Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/06/2007 MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesdav. March 6, 2007, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. February 20, 2007 5. Public Hearings 7:00 Ramsey County Correctional Facility (297 Century Avenue South) Conditional Use Permit Revision 6. New Business a. Comprehensive Plan Review - Goals and Policies 7. Unfinished Business None 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations February 26 Council Meeting: Mr. Hess March 12 Council Meeting: Mr. Pearson March 26 Council Meeting: Ms. Fisher April 9 Council Meeting:?? (was to be Mr. Grover) 10. Staff Presentations 11. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20,2007 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the rneeting to order at 7:00 p.rn. II. ROLL CALL Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Cornrnissioner Michael Grover Cornrnissioner Harland Hess Commissioner Gary Pearson Cornrnissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Joseph Walton Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Present Present Absent Present Present Absent Present Absent Ken Roberts, Planner Michael Thornpson, Staff Engineer present until 7:30 p.m. Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary Staff Present: III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Roberts requested the addition of a discussion regarding the Trunk Highway 49 Task Force under Staff Presentations. Cornrnissioner Pearson moved to approve the agenda as amended. Commissioner Desai seconded. The rnotion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Hess, Pearson, Walton Approval of the Planning Commission minutes for February 6, 2007. Because Commissioner Trippler was going to be absent for the meeting so he called the Recording Secretary on February 16, 2007, with his changes to the minutes. On page 8, in the 4th paragraph, 9th line, correct the spelling of grade aided to C1radated. On pa~e 20, in the 5th paragraph, last line, third word, remove the extra word we. On page 24, in the 7 h paragraph, 2nd line, insert a space between incase changing it to in case. Chairperson Fischer had corrections on pages 3, 10, 14, and 20. On page 3, in the 4th paragraph, 8th sentence, the sentence should be reworded to read Brad Scheib, from HoisinClton KoeCller Group pointed out throuClh the planninCl process it was determined that those parcels would be C1uided for future development if it was found to be feasible. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-20-07 -2- Chairperson Fischer had corrections on page 8, in the 4th paragraph, second line, change the word cerne to c~me. On page 10, in the 3rd paragraph, 11th line, it should read She has two residential lots behind I=lere her property right up to the trail. On page 14, in the 4th paragraph, last line change bud up to abut, on page 20, in the 3rd paragraph, third line, change peace meal to piece meal. Comrnissioner Pearson rnoved to approve the planning comrnission rninutes for February 6, 2007, as amended. Corn missioner Hess seconded. Ayes - Fischer, Hess, Pearson, Walton Abstentions - Desai V. PUBLIC HEARING None. VI. NEW BUSINESS a. Pond Overlook Town Houses - Concept Plan Mr. Roberts said Mr. Doug Andrus, representing Andrus Homes, is asking the city to provide hirn with preliminary comments about a proposed senior housing development. He has prepared a preliminary site plan that shows 10 housing units (in five, two-unit town houses) for persons aged 55 and over. This development would be on about two acres of land between County Road D and 1-694 on the property known as 2161 County Road D. A homeowners' association would own and maintain the common areas. To build the proposed development, Mr. Andrus would need the city to change the zoning map for the site frorn F (farm residence) to R-2 (double dwellings). For R-2 areas, the city plans for single dwellings on lots of at least 6,000 square feet of area and double dwellings on lots of 12,000 square feet in area (6,000 square feet for each unit) The R-2 zoning in Maplewood allows for single or double dwellings. Comrnissioner Walton said staff rnentioned noise is going to be an issue with this concept plan being so close to the freeway. The twin home units are designed to be walkouts and he is concerned about the two northern twin home units walking out onto the freeway with the noise potential problem. Mr. Roberts said those are concerns the applicant is looking from the commissioners in the review of this concept plan. The applicant will need to show the city that noise isn't going to be an issue here. Whether the noise is handled by using landscaping, berrning, using better building products, higher insulated windows, higher rated insulation or whatever it takes, that is what the city is going to require. These are details that are important to bring to the attention of the applicant to make them aware of concerns early on in this process while the project is in the concept stage. Commissioner Hess said what is the typical allowance for a two acre plot like this in an R-2 zoned area with this developrnent for five twin homes? Planning Commission Minutes of 02-20-07 -3- Mr. Roberts said it is consistent with the comprehensive plan for the density allowed in the R-2 Land Use District so it's not overly dense. If this was a typical twin home developrnent on a straight street it might be a lower density but it's still consistent with the standards in the comprehensive plan. Chairperson Fischer said with R-2 zoning for a standard lot you would need a lot with 12,000 square feet rather than 10,000 square feet. For five twin hornes with R-2 zoning that would require 60,000 square feet and this is 2 acres of land which means it's probably got 80,000 square feet of land. Mr. Roberts said correct. Commissioner Hess wondered about the possibility of having security fencing around the area with the 1-694 highway corridor and the pond area. He also wondered about possible water infiltration problems with walkout units. When he went to visit the site he noticed the pond was quite a bit lower than this section of land but because it's next to a water source. His concern is these units will have full basements and he wonders if water will be a problem. Mr. Roberts said you are right the pond is quite a bit lower and staff isn't sure the pond has an outlet. The area facing the freeway has a four foot tall chain link fence. There is also fencing along one side of the pond. The city's practice is not to fence srnall ponding areas for ease of maintenance and in case of an emergency situation if someone needed to be rescued. If someone needed to gain quick access to the pond you wouldn't want to have to try and get through a fence. One thing the city would be checking for is the high water level of the pond and what the maximum water height of this pond is which is something the water shed knows and how water problems would relate to these units having walkout basements. Staff is confident that the city would require at least 3 or more soil borings from this site. Because of the public improvements that may tell the city if there is ground water here and if this would affect the walkout units. Commissioner Desai asked if there were any sound level standards the contractor would have to follow with building residential homes so close to Highway 1-694? Mr. Roberts said there are sound standards required by the State of Minnesota. Staff isn't sure of the standard decibel level requirements. Commissioner Desai said using landscaping and berming isn't going to help mitigate noise levels here. He asked if the state was planning on putting up a sound barricade wall to help with noise in this area? Mr. Roberts said staff has notified the state of this concept plan and have not received the state's comments. The State of Minnesota has cornmented with other projects near freeways that the state is not in the business of putting up sound barricades and that there just isn't enough money in their budget for that. Commissioner Desai said he would be interested in asking the builder if they have experience building homes close to the freeway and what concerns the neighbors experienced with noise? Planning Commission Minutes of 02-20-07 -4- Mr. Roberts said staff is aware of one developrnent the applicant built in White Bear Township near 1-35E, and maybe they can speak to that experience. Commissioner Pearson said if water is draining on the north side of that and these are going to be walkouts will the contractor have to irrigate deeper into the roadway to prevent a pocket occurring where the walkouts will be and drainage will end up there? Mr. Roberts said the applicant will have to pay careful attention to the grading plan to make sure water doesn't get back to the walkout units and make sure the water drains the way they say it's going to drain. That's something staff, engineering, and the applicant are going to have to pay close attention to. Commissioner Walton said regarding the infiltration rate, on the last page of the engineering cornments, is that going to be an infiltration basin and if the infiltration rates that were tested would work there? Mr. Roberts said it staff's understanding the infiltration basin would hold water for a while and eventually infiltrate. Michael Thompson, Maplewood Staff Engineer, addressed the commiSSion. He said the infiltration basin would be designed to hold water for up to 48 hours and after that the water would drain out. Staff said .23 inches per hour is a very conservative number but is the standard rate. Mr. Roberts said if it were designed differently or if they provided a detailed engineering plan, they may be able to increase that rate to drain quicker but that is the minimum standard that the city accepts. Chairperson Fischer said the engineering comrnents in the packet were received February 8, 2007, and she asked if there had been any additional items that have come up since then? Mr. Thompson said no. Commissioner Walton said on page 3, paragraph one in the staff report, staff stated reduced town house setbacks should lessen the amount of grading and tree removal on the property. He asked how it would be possible not to lose trees on the site? Mr. Roberts said the theory of having reduced setbacks is if these have 25-foot setbacks instead of 30-foot setbacks then they are that much closer to the street. Maybe there are some areas in the back that don't get graded along the fence line. It may be that 98% of the site is graded and they can save three or four trees. Cornrnissioner Pearson said when they are at the point of doing the soil borings, would it be possible to get a copy of the soils report? Mr. Roberts said yes. Mr. Thompson made a note of that. Corn missioner Hess asked about site lighting here? Planning Commission Minutes of 02-20-07 -5- Mr. Roberts said as part of the public irnprovernent project the city would require a street light at the end of the cul-de-sac and the lighting on each of the units would be the typical fixtures that are put on a home by the front door and garage area. Cornrnissioner Walton said while he was walking along County Road D he noticed the road was very narrow and if seniors are going to live there the narrowness of the road could be a safety issue because there are no sidewalks there. Mr. Roberts said staff hadn't given that a lot of consideration but that part of County Road D isn't heavily traveled. The trail through the Bruentrup Farm and the open space is used quite a bit. It may come to a point where the city has to put in a crosswalk. Unfortunately residential developments are built on County Roads and pedestrians need to be aware of safety concerns. Chairperson Fischer asked if there had been a history of pedestrian safety issues in the area considering the senior cottages are located to the west? Mr. Roberts said staff isn't aware of any pedestrian safety issues. Staff speculates that the trail on the Bruentrup Farm property and on the open space property to the south keeps the pedestrians off the street at this point. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Mr. Doug Andrus, Andrus Homes, 2440 Charles Street North, Suite 210, North St. Paul, addressed the commission. He said he has received some good questions and cornrnents tonight and feels he can bring the preliminary plat back for review. Chairperson Fischer asked if the applicant had any concerns regarding the engineering comrnents on page 16? Mr. Andrus said no. As far as the noise concerns regarding building residential homes this close to the freeway, he said he built a townhome development in White Bear Township past County Road H2 and that development was his best selling developrnent yet. He estimates it was because of the location next to the freeway and the traffic flow drawing interest. There is an STC rating for window and building material ratings. He said he plans on getting the highest rated windows possible and put those windows on the units that face the freeway. On the exterior walls we plan to use a sound channel that we designed. That is a metal channel that holds the sheetrock out Y, inch from the stud walls. The sound hits the exterior wall and it transfers noise through the stud walls but if you can transfer the noise by holding the sheetrock out Y, inch the noise drops down. He said he has used quite a few websites for ratings on fiberglass insulation with ratings of 50 which is a pretty high rating. Cornmissioner Desai asked if the applicant had been required to check on the decibel levels for projects in other cities? Mr. Andrus said no. The problem they encountered with noise carne from the bathroom exhaust fan that vented through the roof on units that faced the freeway. The noise frorn the freeway would come through the flapper on the roof and go down through the ceiling. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-20-07 -6- Mr. Andrus said to elirninate that problern we ran the bath fan exhaust down through the floor trusses and that seemed to solve that problern. Cornrnissioner Desai asked if he inforrns the buyers of the potential of existing noise concerns? Mr. Andrus said we are up front about it and we put something in the covenants and the association papers regarding noise concerns. The noise exists and the potential buyers can see and hear it. He wants to make sure people don't come after him or after the City of Maplewood regarding the noise. Chairperson Fischer asked if Mr. Andrus had any questions for the commission? Mr. Andrus said no. Chairperson Fischer asked if anyone else wanted to speak regarding this concept plan? Nobody came forward. Mr. Roberts said the commission has given the applicant some good comments and questions. b. Election of Vice-Chairperson Chairperson Fischer spoke for Commissioner Dale Trippler who was absent from tonight's meeting. She stated that Commissioner Tripplerwould like to be considered as Vice-Chairperson on the Planning Commission when the commission votes to elect a new Vice-Chairperson. The Planning Commission wrote their nominations for Vice-Chairperson on paper and handed them to staff. Mr. Roberts counted the votes. The vote was 4 votes forTushar Desai as Vice-Chairperson and 1 vote for Dale Trippler. c. Resolution of Appreciation - Michael Grover Mr. Roberts said Michael Grover has resigned from the Planning Commission. Staff has attached his letter of resignation and a resolution of appreciation for him. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the resolution of appreciation for Michael Grover. Commissioner Desai seconded. Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Hess, Pearson, Walton The motion passed. This item will go to the City Council on March 12 or March 26, 2007. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-20-07 -7- d. Planning Commission Rules of Procedure Mr. Roberts said Section L of the Rules of Procedure says that the commission is to review the rules at their first meeting each year. Since the Planning Commission meeting January 16, 2007, the city manager reviewed the commission's Rules of Procedure. He suggested several changes to the rules before staff sends them to the City Council for approval. As such, staff is bringing the rules back to the commission with additional proposed changes. The parts of the rules the city manager suggested changing include: The Meeting Schedule, Election of Officers, and Appointments. Mr. Roberts said regarding the statement "The Planning Commission shall elect a chairperson and vice-chairperson at the second planning commission meeting in January each year." The existing language makes it difficult to do if the openings on the planning commission haven't been filled yet by the second meeting. Chairperson Fischer said it might be difficult if somebody was elected chairperson or vice- chairperson and the person didn't get reappointed. That would cause the planning commission to have another election. Mr. Roberts said the ideal situation would be if the City Council did the reappointments in Decemberthen the planning commission could have everyone in place by the second meeting in January. Commissioner Desai said if the City Council has not found new planning commission members by December to replace terms that were up or any resignations that had been received any time of the year could be a bad time. He said he feels the planning commissioners that are here during the first two meetings of the year should be the ones to vote for chairperson and vice-chairperson to keep the process moving. Mr. Roberts said even if the commission had a full planning commission by then, how would the new people know who to vote for unless they had been following the planning commission meetings and know who they would like as chairperson and vice-chairperson. Chairperson Fischer asked if there had been any discussion among the city council for the future procedures that the city council would consider filling or making reappointments in December rather than waiting until the middle of January? Mr. Roberts said not that he has heard. Chairperson Fischer asked if there was anything in the December workload for the city council that would make it prohibitive to go through the process at that point in time? Mr. Roberts said the biggest thing is the adoption of the budget which the city council usually does the first meeting of December. The ideal situation would be for the appointments to be done before the end of December or the first meeting in January. However, situations come up and there is really no good way to predict things, especially in city government. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-20-07 -8- Chairperson Fischer said Commissioner Trippler brought it up before that the Rules of Procedure state the planning commission set their own meeting night but now the City Council has set the meeting nights, should the ordinance be changed by the City Council before we do the changes to the Rules of Procedure so we are in sync because if the ordinance is going in a different direction then the planning commission is stuck in the middle. Mr. Roberts said that is why staff included the Maplewood Code with the Planning Commission Rules and Procedures because it states in Sec. 2-249 the Planning Commission shall elect a chairperson and a vice-chairperson at the second Planning Commission meeting in January each year. As the Planning Commission rules are written you are in agreement with the city code as it stands. Chairperson Fischer questioned whether the commiSSion should change the Planning Commission Rules of Procedures if the ordinance hasn't changed yet? Commissioner Desai said he thinks the City Council should change the ordinance first. Mr. Roberts said the question is who should initiate the change to the ordinance, city staff, the City Council, or the city manager? Chairperson Fischer said if the Planning Commission decided to leave the things that are dictated by the ordinance in place then the changes the Planning Commission would change tonight would be on page 4, item F. Planning Department and item J. Appointments. Commissioner Desai questioned item J. Appointments and the text that is stricken that says 9y following the current city appointment policy. Mr. Roberts said he wasn't sure about that. For long time commissioners like Gary Pearson and Lorraine Fischer, the Planning Commission used to hold their own interviews when openings occurred and the commission would vote and rank the applicants and pass that along to the City Council who would then make the final decision. In more recent times the city has just had enough applicants for openings and the City Council has done the interviews for the boards and commissions. Each City Council sets their own rules regarding how they want to do things. That language that is proposed to be stricken in the Rules of Procedure is not really necessary because the same City Council makes the appointments. Whether they are following the city policy doesn't really matter because the City Council makes the appointments. Commissioner Pearson said when he applied to be on the commission years ago the interviews were all handled by the City Council and then it changed to the interviews being done by the commission and the final decision was made by the City Council. Now the process has gone back to the way it was years ago when he applied. Commissioner Desai said he agrees that the City Council is going to make the decision regarding who gets appointed to the Planning Commission but he would still expect there be an established protocol that the City Council follows. And that is what he interprets with the City Council Appointment Policy because it's not a helter-skelter process where the city manager, the Mayor or the City Council does whatever they feel like doing. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-20-07 -g- Commissioner Desai said they follow a set of protocols to make things happen and those protocols should be defined in existence so that anybody who wishes to see the procedures should be able to see it and understand the process. If that protocol doesn't exist, then he would recommend that the City Council create that, pass it, amend it and go forward from there. Mr. Roberts said you may want to make that as a separate motion. Commissioner Pearson said there were a number of times when the Planning Commission would interview an applicant and that person would obviously have the background that could be better applied to a group like the CDRB or some other group. That may be one reason the City Council wants to look at all the applicants by bringing everyone into the same application process. Commissioner Pearson asked what the timeline is to get the ordinance changed by the City Council? Would that be a long drawn out process? Mr. Roberts said the City Council would need to have two readings of it and staff has not seen this on the agenda yet. It may not be on the radar screen yet so staff has no way of knowing what the timeline is at this time. Commissioner Desai asked if this request to have the city ordinance changed by the City Council needed to be done first before the Planning Commission changes the Rules of Procedure? Mr. Roberts said if you want to make that recommendation you could. Chairperson Fischer asked if the City Council wants the Planning Commission to change the Rules of Procedure to reflect the current practice even though it is contrary to the ordinance or would they change the ordinance so the Planning Commission can bring the Rules of Procedure in accordance with the ordinance? Mr. Roberts said if the planning commission wants to take no action on this until the Planning Commission gets feedback from the City Council you can. If the Planning Commission wants to send the changes the commission wants to make to the city council and separate motions with other ideas you can do that too. Commissioner Hess said he agrees with Commissioner Desai's comments. It makes more sense to have the City Council review these procedures and get something down that the Planning Commission reviews before the Planning Commission makes a decision. He said he had an interesting conversation with a Lake Elmo City Councilmember. Commissioner Hess told him he served on the Maplewood Planning Commission and that his term was up for re-election. Commissioner Hess said the Lake Elmo City Councilmember said their Planning Commission members rotate through each year so the people serve until they decide to resign or someone else approaches the city looking for an opening. There are no definite term limits. In some ways that process would help the commission because we are short commission members and this is an unpaid position and that way you would still get people that want to serve. The only potential problem is that it precludes continuous movement of people through the system in a way that the current system allows for. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-20-07 -10- Chairperson Fischer said when a persons' term comes up they often assess their life and if it is getting too busy and they decide not to renew their term an opening would occur. That would still allow new applicants to interview for an opening. Mr. Roberts said the commission is structured with three groups, each with three year terms so in theory there should be continuity if people stay on as volunteers. However, when someone resigns from the commission that changes the process. With previous city councils, if a commissioner wanted to serve another term the city council generally accepted that, but the current practice has been that everyone needs to reapply and new applications come in and the City Council interviews everybody. If someone in the community wants to apply they have the chance to serve and current members can re-interview to try and renew their terms. Commissioner Desai moved to recommend the City Council make the necessary changes in the city ordinance about the planning commission. The Planning Commission will review any ordinance changes and then make changes to the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure so the wording is in consistent with the new or revised city ordinance. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Hess, Pearson, Walton This item will go to the City Council on March 12,2007. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Mr. Desai was the Planning Commission representative at the February 12, 2007, City Council meeting. Commissioner Desai said the discussion included the 2006 Planning Commission Annual Report and the Appreciation for Mary Dierich, which the City Council passed. The Rules of Procedure for the Planning Commission was to be brought back to the Planning Commission for review. Commissioner Desai said the city council said they appreciate the thoroughness of the planning commission reports and the depth of the questions and comments that are reflected in the planning commission minutes. They thanked the planning commission forthe work they do and asked him to pass the comments along to the planning commission members. There were two items that the city council had a difference of opinion on from the planning commission recommendations. He said he was impressed and wanted to compliment the Mayor and council member's for the way they conducted themselves during the meeting and the time the meeting adjourned. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-20-07 -11- c. Mr. Pearson will be the Planning Commission representative atthe March 12, 2007, City Council meeting. Items to discuss include the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure and possibly the Resolution of Appreciation for Michael Grover. d. Ms. Fischer will be the Planning Commission representative at the March 26, 2007, City Council meeting. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Trunk Highway 49 Task Force discussion Ramsey County has convened a Task Force to study the needed improvements to Rice Street from south of Trunk Highway 36 in Maplewood to north of County Road J in Lino Lakes. The roadway was formerly called Trunk Highway 49 and has been converted to Ramsey County from MnDOT. On December 18, 2006, the council appointed four members to the Task Force. Michael Grover has given his resignation from the Planning Commission and is unable to serve on this Task Force. A new member from the Planning Commission should be appointed. Dale Trippler had previously expressed interested in serving on this Task Force, although Mr. Trippler isn't present. Confirmation of Dale Trippler's willingness to serve cannot occur until his return from vacation. The City Council appointed the following members to the Task Force December 18th, 2006: 1. A business representative from the corridor: Ernie Schroeder from Schroeder Milk 2. A community representative: Michael Grover a member of the Planning Commission 3. A council member: Kathleen Juenemann 4. A staff member: Public Works Director, Chuck Ahl The Rice Street corridor from south of Trunk Highway 36 to north of County Road J is a congested arterial that handles large volumes of traffic, especially in the p.m. peak periods due to the mix of commuters and retail establishments that use Rice Street for access. Maplewood's biggest concern in the corridor is the congestion at the Rice Street Trunk Highway 36 interchange/bridge. Maplewood has some large traffic generators at this location for Cub Foods and Schroeder Milk. On the north side of County Road B at Rice Street, St. Jude Medical (in Little Canada) has recently expanded the facility and is looking to expand their campus again in the near future. This has the potential to add up to 400 additional employees to the 650 jobs at their two Little Canada sites. Little Canada and Ramsey County are working on moving Trunk Highway 36 Rice Street interchange forward for improvement since MnDOT has no plans for an upgrade until the 2025+ timeframe. These improvements, along with the remainder of the corridor, will be the subject of the Trunk Highway 49 Task Force. The Trunk Highway 49 Task Force meetings would take place at the Ramsey County Public Works building in Arden Hills, the third Wednesday of each month at 5:00 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes of 02-20-07 -12- The planning commission felt that serving on this Trunk Highway 49 Task Force would be difficult to commit to with the meeting starting at 5:00 p.m. The planning commission asked if this could be brought back to the next meeting since Dale Tripplerwho was absent this evening had said he would be interested in serving on that task force. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:10p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Conditional Use Permit-Ramsey County Correctional Facility 297 Century Avenue South February 28, 2007 INTRODUCTION Project Description Bruce Thompson, with Ramsey County's Property Management Office, is requesting approval of expansion plans for the Ramsey County Correctional Facility. This proposal would consist of a 56,50o-square-foot addition to the existing 130,837-square-foot facility. Buildino Exoansion Includes . New inmate housing for 67 more men and 103 more women. With the additional housing proposed, there will be a total of 436 men and 120 women at the facility. . New inmate program space and staff offices in the building addition core area. . Women's intake and work release wing with second floor program space. With an alternate proposal for a basement-floor storage room. . Expansion in the Administrative courtyard to accommodate the remodeling of the existing men's intake. . Expansion of the existing loading dock facilities on the basement level. . Extension of the existing central corridor at the basement level to serve the expansion. . A new mechanical penthouse on the roof of the housing expansion. . The expansion of the parking lot to add 62 parking stalls. . Removal of the temporary office structure presently located at the south end of the parking lot. Existina Buildino Remodelina Includes . Reconfiguration of the existing loading dock and staging area with an alternate proposal for replacement of the existing traction freight elevator with a two-stop hydraulic elevator in the existing hoistway. . New basement level Electrical Service Room. . New concrete ramp and metal railing serving the existing gymnasium to meet ADA requirements for the space. . Conversion of the existing visitation room from a face-to-face method to a video visitation area with a series of video kiosks for remote video visitation. . Reconfiguration of the existing men's intake area which occurs in conjunction with the building addition described above. Future Chanaes Include . The main driveway from Century Avenue would be relocated in the future to align with Oakwood Road. This relocation would move the driveway 180 feet to the south and would also provide for 20 more parking stalls at the north end of the parking lot. . Two future small-vehicle storage garages west of the facility. The applicant states that the nature of the correctional facility necessitates on-site security at all times, and as a result, no increase in demand for police services from the City of Maplewood due to expansion is anticipated. Additions proposed to the building will have an automatic sprinkler system and a water line with hydrants that loops around the complex. Emergency vehicular access to the building is available around much of its perimeter. Rain gardens to infiltrate a one-inch runoff over the new impervious surface have been designed into the expansion plans. Existing water and sewer lines are adequate to serve the facility with the proposed additions, though one additional sewer and one additional water service are planned to serve the north housing addition. Refer to the applicant's complete narrative. Requests The applicant is requesting that the city council approve a conditional use permit to expand the correctional facility. Refer to the applicant's narrative and the other attachments. The community design review board will review the design elements of this project in a separate report. BACKGROUND On December 9, 1991, the city council approved a CUP for the Ramsey County Correctional Facility to add onto the building to increase inmate capacity to add 50 beds. On March 11, 1996, the city council approved a CUP amendment for the county to quit farming and cattle raising and switch to plant nursery operations. On November 13, 2001, the city council approved a CUP and the design plans for the Ponds of Battle Creek Golf Course on the Ramsey County Correctional Facility site south of Lower Afton Road. 2 DISCUSSION Neighbors' Concerns Staff surveyed the surrounding property owners for their input, opinions and concerns. Of the replies we received (refer to these in the report), there were some primary concerns raised. These are: Traffic Neighbors expressed concern over the potential increase in traffic on an already busy roadway and the impacts on the nearby congested intersection of Century Avenue and Lower Afton Road. I asked Dan Solar, the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer, to address the traffic-impact concems. Mr. Solar gave the following response: Ramsey County, Washington County, City of Maplewood and City of Woodbury have been worKing for the last several years to develop a roadway improvement project for Century Avenue and Valley Creek Road in our communities. We are now proceeding with a project to reconstruct Century Avenue from Lake Road to 1-94 and Valley Creek Road from Century Avenue to the new 494 interchange. The reconstruction will include a new four-lane divided roadway, turn lanes, traffic signals at Century and Valley Creek Road, new paths and/or sidewalks, and drainage improvements. As you are probably aware, this roadway is severely in need of physical, capacity and safety improvements. We are worKing on right of way acquisition and design this year and the project is scheduled for construction in 2008 and 2009. This worK is necessary for existing and projected traffic growth. The possible corrections site expansion is not expected to add significant traffic but any increases will be accommodated by our new roadway construction. The traffic improvements explained by Mr. Solar will begin in 2008. These changes will improve traffic flow and decrease congestion and are planned regardless of the proposed correctional facility expansion. The increase in traffic resulting from the expansion will be slight, and the pending roadway improvements will certainly accommodate these minor increases. Drivewav Relocation The county plans to move the driveway south to the proposed future location in 2008/2009 when the street and interchange worK takes place. One Woodbury resident opposes this relocation of the driveway. This resident prefers that the current driveway location remain in place to preserve the screen of trees along the correctional facility frontage. The relocation of this driveway is safer from a traffic standpoint. Traffic flows better when streets and driveways line up and turning movements are eliminated. As for removing the trees, once removed, the existing driveway opening can be planted with trees and shrubs, as could the front of the site as needed, to further screen the site. This is more beneficial than preserving the view for drivers on Oakwood Road. 3 How is the Prooosed Exoansion Funded? Several residents questioned how the expansion would be funded. They do not want an increase in taxes to pay for this expansion. Mr. Thompson explained to me that the correctional facility expansion would be paid for through 20-year capital bonds. There is no proposal to raise taxes. Taxing is always a county board decision and Mr. Thompson cannot address what the board may do in the future. Addina Confinement Space to House Women / Tvpes of Persons Confined The correctional facility has been housing women for several years now. Other than a proposed increase to house 103 more women and 67 more men, the function and operation of the facility will not change. Some residents expressed concern that there would be inmates of a more serious type because of the proposed expansion. The level or degree of those incarcerated in this facility (minimum- vs. medium-security inmates) will not change. With the potential addition of up to 170 more inmates, staffing will also increase to 21 more employees-14 new guards and seven new program/administrative support people. Conditional Use Permit Staff feels that the CUP for the proposed correctional facility expansion should be granted. The proposal meets the criteria outlined by ordinance, and by its design will not pose any negative impact for the neighborhood. The additions would be on the least noticeable sides of the facility and the future garages would be to the rear of the site and largely out of view. Department Comments Buildinc Official Dave Fisher, the Maplewood Building Official, has the following comments: . The city will require a complete building code analysis when the construction plans are submitted to the city for building permits. . All exiting must go to a public way. . The applicant must provide adequate fire department access to the building. . The buildings are required to be fire sprinklered. . The project manager and contractor should meet with the city building inspection department in a pre-construction meeting. Encineerina Department Jon Jarosch, Civil Engineer I with the city, has reviewed this proposal and given his review comments in the attached report. Refer to Mr. Jarosch's attached report dated January 1, 2007. 4 Police Lieutenant Shortreed gave the following comments: . Adequate outdoor lighting should be incorporated into the project in order to assure that visibility at all entrances/exits, as well as around the proposed addition, is appropriate and does not provide for darkened areas for people to loiter without detection. . Adequate signs should be provided in order to readily mark the main entrances/exits at the facilities addition. . Upon completion of the project, additional facility staffing needs should be met in order to maintain a secure environment for the increased inmate population that will result from the facility expansion. This would include separation of the male and female inmate populations in order to avoid any potential risks that may result from mixing these two populations together. Assistant Fire Chief Butch Gervais, Assistant Fire Chief, gave the following comments: . The applicant shall install fire protection, per code requirements, including fire department standpipes within the facility. . The fire protection shall be monitored as code requires. . There shall be a 20-foot-wide minimum width fire access road around the building. . The applicant shall submit for review the proper placement of horn/strobes. . The applicant shall provide a floor plan showing postings at the main doors for fire department use. Watershed District On January 3,2007, the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District Board reviewed this proposal and determined that the project is in compliance with the watershed district's requirements, subject to some minor modifications to be reviewed by the district's staff. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit for the expansion of the Ramsey County Correctional Facility at 297 Century Avenue South. Approval is based on the findings required by the city ordinances and subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of the community development department may approve minor changes. 5 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The applicant shall remove the existing temporary office building as part of this facility expansion. 5. Site lights shall be designed so the light source is not visible off site, shall not cause any glare beyond the property lines and not exceed maximum light-intensity requirements of the city ordinance. 6. The expansion to the south end of the parking lot shall be installed with the proposed building expansion. 7. The location of the future garages behind the building is approved. The applicant must submit the design of these buildings to the community design review board for approval before construction. 6 CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 226 properties within 500 feet of the site. Of the 34 replies, seven were in favor or had no objection, 14 were opposed, six had no comment and seven expressed various comments. Many comments were repeated and shared by the respondents. I have included a summary of all of the comments I received and copies of letters that were sent. In Favor 1. I am ok with the expansion. (Freeburg, 2594 Pond Avenue) 2. It will be ok with us. Please don't let people escape. I walk in the park just to the west of the workhouse. (Barrett, 2485 Londin Lane) 3. I have lived in the area for 19 years and haven't experienced or been aware of any problems or serious incidents. (Edmiston, 2485 Londin Lane) 4. I have no objection to this proposal. (Parish, 541 Deer Ridge Lane) 5. We have no problems with the expansion of the facility as long as the security factor remains safe and the seriousness of the offenses of the inmates does not change. We do question how this will be paid for. In addition to the construction cost, maintenance will be higher and more staff needed. We cannot afford to pay higher taxes, property or otherwise, and do not agree with any proposal that would raise our taxes. (Pittman, 542 Deer Ridge Lane) 6. Expansion--ok. Added inmates requires added staff and security. It should go hand in hand. Will this expansion add any taxes to Maplewood residents? (Poradek, 376 O'day Street) 7. I am in favor. (Bridgedel, no address) Opposed 1. I would prefer no further expansion in this residential area. I have no complaint in the present facility. It seems to be well maintained. (Waldock, 2485 Londin Lane) 2. Housing 48 females in a dormitory seems to me you are asking for trouble! Enough trouble with two in a cell. (Ames, 525 Deer Ridge Lane) 3. OH NOOOOO! Take it from me, the people that live on Oakwood Road, or turn into the neighborhood onto Oakwood will not be happy about the new driveway thing. As of now, we at least get to look at trees when exiting the neighborhood. What do we (the neighborhood) need to do to try to get them to keep the driveway where it is? It's a big enough bummer that we live across the street. . . but at least now we don't have to look down the driveway! (Rage, 6032 Oakwood Road, WOOdbury) 4. I would not be in favor of the expansion. (Eastman, no address) 5. We are opposed to the expansion of the correctional facility in our neighborhood. There is no need to increase the general incarceration rate of the people in Eastern Ramsey County and 7 there is no reasonable justification for importing more bad people from outside of our area. Shame on you for even thinking of doing this to the neighborhood. My home borders the golf course and I was robbed of about $2000 of property last year. It likely was one of the prisoners who had cased the neighborhood while working at the golf course, but since the Maplewood Police did almost nothing to investigate the crime, I would prefer that we do not increase the number of known criminals in our community by expanding their population. Also, increasing the size of the prison is insane when we do not have the funds to expand Century Avenue to a four lane road with street lights to improve traffic flow. (Rokke, no address) 6. I do not think this facility should be expanded in this area. There are too many there already. This should onlv be a residential area. (Marsh, 2485 Londin Lane) 7. I am completely opposed to this proposed project. This is a residential community and the proposed enlargement would be an overwhelming presence and change the entire appearance of the area. (Quayle, 2465 Londin Lane) 8. No. (Martin, 2465 Londin Lane) 9. Against the proposal to expand the correctional facility, especially adding space for women. (Kandler, 567 Deer Ridge Lane) 10. We are against the expansion of the correctional facility at 297 Century Avenue South. (Kunz, 2485 Londin Lane) 11. I'm opposed to further expansion to the facility and urge you to vote against arnendment to the existing conditional use permit. (Ramsey, 1852 Greenwood Road) 12. I am deeply concerned that our Village of Maplewood is in need of inmate housing for 120 men, 72 women and a dormitory setting for 48 women. If we need this large a facility, we are not doing our job to help our people achieve a stable life style. I feel the cost of this project could be put to better use. (Otte, 2465 Londin Lane) 13. Two questions/concerns: Do I assume correctly that this expansion will extend to the south of the existing building? Why not to the north? What is the definition of "medium security?" What category does the existing facility fall under? (Maronde, 524 Deer Ridge Lane) 14. This note is in response to your recent letter regarding the proposed Ramsey County Correctional Facility expansion. Our questionslconcems are as follows: . Security: We were under the impression that the current ''workhouse" only housed low risk offenders. Your letter stated that the proposed addition would house medium risk offenders. Will the type of inmate housed at the Correctional Facility change or was our original impression wrong? Could you describe in more detail what type of offenders are and will be housed at the Correctional Facility? . Traffic: Lower Afton Road and Century Avenue are already congested particularly at rush hour. The current levels will be increasing soon with the opening of the new condos/apartment buildings on the southeast comer of Century & Lower Afton. How will the proposed expansion effect traffic levels? Are there plans to deal with increased traffic levels? (A stop light and turn lanes? If yes, when?) 8 . Lighting: How will this addition effect nighttime lighting? . Funding: Has the funding already been approved for this addition? Will it be buill with state and local dollars? Please provide us with basic information on funding. (Vaccaro, no address) Comments-Neither for nor Against 1. Keep us safe. ((Baker, 556 Deer Ridge Lane) 2. Century Avenue is a bottleneck at Lower Afton Valley Creek with too much traffic already especially from 3:30 on. Any more cars will make it worse. They don't even have signal lights. (Fischer, 2465 Londin Lane) 3. I plan to attend public hearing meeting before I can make a positive or negative response. (Christiansen, 2485 Londin Lane) 4. The information you provided was inadequate to reach an opinion. However, this is a densely populated area that does not need additional criminals. We are already over-taxed and underserved. (Swanson, 2485 Londin Lane) 5. Why did I receive this? Survey etc. Does the workhouse go from minimum security to medium security? Who is paying for this project? Will the expansion result in more inmates being housed at workhouse from outside Ramsey County or State of MN? ((Dorgan, 590 Deer Ridge Lane) 6. Traffic Concern: This project could lead to an increase of traffic at the Lower Afton Road and Century Avenue intersection (due to employee, construction and visitor traffic). This intersection borders with Woodbury and is a well known traffic trouble spot. During rush hour, this four way stop intersection backs up badly in multiple directions. With continued residential growth and expansion in this area (One primary example is the drastic increase in the number of apartment building units on the southeast corner of Lower AftonlCentury Avenue intersection). Such a significant expansion would place more burden on the already strained roadway system. Another question I think should be considered is what is in it for the city and residents of Maplewood? I'm assuming (possibly incorrectly) that there is no property tax revenue being generated by this facility as it is a county enterprise. (James, no address) 7. Can you explain how the prison population will change in terms of the level of offender that will be housed there? What does medium security mean compared to those currently housed in this facility. (Gardner, 396 O'Day Street) 9 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 143 acres Existing land use: Ramsey County Correctional Facility SURROUNDING LAND USES (surrounding the correctional facility) North: Correctional facility land used for tree planting in their nursery operations South: Lower Afton Road and the Ponds of Battle Creek Golf Course East: Century Avenue and single dwellings in the City of Woodbury West: Battle Creek Regional Park PLANNING Land Use Plan designations: G (govemment) Zoning: F (farm) CODE REQUIREMENTS Section 44-1092(1) of the city ordinances requires a CUP for any public service or public building use. Findings for CUP Approval Section 44-1097(a) requires that the city council base approval of a CUP on nine findings. Refer to the findings for approval in the resolution. APPLICATION DATE The application for this request was considered complete on February 5, 2007. This is the date the applicant provided full sets of revised plans to the city for the proposal. State law requires that the city decide on these requests within 60 days. Therefore, the city council must act on this proposal by April 6, 2007. 10 p:sec12-28\RCCF Expansion 3 07 tie PC Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property LinelZoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Architectural Perspective 5. Design Review Submittal Narrative 6. CUP Statement of Compliance 7. Parking Justification Letter 8. Engineering Report by Jon Jarosch dated January 2,2007 9. CUP Resolution 10. Plans date-stamped February 5, 2007 (separate attachments) 11 ("" \ I /~, ,j ~ ['" ~ .' "'. \( /--;, / L./ LON DIN LN ftlGHPOINT CUR C2f:;S\ KING ST MAIL::;dD RD ct:..~ o .... <IJ "' ,J ii:~ ;,; CRES~ '" ~ ~ <<' <IJ ""' C~J HILLWOOO DR .... <IJ '" Z ::; 0: W .... <IJ w ::: ~ ::> .... z w <.> <0.... ~r~ ~Ol) -I'0~0' + c::::::) o POND 'Iv" .. .... <IJ 1;: o o z ~ w O~ 0: w w o Attachment 1 4 RAMSEY COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY LOCATION LOCATION MAP I I Attachme t 2 // I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0,___ ________________ _______________' I /1"-------------------- --------------- ;,/ ~ RAMSEY COUNTY CORRECTIONAl FACILITY = c::=J o F \J I ~~ I ~ 9" -~ 0 '" " ~ D ~ ~ CJ ~ 0 , 0 I \ F I I I I I F Q D c- LINE/ZONING MAP ~Iib .~DJJI 1~llpn I IIi ~ .~~!'ill'!'II'li I~~ II I nl ~~ dill ~ ~l~ I I 11l,.lj! ill; il :1 . - ~ & Atla0Jn~t 3 . <( i ~6 0 J 't; 10 ! ..t~ I N nl. !J..' !~ !i I 2nu'?;;.\i~--~ljnJ'uaJ - ----.-~ , , -'--'1 \ i ' I \ , I I I / I , 1..:.-...... 11+!ttlllillll:j ~IJ' I'll lilllllil!!"'IIIII'I""I" iII,1I !"' ,,!iltI!!. I' q;, u'l ! _.o.,..,......IH.HI-I'/' 1:'1 :I'!' . ' , II : : : , \ \ I I I I I ; I II i ~ ( ']1 t<:~; i,1 d!i! l~ i \ \ t.. I " ,.., ~ (ij ~;;: u ~:s wtis c; fi 8~~ ;;,; Ol: .!!:~ ~ ~ .:!Ii" ~ ~ Iii: c ~ .... ~ ~ ,8 m~ ~ L? ; I , \ \ AjlEA ("'''.~ .\,/ ' , ~. .. "I .1 .1 .. j I z o l- e e or:( e w C/) o a. o 0:: a. I , I 1 I i I ; I , ! ~>-- ,.--,-;." , , , I! , I \ " \., ',- ". . , , , " 1-' ~ : ....J) i ,-I '\ ; , I , I I , i r- Ii ( \ 4::"'-~"--- \'-~-- \ I '- ~ lOW en') -, j , '" '" '" ._-_~~ ~ ~ z ~~og ''''''~.- ::::> I- ::::> LL.C/)CC - -------.._~_/ ( --~ \ --- .~..._~'. ;p , ., \--./,/, /,/// .' / r'-~--'-----'~'--.7 ! C!-!!!.~-~ I l ---':::::::--' ! ~-::-='f ! <.::::::~--- ---~ I '---.-_-.:-----::, I .-..-----._1 ./ // ~/ ,/ ./ /' .,/ ,,/ // // C::---- ---'--:~"kii ,- Z <C ...J 0.. W .... - tI) i i ) / j I i . i I, i i --~/-- '-'-'--_. l -~.:'::-" , - >->- ....'= z= =~ c..... (,,):; >-2 .....5:! U)ti ::E~ c::a::= a:: 8 .~ \ il)l\ I I 1\ I I' I I '\ 1 II \ II II i,l II 1\1 \ 1 '111\ j . /.// /~ tV _/ ---~-- -.,..-.---- -------.---- \,.. ---~-~--_. .--- Attachment 4 Cl::~ =i€ ~I' ",I ~ :! ~ i .... "'co ~co iON W~ _w i:;" ~'" w ..... <ow ;;;co w_ co_ .... eI> ... == :c .... = Q Z :E Q = ... == ... ;: .... c ii: ... c Attachment 5 r ""- BWBR ~ ARC.. HITECTS "---. ~/ Ramsey County Correctional Facility Maplewood, Minnesota BWBR Commission No.: 2006.132.00 I DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITfAL NARRATIVE , The project consists of a medium-security housing exp:msion and localized remodeling of the Ramsey County Correctional Facility in Maplewood, Minnesota. Being proposed is a 56,500 square foot addition to the facility that is currently 130,837 square feet. The building expansion includes: . Irnnate housing with 120 men housed in 60 individual cells, 72 women in 36 individual cells, and 48 women housed in a dormitory setting. . Irunate program space and staff offices in the building addition core area. . Women's intake and work release wing with second floor program space. With an add alternate for a basement floor storage room. . Expansion in the Administrative courtyard to accommodate the remodeling of the existing men's intake. . Expansion of the existing loading dock facilities on the basement level. . Extension of the existing central corridor at the basement level to serve the expansion. . Mechanical penthouse on the roof of the housing expansion. The Work also includes localized remodeling within the existing building, including: . Reconfiguration of the existing loading dock and staging area. Includes an add alternate for replacement of the existing traction freight elevator with a two-stop hydraulic elevator in existing hoistway. . New basement level Electrical Service Room. . New concrete ramp and metal railing serving the existing gymnasium to meet ADA requirements for the space. . Conversion of the existing visitation room from a face-to-face method to a video visitation area with a series of video kiosks for remote video visitation. . Reconfiguration of the existing men's intake area which occurs in conjunction with the building addition listed above. The correctional facility is a conditional use in the Fann (I) zoning district, in which it is located and a major expansion such as the one proposed requires an amendment to the existing Conditional Use Permit. Please see Conditional Use Permit amendment application to the City of Maplewood for additional information. The nature of the correctional facility necessitates on-site security at all times, and as a result, no increase in demand for police services from the City of Maplewood due to exp:msion is anticipated. Additions proposed to the building will have an automatic sprinkler system and a water line with hydrants that loops around the complex. Emergency vehicular access to the building is available around much of its perimeter. Rain gardens to infiltrate a one-inch runoff over the new impervious surface have been designed into the expansion plans. Existing water and sewer lines are adequate to serve facility with the proposed additions, though one additional sewer and one additional water service are planned to serve the north housing addition. In addition to this application, Ramsey County Property Management has submitted a wetland delineation report to the Watershed District on December 11, 2006. C:\Documents and Settings\tekstran\Desktop\RCCF DR Narrative Upwt Lawson Commons 300 St. Peter Street, Suite 600 Saint Paul, MN 55102-1996 651.2223701 fax 651.2228961 www.bwbr.com Attachment 6 November 2006 Ramsey County Correctional Facility Expansion- Statement of Conformance With Conditional Use Permit Standards 5:b,.,OO Being proposed is lL.-"'!<>-J~luare foot expansion to the Ramsey County Correctional Facility that is currently 130,837 square feet. The expansion will consist of adding 60 individual cells for 120 men, 36 individual cells for 72 women and a dormitory for 48 women. Space will also be added for programming, offices, intake and work release area, storage, loading dock and corridor to serve the expansion. In addition localized remodeling within the existing building will occur as part of the project. The Correctional Facility is a conditional use in the Farm (f) zoning district in which it is located and a major expansion such as the one proposed requires a new conditional use permit. Section 44-1097 of the Maplewood City Code sets forth standards to be considered by the City in acting of a conditional use permit request. Following in bold type is a listing of the standards followed in regular type with explanation as to how the proposed project meets the stlmdard: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's comprehensive ptan and this Code. The property on which the Correctional Facility is located is designated "Government" on the City of Maplewood Land Use Plan and zoned "Farm (f)" on the City of Maplewood Zoning Map. As a governmental function use of the site for a correctional facility conforms to the comprehensive plan. As a conditional use in the Farm (f) zoning district the Correctional Facility may be expanded with issuance of a conditional use permit. The proposed expansion meets all requirements of the zoning ordinance, including the recently adopted Tree Preservation section. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. Single-family neighborhoods are located east of the Correctional Facility parcel across Century Avenue in Woodbury and southwest across Lower Afton Road. Land surrounding the subject parcel in other directions is undeveloped. Most of the space to be added to the Correctional Facility structure will occur to the north and west. While the level of activity on the site will increase due to the expansion of the Correctional Facility, the concentration of activity will continue to be in the expanded building and its immediate fenced environs. The single-family neighborhoods to the east and southwest are buffered from the existing structure by approximately 350 feet and 900 feet of distance, respectively. These distance buffers will be maintained and am ample to insulate the (:haracter of these neighborhoods from affect due to the expansIOn. Undeveloped parcels ofland are located 780 feet south of the existing structure across Lower Afton Road and 715 feet north of the existing structure abutting the subject parcel. Expansion of an existing loading dock but no building additions are proposed to the south side of the existing structure so the distance buffer from the structure in thi s direction will also be maintained. The addition on the north side wil1.reduce the distance between the main structure and the undeveloped parcel to the north from 715 fee:t to 565 feet, adequate so the planned character of that area will not change. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. Although activity level on the site will increase, as indicated in the response to the pro~vious standard, the concentration of activity on the site is and will continue to be in the structure and immediate fenced environs. The significant on-site distance- buffers between the conctmtration of activity and surrounding land, single-family neighborhoods and undeveloped land, that will be maintained will insulate surrounding land from property value impact. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause II nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage water runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other' nuisances. No negative impacts on any person or property are known to be occurring from the Correctional Facility as currently operated. While physical expansion of the facility is proposed and activity h:vel on-site is expected to increase, no change in manner of operations is planned that would cause foreseeable negative impacts of any type on persons or property. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. A1 present and as proposed most vehicles access the site from Century Avenue. Rumsey County is planning to commence the upgrading of Century Avenue to a four- lane divided road with left-turn lanes by the time the additional space is ready to be occupied. As part of this project the Correctional Facility's access to Century will be realigned directly across from an access to the single-family neighborhood east of C<mtury to reduce access points and congestion levels on Century and improve traffic flow and safety. A small increase in traffic on Century will occur as a result of the additions but this increast: will be mitigated by improvements to the road and realignment of the access. Many delivery and pickup vehicles and trucks access the sile from Lower Afton Road and the number of vehicle trips to the site using this access will not increase si.gnificantly as a result of the additions. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. The nature ofthe Correctional Facility use necessitates on-site security at all times and as a result no increase in demand for police services from the City of Maplewood due to the expansion is anticipated. Additions proposed to the building will be fully 2 sprinkled and a water line with hydrants loop around the complex. Emergency vehicular access to the building is available around much of its perimeter.. Rain gardens to infiltrate a one inch runoff over the new impervious surface have been designed into the plan. Existing water and sewer lines are adequate to serve the fadlity with the proposed additions though one additional sewer and one additional water service are planned to the north addition. Expansion of the Correctional Facility will not put additional demand on park facilities or services. The adequacy of streets to serve the expanded Correctional Facility was addressed in Number 5 above. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. As implied in the response to Number 6 above, no additional costs will be incurred by the City, School District or other public entities for public facilities or services required as a result of the proposed expansion. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. TIle predominate natural and scenic features on the site are trees located along the north side of the existing access drive from Century A venue, between the main structure and Century and. along the south edge of the existing parking lot. Expansion of the parking lot to the south will require the removal of the row of trees located along the south edge of the parking lot. A wetland located between the structure and Lower Afton Road will not be impacted as a result of the project. Two trees between th: structure and Century and five trees along the south edge of the parking lot that will be removed for the addition. To comply to the City of Maplewood's recently adopted tree preservation ordinance, as indicated on the landscape plan one new trees wi II be planted on the site' for each of the seven trees that are removed as part of the expansion project. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. In summary the proposed addition will cause minimal adverse environmental effects. While the activity level will increase activities will continue to be concentrated in and in close proximity to the main structure that is a considerable distance from either the single-family neighborhoods or the adjacent undeveloped land. Because of the significant distance buffers between the on-site concentration of activities and surrounding parcels, the impact of the additions to the building will be minimal. Although traffic will not increase significantly as a result ofthe project, Century Avenue is scheduled for 1m upgrade in the near future to mitigate any increase in traffic on Century that does occur. Rain gardens to aid in water quality are included in construction plans for the development. Existing facilities and services will be adequate to serve the facility with the addition and very little impact to the natural or scenic features will occur as a result of the additions. 3 -1UO JL~I11I(xJ I ,Ii:, .\'I:r]n;:'lpoii~. \1\' January 30, 2007 S::i\L_1flO ~5:)I;'} P,lanning Td ~(d.. .:-'i.:,')05 ' Ciyil Engineering 1-,1); 7(>3.-.j~'dt-;:~2 land Surveying i:;Jllli:(oi!r'\a:k<.:LC"-'Li:llL:C.C0I11 David Fisher, Building Official City of Maplewood 1830 County Road BEast Maplewood, Minn. 55109-2702 Landscape Architecture \\"\\'w.louckslollCk.\:l.'is(Jci'1::'5.com Re: Ramsey Co. Correctional Facility Expansion- Off Street Parking Supply and Demand Dear Mr. Fisher: This letter itemizes off street parking needs of the Ramsey County Correctional Facility and its associated expansion by component. This letter also compares off street parking proposed to meet parking needs in order to assure the City that parking proposed will be adequate to meet off-street parking needs. The existing 130,900 square foot building will be expanded by 56,500 square feet, or 43%. At the present time 97 off street parking spaces are provided and 47 additional spaces will be provided, a 48% expansion in off street parking. The prison population is typically dropped off by a law enforcement agency and picked up by friends, family or public transportation in the pick up zone in front of the building as shown on the site plan. The work release program now has approximately 40 inmates, of which about 25% or 10 park cars in the parking lot. With completion of the expansion, visitation will be by appointment only with a maximum of 22 visitors per 50- minute interval changing on the hour so 22 spaces will satisfy visitor demand. The facility is staffed continuously with the maximum shift being about 65 and the minimum about 20. Staff overlaps at shift change and 105 off street parking spaces will be required to meet the parking needs of the back-to-back shifts with the greatest sum total of employees. While some staff commute to and from work via public transportation this was not considered in sizing expansion of the parking lot. Based on the components of off street parking demand described above 137 spaces are required whereas 144 spaces are proposed. In summary the parking proposed will be adequate to meet off street parking needs for the Ramsey County Correctional Facility. A 43% expansion of the building is proposed. As a result of efficiencies gained from the expansion, off street parking needs will increase by less than this even though actual parking is proposed to increase by 48%. Please call me at 763-496-6738 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Loucks Associates, Inc. ~t!:~r' Planner ~n:-V=p "'- Env-ironmental ':,i_t"..... .\li:lllc';W<!li,. Sr.PJUI Attachment 8 Enl!ineerinl! Plan Review PROJECT: Ramsey County Correctional Facility Expansion PROJECT NO: 06-26 REVIEWED BY: Jon Jarosch, Civil Engineer 1 (Maplewood Engineering Department) SUBMITTAL NO: 1 DATE: 1-2-2007 Ramsey County is proposing to expand their Correctional Facility in Southern Maplewood. The building is currently 130,837 square feet. The proposed expansion is 63,500 square feet. The proposed expansion includes additional inmate housing, administrative areas, as well as additional paved areas to accommodate the higher volume of traffic onsite. To accommodate the increased stormwater runoff due to the increase in impervious area, the developer has suggested the use of rainwater gardens. These types of gardens have proven to be very effective at infiltrating and treating stormwater in the past, and will work well on this site. A review of all aspects of the project can be seen below. Drainage Svstem I. There are inconsistencies within the plan-set in regards to pipe sizes and lengths. The draintile beneath the rainwater gardens is shown to be 4" in diameter in one place and 6" in diameter in another. The overflow pipe coming out of rainwater garden number one is shown to be 12" in diameter on one page, and 15" diameter on another. These inconsistencies need to be clarified. 2. The overflow structures in both ponds are 48" in diameter with significantly smaller outlet pipes (12" and 15"). In the hydraulic calculations, the overflows are considered to be 48" in diameter, and do not take into account the much smaller outlet pipes. The hydraulic calculations for these pipes must be clearly shown to ensure that they are large enough. 3. The overflow structure and piping system for rainwater garden number 2 should be eliminated and replaced by an emergency overflow swale. This overflow swale must be lined with a turf reinforcement mat (Enkamat, NAG 350, or approved equal). Using a swale will reduce the concentrated flows associated with pipe outlets. The draintile piping could then be day lighted in the emergency overflow swale. 4. The overflow structure in rainwater garden number 1 is shown to have an overflow elevation of 1038' in the utility plan, but the hydraulic calculations show an overflow elevation of 1037'. An overflow elevation of 1037.5' could be used to contain the 10 andl100 year storm events. 5. There is no draintile piping displayed in the plan view for rainwater garden number two. The draintile piping beneath rainwater garden 1 is displayed to be roughly 100' long in the plan view, but only 70' long in the profile view and hydraulic calculations. Please clarify these inconsistencies. 6. The slope on the inflow pipe into rainwater garden number 1 is displayed at 4.0%. If the slope is calculated from the given invert elevations and length, the slope is actually 4.13%. Likewise the outgoing pipe slope is displayed as 4.0%. If the slope is calculated from the given information, the slope is actually 4.75%. These slopes need to be clarified and incorporated into the hydraulic calculations. 7. The slopes on the pipes entering and exiting rainwater garden number 1 are relatively high. At these slopes, the outlet velocities will be near 10 feet-per-second in a 100-year storm event. This kind of velocity will create a great deal of erosion if not properly accounted for. I would suggest lowering the upstream invert to lessen the pipe slope and the flow velocity. Outlet erosion protection must be clearly displayed and detailed within the plans. 8. There is a high probability for erosion at the curb cut for rainwater garden number 2. This area will have a concentrated flow from the parking lot which will erode the soils directly behind the curb. Sand and sediment from the parking lot will wash directly into the rainwater garden with this setup, which could potentially clog up the rainwater garden sump. For these reasons it is suggested that a sumped catch basin or manhole be installed here to convey the water from the parking lot to the garden. The sump should be at least 3' deep. 9. Catch basin number 3 shall have a sump, at least 3' deep, to provide sediment removal of runoff prior to it entering the pond. If this is not feasible for access purposes, it is recommended that catch basin number 2 be sumped instead. Ponding & Infiltration 1. Soil borings must be taken in all rainwater gardens and infiltration areas to ensure that infiltration rates assumed in hydraulic calculations are correct. If the soil borings indicate highly porous soils (sand), the draintile systems can be replaced with rock sumps per Maplewood Plate 115. 2. Rock-sumps must be placed within the rainwater gardens to promote infiltration of the storm-water runoff. These rock-sumps must be clearly displayed in the plan-view of the rainwater gardens. 3. The soils beneath the rainwater garden shall conform to those specified in Maplewood Standard Plate 115 and 116. These soils are specified to promote infiltration. 4. The rainwater garden sumps must be enveloped by a geotextile filtration fabric to prevent sedimentation of the sump. Please callout a Type V, High Flow Rate, Non Woven geotextile fabric (Propex 4553 or approved equal) for both rock-sumps. 5. Outlet erosion protection must be clearly displayed on the plans. 6. A storm sewer maintenance agreement must be signed by the owner for the maintenance of the rainwater gardens. This maintenance agreement will ensure that the rainwater gardens continue to perform as designed in the future. 7. A rainwater garden is recommended north of the expansion to treat runoff entering the ditch system. This is not a requirement. Wetlands 1. Wetlands must be delineated on the plans and include the delineation date and delineator's name. 2. The wetland appears to be very small on the plans. It must be shown where this runoff goes after leaving the wetland. Is the area suitable for conveying the runoff? This area may need stabilization mat to convey this high volume of water. Grading 1. There are proposed contours on the south end of rainwater garden number one that do not match in to the existing contours. Please revise. 2. All rainwater gardens shall be excavated to final bottom elevation after major grading is complete. Care must be taken to avoid compaction of bottom area in order to avoid losing the infiltration characteristics of the soil. If the rainwater garden or infiltration basin does not perform as designed, it is the responsibility ofthe developer's engineer and/or contractor to correct the problem. The city will withhold all escrow monies, and may coordinate with the city building department to withhold certificate of occupancies for buildings on the development site, until the proper functioning of the rainwater garden or infiltration basin is restored. Erosion & Sediment Control Plan 1. Clearly identify disturbed area by delineation on the plans and provide a numerical value of disturbed acreage. Any disturbance of one acre or more necessitates a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). The approved grading and erosion & sediment control plans shall be incorporated into the SWPPP. 2. Include a maintenance schedule of all erosion and sediment control devices used throughout the phases of construction (including building construction). 3. The silt fencing along the western side of the project, especially near the wetland should be heavy duty. This is necessary due to the relatively steep slopes at this end of the project. 4. Specify a location for equipment/material storage, debris stockpiles, fueling, and washing areas. 5. Specify a location and provide details for a concrete washout area. 6. Identify locations and provide details for stabilized construction accesses (rock entrance pads). 7. Identify the quantity of materials to be imported or exported from the site (cu-yd). 8. Describe measures of onsite dust control (i.e.... water as needed) and also provide a sweeping plan for adjacent streets. Landscaping I. The landscaping plan is shall be reviewed by city naturalist Virginia Gaynor. All conditions of her review shall be satisfied prior to implementation of the landscaping plan. SanitarY Sewer 1. The sanitary sewer line is shown to flow into the building (minor drafting error). Please revise. Agency Submittals 1. A set of plans must be submitted to Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for their review. 2. A set of plans must be submitted to Saint Paul Regional Water Services for their review. 3. This project will require a Service Availability Charge. To determine this charge, the MCES should be contacted. Miscellaneous 1. The developer or project engineer shall submit a copy of the MPCA's construction stormwater permit (SWPPP) to the city before the city will issue a grading permit for this project. 2. The owner and project engineer shall satisfy the requirements of all permitting agencies. Attachment 9 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Ramsey County applied for a conditional use permit for the expansion of the Ramsey County Correctional Facility. WHEREAS, Section 44-1092(1) of the city ordinances requires a conditional use permit for any public service or public building use. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property located at 297 Century Avenue South. The legal description is: EX PART SWLY OF NEW AFTON ROAD; NY. OF NE ~ & EX CRESTVIEW; PART NE OF AFTON RD OF SW ~ OF NE ~ & SE ~ OF NE ~ & NE ~ OF SE ~ (SUBJ TO RDS & PIPE LINE ESMT) IN SEC 12 TN 28 RN 22. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On March 6, 2007, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also considered the reports and recommendation of city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 2. On , 2007, the city council considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit, because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of the community development department may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 4. The applicant shall remove the existing temporary office building as part of this facility expansion. 5. Site lights shall be designed so the light source is not visible off site, shall not cause any glare beyond the property lines and not exceed maximum light-intensity requirements of the cityordinance. 6. The expansion to the south end of the parking lot shall be installed with the proposed building expansion. 7. The location of the future garages behind the building is approved. The applicant must submit the design of these buildings to the community design review board for approval before construction. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on ,2007. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner 2007 -2008 Comprehensive Plan Update February 26,2007 INTRODUCTION The Metropolitan Council is requiring all municipalities in the metro area to update their comprehensive plans by December 2008. To meet this schedule, the city will need to submit a complete plan update to the neighboring cities, the watershed district, affected school districts and to the Met Council by June 2008. This timeline will allow for each of these agencies to review and comment on the proposed plan by December 2008. I expect that it will take city staff, the consultants, the planning commission and the city council up to a year to complete the revisions and to review and adopt the new plan. As such, city staff should start work on the plan update by June 2007 and have significant parts of the plan updated and ready for review by the boards and commissions by January 2008. BACKGROUND To start the review process and based on discussions with city staff, I am proposing that staff start with a review and possible updates of the following elements of the plan: 1. The policies and goals from pages 7 and 8. 2. The goals and policies from the land use plan section (on pages 18 - 22). 3. The housing issues and goals on pages 59 - 65. The planning staff should be able to get the above-listed parts of the plan to the planning commission by March. 4. The transportation plan issues on pages 118 and 119. 5. The transportation goals and policies on pages 128 - 133. We will wait to review these two elements of the plan until the Public Works/Engineering staff has a chance to review these sections and possibly suggest changes to them. 6. The land use maps for areas that have inconsistent zoning and land use designations (from pages 26 and 27 of the plan). 7. The land use designations of areas that may need change or that may be ripe for change. Possible examples of this include: a. The area bounded by Highway 61, Larpenteur and Parkway Drive. b. The MnOot property at Highways 5 and 120. c. Feed Products at 1300 McKnight Road d. Any others? The planning staff should be able to have these above-listed parts of the plan to the planning commission for their review and comment by May. 8. Have the planning commission and the HRA review the entire housing plan. 9. Have the historical commission review and suggest updates to the Historic Resources Management Plan on pages 143 -147. The reviews of these sections should be done by July. There will be data and mapping elements of the plan that staff will have to update as part of the plan update process. Staff can work on these parts of the plan as time allows during the next 11 months. DISCUSSION Staff has attached to this memo several pages out of the existing plan. They include: 1. The policies and goals from pages 7 and 8. 2. The goals and policies from the land use plan section (on pages 18 - 22). 3. The housing issues and goals on pages 59 - 65. I had Erin Laberee, the Assistant City Engineer, review these goals and policies. She suggested changes to two of the existing goals and policies to reflect current practices in the city. They are: Page 19, the city should delete the last point (about NURP standards) and put the following language in its place: The city will require developments to infiltrate at least one inch of rainfall over impervious surfaces based on Ramsey-Washington Metro and Capitol Regions watershed district requirements. Page 20, the ninth bullet should read: The city may require the developer to fumish evidence, such as soil borinos and a soils report from a registered soil engineer, that areas with soil problems can be developed as proposed. Staff is not aware of any other suggestions or need for changes to any of the above-listed sections. City staff is presenting these sections to the planning commission for review and comment. If the planning commission wants to propose any other changes to any of these goals and policies, then they should discuss such changes during their meeting. Staff will use the feedback and input from the boards and commissions about these and all elements of the plan when proposing updates to the plan. RECOMMENDATION Review the attached policies and goals from the existing comprehensive plan and suggest changes, if necessary, for these elements. Staff will incorporate all changes into the comprehensive plan update as that project progresses through the city review process. P:Plan update memo 2 Attachments: 1. Pages 7-8 2. Pages 18-22 3. Pages 59-65 2 GOALS OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD GOALS Maplewood has developed a set of community-wide goals. They are the basis for the City's planning and development efforts. These goals are: · Human Rights Goal: The City will positively identify itself as a community that includes and respects all individuals and groups within it. There should not be limitations or discrimination based on religion, age, income, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic background or political belief. The City will protect each citizen's rights and encourage them to exercise their responsibilities as citizens. · Citizen Involvement Goal: The decisions and actions of City government should consider the needs and desires of its citizens. The City will provide a wide range of opportunities for citizen participation and community involvement in local decisions. · Communication Goal: The City will encourage and promote comrnunication with the public to achieve a high level of citizen participation and community involvement. · City Implementation Goal: The City will use a rational and democratic system to help the citizens, council and management decide about the use of resources. These decisions should help the City achieve its goals. In order to accomplish the goals listed above, the City has developed the following additional goals: · Cultural-Leisure Activity Goal: The City will encourage or provide opportunities for cultural and leisure activities for all citizens. · Economic Goal: The City will provide a supportive climate for business consistent with orderly developrnent and planning. · Employee Goal: The City will provide and develop highly-motivated, professional, experienced, productive and well-trained employees with high morale and with a stake in the City's future. · Finance Goal: The City will finance its activities so that they foster the City's growth, improve the citizens' lives and assure the City's financial stability. 7 3 Attachment 1 . Housing Goal: The City will encourage a .variety of housing which provides for a choice of type, location, price and ownership versus renting. Housing should be safe, sanitary, secure, comfortable, free from blight, with access to public streets, utilities, schools and parks. · Metropolitan Goal: The City will actively participate in finding solutions to metropolitan problems that affect the City or its citizens. · Public Services and Infrastructure Goal: The City will provide and maintain comprehensive, high-quality and cost-effective public services. The City will provide these services in a fair and democratic way. · Safety and Social Order Goal: The City will provide an environment to enjoy life in peace and freedom from criminal acts and preventable disasters. · Significant Natural Features Goal: The City will preserve, protect, conserve and use wisely its significant natural features. · Transportation Goal: The City will have a transportation system that is safe, efficient, minirnizes disruption, promotes better land development, improves the aesthetic appearance of the City and reduces air pollution. This system should provide transportation opportunities for citizens without cars. · Urban Design Goal: The City will strive to improve the appearance of the City, maintain compatible land uses, and encourage a sensitive integration among activities, man-made facilities and the natural environment. These are the City's overall goals. There also are specific goals and policies in each of the Comprehensive Plan elements. 8 4 Attachment 2 LAND USE PLAN PURPOSE The Land Use Plan interrelates with all elements, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the Land Use Plan is to designate the type, location and density of land uses in the City. In doing this, the City considered the following items: a. Community goals and objectives. b. Natural features. c. Supportive elernents, such as transportation, drainage systems and utilities. d. Existing and future problerns. e. Coordination with surrounding communities and metropolitan facilities. GOALS The City government has a strong influence on the way a community develops. Community facilities and laws can stimulate or retard development. While the workings of the real estate market help determine the uses of land, these uses are regulated by City government. The City is the only entity with an opportunity to coordinate overall development in the City. The following are the City's overall land use goals: · Provide for orderly development. · Protect and strengthen neighborhoods. · Promote economic development that will expand the property tax base, increase jobs and provide desirable services. · Preserve significant natural features where practical. · Minimize the land planned for streets. · Minimize conflicts between land uses. 18 5 . Prevent premature use, overcrowding or overuse of land, especially when supportive services and facilities, such as utilities, drainage systems or streets, are not available. . Provide a wide variety of housing types. . Provide safe and attractive neighborhoods and commercial areas. . Integrate developments with open space areas, community facilities and significant natural features. · Maintain and upgrade environmental quality and, where needed, reclassify land uses. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT POLICIES The following general development policies are intended to implement the previous goals: · The City will not approve new development without providing for adequate facilities and services, such as streets, utilities, drainage, parks and open space. · Safe and adequate access will be provided for all properties. · Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments. · Whenever possible, changes in types of land use should occur so that similar uses front on the same street or at borders of areas separated by major man.made or natural barriers. · The City requires all development to meet state and federal laws, including Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) regulations, unless a variance is obtained from the regulating agency. · The City may require that a developer do sound tests to verify compliance with MPCA regulations. t:-) Grading and site plans should preserve as many significant natural features as practical. · The City requires drainage and erosion control plans with new developments. Such plans shall not increase the rate of runoff and shall prevent erosion. · The City will use the National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards for the design of new storm water ponds. 19 6 . Maplewood will use the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's (MPCA's) urban best management practices when reviewing any proposed development to reduce non point source pollution in storm water. · The City will not remove land from the tax rolls unless it is in the public interest. . The City supports the improvement, replacement or redevelopment of substandard or incompatible development. . The City coordinates its planning with neighboring communities. . The City applies its development policies and ordinances consistently and uniformly. · The City coordinates land use changes with the character of each neighborhood. · The City regulates development near or the alteration of natural drainage systems to manage storm water runoff. · The City uses the Ramsey County Soli Survey to identify areas with soils that are not suitable for building sites. · The City may require the developer to furnish evidence from a registered soil engineer that areas with problems can be developed as proposed. · The City considers the recommendations of the area Watershed organizations in the review of development requests. · The City will notify the MNDOT Commissioner at least thirty days before considering any proposal that would extend more than 200 feet above ground level at the site. · The City will coordinate development reviews (plats, site plans, environmental documents, traffic studies, capital improvements) with MNDOT for proposals aiong state and interstate highways. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT POLICIES The following are the City's residential development policies: · Plan residential neighborhoods, with schools and parks as the hub. Natural or man-made physical barriers should not traverse, but set the boundaries of the neighborhood. 20 7 . Include a variety of housing types for all types of residents, regardless of age, ethnic, racial, cultural or socioeconomic background. A diversity of housing types should include apartments, townhouses, manufactured homes, single-family housing, public-assisted housing and low. and moderate-income housing, and rental and owner-occupied housing. . Disperse low- and moderate-income developments throughout the City, rather than concentrating them in one area or neighborhood. Such housing should be near bus lines or have access to other public transportation. . Support innovative subdivision and housing design. . Support the use of planned unit developments for sites with development challenges to allow for creative design solutions. . Protect neighborhoods from activities that produce excessive noise, dirt, odors or which generate heavy traffic. . Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffering and separation. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT POLICIES The following are the City's commercial and industrial development policies: . Group compatible businesses in suitable areas. . Provide attractive surroundings in which to shop and work. . Require adequate off-street parking and loading facilities. i~ \. ) Promote the joint use of parking areas, drives and trash containers. 8 Avoid disruption of adjacent or nearby residential areas. . Use planned unit developments wherever practical. Maintain orderly transitions between commercial and residential areas. · Require commercial and industrial developers to make all necessary improvements to ensure compatibility with surrounding residential uses. · Require adequate screening or buffering of new or expanded commercial areas from any adjacent existing or planned residential development 21 8 . Plan land uses and streets to route non-residential traffic around residential neighborhoods. . . Restrict commercial and industrial development that would result in traffic volumes which are beyond the capacity of the road systems or generate excessive noise or pollution as defined by state standards. EXISTING LAND USE The City has a variety of land uses, ranging from a regional rnall to parks and open space. Table 3 gives a breakdown by acreage and relative percentage of the basic land use classifications from 1980, 1984 and 1998.. TABLE 3 LAND USE TRENDS, 1980 -1998 (in acres) % of % of % of 1980 Total 1984 Total 1998 Total Single Dwellings 3438 29.7 3503 30.3 3873 33.5 Multiple Dwellings 181 1.6 213 1.8 695 6.0 Public & Recreation 1023 8.9 1023 8.9 3000 26.0 Public & Semi-Public 638 5.5 640 5.6 731 6.3 Streets 298 2.6 317 2.7 388 3.4 Industrial 389 3.4 401 3.5 945 8.2 Commercial 459 4.0 530 4.6 661 5.7 Lakes 410 3.5 410 3.5 410 3.5 Undeveloped 4718 40.8 4517 39.1 859 7.4 Totals: 11,554 100 11,554 100 11,562 100 Sources: 1980, 1984 - Metropolitan Council 1998 - Maplewood city staff Residential Land Use Most of the City's residential development has been single family homes. They make up about 34 percent of the total land area. The rest of the residential land is a mixture of multiple dwellings and manufactured home parks. Most of the older homes are in the Gladstone neighborhood. They are 1-1/2 story expansion homes built after World War II. The City has recently seen the construction of higher-valued homes in the lower leg, the Hillside neighborhood and the area northeast of Kohlman Lake. Maplewood has a variety of multiple dwellings, ranging frorn owner-occupied condominiums and townhomes to rental apartments. In addition, there are five manufactured home parks. 22 9 Attachment 3 L1VABLE,COMMUNITIES ACT On Novernber 13, 1995, the Maplewood City Council adopted a resolution to participate in the Metropolitan Livable Cornmunities Act. This act requires the participating communities to adopt housing agreements and to set an action plan for housing activities. A major focus of the Livable Communities Act is to promote the development and preservation of affordable and Iife-cycle housing throughout the rnetropolitan area. The Metropolitan Council considers affordable housing to be housing that costs no more than 30 percent of a family's income. In 2000, an owner-occupied housing unit could cost up to $134,250 for the Metropolitan Council to consider it affordable. For rental properties to be affordable in 2000, the rents could be up to $616 a month for a one- bedroom unit and up to $760 per month for a two-bedroom unit. HOUSING ISSUES The following are City housing issues: · What steps, if any, should the City and its Housing and Redevelopment Authority take to increase the amount of affordable housing? · Is the City planning enough land for altemative housing types? If not, what changes should the City make? · What steps can the City take to prevent the deterioration or abandonment of its older housing stock? . What steps can the City take to prevent neighborhoods frorn deteriorating? · What strategies can the City develop to encourage developers to build a variety of housing styles and types in both new developrnents and infill developrnent projects? · Are there adequate services and facilities within each neighborhood to meet the needs of existing and planned populations? · How can the City preserve some of its natural features and beauty as the community grows? · Will future housing meet the needs of the increasing nurnber of nontraditional households, particularly single-parent families? 59 10 HOUSING GOALS AND POLICIES . GENERAL HOUSING GOALS The following are general housing goals in Maplewood: · Have a balanced housing supply, with housing available for people at all income levels. · Accommodate all racial and ethnic groups in the purchase, sale, rental and location of housing in the City. · Have a variety of housing types for ownership and rental for people in all stages of the life-cycle. · Have a community of well-maintained housing and neighborhoods, including ownership and rental housing. · Promote housing development that respects the natural environment of the City while striving to meet the need for a variety of housing types and costs. · Promote the availability of a full range of services and facilities for its residents, and the improvement of access to and linkage between housing and employment. · Add to and preserve the affordable housing in the City. Maplewood will make its best effort, given market conditions and resource availability, to maintain a City-housing index within the benchmark ranges for affordability, Iife-cycle and density. Specifically, the City will strive to meet the following housing benchmarks: · At least 69 percent of ownership and 35 percent of the rental housing as affordable. · At least 29 percent of the housing as units other than single-family detached. · An owner/renter housing mix of 76 percent owner occupied and 24 percent occupied by renters. · Have single-family detached houses with an average density of 3 units per acre and multifamily housing with an average density of at least 10 units per acre. 60 11 Housing Affordability Housing cosls continue to rise throughout the region for a variety of reasons. These include increasing land and construction costs, utilities and taxes, declines in government aid programs and, indirectly, land use regulations. These cost increases greatly affect low-and moderate-income households. Changes in mortgage interest rates also affect the affordability of housing. The Metropolitan Council set a goal that at least 69 percent of the ownership housing and at least 35 percent of the rental housing in Maplewood should be affordable. As of 1999, the City was exceeding both minimurn benchmarks. The City will continue to try to meet or exceed these goals with the following policies and activities: Financing · The City, through its Housing and Redevelopment Authority, will explore all avenues for financing affordable housing, including: - Use of tax-exempt and tax-increment financing. - Programs, including grants, loans and federal tax credits, for housing assistance, development and rehabilitation. The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency has the following programs: Minnesota Mortgage Program Homeownership Assistance Fund Purchase Plus Program Partnership for Affordable Housing Entry Cost Homeownership Program (ECHO) Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program New Construction Tax Credit Mortgage/Builders Loans Low and Moderate Income Rental Program Deferred Loan Program Revolving Loan Program Great Minnesota Fix-Up Fund Mortgage Revenue Bonds Mortgage Credit Certificates (MCCs) - Programs available through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. These include: Section 8 Rental Vouchers and Certificates Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME) Section 202 - elderly Section 811 - handicapped 61 12 - Programs and funds available through the Metropolitan Housing and Redevelopment Authority and through the Metropolitan Council's Livable Communities Act. - Community Development Block Grants and other programs through Ramsey County. Maplewood already participates in several of the above-listed programs with the other government agencies and with developers. Rental Assistance . The City, through the HRA, will continue to participate in rental assistance programs, including those available through the Metropolitan HRA and the federal government Energy Efficiency . The City will promote energy efficient improvements in all types of housing units to help keep them affordable. Maplewood will provide information and, when available, financial help for both owner-occupled and rental units. HOUSING DIVERSITY Most of Maplewood's housing is single-family homes. The Metropolitan Council has a goal calling for each community to provide 41 percent of its housing stock in housing types other than single-farnily homes. From 1990 through June 1998, 33 percent of the housing units built in Maplewood were not single-family homes. The City will continue to work toward this goal with the following general policy: . Promote a variety of housing types, costs and ownership options throughout the City. These are to meet the Iife-cycle needs of all income levels, those with special needs and non-traditional households. The City also adopts the following specific housing diversity policies: Land Use Plan . Maplewood will continue to provide dispersed locations for a diversity of housing styles, types and price ranges through its land use plan. 62 13 Ordinance Provisions . . The city will regularly review and, as necessary, change its zoning and subdivision regulations, building codes, design standards and approval process. This is to assure that these regulations and standards are flexible enough to allow a variety of housing options and to help lessen the cost of residential development and redevelopment. Such issues and regulations that Maplewood will review include: . The amount of undeveloped or underused land that the city has planned or zoned for medium or high density residential development - Planned unit development (PUD), mixed-use and cluster development ordinances that include residential density bonuses. - The flexibility to use zero lot line development - Minimum unit size or floor areas. - Garage and off-street parking requirements (especially for seniors). - The use of private streets In developments. - Minimum right-of-way, pavement widths and standards for streets. - Allowing accessory or mother/father-in-Iaw apartments. Housing for the Elderly and Disabled . The City will make efforts to plan and provide for the housing and service needs of the elderly and disabled. Nontraditional Households . The City will encourage development of housing and services which meet the needs of nontraditional households. NEIGHBORHOOD QUALITY It is important to assure that the efforts to provide )ife-cycle housing are accomplished so that it is compatible with the character of existing neighborhoods and with respect to the environment. 63 14 It also is important to prevent housing in older neighborhoods from deteriorating. Much of this housing was built before Maplewood became a village, when building codes were not in place. There also are deteriorating housing units scattered throughout the City. In the future, these units may become less attractive to home buyers, thereby depreciating housing values. Figure 20 (page 65) identifies the areas in Maplewood of most concern. To address these concerns, the City adopts the following policies: 1. Plan and design new housing to: · Protect existing housing, natural features, and neighborhood identity and quality. . Assure there are adequate utilities, community facilities and convenient shopping. 2. Maintain or strengthen the character of neighborhoods and assure that all housing units are safe, sanitary, secure and free from blight The City also adopts the following neighborhood quality policies: Ordinance Provisions · The City will work to protect the Integrity and long-term viability of residential neighborhoods and reduce potential negative effects of commercial or industrial land uses through zoning, site plan review and code enforcement. · Maplewood will require and enforce high design and maintenance standards for multi-family residential development Design standards will include provisions about building massing, architectural design, off-street parking ratios and location, access, traffic Impacts, landscaping, fencing or screening, and trash handling. Locational Aspects · The City will allow affordable housing in any location suitable for residential uses. Environmental Considerations · The City will assure that new development respects the natural environment to the maximum practical extent 64 15 . Maplewood will continue to use its Shoreland, Floodplain and Environmental Protection Ordinances to assure protection of lakes, streams, ponds, wetlands, steep slopes and woodlots. Housing Maintenance Code . The City will continue to encourage the maintenance of its housing through its housing maintenance codes. The City's truth-In-housing program also should encourage housing maintenance. Maintenance Assistance . The City, through Its Housing and Redevelopment Authority, will participate in programs to help property owners with home maintenance and improvements through loans and, if available, grants. HOUSING ACTION PLAN . Table 13 on pages 67 and 68 lists activities that the City should undertake to carry out the Housing Plan. 65 16