Comprehensive Plan is to strive for a variety of housing types for people of all stages of the life cycle. This action is subject to the approval of a comprehensive plan amendment by the Metropolitan Council. B.Adopt the resolution approving a revision to the Legacy Village planned unit development as it relates to the previously-approved rental townhomes and executive-office suites and clubhouse sites. Approval of this revision is based on the findings required by the ordinance and subject to the following conditions (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): 1.The development shall follow the plans date-stamped May 11, 2006August 7, 2015, except where the city requires changes. The director of community development environmental and economic developmentmay approve minor changes. 2.The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3.The city council shall review this permit in one year. 8 4.The applicant shall comply with the requirements in the engineer’s report dated June 1, 2006August 10, 2015and the environmental report dated August 12, 2015. 5.The applicant shall provide a copy of the homeowner’s association documents to staff for approval. 5.Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant must contribute $20,000to the city’s tree preservation fund in order to comply with city ordinance. 6.The following changes are hereby made to the approved PUD conditions: Rental Townhomes and Office/ClubhouseApartments: a.The project willbe constructed according to the plans from Hartford Group dated 6/2/03dated August 7, 2015in all details, except as specifically modified by these conditions; b.A sidewalk will be provided continuously on the north or west side of Street A between Kennard Street and Hazelwood Drive, including the segment between the office/clubhouse parking lot and townhome buildings 11 and 12; c.Sidewalk connections will be added connecting the power line trail to the curb of Street A opposite townhome buildings 6 and 8; d.The sidewalks serving the fronts of townhome buildings 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 will be extended south to connect with the power line trail; e.Street B and Street C serving the townhomes will be constructed in their entirety with the townhomes, regardless of the status of the multi-family and commercial parcels to the east; f.Parking spaces will be provided at the ends of the driveways at the rear of buildings 1, 2, 3, 4; 13/14; 15/16; 17/18; 19/20; 21/22; 23/24; 25/26. Sidewalks will be provided from those parking spaces to the front sidewalks of each building; g.The infiltration trenches on the south sides of buildings 13/14, 15/16, and 19/20 will be modified to accommodate a revised alignment for the power line trail, provided that reasonable grades are provided for the trail and any sidewalks connecting to it, and approval of the city engineer concerning the size and function of the trenches; h.A 6’-wide sidewalk should be provided if at all possible on the south side of County Road D for the entire length of the project from Hazelwood Drive to Southlawn Drive, through continued discussion between the city and Hartford, focusing on exact sidewalk width, location, and right-of-way needs for turn lanes and other features of the County Road D project; i.A sidewalk will be provided on the south side of County Road D and sidewalks will be provided out to that sidewalk from the north side of buildings 1, 4, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25, as well as to the clubhouse front entry and the clubhouse parking lot; 9 j.The grades of the power line trail and all sidewalks will meet ADA guidelines for slope; b.Overstory trees will be planted along Hazelwood Street and Kennard Streetat an average of 30’-40’ on center instead of the average 70’ spacing shown on the plans; c.Overstory trees will be planted along both sides of Street B and on the west side of Street C at an average of 30’-40’ on center instead of the sometimes 100’ spacing shown on the plans, such additional tree islands to be coordinated with modified parking bays that might be added to this street; d.Overstory trees will be planted along both sides of Kennard Street in front of the townhomes at an average of 30’-40’ on center instead of the average 50’-80’ spacing shown on the plans; e.The curve in the middle ofStreet A opposite buildings 10 and 12 will be flattened as much as possible to limit headlights aimed into the front of the units; f.Front building setbacks (clubhouse and buildings 1, 4, 5, 14, 15, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26) to Hazelwood Drive, Kennard Street, and County Road D that are less than required by the Zoning Code are specifically approved within this PUD as shown on the site plan, down to a minimum of 5’ for the clubhouse and 15’ for the townhome buildings, in order to enhance the urban character of the streets and intersections; g.Side yard building setbacks for all buildings that are less than required by the Zoning Code are specifically approved within this PUD as shown on the site plan; c. Visitor parking spaces for the rental townhomesapartmentswill be added or modified as follows: i.Parking spaces will be added so there is a total of at least 48 spaces on the west side of Kennard and at least 51 spaces on the east side of Kennard, such that the front door of no unit is more than 200 feet from a group of at least 5 spaces75 spaces to serve all three buildings. ii.Street A will be widened to 26’ curb-to-curb and on-street parallel parking will be added along the north and west sides of the street except for within 100’ of the pavement of Hazelwood Drive and Kennard Street. iii.The private drive immediately south of buildings 2 and 3 will be widened to 26’ curb-to-curb and on-street parallel parking will be added along the north side of the drive. iv.Parking areas will be added behind buildings 1 and 4 where the driveway abuts the ponding area, consistent with the recommendation of the city engineer on providing adequate grading and functioning of the pond. v.Parking areas will be added behind buildings 15/16, 19/20, 21/22, and 10 25/26 to meet the parking and distance criteria cited here. vi.Street B will be widened to 26’ curb-to-curb and parallel parking will be added along the north and west sides of the street, or additional angled parking will be added to meet the criteria for parking spaces citedhere. d.The parking lot for the clubhouse/office building will be modified to add “proof of parking” spaces in the green area north and east of the swimming pool, for a total of 91 spaces possible in the lot. Such spaces will only be constructed if the owner believes they are needed, or if they are needed in the future to address parking problems at the building in the opinion of the community development director, who can order the spaces to be constructed. Such spaces will maintain a sidewalk connectionbetween the swimming pool and clubhouse building in an island in the middle of the parking bays as shown on the plans; d.The storage space areas of each building shall be reconfigured to allow as many units as possible to have at least 120 cubic feet for storage. e.One studio apartment is allowed in each building with a minimum floor area of 544 square feet. f.An easement over the power line trail on this parcel will be provided to the city for access and maintenance. C.Adopt the resolution vacating two stormsewer easements on this site, since: 1.The easements would serve no public purpose after the applicant redevelops the property into Conifer Ridge. This vacation is conditioned upon the following: 1.Provide the city with legal descriptions of the easement areas to be vacated and for the new areas to be dedicated for storm sewer purposes. 2.The applicant meets all and any conditions within Jon Jarosch’sAugust 10, 2015 report. D.Approve the lot division for Conifer Ridge, subject to the following conditions: 1.The applicant shall comply with the requirements in the city’s engineering report dated August 10, 2015. 2.The applicant shall sign a developer’s agreement with the city engineer before the issuance of a grading permit. 3.The applicant shall dedicate any easements and provide any written agreements that the city engineer may require as part of this lot division. 4.The applicant shall pay the city escrow for any documents, easements and agreements that the city engineer may require. 11 E.Approve the plans date-stamped August 7, 2015, for the Conifer Ridge apartment development. Approval is subject to the developer complying with the following conditions: 1.Obtain city council approval of a comprehensive land use plan amendment from MDR (medium density residential) to HDR (high density residential) to build apartments on this site. 2.Obtain city council approval of a revision to the previously-approved planned unit development for this project. 3.Obtain city council approval of the lot divisionfor this project. 4.All requirements of the fire marshal and building official must be met. 5.The applicant shall obtain all required permits from the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. 6.All driveways and parking lots shall have continuous concrete curbing. 7.All requirements of the city engineer, or his consultants working for the city, shall be met regarding grading, drainage, erosion control, utilities and the dedication of any easements found to be needed. All conditions of the Maplewood engineering report dated August 10, 2015must be complied with. 8.Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project by that time. 9.Any identification signs for the project must meet the requirements of the city sign ordinance andthe PUD approval. 10.The setbacks are approved as proposed. 11.The applicant shall: Install reflectorized stop signs at all driveway connections to Hazelwood Street and Kennard Street. Install and maintain an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. Install all required trails, sidewalks and carriage walks. Install any traffic signage within the site that may be required by staff. Provide a revised landscaping plan for staff approval which include therequired overstory trees along Hazelwood Street and Kennard Street and detailing how screening requirements are being met for the parking lots facing residential areas. Provide revised building elevations for staff approvalincorporating brick elements into the buildings and adding architectural features to the gable areas of the buildings. 12 Provide a screening plan to staff for approval for any visible utility meters on the outside of the building. Provide a detailed soils analysis to the building official and city engineer prior to applying for building permits to ensure that there is proper soil stability for construction. 12.The applicant shall ensurethat site lights do not exceed a .4-foot-candle spilloverat all property lines. 13.The applicant shall provide the city with cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the exterior landscaping and site improvements prior to getting a building permit for the development. Staff shall determine the dollar amount of the escrow. 14.All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of environmental and economic developmentmay approve minor changes. Citizen Comments Staff surveyed the 407 surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the proposed site for their opinion about this proposal. Staff received 77 responses – 66 against, 7 had comments, 2 were for and 2 had no comments. All neighborhood comments are included as an attachment to this report. Below is a summary of the areas of concerns gathered from the responses. Citizen Comment Trends Loss of green space/natural area-45 mentions Traffic Concerns- 35 mentions Property Value Decrease Concerns-31 mentions Density/Over Crowding Concerns- 21 mentions Emphasis on Homeowners-17 mentions Safety/Crime Concerns - 13 mentions Changes Area’s Character-11 mentions Rental Concerns-9 mentions Run-off/Storm water concerns- 6 mentions Market saturation-5 mentions Change in placement of parking spaces-5 mentions Disruptions-4 mentions Overdevelopment- 4 mentions Design Concerns-3 mentions Environmental Impacts (includes comments about trash)-3 mentions Need for Community Space-1 mention Privacy-1 Lighting-1 13 Reference Information Site Description Site Size: 12.5Acres Existing Land Use: Vacant Land Surrounding Land Uses North: County Road D/Townhomes of Pineview and a Stormwater Pond South: Heritage Square East: Heritage Square II West: Vacant Commercial land Planning Existing Land Use:Medium Density Residential Existing Zoning:Planned Unit Development (PUD) Application Date The city deemed the applicant’sapplications complete on August3,2015. The 60-day review deadline for a decision is October 2, 2015. As stated in Minnesota State Statute 15.99, the city is allowed to take an additional 60 days if necessary in order to complete the review of the application. Attachments 1.Comprehensive Plan Amendment Resolution 2.Planned Unit Development Revision Resolution 3.Public Easements Vacation Resolution 4.Location Map 5.Land Use Map 6.Zoning Map 7.Neighborhood Density Map 8.2003 Legacy Village ConceptPlan 9.2006 Approved Plat Plan 10.Site Plan 11.Landscape Plan 12.Building Elevations 13.Applicant’s Narrative (two letters) 14.Applicant’s Engineer’s Cover Letter 15.Jon Jarosch, engineering comments, dated August 10, 2015 16.Shann Finwall, environmental comments, dated August 12, 2015 17.Neighborhood Comments 18.Applicant’s plan set (separate attachment) 14 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Peter Stalland of Conifer Ridge Apartments, LLC, has requested a change to the City of Maplewood’s land use plan from MDR (medium density residential) to HDR (high density residential) for his proposed apartment complex. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the 12.5-acre site in Legacy Village lying south of County Road D East between Hazelwood Street and Kennard Street. The property’s legal description is: Lot 1 Block 1, Legacy Village of Maplewood WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1.On August 18, 2015, theplanning 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 _________the land use plan change. 2.On September 14, 2015 the city council discussed the land use plan change. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council ___________ the above described change for the following reasons: 1.The proposed development is compatible in density and in character with the adjacent residential developments. 2.A goal of the Maplewood 2030 Comprehensive Plan is to strive for a variety of housing types for people of all stages of the life cycle. This action is subject to the approval of this land use plan amendment by the Metropolitan Council. The Maplewood City Council _________ this resolution on September 14, 2015. 15 Attachment 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, PeterStalland of Conifer Ridge Apartments, LLC applied for a conditional use permit to revise the Legacy Village planned unit development by eliminating the use of a1.5 -acre commercial building site and 11-acre townhomes development and propose insteadan apartment complex. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the 12.5-acre site in Legacy Village lying south of County Road D East between Hazelwood Street and Kennard Street. The legal description is: Lot 1 Block 1, Legacy Village of Maplewood WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1.On August 18, 2015, 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 _________the land use plan change. 2.On September 14, 2015 the city council discussed the conditional use permit revision. 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 revision 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 not exceed the design standards of any affected street. 6.The use would be servedby adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 16 Attachment 2 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. (additions are underlined and deletions Approval is subject to the following conditions are crossed out): 1.The development shall follow the plans date-stamped May 11, 2006August 7, 2015, except where the city requires changes. The director of community development environmental and economic developmentmay approve minor changes. 2.The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3.The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4.The applicant shall comply with the requirements in the engineer’s report dated June 1, 2006August 10, 2015and the environmental report dated August 12, 2015. 5.The applicant shall provide a copy of the homeowner’s association documents to staff for approval. 5.Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant must contribute $20,000 to the city’s tree preservation fund in order to comply with city ordinance. 6.The following changes are hereby made to the approved PUD conditions: Rental Townhomes and Office/ClubhouseApartments: a.The project will be constructed according to the plans from Hartford Group dated 6/2/03dated August 7, 2015in all details, except as specifically modified by these conditions; b.A sidewalk will be provided continuously on the north or west side of Street A between Kennard Street and Hazelwood Drive, including the segment between the office/clubhouse parking lot and townhome buildings 11 and 12; c.Sidewalk connections will be added connecting the power line trail to the curb of Street A opposite townhome buildings 6 and 8; d.The sidewalks serving the fronts of townhome buildings 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 will be extended south to connect with the power line trail; e.Street B and Street C serving the townhomes will be constructed intheir entirety with the townhomes, regardless of the status of the multi-family and commercial parcels to the east; f.Parking spaces will be provided at the ends of the driveways at the rear of 17 Attachment 2 buildings 1, 2, 3, 4; 13/14; 15/16; 17/18; 19/20; 21/22; 23/24; 25/26. Sidewalks will be provided from those parking spaces to the front sidewalks of each building; g.The infiltration trenches on the south sides of buildings 13/14, 15/16, and 19/20 will be modified to accommodate a revised alignment for the power line trail, provided that reasonable grades are provided for the trail and any sidewalks connecting to it, and approval of the city engineer concerning the size and function of the trenches; h.A 6’-wide sidewalk should be provided if at all possible on the south side of County Road D for the entire length of the project from Hazelwood Drive to Southlawn Drive, through continued discussion between the city and Hartford, focusing on exact sidewalk width, location, and right-of-way needs for turn lanes and other features of the County Road D project; i.A sidewalk will be provided on the south side of County Road D and sidewalks will be provided out to that sidewalk from the north side of buildings 1, 4, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25, as well as to the clubhouse front entryand the clubhouse parking lot; j.The grades of the power line trail and all sidewalks will meet ADA guidelines for slope; b.Overstory trees will be planted along Hazelwood Street and Kennard Streetat an average of 30’-40’ on center instead of the average 70’ spacing shown on the plans; c.Overstory trees will be planted along both sides of Street B and on the west side of Street C at an average of 30’-40’ on center instead of the sometimes 100’ spacing shown on the plans, such additional tree islands to be coordinated with modified parking bays that might be added to this street; d.Overstory trees will be planted along both sides of Kennard Street in front of the townhomes at an average of 30’-40’ on center instead of the average 50’-80’ spacing shown on the plans; e.The curve in the middle of Street A opposite buildings 10 and 12 will be flattened as much as possible to limit headlights aimed into the front of the units; f.Front building setbacks (clubhouse and buildings 1, 4, 5, 14, 15, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26) to Hazelwood Drive, Kennard Street, and County Road D that are less than required by the Zoning Code are specifically approved within this PUD as shown on the site plan, down to a minimum of 5’ for the clubhouse and 15’ for the townhome buildings, in order to enhance the urban character of the streets and intersections; g.Side yard building setbacks for all buildings that are less than required by the Zoning Code are specifically approved within this PUD as shown on the site plan; c. Visitor parking spaces for the rental townhomesapartmentswill be added or 18 Attachment 2 modified as follows: i.Parking spaces will be added so there is a total of at least 48 spaces on the west side of Kennard and at least 51 spaces on the east side of Kennard, such that the front door of no unit is more than 200 feet from a group of at least 5 spaces 75 spaces to serve all three buildings. ii.Street A will be widened to 26’ curb-to-curb and on-street parallel parking will be added along the north and west sides of the street except for within 100’ of the pavement of Hazelwood Drive and Kennard Street. iii.The private drive immediately south of buildings 2 and 3 will be widened to 26’ curb-to-curb and on-street parallel parking will be added along the north side of the drive. iv.Parking areas will be added behind buildings 1 and 4 where the driveway abuts the ponding area, consistent with the recommendation of the city engineer on providing adequate grading and functioning of the pond. v.Parking areas will be added behind buildings 15/16, 19/20,21/22, and 25/26 to meet the parking and distance criteria cited here. vi.Street B will be widened to 26’ curb-to-curb and parallel parking will be added along the north and west sides of the street, or additional angled parking will be added to meet the criteria for parking spaces cited here. d.The parking lot for the clubhouse/office building will be modified to add “proof of parking” spaces in the green area north and east of the swimming pool, for a total of 91 spaces possible in the lot. Such spaces will only be constructed if the owner believes they are needed, or if they are needed in the future to address parking problems at the building in the opinion of the community development director, who can order the spaces to be constructed. Such spaces willmaintain a sidewalk connection between the swimming pool and clubhouse building in an island in the middle of the parking bays as shown on the plans; d.The storage space areas of each building shall be reconfigured to allow as many units as possible to have at least 120 cubic feet for storage. e.One studio apartment is allowed in each building with a minimum floor area of 544 square feet. f.An easement over the power line trail on this parcel will be provided to the city for access and maintenance. The Maplewood City Council __________this resolution on September 14, 2015. 19 Attachment 3 PUBLIC EASEMENT VACATIONS RESOLUTION WHEREAS, PeterStalland of Conifer Ridge Apartments, LLC applied for the vacation of two existing storm sewer easements. WHEREAS, this requestapplies to the 12.5-acre site in Legacy Village lying south of County Road D East between Hazelwood Street and Kennard Street. The legal description is: Lot 1 Block 1, Legacy Village of Maplewood WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: 1.On August 18, 2015, 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 _________the land use plan change. 2.On September 14, 2015 the city council discussed the public easement vacations. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council ______the above- described vacationsfor the following reasons: 1.The easements would serve no public purpose after the applicant redevelops the property into Conifer Ridge. This vacation is subject to: 1.Provide the city with legal descriptions of the easement areas to be vacated and for the new areas to be dedicated for storm sewer purposes. 2.The applicant meets all and any conditions within Jon Jarosch’s August 10, 2015 report. The Maplewood City Council __________this resolution on September 14, 2015. 20 Maplewood Heights Kohlman Lake Hazelwood Sherwood Glen Parkside Western Hills Gladstone Hillside Beaver Lake Battle Creek Vista Hills Highwood Carver Ridge Maplewood, City of Maplewood Conifer Ridge Apartments Project Review - Overview Map Maplewood, Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i- cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community 21 Attachment 5 Conifer Ridge Apartments Legend Maplewood, Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, MapmyIndia, © Project Review - Land Use Map Industrial Medium Density Residential OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Commercial High Density Residential Park 22 Attachment 6 Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community, Maplewood, Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Conifer Ridge Apartments Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Legend Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community, Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the Project Review - Zoning Map Planned Unit Development (pud) Light Manufacturing (m1) GIS user community Multiple Dwelling (r3) Business Commercial (bc) 23 24 25 26 27 28 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Conifer Ridge Apartments 29 22' - 3"8' - 0"9' - 6"11' - 6"11' - 0"4' - 0" 51' - 3" 62' - 3" 30 31 32 33 D /Ò,;7L“-u 9“mz“;;©z“m{Ò©Ý;äz“mµtŒ““z“m ‘;­·Ýz;Þ5©zÝ;r‘;­·{z“·tҌrab ¦wu u u Eãu u u   ConiferRidgeApartmentHydrology,7062015 TheConiferRidgeApartmentsisaplanneddevelopmentforthree50unitapartmentson12.5acres.Constructionofthe buildingsandparkinglotswillcreate3acresofnewimpervioussurfacing.Treatmentofthestormwaterwillbesubject toMPCA,CityofMaplewodandRamseyWashingtonMetroWatershedDistrictstandards. ExistingSiteConditions: Thepropertycontainsamixofwoodedhillsandwetlands.Drainagepatternswithinthesiteareessentiallysplitfrom easttowestbyawoodedridgerunningnorthwesterlytosoutheasterly.Developmentwillpreservemuchofthisridge anddrainagecharacteristic. Ontheeasterlyportionoftheproperty,thesitedrainssouthtonorth.Thelowerportionofthepropertyisawetland. NearthemiddleofthisareaisatemporarystormwatertreatmentpondwhichwasconstructedaspartofPhaseIIofthe HeritageSquareatLegacyVillageprojectaround2005.Theplansforthispondwasforittobeimprovedanddesignated asapermanentpondatthetimeofthedevelopmentofthisproject. Onthewesterlyportionofthepropertythesitealsodrainssouthtonorth.Thelowestportionisalsoawetlandnearthe intersectionofCountyRoadDandHazelwoodAvenue.Southofthisareaontheadjacentpropertyaretwostormwater treatmentcellsservingthedevelopmenttothesouth. ProposedSiteConditions: Theeasterlyportionofthedevelopmentwillcontainone50unitbuildingandparkingareaaccessedfromKennard Street.Developmentwilladd0.9acresofnewimpervioussurfacing.Treatmentwillbeachievedbycollectingand conveyingrunofftotheexistingstormwatertreatmentpond.Finalmodelingwilldetermineifadditionalvolumeis requiredoriftheoutletstructurewillberequiredtobemodifiedtomeetcriteriaforwetbasindesigns.Treatedflow willfeedtheexistingdownstreamwetland. Thewesterlyportionofthedevelopmentwillcontaintwo50unitbuildingsandparkingareaaccessedfromHazelwood Avenue.Developmentwilladd2.1acresofnewimpervioussurfacing.Anewtreatmentbasin‘rainwatergardenwillbe constructednorthofthebuildings.Duetoinadequateseparationtothewatertableandsoilfactors,asimpleinfiltration basinwillnotmeetdesigncriteria.Insteadabasinwithanunderdrainwillbeconstructedtoprovidethestormwater treatmentmeasuresasrequired.Thetreatedflowwillfeedtheexistingwetland. Summary: Bylimitingtheimperviousareatolessthan25%oftheprojectareaandmakinguseoftwostormwatertreatment basins,theConiferRidgeApartmentsisdesignedtomeetwaterqualitytreatmentandrequirements,andmeetexisting flowratesforstormeventsasspecifiedbythecityandthewatersheddistrict.Uponconditionalapprovaloftheproject, finalhydrologicdesignwillbemodeled,calculationsprovided,andfinalconstructionplanssubmittedforapproval. MarkWelch,PE GCubedInc. 5078671666ext.105 34 Engineering Plan Review PROJECT: Conifer Ridge Apartments PROJECT NO: 15-14 COMMENTS BY: Jon Jarosch, P.E. – Staff Engineer DATE: 08-10-2015 PLAN SET: Engineering plans dated 07-06-2015 REPORTS: Storm Water Summary Letter dated 07-06-2015 The applicant is proposingthree(3) 50-unit apartment buildings on the currently vacant parcel at the southeast corner of Hazelwood Street and County Road D in Legacy Village. The applicant is requestinga comprehensive plan amendment, a planned unit development amendment, a review of the design, and the approval of a lot split. This review does not constitute a final review of the plans, as the applicant will need to submit construction documents, geotechnical information, and a stormwater reportfor final review.The following are engineeringreview comments on the designsubmitted to dateand act as conditions prior to issuing permits. Drainage and Stormwater Management 1)It appears that the applicant’sconcept plan can meet the requirements of the City’s stormwater management standards.The final design of this project shall meet the requirements set forth in these standards. This includes the infiltration of 1.1 inches of rainfall over all impervious surfaces and designing utilizing the Atlas-14 rainfall data. The applicant shall work with the City to meet the intent of these standards. 2)The City consulted with Ron Leaf, P.E. at S.E.H., Inc. to review the proposed stormwater management on this site. According to Mr. Leaf, the current drainage plan appears consistent with the MMATI area drainage plan. After final plans are created, the stormwater discharge rates leaving the site shall be less than or equal to those anticipated in the MMATI area drainage plan. 3)The project shall be submitted to the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District (RWMWD) for review. All conditions of RWMWD shall be met. 4)The applicant is proposingthe use ofinfiltrationor filtrationto meet water quality requirements.As such, the applicant shall submit copies of geotechnical information (soil borings, infiltrations tests, etc.) to support infiltration rates shown in the hydraulic calculations. 35 5)The applicant shall provide storm sewer pipe sizing details for all onsite storm sewer. 6)Emergency overland overflows shall be identified on the plans and shall include adequate scour protection. Grading and Erosion Control 7)All slopesshall be 3H:1V or flatter. 8)The proposed infiltration/filtrationareas shall be protected from sedimentation throughout construction. 9)Inlet protection devices shall be installed on allexistingand proposedonsite storm seweruntil all exposed soils onsite are stabilized. Additionally, storm sewer inlets along adjacent City streetsshall be protected throughout construction. 10)Adjacent streetsshall be swept as needed to keep the pavementclear of sediment and construction debris. 11)All pedestrian facilities shall be ADA compliant. 12)A copy of the project SWPPP and NDPES Permit shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 13)Stabilized construction entrances shall be placed at all entry/exit points to the site. 14)The total grading volume (cut/fill) shall be noted on the plans. 15)All emergency overland overflows shall contain adequate stabilization to prevent soils from eroding during large storm events. Sanitary Sewer and Water Service 16)Sanitary sewer service piping shall be schedule 40 PVC or SDR 35. 17)The proposed water service modifications are subject to the review and conditions of Saint Paul Regional Water Services(SPRWS). The applicant shall submit plans and specifications to SPRWS for review and meet all requirements they may haveprior to the issuance of a grading permit by the City. 18)Theapplicant shall provide fixture unit computations verifying that the sewer service is adequate for the proposed building. 36 19)The applicant shall be responsible for paying any SAC, WAC, or PAC charges related to the improvements proposed with this project. Traffic Analysis 20)The City consulted with Thomas Sohrweide, a traffic engineer at S.E.H., Inc., to analyze the potential traffic impacts from the proposed development. Mr. Sohrweide noted… “This additional volume of traffic (from the proposed three apartment buildings) is not indicative of any change in intersection traffic operation.” Other 21)The buildings shall be designed and constructed to be in conformance with the Minnesota State Noise standards. As the buildings are in close proximity to I-694, it is necessary to consider noise reducing construction techniques and materials as identified in the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) and Mitigation Plan. 22)The plans shall be signed by a professional engineer currently licensed in the State of Minnesota. 23)The applicant shall ensure the site is navigable and accessible by emergency service vehicles. 24)A right-of way permit shall be submitted for any work within the public right-of-way. 25)The developer shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City. 26)The Owner shall sign a maintenance agreement, prepared by the City, for all storm water treatment devices (sumps, storm sewer, infiltration systems, ponds,etc.). 27)The applicant is proposing to vacate two existing storm sewer easements which cover existing storm sewer within the site. As this storm sewer is proposed to be relocated as part of the project, the applicant is proposing to create new easements over the new storm sewer locations. The applicant shall provide the easements necessary to cover the final storm sewer layout. 28)Perpetual trail easements shall be granted to the City for the existing onsite trails at the southeast and southwest corners of the property. 29)The applicant shall provide a self-renewing letter of credit or cash escrow in the amount of 125% of the proposed site improvements(or as detailed in the Development Agreement)including earthwork, grading, erosion control, site vegetation establishment, aggregate base, and paving. 37 30)The applicant shall satisfy the requirements of all other permitting agencies. Please provide copies of other required permits and approvals. 31)The Developer is responsible to obtain any necessary permits for building and/or working within existing Power Transmission Line easements located along the southern portion of the proposed development. - END COMMENTS - 38 Attachment 16 Environmental Review Project: Conifer Ridge Apartments Dateof Plans: August 7, 2015 Date of Review: August 12, 2015 Location: Legacy Village (County Road D East between Hazelwood and Kennard Streets) Reviewer: Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner (651) 249-2304; shann.finwall@ci.maplewood.mn.us Background 1.Project Background - The project involves developing a 150-unit apartment complex on a 12.5 acre parcel within the LegacyVillage Planned Unit Development. There are two wetlands and hundreds of significant trees on the property. The development must comply with the City’s wetland and tree preservation ordinances. 2.Wetland Background – There is a Manage Bwetland (identified as Wetland A on the plans) and a Manage A wetland (identified as Wetland B on the plans) located on the property. Both wetlands have been delineatedby the applicant. The Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District has reviewed and approved of thewetland delineations. During the Mall Area Road Reconstruction Project and extension of County Road D in 2003, the Manage A wetland was identified as being fully mitigated along with other wetlandsimpactedduring that construction. The mitigated wetlands are located on the north and south side of Beam Avenue, east of Highway 61. Ultimately, only the north and west buffers of the Manage A wetland on the site were impacted, with the wetland itself remaining intact. Regardless of its history, the applicant has agreed to comply with the City’s wetland ordinance and buffer requirements for the Manage A wetland with this development. The original Planned Unit Development wetland conditions for this lot state that the applicant shall dedicate wetland-protection buffers around each wetland within this development. The width of each buffer shall be according to each wetland’s classification as determined by the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. 3.Tree Background – There are hundreds of trees located on the site. To survey the trees, the applicant used aprocess called forest mensuration. This involved dividing the site into 11 plots and incorporating quantitative measurements of the forest stand, rather than identifying and marking each ofthe trees. The forest mensuration results show that the site has 86% red pine, 9.1% boxelder, 1.6% 39 Attachment 16 cottonwood, and 1% elms/cherry/spruce/aspen. The average size of the trees is 11.3 diameterinches. The original Planned Unit Development tree conditions for this lot state that the applicant shall comply with the City’s tree preservation ordinance. Discussion 1.Wetlands : The wetland ordinance requires a 75-foot minimum and 100-foot average buffer for Manage A wetlands and a 50-foot minimum and 75-foot average buffer for Manage B wetlands. No building, grading, or stormwater structures can be located within the buffer. Wetland Impacts: Wetland A (Manage B wetland) – The development and construction limits will not encroach into the 75-foot buffer. This complies with the City’s wetland ordinance. Wetland B (Manage A wetland) – A stormwater infiltration basin will be constructed within 75 feet of the wetland. A stormwater drain tile outlet will be bored under the buffer, ensuring no grading within the buffer. The remaining development and construction limits will maintain a 100-foot average buffer. Buffer averaging is allowed if one of more of the following criteria ismet: a)Undue hardship would arise from not allowing the average buffer, or would otherwise not be in the public interest. b) Size of parcel. c) Configuration of existing roads and utilities. d) Percentage of parcel covered by wetland. e) Configuration of wetlands on the parcel. f) Averaging will not cause degradation of the wetland or stream. g) Averaging will ensure the protection or enhancement of portions of the buffer which are found to be the most ecologically beneficial to the wetland or stream. The development proposal meets several of the above-mentioned criteria. The City requires wetland buffer mitigation when a buffer has been altered through averaging with one or more of the following actions: a)Reducing or avoiding the impact by limiting the degree or amount of the action, such as by using appropriate technology. b)Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the buffer. c) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by prevention and maintenance operations during the life of the actions. d)Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute buffer land at a two-to-one ratio. e)Monitoring the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures. 40 Attachment 16 f)Where the City requires restoration or replacement of a buffer, the owner or contractor shall replant the buffer with native vegetation. A restoration plan must be approved by the City before planting. g)Any additional conditions required by the applicable watershed district and/or the soil and water conservation district shall apply. h)A wetland or buffer mitigation surety, such as a cash deposit or letter of credit150% of estimated cost for mitigation. The surety will be required based on the size of the project as deemed necessary by the administrator. Funds will be held by the City until successful completion of restoration as determined by the City after a final inspection. Wetland or buffer mitigation surety does not include other sureties required pursuant to any other provision of City ordinance or City directive. Wetland Recommendations: a)Prior to grading, the applicant shall install City approved wetland signs at the edge of the approved wetland buffer that specify that no building, mowing, cutting, grading, filling or dumping be allowed within the buffer. The signs must be placed every 100-feet along the edge of the buffer at a minimum. Thesignlocations must be verified with a survey to ensure proper placement. b)The applicant shall submit a wetland mitigation plan for Wetland B (Manage A wetland) that includes a native planting plan for the infiltration basin. c) The applicant shall submit a cash escrow or letter of credit to cover 150% of the wetland mitigationmentioned in item b above. Trees 2. :Maplewood’s tree preservation ordinance describes a significant tree as a hardwood tree with a minimum of 6 inches in diameter, an evergreen tree with a minimum of 8 inches in diameter, and a softwood tree with a minimum of 12 inches in diameter. A specimen tree is defined as a healthy tree of any species which is 28 inches in diameter or greater. The ordinance requires any significant tree removed to be replaced based on a tree mitigation calculation. The calculation takes into account the size of a tree and bases replacement on that size. Tree Impacts: The applicant is preserving 52% of the site as protected and undisturbed land. Regardless of this preservationand due to the sheer number of trees on the site,the development will require the removal of 4,616 diameter inches of the 10,034.34 diameter inches of significant trees on the site. The City’s tree replacement calculation requires the applicant replace 1,589.30 caliper inches of trees, or 794 – 2-inch trees. Tree ReplacementProgram Guidelines: The City’s tree replacement program guidelinesrequire that anapplicant plant as many trees as feasible on the site. If the replacement requirementis not met, the applicant can plant native or drought tolerant shrubs that qualify towards tree replacement (#3 shrub or larger is equivalent to .5 caliper inchesof replacement tree). If the replacement requirements are still not met, the remaining trees are converted to a dollar amount that will go into the Maplewood Tree Fund (each caliper inch is equivalent to $60). 41 Attachment 16 Tree Replacementand Mitigation: The landscapeplan calls for 148 replacement trees, 900 native screening and foundation plants, and several other non-native shrubs that don’t count toward the tree replacement requirement. Overall, the applicant is replacing 895 caliper inches of trees on the site, with 694.30 caliper inches of replacement trees remaining. This equates to $41,658 toward the City’s tree fund. To mitigate the trees further, the applicant has agreed to remove all of the buckthorn from the site and pay for the management of that buckthorn over a three-year period. Buckthorn is an invasive plant that has degraded many local woodlands. Removal of buckthorn from the site will improve the remaining forest ecosystem. The applicant has received quotes for this workandCity staff has agreed to allow the developer to reduce the tree fund payment with a dollar for dollar credit toward the buckthorn removal and management. This equates to a final tree fund payment of $20,000. Tree Preservation Recommendations: a)The applicant shall commit to a three-year maintenance plan with the City to ensure the removal and management of buckthorn on the site. b)The applicant shall submit a cash escrow or letter of credit to cover 150% of the tree replacement requirements. c) The applicant shall submit a Tree Fund cash payment in the amount of $20,000. This money will be placed in the City’s Tree Fund which funds the City’s tree program. 42 Attachment 17 Against-66 Cynthia Gass- 1635 Parkway Drive #6(green space) “We own our homes and are [sic] quite invested in this community. We have considerable interest in what happens to the property. The wooded area is a welcome respite and a major selling feature. We want the woods to stay as it is a lot of animals in their homes. Totally against any building in that area. Keep it as it is. If it gets built people around here will be moving which would be very sad, just because of this. Leave it alone.” Adam Brinkman-1613 County Road D(green space, density) “In an age of “over development” I stand by the idea that our community would benefit more from having sustained natural environments near and around our area than to “give in” to over population of our neighborhood. I am against any further development in an already clustered area.” Allyn Keller- 3003 Hazelwood St N(traffic) “We don’t need any more apartments in this area. Bringing in more commercial property is not good. Adds more traffic, we already have the hospital traffic. Do not want it to go through County Road D. Hazelwood is already highly traveled.” Current Occupant- 3003 Hazelwood St N(traffic, density) “We are against the Conifer Ridge Apartment project. It will change the character of the surrounding area. Most families have 2 cars along with visitors of people who live there, trash hauler, recycling, delivery truck, etc, will cause a real problem with traffic. We will get water runoff. Salt from the cars and road in winter, why not develop for single family homes.” Roger Christensen 3003 Hazelwood St N unit 326 (density, green space) “I believe the property East of Hazelwood is already high density. Property is buildings are close enough to touch each other. Please no more. Trees and water are nice.” Zenja Sormaz- 1681 County Road D E (green space) “I do not agree with the proposal to build a new apartment complex due to the fact that [sic] a new development would destroy green space/ecosystem.” Cecilia Consuelo Lung Rojas-1077 Lovell Lane S (green space) “We are worried about the small wild inhabitants (??) in this area. Where will they go? There is not enough green area left on County Road DE. We need to protect them and preserve a little bit of wilderness.” Chongqi Zhang 7120 Meadow Grass Ave S (green space) “I want that piece of land to stay unchanged and no apartments to be built.” Kenneth Jacka-3003 Hazelwood St N Unit 317 (green space, traffic) “I think we should keep what little wild life and tree beauty we have left in the area. We have enough traffic going on in the area now.” 43 Attachment 17 Suzanne Fry- 3060 Cottage Lane N(density, green space) “I feel very strongly that this parcel should REMAIN designated as Medium Density Residential. The Manage A and B wetlands and old growth forest on this site deserve a particularly “resourceful and prudent approach to development” (City Code Chapter 18), and increasing population density feels clearly inconsistent with that approach. This proposal is NOT being generous with wetland and forest preservations, but actually pushing the limits of the City’s Feb 2013revisionof Ordinance 928 to protect the environment of critical areas. The site is a rare resource. The proposed development would use every bit of the buildable land of this parcel and significantly alter the character of a heavily used walking/biking trail by abutting it to parking lots. The removal of an average of 45% of the trees on this parcel would also be of significant impact, as would 200 more car/day entering and exiting off Hazelwood. Please err on the side of prudent and sensitive as you review and consider amendments that this proposal would require. This is only the first of hopefully many proposals, to use this parcel most wisely.”(Typed letter) Alex Taylor- 1687 Village Tr E Unit 4 (green space, traffic, property values) “It’s a nice wetland area so the environmental impact should be considered first and foremost. Next we need to consider the impact the apartment units would have. I can’t imagine it would be good for neighboring home values and it would certainly cause more traffic congestion in an area that is becoming more of an issue already. In the end, I do not feel it would be a good move and my vote would be no. Turn it into a park!” Denis Dupree 1674 Village Tr E Unit 3(renters, traffic) “Ialso want to express my very, very strong opposition to the project. My primary concern is that these are RENTAL properties. There are a number of garbage, crime and general nuisance issues that we deal with due to the neighboring rental condos on village trail and bittersweet (near Ashley Furniture)--to the point that I often regret having purchased this property and I worry how I will be able to sell it in the summer when those residents are out in the street. Imagine this multiplied many fold with the new property even if at "market rates". Renters do not care about their neighborhood or community in the way that homeowners do. Apartment buildings sometimes start out looking ok, but they quickly become an eyesore...our neighborhood will become more congested with more crime and more risks for our children...imagine all the additional traffic by the playground and along key bus routes and bus stops. It may be in the village's best interest to develop this land in the future, but developing it into a RENTAL property is a disaster waiting to happen (regardless of the density)--will require more policing and will make residents including myself want to leave our neighborhood and leave the Maplewood we currently enjoy. BETTER TO WAIT FOR THE RIGHT PROJECT to come along when the economy continues to grow --more townhomes or maybe the city decides to make it or rather keep it a public park-like space.” (email response) Gene Dickie-Cardinal Pointe Unit 232(Traffic, renter, density) “Worried about traffic and density that may come along if the unit is built. Would like to see the project scaled down or not built because of the potential for increased traffic and noise. Mentions that renters tend to be younger and they may be a nuisance. Would rathersee a senior living community.” 44 Attachment 17 George Seller-3003 Hazelwood St N Unit 306(density, rental, traffic) 1. “Already a dense community 2.150+ cars added 3.Apartments cut down on the desirability of homeowners property “ Jeff and Heather Imsdahl- 3049 Chamberlain Street N #5(Traffic, property value, over development, home owner) “I oppose the development of the Conifer Ridge Apartments as a homeowner in the Legacy Village area. I own my home and am invested in the community these past 10 years. This slow rebound from the home market crash of the mid 2000's is still felt; our property has not regained nowhere near where it should be. To lose potential home buyers or renters does not help with a development such as this. I do believe that traffic will be impacted in the area and as a pet owner, we walk our dog daily near the wooded area and would hate to lose that to a view of a parking lot. There is already too much development in this area! Again, it goes back to the value of our home; it is better off with the wooded area as it is now rather than another development of apartment complexes.” (email response) Jennifer (Albertson) Newton- 1683 Village Trail East #3 (property values, traffic,home owner, green space, parking) “I have a few concerns I'd like to share: 1. In Mr. Stralland's letter dated July 6, he states that surrounding uses include "medium-to-high density rental townhomes." Allow me to clarify that the townhomes within Heritage Square I and II are NOT rentals, but owned by homeowners. While some residents have chosen to rent out their properties, that is by far the exception, not the rule. So the surrounding neighbors are indeed quite vested in this community and, as such, hold considerable interest in what happens to the property bounded by us to the east and south. I want it to be very clear that this is a neighborhood of homeowners; it's not a rental community for which "one more" rental property will be added to the bunch. 2. I am a homeowner within the Heritage Square II neighborhood, and when we purchased the home (pre-construction phase) in 2007, a major attractor in our decision to buy here was the wooded area to our west. With so much commercial space surrounding us, that wooded area is a welcome respite and selling feature for those of us monitoring our home values' slow rebound from the housing crash. This wooded area is one of the last I know of in Maplewood, and while it was clearly for sale, it was something many of us were hopingwould never be taken away. It seems ironic that "Legacy Village" would lose its last bit of true legacy, untouched natural woods and wetland. Shouldn't we be aiming to protect that? 3. On a related note, I see that Mr. Stralland's proposed plan does include preserving as much natural space as possible; however, by effecively blocking the view on all sides for its neighbors at Heritage Square I and II, the plan steals our view and preserves it for car traffic and apartment renters. This could be detrimentalto the people with the most to lose - the homeowners with property value to consider. 4. While Mr. Stralland notes that there would be "only minimal vehicular traffic" and "would not create congestion or unsafe conditions," I can't imagine how that's possible. How can 150 households not generate considerable traffic? And with all of the children walking and biking to and from the playground (on the proposed development's southern edge), how could they not be less safe on/near Kennard Street? 45 Attachment 17 5. The playground is already paired with a less-than-ideal neighbor in its overhead power lines - - when I push my son on the swings, we have to listen to the crackle of the lines looming above us like a bad post-industrialist commentary. The park and trail's only redeeming scenery will be blocked by a parking lot and apartment buildings, with corresponding traffic and noise. It's not good for existing residents' quality of life. It takes the wooded area away from the people who enjoy it, reduces the value of the playground and trail, and essentially reserves it as the backyard for three apartment buildings. No one will be able to appreciate its beauty when it's effectively tucked behind parking lots and apartment buildings. That is, no current taxpaying homeowners. 6. A question: If the land MUST be sold, can't we consider single-family houses --perhaps such as those on Hazelwood within Heritage Square I --that would preserve the nature and maintain or elevate our property values? Aren't there enough rentals on the northside of County Road D? And what of saturation --couldn't an additional rental property make our (presumably more expensive) townhomes less-attractive options to potential homebuyers or renters, looking to live in the area? 7. If nothing can be done aboutthe plan, at the very least, can the parking lots not be front and center? They detract so much, and evoke a commercial resemblance vs residential feel. Could the parking be underground, as it is in the rental neighborhoods off Bittersweet and Village Trail? That builder was wise to consider the look of the neighborhood and avoided placing a large parking space directly in front of the buildings, so the homes blend in better and look like homes, not a strip mall. I look forward to your response and further information about the public hearing. This development feels like a mistake that will put our neighborhood home values --not to mention one remaining island of green in this area of the city --in jeopardy.” (email response) Josie McDougald- 3049 Chamberlain St N Unit 1 (property values, renters) “I currently own my townhome at Heritage Square I and have since they were built in 2005. In reading the letter you sent regarding the building of a 150 unit apartment complex is very upsetting to me. The market value of the townhomes are finally gaining ground and I believe building apartments will only bring them down again. The rental townhomes that were built after Heritage Square I and II have proven people do not care about where they live or the surrounding properties. I truly hope deep considerationfor the homeowners in both Heritage Square I and II is a priority to our neighborhood and Maplewood.” (email response) Kannan Venkatesan- 1573 Legacy Parkway E unit 1 (green space, property values, home owner) “I happen to know about the proposed 3, 50 unit apartment complexes near heritage square condos. I purchased this town home mainly because the house gives us the wooded area view, I grew up in an environment similar to it back in India, and this place reminds me of home, and would like for my son to enjoy similar experience growing up. The deer that jumpout of the wood during winter times are site to see, the ducks migrating back to Minnesota during summer, some do call our little pond out here their summer home. Beautiful little birds that wakeus up with chirping sound would totally be missed if this proposed plan goes through. Outside of the personal/ sentimental values, financially we feel this proposal would affect our home values, already the financial downfall has caused our home values godown, as you might be very much aware we are just seeing moderate spike in the values, this proposal would be 46 Attachment 17 detrimental to our neighborhood home values. I kindly request you to consider this message as my Opinion or a vote as "STRONG NO" to this proposal. I would be happy if a hearing is set to hear from heritage square condominiums home owners, talkingto my neighbors many of them oppose this proposal and already have reached out to you or are in the process of reaching out to you in this regard.” (email response) Kristin Schultz- 1561 Legacy Parkway E Unit 1(Traffic concerns) “I think adding another 150 units is absolutely ridiculous!!! There is already too much traffic in the area.How is nature being preserved with the addition of three giant apartment complexes? This project makes me want to move out. We don't need the excess traffic and people in the area.”(Email response) Maureen A Burns-1686 Village Trl E Unit 1 (green space, property values) “My husband and I do not want this development. We just moved to the area and love this wooded area. In addition, rental units will being down the value of our townhomes. We do not want this!!” Paulo Munoz- 1662 Village Tr E Unit 5 (green space, home owner) “I completely disagree with this proposal as a home owner. I love the view from the front of my home and I take my dog for a walk twice a day and love to see the wood. Please stop this from happening.” Rachael Houle- 1599 County Road D E Unit K(safety, property values, density, home owner, area, design) “Let me begin by saying thank you for your notice. I am absolutely 110% against this plan amendment / proposal. I have worked very hard to buy my house. I have worked three jobs for the last four years (even while going to college at St. Thomas.) I purchased my townhouse almost a year ago - it will be one year in August. One of the reasons I chose this location was because of its 'Medium Density.' I am a 25 year old woman who lives alone. I am completely uncomfortable with the idea of having three, three- story, 50 unit buildings constructed literally right across the street from me. I am outraged by the thought of it. Not to mention, it WILL lower the value of my property, ruin the 'unique beauty' of the area, and disturb the wetlands. Thatrendering of what the buildings will look like is a horrible eyesore.I am sure that Peter Stalland, if he was in my situation, would also be against this ridiculous proposal. However, he is probably off living comfortably in some gated community with nota worry about being mugged or having his property damaged or stolen. All he is concerned about is creating revenue for the city and himself.If this proposal gets approved, not only will the construction ruin any type of peace and quiet, this whole area will feel overcrowded and cramped. Not to mention the crime will increase. I won't ever be able to leave my garage door open or take a run at night or leave my car parked outside. I am beggingyou to reconsider this proposal. This makes me extremely uncomfortable and I really hope that we can come up with an alternative plan or leave the plot as is.In addition, please keep me informed about any meetings regarding this proposal.” (email response) 47 Attachment 17 Richard Engel-1691 Village Trail E Unit 5 (green space, traffic) “My wife and I were quite disappointed to find out that there were plans to develop large scale residential projects on the site of the current wetlands! It is one of the last remaining “green spaces” in the area. Development of that property will certainly increase traffic, reduce the area for wildlife and beauty, etc. I can see no benefit for anyone who currently owns/resides in the immediate area. Even the time of construction for the project will result in months (or years) of excess traffic, pollution, nuisance, etc. as well. There will likely also be a need to install traffic lights at Hazelwood and County Road DE as well as at Kennard and County Road DE once these apartments were fully occupied. 150 apartments could result in up to 300 or so more cars traveling these same narrow roads. IF (and only if) that land is already designated for development (and there is no way to rescind that) legally, and will inevitably BE developed whether the surrounding residents approve or not, then I suppose a planlike the one submitted would be better than a different plan that destroys even more of the wetlands. But it would be disappointing if the city of Maplewood was unable to keep the entire wetlands area green and free from development. There is very littleundeveloped space in the area to enjoy already.” (Email response) Theodore DeMatties-1563 Legacy Parkway East #4 (property values, green space) “We just bought our town home at 1563 Legacy Parkway East 4 weeks ago. We have not even made our first mortgagepayment yet. The main feature we liked about the townhome was the great woodlands outside our front door. The beautiful sunsets are great and the fire flies that come out at night and light up the field are something I have never seen before. Since moving here, I have seen rabbits, deer and even a few turkeys in the wetland area. I am quite concerned about the proposed apartment development and how it will ruin these great features as well as the value of our homes. While I am highly opposed against any development of this site, at the very least I would like to see the tree line remain. I am completely against any removal of the tree line and would like to see it remain so to at the very least have a buffer area. I do not want to look out my front door andsee a retaining wall, parking lot and apartment complexes. I, along with my new neighbors, plan to object the re-zoning of this area and would like to see it remain one of the few remaining undeveloped wildlife areas on Maplewood.” (email response) ThomasCarey and Elizabeth Vonderharr-Cardinal Pointe Unit 200 and 201(Traffic, green space) “We are strongly opposed to the development proposal for Conifer Ridge Apts. We live at Cardinal Point at 3003 Hazelwood St. The traffic on Hazelwood is bad right now particularly when the shifts change at the hospital and we have a difficult time getting onto Hazelwood St. With the apartments on the north side of Ct Road D and the entire development on the east side of Hazelwood all the way to the Library and then running into Maplewood Mall there is already enough traffic and congestion. To add 150 units many with more than one car it would be a traffic disaster. Allow the beautiful wildlife area alone and stop this wild striving for more congestion. Please cancelthis proposed development.”(email response) 48 Attachment 17 Caroline Abiaziem- 1679 Village Trl E Unit 4(property value, traffic) “I am a home owner at the heritage square community. I am writing to oppose this proposal as it will devalue the homes in our community. We cherish the safety we experience in our homes, and would not want the severe congestion this development would bring.”(email response) Donna Hryniewicki-1567 Legacy Parkway East #4 (green space, traffic, area) “My concerns are as follows: 1. When I received the proposal in the mail I literally sat down and cried. When I come home after working with at times 500 students, I look forward coming home and sitting in my favorite chair. Daily, I look at the trees and wetlands; during much of the year, I enjoy the snowy view. I purchased this home specifically for the view that I have. I could have purchased many other homes, but I chose to settle in Maplewood because of the accessibility to the Cities, trails, proximity to work, and the beautiful trees that stand just beyond my home. With the current proposal, I would still see the wetlands directly in front of my home, but beyond that, the three story buildings would replace my cherished tree view. Not only that, but the residents in the rental properties would have the beautiful trees to the north and the wetlands to the south. I have invested tens of thousands of dollars in this community; I literally love where I live. That said, I need to have either the same view or a comparable one to keep me in the area long term. I would like nothing more than to retire here in the Heritage Community. What would you do if you were me? 2. I am very concerned about increased traffic. There are a lot of people who run, walk, bike and/or rollerblade in the area. Adding 50%+ more traffic is a hazard. 3. Part of the charm of this community is the trees and wetlands. There is very little undeveloped land left in Maplewood. At some point the community loses its charm and becomes another suburb using every inch of space. What this area has is special.” (email response) Jeff Tarnowski- 1662 Village Trl E Unit 1 (home owner, traffic, property value, area) “I am a concerned homeowner in Heritage Square association. I strongly oppose the possibility of construction of apartments across the street. K. Peter Stalland is out to make money, plain and simple. He doesn't care what the proposed construction will do to our neighborhood. He is delusional to believe the design of the apartments will benefit our neighborhood!!! It will no doubt depreciate our property values, drastically change the character of the area, and significantly add to the amount of traffic. Please preserve the last remaining undeveloped site in Maplewood.” (Email response) Keith and Jodi Rose-1670 Village Trl E unit 6(area, traffic, property value, green space, saturation, safety, home owner) “I am a member of the Board of Directors for Heritage Square Second Edition, and I have been informed on the proposed re-zoning of the lot at the intersection of County Road D and Kennard Street, and I have many concerns with this proposal. The proposed developer of this land (K. Peter Stalland) has misrepresented himself as to what the property would be used for. In the developer’s letter, he states that the surrounding neighbors include "medium-to-high density 49 Attachment 17 rental townhomes." We own our homes, are quite vested in this community, and hold considerable interest in what happens to the property bounded by us to the east and south as it relates to our own home values. This would notbe 'more rental units in a sea of existing rental units' as the developer is trying to frame it. Other issues I have concerns with: • With so much commercial space surrounding us, that wooded area is a welcome respite and major selling feature for those of us monitoring our home values' slow rebound from the housing crash. • By effectively blocking the natural view on all sides for its neighbors at Heritage Square I and II, the plan steals our view and preserves it for car traffic and apartment renters. This could be detrimental to the people with the most to lose — the homeowners with property value to consider. • Another factor is market saturation — with cheaper rentals available in the same location, we may lose potential buyers when/if we choose to sell or rent out our homes. • The developer notes that there would be "only minimal vehicular traffic" and "would not create congestion or unsafe conditions." Heritage Square 2 and Village Trail East already generate moderate to considerable street traffic for a community of our size. Tripling the population of the immediate area can onlylead to increased traffic, and it is preposterous to declare it would not. With the amount of neighborhood children walking and biking to the playground along Kennard, safety is also obviously a concern. • Any natural view along the trail/bike path would be eliminated by the 3-story buildings and their respective parking lots that, according to the building proposal, butt up almost directly against the trail. The playground is already paired with a less-than-ideal neighbor in the power lines that crackle ominously overhead —why make it worse with parking lots? In my own experience, I have seen deer, rabbits, chipmunks, etc. in their natural setting on the undeveloped land, and being able to share it with my 1-year-old son while on a walk within a block of my home is a joy that cannot be replaced. The plan takes the wooded area away from the people who enjoy it, reduces the value of the playground and trail, and essentially reserves it as the backyard for three apartment buildings. In a place that treasures its green space and protecting nature, a move like this is a total contradiction of this concept. This development would change the dynamic of the area in a way that the current homeowners will not tolerate. I ask that you take this under consideration.” (email response) Kristina and Joseph Schleisman-1670 Village Trl E Unit 4 (property value, traffic, disruptions, green space, saturation) “I am writing in response to your letter left on our door regarding the our home value at Heritage Square II due to the Conifer Ridge Apartment complex. Yes, we completely agree with all reasons stated in your letter and are VERY concerned about the negative affect this WILL have on the resale value of our home. We do want to sell soon and now potential buyers are going to be seeing at a minimum the large signed that was posted on that property at the intersection of Village Trail and Kennard. Does that have to be there??? In addition, in the near future they will be seeing major construction happening in the area which will deter buyers. 50 Attachment 17 As you letters states the following are major concerns: 1. The sign at the Village Trail& Kennard intersction 2. Unsightly/major construction 3. We do not want to lose any wooded area as there is so much business already around us and again for potential buyers this is a downfall. 4. Our view of the wetlands will now be apartments - again we do not want this nordo our potential buyers 5. market saturation - we do not want more rentals in the area and especially anything cheaper than our home value!!!! There are already tons of other rentals in the area. 6. vehicletraffic - this will significantly increase traffic and we have 2 children who frequent the park and walk around this neighborhood very often. In addition, we job and bike the area often too and this just is more danger and congestion that is unneeded inan already very busy area with all the homes, apartments, mall, restaurants, Costco, etc. that are located in the area. This is a complete mistake to put this development in and is absolutely detrimental to the homeowners in the area. There is no way this is possibly a good thing for anyone other than the builder's profit.” (email response) Current Occupant- 3003 Hazelwood St N unit 332 (traffic, green space, overdevelopment) “I am not in favor of this development. 150 units would bring an additional 150+ cars to the area which already has much traffic and higher in the morning and evenings coming and going. I would love to keep this green space as is. There is already too much commercial and not enough empty land which we need a good balance, keep nature in the area and the green spaces buffers the traffic noise from County Road D and 694. Please consider the denial of this development.” Vivian B Anderson-3003 Hazelwood St N Unit 105 (Density, design) “There is enough high density housing in this area. Leave it nature. The apartment buildings leave much to be desired esthetically. Very ugly” Sarona Development LLC-1264 Driving Park Rd Stillwater(density, greenspace) “Absolutely opposed, 1.The city should only accept applications within zoning to be fair 2.Density is too high 3.Locations of buildings block the view of owner occupied townhomes” Dekran Baltaian-4933 Bald Eagle Ave White Bear Lake (density, renters, property value) “The area is already congested and the low income housing in the area is bad enough. Most of all the value of my townhouse has gone down. Overall it’s a bad idea.” Ben Lavine-1666 Village Trail 1 (home owner, green space, overdevelopment, market saturation, traffic, playground, home values) 51 Attachment 17 “Speaking as the president of the board representing Heritage Square Second Addition we unanimously are against the re-guiding of the property mentioned in the proposal. Robert Newton a fellow board member has put together some points of our concern. Please see below. In the developer’s letter, he states that the surrounding neighbors include "medium-to-high density rental townhomes." We own our homes, are quite vested in this community, and hold considerable interest in what happens to the property bounded by us to the east and south as it not relates toour own home values. This wouldbe 'more rental units in a sea of existing rental units' as the developer is trying to frame it. • With so much commercial space surrounding us, that wooded area is a welcome respite and major selling feature for those of us monitoring our home values' slow rebound from the housing crash. • By effectively blocking the natural view on all sides for its neighbors at HeritageSquare I and II, the plan steals our view and preserves it for car traffic and apartment renters. This could be detrimental to the people with the most to lose —the homeowners with property value to consider. • Another factor is market saturation — with cheaper rentals available in the same location, we may lose potential buyers when/if we choose to sell or rent out our homes. • The developer notes that there would be "only minimal vehicular traffic" and "would not create congestion or unsafe conditions." Heritage Square 2 and Village Trail East already generate moderate to considerable street trafficfor a community of our size. Tripling the population of the immediate area canonlylead to increased traffic, and it is preposterous to declare it would not. With the amount of neighborhood children walking and biking to the playground along Kennard, safety is also obviously a concern. • Any natural view along the trail/bike path would be eliminated by the 3-story buildings and their respective parking lots that, according to the building proposal, butt up almost directly against the trail. The playground is already paired with a less-than-ideal neighbor in the power lines that crackle ominously overhead —why make it worse with parking lots? The plan takes the wooded area away from the people who enjoy it, reduces the value of the playground and trail, and essentially reserves it as the backyard for three apartment buildings.” (email response) Ben Villnow- 1565 Legacy Parkway E (home values, traffic, market saturation, area, home owner) “I am against this proposed development for these reasons: I disagreewith the proposal when it states that building 3 50-unit complexes "would generate only minimal vehicular traffic and would not create congestion or unsafe conditions." Is there any factual evidence that this would be the case? The proposal states that a major feature of the site is its "unique beauty" and that the design would preserve and protect it. But for whom? Current residents would have their beautiful natural views replaced with views of large rental complexes and traffic. The wooded area is a major selling feature and this will surely be diminished with this proposed development. 52 Attachment 17 The addition of high density rental complexes will cause market saturation, increasing the supply of cheaper rentals and thus lowering the market value of our homes if we chose to sell or rent them. Another point in the proposal that I take issue with is the statement that the proposed development is surrounded by "medium and high density rental townhomes." I, myself, as well as many of my neighbors, own and live in ourhomes. We have a vested interest in our community and its future. For these reasons, I am concerned that the proposed development of Conifer Ridge Apartments may not be in the best interest of the community and feel you should consider this while reviewing the application.” (email response) Bob Fix-1600 Legacy Parkway East #4 (density, home values, green space, home owner) “As a 9+ year townhome original owner in Heritage Square 1 townhome association and the president of the board of directors for the past 4+ years, I am concerned about the development of the high density apartment units in the proposal. I have known that this parcel of land has been a topic of development proposals for a number of years, so I’m not surprised that with the economy where it is at and a recent article this week in the Star Tribune citing the lack of available apartments in the suburbs, we have now reached this point. Here is an outline of the concerns of myself and the community at large with the proposal. · First, the community takes issue with the proposal’s assessment that the high density apartments are located in close quarters with high density senior living and “high density rental townhomes”. Heritage Square 1 and 2 have worked very hard over the past 4 years to keep rental rates lower in the association and brand ourselves as a home “OWNERS” community. Rental units certainly increased due to the foreclosure crisis, however, renewed strength in the economy has now led to more homes being sold in our community and less rentals. Whether we want to admit this or not, rental units have historically had lower sale prices and home values, my goal on the board is to preserve and increase homeowner value. This proposal would not do that, in fact, much the opposite – more on that later. · I applaud that the proposal recommends preserving much of the tree strand by having high density units instead of lower density units. However, from our association’s point of view, it is more loss than gain – here is why: The tree strand as it currently stands is not only very beautiful, but it serves as an excellent noise barrier to nearby Interstate 694. My wife used to live in Mendota Heights about a similar distance from Interstate 494 with no barrier and there is a marked decrease in noise having the mature trees as a barrier. While the proposal plans to keep most of that tree strand in place – I remain skeptical. Additionally, the proposed apartment buildings would be facing Legacy Village, therefore the highway noise would be replaced with residents of 100+ apartments coming and going and associated noise with that and not the peacefulness of the wetlands. To me – it is the equivalent of having a house overlooking the lake and then someone comes in and builds a house inbetween you and the lake. I would imagine that the townhome owners that currently enjoy the park and wetlands overview currently would have their property values and enjoyments of their homes reduced due to the proposal. 53 Attachment 17 High density populations cause stress within a community. Our association is 220 units on 7 acres of land. The developer of our association decided mid stream to maximize unit construction and add more buildings at the cost of parking and green space. This is the primary complaint and reason for homeowners leaving our community. To further increase the density of people and traffic in the neighborhood would further increase homeowners leaving, increasing townhome rentals and lowering property values. The increased traffic on Hazelwoodand County Road D would likely necessitate a traffic light at that interchange. It is already a dangerous intersection and I am VERY surprised that there have not been more incidents there. During the holiday season and winter weather I would expect thetraffic increase to be most problematic. I don’t agree with the proposals assessment of minimal additional traffic. Adding 150 more units coming and going from this space will further necessitate traffic controls in the area. I also think that there issome flawed logic in the type of renters that this new unit would bring in. From reading the proposal, it appears that the apartments would be on the high end of market rate? Based on the information from the Gladstone redevelopment project that would be around $900-$1000 per month? I cannot speak intelligently to the market rates, but don’t believe that the new apartments would be able to sustain long term upper end market rates primarily because of the lack of professional commerce and light manufacturing surrounding the area. Hospital workers are not going to live there and the service industry employees that work in the area generally cannot afford an upper market rate apartment. Finally – if an apartment can be had for $900 per month rent, and youcan purchase a townhome in our community for around $1000-$1100 per month mortgage (based on current sell prices in our community), that would drive down rental rates. All said, the result of the proposal passing and the construction beginning would mark a race against the clock personally to sell my home and move out of Maplewood and that feeling resides with many of the homeowners here. I don’t believe that approving the proposal would immediate create any of these situations, but long term, high density housing is very hard to maintain and promote as a place to live unless you are a true urban environment such as downtown Minneapolis or St. Paul. These will be things that the developer does not care about as he will be paid and moving on. You may be able to kick this can down the road as well to the next City Manager to deal with. This would have been a wonderful development to have where CarMax currently stands, or perhaps across the street from Costco and next to Lexus, but to cram it in on top of an already heavily populated area would in my opinion be a mistake. I do not disagree with the idea of adding apartment units to the north Maplewood area, but in this location, the loss would be worse than the gain.” (email response) Carol Njogu- 1573 Legacy Parkway Eastunit 5(home values, green space,area) “As the owners of a townhouse on 1573 Legacy parkway, we are concerned about the proposed the development of the Conifer Ridge apartments We do not want these apartments in our area - we have suffered enough as it is with the recession of 2008; many of us bought the townhomes when the prices were inflated. Having these apartments will only make things worse for us. But most importantly, the playground, the greenery, the view will be compromised, destroying our beautiful neighborhood. I am sure there are plenty of other areas in the twin cities where you can take the proposed development to.” (email response) 54 Attachment 17 Danielle Iverson-1667 Village Trail East #1(traffic, safety, area) “I am a resident in the townhouses off of Kennard and County Rd D. Our front door faces Kennard and my family and I would be directly across the street from the Conifer Ridge Apartments if they get built. There are numerous reasons why this should not be approved. And indeed, it is personal, so I will make this email that way. My husband and I bought our homesix years ago with the plan to raise a family here. We now havetwo little girls and a dog. We are frequent visitors (along with many other kids) to the park near the siteyou are considering. To get there we obviously have to cross the street. Kennard is already fairly busy, putting in this proposed development would make it even more so. It is simply not safe. I personally work in pediatric trauma, I have seen firsthand the often deadly repercussions of dense neighborhoods built on busy streets. I understand that this propositionis dubbed as being "only minimal vehicular traffic". It does not seem like that is possible, you are significantlyincreasing the number of residents in a small area. The school buses also stop right on Kennard. There is already a long line of cars waiting for the bus to go each morning. This "minimal vehicular traffic" would only increase this. One reason we bought our home is because the location is convenient but it still does feel like we have privacy because ofall the trees and nature around us. If the apartments get built this will be lost. For us, these things are important enough that if the apartments do get approved we would be planning on moving. Please take this all into consideration and say no to the proposal for the Conifer Ridge Apartments.” (email response) Ankita Patel Bhalla- 1678 Village Trail East #4(home values, safety, green space) “I am currently a home owner in the HeritageHills Townhouse, and I have been since it was first built. You are probably well aware that the housing market crashed 8 years ago, and our homes are not anywhere near what they were worth then. We have already suffered a loss, however over the years the market has become better and our homes are slowly but surely appreciating. Breaking even may not even be in the question, but nevertheless the value has increased.I am telling you this as I read the proposal for the new conifer ridge apartments. I am veryconcerned about this proposal and am definitely not in favor. I understand that I may only be one vote, but this proposal not only devalues our home, takes away the only natural beauty that we have left in this area, but increases traffic and puts the safety of our children at risk. There is currently a playground nearby that we take our child to, and it is quiet and peaceful. I rarely have to worry about cars or too many strangers walking by.I am very concerned and kindly request that you reconsider thisproposal. The value of our homes will be reduced to nothing should those apartments and parking lots be built. Please consider this a plea from a homeowner, mother and resident of maplewood to preserve the natural environment and help save the homes in the area.” (email response) Kathryn Engel-1635 Legacy Parkway E #2 (green space, environmental impacts, traffic, renter, home owner, design, disruption) “I am vehemently against these new apartment buildings. If this is really one of the last undeveloped bits in Maplewood, it is certainly worth preserving without a monstrous set of buildings. I take issue with the developer claiming that these 55 Attachment 17 townhouses are rentals- the fact is they are individually owned. Some owners do rent them out, but I take pride in the fact I own this place and I'm not alone. The addition of these rental apartments would devalue our homes and would destroy the view we enjoy of the park. Their design says they incorporate the beauty of the area, but for those of us here, it destroys itand replaces it with a direct view of only ugly buildings and parking lots. The developer also says it would have little impact on the traffic on Kennard- FALSE. I live directly on that street and it is busy as it is. People who work at St. John's hospital come and go and it is extremely busy. The addition of 50 or so cars as they suggest (yet the reality is that there are going to be multiple people and vehicles in many of these units so more than 50 for sure) would be a nuisance. Back to the sustainability bit since that is your department- let's look at what the carbon impact and footprint would be of the building process- rather large. A 48% reduction in the green space is a terrible thing to see as there is so little pristine green space left in the city. Also, the existing greenery and trees does a wonderful job muting sound especially from Myth and the nearby freeway. If you remove the tree barrier between our homes and this new building it will be louder and more disruptive. Also construction crews in the past in this area have been very disruptive and disrespectful of the current inhabitants and no one is looking forward to that. It would also be upsetting to see the nature of the existing development corrupted and made more transient with shorter term rental apartments (as opposed to purchasing and creating a community feel). Please know that this proposal is highly upsetting to a fairly large population that already lives in the area. Please scrutinize what they are proposing- it looks rather "green-washed" with "benefits" that detract from what we who live in the area have at this time.” (email response) Luke Swatell – address not confirmed(green space,area) “Thank you for taking the time for letting me voice my concerns. I live in the townhouses directly across from the proposed development on County Road Dand Hazelwood in Maplewood. There are numerous reasons why I think a development is bad idea for our residents. Even though we live in a first ring superb, the adjacent woods and wildlife offer a breath of fresh air from the visually stunning pines that block our view of the highway. My kids play at the local park that is serene, beautiful, and relaxing. Replacing that scenery with a development and parking lot would completely change thedynamics of the neighborhood. As I understand that development is a way of life, so is the necessity for a place to relax, gather our thoughts, play with our kids, and enjoy what nature we have within our community. Please join us in our fight to keep thedevelopment off our land! Thank you again for your time, it's greatly appreciated” (email response) Marc Betinsky – address not confirmed(traffic, green space, density) “I am a resident of Cottages at Legacy Village, immediately adjacent to the proposed development on the south side. As you know, Cottages is already surrounded by a significant number of larger density developments, including townhomes to the east and a senior living center to the west. In addition, a large hospital is to the south, along with medical offices and the mall slightly further east. As a result, a fair amount of traffic already traverses Hazelwood Street, either proceeding south from County Road D or north from Beam Avenue. The proposed development not only destroys a largegreen space for an otherwise already densely populated and used area, but also would permit a high-density development (throughre-zoning) that would significantly add to vehicle traffic along Hazlewood. 56 Attachment 17 Moreover, the intersection at Hazelwood and County Road D is served only by a 4-way stop, and an entrance to the development as proposed, slightly south of this intersection on Hazelwood, would likely cause traffic delays and a traffic hazard (including a hazard getting people in emergency situations to the hospital). And that hazard is only exacerbated by the trail to the west, posing a danger to bikers and pedestrians alike. Given the significant number of multi-family units already constructed in this area, an additional one in this area --particularly one that requires modification of a PUD and a zoning change --is neither needed nor desirable. I hope the City agrees and turns down the project.” (email response) MichaelPontius- 1615 Legacy ParkwayE Unit 5 (property values) “I currently own a home at Heritage Square and I'm writing to express my opinion as it relates to the proposed usre of undeveloped land adjacent to the Heritage Square condominium complex. I am completely against the use of the property to build housing of any kind. The development of this land in such a capacity would destroy the natural landscape and the value of my home. I have been here for 7 years and have ridden out the mortgage crisis to find our home value finally even with our mortgage - a new complex would destroy that equity. Note that if this progresses I will seek legal counsel to understand my lawful rights in such a circumstance.” (email response) Nicole Bisco1632 Legacy Parkway E unit 1225(property value, area, renters) “As a resident of Heritage Square townhomes I am not happy to hear of the proposed development of Conifer Ridge Apartments. My biggest concerns are around property values, no matter what you say this will diminish the value for many reasons. First there will be more car and foot traffic in the area, second residents in a rental property like you are proposing do not take pride or care of the area they are living. Most importantly a big reason for purchasing my townhouse was because of the park. It provided a peaceful area with a walking trail. Based on the images you provided it appears that walking trail will be removed, is that correct? Removing the walking trail would be motivation enough for me to move even though I have only lived here for one year. The small trail near the library is simply not large enough to make up for removing the trail near the townhomes. I hope if this project moves forward that they consider moving it back so there is more space and park area between them. That would benefit residents of both areas.” (email response) Pamela Shones- 1662 Village Trail East Unit 4(property value, renters, trash, traffic, green space, home owner) “150 units potentially could mean 300 or more people living across the street from me along with their cars, noise and all the pollution. Traffic would be terrible and crossing Kennard to get to the park would be unsafe for children. This part of Maplewood is already saturated with multi- dwelling homes. We do not need more. The view from my unit, which I own, will no longerbe trees and green space. It will view a parking lot and apartment building. The green space that is being preserved is on the other end of property. Owning my unit, I am invested in my home and neighborhood. I take pride in both. Renters do not always share these values. Therewas no mention about how many units will be subsidized. Renters can be transient and don’t have a reason to care about their home, neighborhood or community as a whole. I use the trails and walk almost daily. I pick up garbage along the way because I don’t like unsightly trash to look at. More rents means, more trash. Whether it’s the City of Maplewood or the Heritage Square 57 Attachment 17 Association, no one seems able to keep the neighborhood picked up as it is.The value of my property will go down no matter what the developers try to say. Buyers won’t be willing to pay to look at an apartment complex and parking lot. Thank you for the opportunity to voice my concern about this proposed development. I truly believe it would be a detriment to this area.” (email response) Pat Boone-1594 Woodlynn Ave #4(green space) “Please be aware that there are MANY residents at Heritage Square that are extremely opposed to this development.For sure myself, Eileen Nelson, Sandy Podratz, Gayle Nelson, Kari Thimjon, and Mary Nelson.This is just a FEW. There has already been way too many trees torn down in this area. It needs to stay wooded.There’s got to be other places in Maplewood that they could put this. If you need signatures, addresses anything, please let us know so we can help stop this.” (email response) Robert Newton-1683 Village Trail East #3 (green space, traffic, playground safety, area) “After reviewing the letter I received outlining the proposal, I have a number of concerns about misrepresentations and inaccuracies put forth by the developer, not the least of which have to do with sugar-coating the negative impact such a dense development would have on the community, which consists of individual homeowners in the Heritage Square neighborhood (NOT other high-densityrental properties as described). As a resident of Heritage Square and Vice President of our homeowners association (the "2nd Addition" which runs along Village Trail East), I can attest to the already considerable street traffic in the neighborhood generated by a community of our size (there are just over 80 townhouse units along Village Trail East). It is preposterous to suggest that adding 150 more dwellings across Kennard St., essentially tripling the number of residents in a small area, would not impact traffic or noise levels in any way. The fact that this area directly borders a neighborhood playground is also cause for concern due to the number of children and families going to and from the playground, crossing Kennard St. and/or Legacy Pkwy. Secondly, the proposed layout of the development seems to purposely reserve any views of the remaining natural elements specifically for residents of the apartment buildings (and drivers along County Road D - likely to keep "curb appeal" for passerby along that street). Meanwhile, parking lots butt up almost directly to the existing bike path, and three- story buildings would block the view from the playground and existing homes. We already have one less-than-ideal aspect of the playground in the crackling power lines that tower above. Anything more to decrease the appeal of that area could incite real devaluation of not only the playground area, but the surrounding neighborhood. I am happy to discuss these and other concerns more in-depth if you wish to contact me.But please know that the developer at the very leaset seems to be purposefully obfuscating facts to serve his own interests in furthering this development, which as proposed, is not a solution or a reasonable resolution to anything. I ask that the City rejects the Conifer Ridge Apartments as currently proposed.” (email response) Sarahand ThomasHackworthy- 1613 Legacy Parkway E unit 5(property value, green space, rentals, disruptive, home owner) Lengthy letter attached to email. Tracy Karth-1613 Legacy Parkway unit 713(traffic, green space,area charactermarket saturation) 58 Attachment 17 “I am firmly against the proposed development for the following reasons: Market Saturation - with cheaper rentals available in the same location, I could potentially lose buyers if/whenI choose to sell my home. With the number of proposed units, I can't help but think of the added traffic around the neighborhood. Three years ago, when searching for a town home to buy, I was looking for a place that had a nice view. To me, this meant not looking into my neighbors unit. After an exhaustive search, I found my current town home. One of the biggest selling points for me was the view of the wooded area and the natural space that accompanies it- something that is quite rare in the cities, especially among town homes. The developer's proposed plan does include preserving as much natural space as possible; however, the new buildings would block the view and preserve it for car traffic and apartment renters. I believe this would be detrimental to my property value. Not only would I lose the view, I would also lose the wooded area and all that comes with it. To me, this development feels like a mistake that will put my home value, and one of the only remaining green spaces in the area, in jeopardy.”(email response) address not confirmed Brad Bergman – (greenspace) “I am writing you today to express my concern with the proposed development of the Confer Ridge apartments inLegacy Village. I feel preserving the very few natural landscapes left in Maplewood is extremely more important than adding another apartment building. I am not alone in the opposition to build in legacy park. Thank you for your time.” (email response) Robin Sedivy-1587 Co Rd D East (green space, density, traffic, safety, disruption) “I live with my wife, Tracia, at the Townhomes of Pineview Estates, across the street on County Road D East, across from the proposed development area. Herand I purchased our home about 6 years ago and since then we’ve settled in quite well so far. We enjoy using the Bruce Vento trail which extends out to us all the way down to CHS field in St. Paul and intersects with other great trails including the Gateway trail to Stillwater. My wife also enjoys the convenience of the Metro Transit park & ride which was recently installed nearby as she is able to use it for her daily commute to downtown Minneapolis. Furthermore, the natural undeveloped area surrounding our residence is one of its most redeeming qualities. Our initial reaction when we saw the proposal was adversity to it. After reviewing the proposal further, I was relieved to see that it would preserve the wetland area and some trees immediately adjacent to County Rd D and immediately across the street from my residence. However still, given the location,scope andnatureof the development project, I would like to express our disapproval of the proposed project. We feel that, while some trees in our immediate vicinity will remain intact, since the larger expanse of trees to the south of the wetland area of the proposed development zone would have to be cut down, it will significantly detract from the natural vista we currently enjoy when stepping outside of our front door. Instead of lush, forested area just over the wetland pond from us, instead would be a series of large buildings. This would be a significant downgrade in this aspect of the enjoyment of our surroundings and the tranquility it provides us. Furthermore, the scope of the project is ambitious. While a relatively temporary problem, seemingly the construction of the units will create a considerable amount of noise, smoke and construction traffic to the intersection in our immediate vicinity and at the adjacent intersection of 59 Attachment 17 Hazelwood and County Road D, which is fairly quiet and peaceful at the moment. This portion of the experience would create disappointment for us as vested homeowners, as it would likely create negative and perhaps unexpected disruptions that have not existed since we purchased our home. Finally, the nature of the development as 150 medium-density rental apartment dwellings is going to create other problems for us. While any residential development in the proposed zonewould likely have similar negative effects as the ones I have listed so far in this writing, this type of development will drastically increase the number of residents packed into our immediate surrounding area. This would likely drastically increase traffic on County Road D East and Hazelwood St, which will contribute to increased noise and the potential for auto accidents involving injury and property damage. Also, while crime is relatively low at our townhomes, with the potential for up to 150 familiesbeing added across the street on leases, undoubtedly will cause an increase in criminal incidents. Not only are auto accidents and crime inconveniences, but they would also increase the cost of living in the area, including through an increase in insurance rates for ourselves and our neighbors. In summary, while perhaps a less ambitious proposal would garner a different sentiment, my wife and I are opposing the development of the Conifer Ridge Apartments in Maplewood. The reasons for our opposition are highlighted above and include the location, scope & nature of the proposed project. Thank you very much for allowing us to have a say in this matter which would have measurable and concrete effects on the quality and ultimately the bearing of our lives.” (email response) Steve Kheckler-1671 Village Trail East #1 “We just moved into the heritage in June. We are not in favor of an apartment complex being built on Kennard. Thank you” (email response) Keele Coleman- 1671 Village Trail E unit 5 (property values, community area) “I am one of several owners of a town home in Heritage Square, who has been informed of your plans to build an apartment complex in my area. My concern with your plan, if in fact this is your intent, is that our property value is in recovery from the down ward spiral of 2008, and I would like to see my property value return / exceed my original purchase value. Which, I don’t see happening if your plans are implemented. There is no way I would’ve purchase my home if I knew it was or would be surrounded by rental properties. What is needed, is a common area for Heritage Square/ our community that would provide our families a place to recreate, and also build our value by increasing our community area. I am asking you to please reconsider your plans. We do not want or need more rental properties in our area!” (emailresponse) Lisa Mutchler- 1567 Legacy Parkway E unit 3 (green space, overdevelopment, traffic) “I am writing to you with concerns regarding the new proposed development of land adjacent to our units. I moved to this area, in large part, because of the view, proximity to work, the parks & trails and the location to the cities. I believe that the proposed development will greatly impact the viewto the north out my front door. I feel that any development of this last piece of undeveloped land of Maplewood would be sad. We have a beautiful view right now, and I feel that many others feel the same way about this area. The city should be preserving the little bit of undeveloped land that it can within its city limits. I feel this development would be a sad use of money that would impact this area with much more traffic and congestion. Thank you for hearing my concerns regarding this matter. I look forward to any hearings regarding this proposed development.” (email response) Emily Swift- 1617 Legacy Parkway E #6(property values, green space, density, home owner) 60 Attachment 17 “I own 1617 Legacy Parkway E #6. It is the first home I purchased, and one of the biggest selling points to me was the unique view of the park, trees, and pond. The wooded area creates separation from the busy roads and interstate. The proposed development would take that away and would create more traffic in an already clustered neighborhood, destroy the natural beauty and wildlife we have left in this community, and decrease the value of my home.” (email response, included photo of view) Georgette Jacque-1683 Village Trl E #4 (traffic, density, green space, safety, homeowner) “Please stop the building of Conifer Ridge Apartments! 1st) We do own our own homes! This decreases the value of our homes on the market. We already haverental housing next to us. 2nd) Losing one of the last largest wooded areas in Maplewood. I walk 3-5 times aweek on the Bruce Vento Trail (this would be there back yard! ). Where mine? 3rd) We have had many battles over the years over the kids playing in driveways and streets. We all live way to close already. They scream / fight / destroy utilities / throw rocks. 4th) Traffic? Ileave at 6:30am each day and the traffic is horrible. KennardStreet is used for St. John'semployees off of county road D to race to work when they late (40-50mph). When they leave work they do the same thing. I been in a few close calls with cars almost hitting me running or walking. This development does not make sense. Help save our neighborhood together!” (email response) Holly Sagstetter- 1627 County Road D E(traffic, property values) “I have serious reservations about this proposal and would like to explain why. The traffic on County Road D is quite heavy. There are times where it is difficult for me to exit my development due to the heavy traffic. Turning left is nearly impossible in the winter/holidays. I only see this getting worse by adding apartments to this vicinity. If there are 150 units that would mean (most likely) 100-300 additional cars coming in and out of this area.I also seriously doubt that adding these apartments would not negatively affect our property value (asyour letter suggests).Also please note that many of our neighbors are renters and may not take the time to respond to this proposal letter. They perhaps are living here on a short-term basis. Please don't let a small response (if that is what you have received) make you think that this isn't a big deal.” (email response) Justin Iverson-1667 Village Trail E unit 1(density, green space, traffic, safety, trash, property values, home owner) “I and my family of four are residents of one of the town homes off Kennard Street. I am an owner of our town home (not a renter) and the proposed development going into Legacy Village is a concern to my family and I. I have listed my concerns Yes the developer is stating that these new developments are saving the wet land area and surrounding trees but for those of us in the surrounding town homes we will not be able to enjoy these beautiful looking wet lands as these three, three story apartments will block our view. The developer says many of the trees and wet lands will be spared but I don’t see how that is possible for the 2 units going between Kennard and Hazelwood as there are high voltage power lines along that stretch of land plus there is a pipe line underground. That means the parking lot plus 2 unit apartments on that stretch of land will have to go farther north into the forest/wetland area. What is 61 Attachment 17 government code for building multifamily building that close to a pipe line and high voltage electric lines? Another concern is traffic. Right now County Road D is very congested and Kennard is looking no better. Kennard is only a 2 lane road (County D is 4 lanes). Putting in 150 units in that small of an area and not expanding the roads will cause a tremendous more amount of traffic. Let’s say 150 units X 3 people per. unit that is 450 more people on Kennard, Hazelwood, and County D. Our town house unit sits right on Kennard St. and with my 2 young daughters it is already unsafe to cross Kennard with drivers going over 45 mph down the road like they shouldn’t, this large addition of human traffic will only make these roads more unsafe. With the increase in population comes crime and garbage. Right now I am going outside once a week to pick up litter/trash people have thrown out of their cars while driving or out walking. Unless the city is going to include more public garbage disposal or community led trash pickup I don’t see this getting better but worse with such a high density of residents. I have had to pick up old tires, parts of bikes, fast food meals, and other personal trash items that should not be thrown out into our beautiful environment/wet land area. I have lived in the area now more than 6 years and have notice more crime in the area where vandalism has increased dramatically. And an increase in child/young adult harassment from those stopping by the neighborhood or those who rent nearby. I only see these two crimes getting worse and I haven’t been a victim of theft yet but I in vision that happening once these units are established. Another point is market value and moral of the local residential area. These 150 units would be favored by the surrounding retail industry but disliked highly by potential buys of the surrounding town homes. And obviously disliked by current town home owners, meaning high turnover in the ownership of the townhomes and increasing the transient traffic greater than just the apartment units. This in turn means the townhome community would not be as invested at keeping up their townhouse units or yards or association equating to a worse looking exterior environment that will be surrounding these new 3 building apartment. Families or individuals that enjoy their community invest in their surrounding community more thus presenting a community that cares for itself to outside viewers. My last point is the Legacy Village property was zoned for medium density residential for a reason. I mentioned earlier the current community is not equipped to accommodate such a large increase in traffic. Such as roads, traffic patrol, garbage/environment, surrounding park is also too small. Also off Kennard are 3 bus stops which are already over populated, these apartments would only make school bus stops more congested and dangerous. Simon Mittal-1675 Village Tr E unit 6 (home owner, density, crime, property values, green space, run-off, traffic) “I please ask the Maplewood City Planning Commission to consider all of these points and others as they make their decision to rezone the current land space. I believe the current zoning in place on that land is there for a reason and rezoning it would be a mistake for the city and surrounding area.” (email response) 62 Attachment 17 We own and live in a town home on Village Trail Heritage Square 2 development. We are opposed to the new proposal for the development of apartments in the area bounded by Hazelwood, County D and Kennard for the following reasons 1. Although there has been information sent that there would not be a decrease in property values, no information can guarantee that. Also there were condos that were built on the east end of village trail that ended up being section 8 housing which has had an impact in values 2. Changes to the existing infrastructure would be needed and no explanation of how this would be done and how it would be paid for has been made. Existing infrastructure already causes some flooding on County D as it goes west toward Highway 61. 3. The public green space is an important part of the community and important to the quality of life for families and their children as it gives them an opportunity to enjoy the wetlands and forest, to see wildlife including geese, deer, rabbits, birds, etc that are not commonly seen in other communities. 4. As tax paying citizens we have a right to protect our living areas and spaces that directly impact our views, our quality of lives and our community. Increasing the number of people in an already dense population area has the potential to increase risk of crime. 5. Increased traffic flow near the park presents an increased safety hazard to the families and children that use that area. 6. This area is still trying to recover from the recession in 2008 ad just now we are starting to see property values climb and foreclosures decrease 7. The area on Flandrau and County D is open and has less impact on the environment as well as current property values. Keeping green space in our neighborhoods is how a community can develop, it is how crime goes down and how we can come together, by reducing that space we would be inviting further problems. I am also concerned about the potential for increased flooding as the wetlands provide significant protection from flooding.” (email response) Maren Mittal-1675 Village Trail E unit 6 (property values, run-off, safety) “My concerns are: -Devalued property by bringing in lower income housing. High end apartments would rent for $1500-$2000. Is that what is proposed? -Is the sewer and drainage system set up to accommodate more housing in thatarea? The streets are already struggling to contain the water during a heavy rain and the proposed lot has several drainage ponds. Will our housing be at risk for future flooding? -I am concerned with additional vandalism. We often see police cars on our street, Village Trail, and bringing in more families who are not invested in this neighborhood, rental vs. ownership, could likely increase the crime rate. 63 Attachment 17 -Green space is important and our neighborhood has an appeal because of this wooded area, along with the residing animals. I’m asking that the lot off of cty D and Flandrau be considered for development. It is a field of weeds which is not maintained, therefore an eye sore to our neighborhood.” (email response) Steven Richardson-1617 Legacy Parkway EUnit 2(parking lots, lighting, green space) “My main concern in the lighting for visitor parking. I would like to see the developments rotated 180° so as the lighting of the lot does not shine or glare into existing housing, I appreciate the saving aspect of the woodland, but it will be primarily for Conifer Ridge residents. Nobody else will benefit from this!” Tammi Veale-3050 Hazelwood St N (density, safety, green space) “I own the property at 3050 Hazelwood, which I purchased new back in December 2005.A lot has changed in the neighborhood since I bought my home. A lot of housing has been built in this area and the area in question is one of the few remaining undeveloped areas in my neighborhood. I agree that progress is good, or I wouldn’t have my own house, but I believe that putting three apartment buildings in that area is excessive, especially in an area currently labeled as medium density residential. I think another townhome community would be a better solution. My other concern in that there would now be a parking lot by the walking path instead of the current lovely landscape. This would not only be unattractive, it could potentially be a safety concern. My opinion is not to allow the building of the Conifer Ridge Apartments.” Rita Dombrovska-1567 County Road D E Unit 1(traffic, property value, green space, privacy) “I do not approve of this proposal due to my property value will go down. We will lose our present nature area. There will be no more privacy, also it will create so much more traffic on County Road D. I believe that city should not approve any changes to this CUP.” Ashley Berger-1670 Village Trail East Unit 3 (traffic, green space) “I do notapprove or appreciate tearing down the small amount of nature wein this neighborhood. Also, the congestion it would create in this area. Please continue to fight for this not to happen.” Mark Stevenson-7987 63rd St S Cottage Grove(density) “I am opposed to changing the zoning from medium to high density and would like to keep apprised of the situation.” Concern/ Comments- 7 John Olson-3003 Hazelwood St N Unit 333(run-off) “I live at Cardinal Pointe. My big concern is run off which mayback up into our rain garden. If this gets too full it will back up into our garage basement.” 64 Attachment 17 Ronald and Shirley Schilla- 3003 Hazelwood St N Unit 312(run-off, traffic) “This will effectively double Hazelwood traffic, may need signal light a County Road D and Hazelwood. Will watershed flow to Cardinal Pointe rainwater garden causing drainage into our garage? Increased service vehicle delays, ie trash, school bus, mail, etc How about an info meeting for Cardinal Pointe and surrounding residents?” Richard Fursman-1666 Village Trail E #7 (reduce density, increase covered parking) “The area allows for multi-family housing, but the density requested is significantlyhigher than what was adopted in the original PUD when Owner Occupied Townhomes were promised. The preliminary design of the Apartments doesn’t reflect the design features of Legacy Village and will diminish the overall value of our development and will negatively change the feel of the PUD.LegacyVillage requires each unit to have 2 covered and enclosed parking spaces per unit. The proposed project will introduce a high volume of exterior parking that will further change and diminish thelook, feel, andcharacter of the development we bought into in 2006. I respectfully request the developerbe required toupgrade thestructure, increase covered parking and cut down on the density.Otherwise,stick with the originalPUD.” Chris and Diane Johnson- 2654 Keller Parkway, St Paul(stormwater/runoff concerns) “We do have some concerns regarding the Conifer Ridge Apartment Development and would like to get more details on the project. Our main concern can be taken care of by a commitment letter from the City of Maplewood ensuring us that the Conifer Ridge project would maintain the pre-construction storm water discharge volume and rate to the pond north of County Road D. This pond drains into a wetland that, in turn, drains through our property. We don't want see any increase in the rate or duration of storm water flow through our site. Please let us know when we can meet.” (email response) Jennifer Strei-1613 Legacy Parkway East unit 4(increase setback, storm water concerns) “To start on a positive note, I appreciate that the proposed development has proposed a building design that is consistent with the other homes in the neighborhood and is preserving a fair amount of natural green space. The developer's description of the apartments as "upscale" and the inclusion of underground parking is encouraging as well. Yet as a homeowner near the proposed development I have a few concerns that I hope will be addressed during the planning commission and city council review process. My preference would be to maintain the medium density zoning designation. There is little to no street parking available for the proposed apartments resulting in more of the land being devoted to surface lot parking. This is inconsistent with the surrounding developments that have very limited surface parking. I hope the proposed rain garden for the development will be reviewed to determine if it is sufficient to handle the runoff from the addition of impervious surfaces. Please note that while the developer characterizes the surrounding properties to include "...medium to high density rental townhomes..." the vast majority of townhomes in our neighborhood are owner-occupied. Finally, I'm concerned with the lack of green space/treeline proposed along the existing trail that runs around the south border of the proposed development, running parallel to 65 Attachment 17 County Road D and Legacy Parkway East. I am requesting a set-back between the lot line and the surface lot parking, preserving about 50 feet of wooded area between the trail and the proposed development. This would serve as a buffer between the two developments and offer an aesthetic benefit to residents of both the adjacent townhomes and the proposed apartments.” (email response) Scott and Sarena Zabilla -1613 Legacy Parkway(parking lot, safety) “I am a resident of 1613 Legacy Parkway and received the notice regarding the proposed housing development. I am pleased at the initial design phase maintaining a maximum of 3 levels and the 3 buildings comprising of 150 total units. My concern with the proposed layout is the placement of the buildings and parking lot. Currently the children's park is going to be adjacent to the parking lot of the apartment units. I think this serves as a hazard for the children at the park, disrupts the tranquility of the walking path and PS the apartments further from the park. Why is the parking lot not closer to County Road D?” (email response) Emily and Tony Schafer 1666 Village Trail East #6 (density, parking, green space) “I would prefer a medium density zoning designation rather thanrezoning to high density.I would like to see more of the parking underground rather than larger surface parking lots.This would have a particularly negative impact on the townhomes along Kennard. If a parking lot is necessary along KennardI would like to see a significant amount of landscaping to shield this view. Also, I would like to see more green space along the existing trail that runs around the south border of the proposed development. This wouldprovide abuffer between the two developments.” (email response) For- 2 Barb A Hart- 3003 Hazelwood St N Unit 207 “Go for it!” There is space and the existing housing area looks good- buildings and landscaping make the area attractive to new residents-easy marketing.” Florence L Bye-3003 Hazelwood St N unit 137 (Included question/concern) “It looks like a good plan, while preserving tree, pond and natural setting. Does Maplewood need more rentals?” 66 MEMORANDUM TO: Melinda Coleman, City Manager FROM: Daniela Lorenz, Planning Intern Michael Martin, AICP, Economic Development Coordinator DATE: August 4, 2015 SUBJECT: Considerationof an Ordinance Amendment to Allow Temporary Exterior Sales inBusiness Commercial Districts Introduction At the July 7 planning commission meeting, the commission recommended approval of a proposed amendment to allow temporary exterior sales in business commercial districts. The city council approved first reading of this amendment at its meeting on July 27, 2015, but wanted to consider options regardingthe approved length of time for temporary exterior sales. The city council will holda public hearing and consider approval of a second reading at its meetingon August 24, 2015. Background Section 44-511 (permitted uses), in the BC district regulations, does not permit any exterior sales of goods. Section 44-512 (conditional uses), allows the sale of exterior goodswith a conditional use permit in a BC district. Currently, there is no mention of temporary exterior sales in Maplewood’s city code. Discussion Code Amendment to Allow Temporary Exterior Sales The BC ordinance already allows “exteriorsales”with aCUP as follows: “the exterior storage, display, sale,or distributionof goods or materials, but not including a junkyard, salvage automobile, or other wrecking yard. The city may require screening of such uses pursuant to the screening requirements of subsection (6.a.)of this section.” There have been businesses such as temporary greenhouses, fireworks stands, fruit and vegetable stands and food vendors that have operated in the city for many years, securing the appropriate licensesthrough the clerk’s office but their zoning status wasnever questioned. This proposed amendmentis an attempt to rectify a current gap in the city’szoning ordinance. Length of Time Considered for Temporary Sales In this ordinance amendment, staff had originally recommended 180 days for temporary sales. Currently, licenses issued from the city clerk’s office have the potential to be valid for a full year. Staff’s rationalewas the state building code considers a temporary building to be in place for up to 180 days. Staff was recommending that anything above 180 days be required to receive approval for a conditional use permit. Staff looked at other cities for guidance on an appropriate length of time. Stillwater allows garden centers to be in operation for up to 90 days per year and fireworks sales for up to three weeks. Woodbury limits outdoor sales to 10 days per year and the operation must either own the land or have a year lease. St. Louis Park has a limit of 180 days. Richfield allows for up to six months. Staff is still comfortable with the recommendation of180 days. The intent was not to be overly complicated with this zoning regulation as all licensing requirements are still in effect and the city has not had issues with temporary exterior sales ceasing operation, like fireworks being sold past the first halfof July. If desired, staff is also comfortable with 120 days as an option. Staff does feel 90 days would be too short of a time. The intention is to start the “zoning clock” on the day of issuance of a license or permit. Most operations do notstart selling onthe day ofpermit or license issuance as they need approval from the city in order to commence setting up. Commission Actions The planning commission recommended approval of theproposed amendment at its meeting on July 7, 2015. Budget Impact None Recommendation Providing the city council a recommendation on the time limit that should be considered for temporary exterior sales. Attachments 1.Ordinance Amendment to Section 44-511 ORDINANCE NO. ___ AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW TEMPORARY EXTERIOR SALES IN BC (BUSINESSCOMMERCIAL) ZONINING DISTRICTS The Maplewood City Council _________the following revisionto the Maplewood Code of Ordinances. (Additions areunderlined.) Section 1. Section 44-511 of the Maplewood Code of Ordinancesis hereby amended as follows: Sec. 44-511. PermittedUses. The city shall only permit the following uses by right in a BC business commercial district: (18) Temporary exteriorsale of goods, up to 180 days per year,pursuant tolicensing and permitting requirementsin chapter 14, article VI, chapter 20, article IVand chapter 28, article II. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect after the approval by the city council and publishing in the official newspaper. The Maplewood City Council ________this ordinance revision on ___________. _________________ Mayor Attest: ______________________ City Clerk