Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/09/1998BOOK AGENDA MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD June 9, 1998 6:00 P.M. City Council Chambers Maplewood City Hall 1830 East County Road B 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes - May 26, 1998 4. Approval of Agenda 5. Unfinished Business a. Roof-Equipment Screening Appeal- Good Samaritan Nursing Home, 550 Roselawn Avenue 6. Design Review a. Cardinal Pointe Seniors Housing - Presentation Homes, Hazelwood Street 7. Visitor Presentations 8. Board Presentations 9. Staff Presentations a. CDRB Representative for Council Meetings: Monday, June 22 - Marie Robinson Monday, July 13 - Volunteer Needed b. Next CDRB Meeting is June 23 10. Adjourn p:com-dvpt\cdrb.agd WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD This outline has been prepared to explain the review process of this meeting. The review of an item usually follows this format. 1. The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed. e The chairperson will ask the applicant or developer of the project up to the podium to respond to the staff's recommendation regarding the proposal. The Gommunity Design Review Board will then discuss the proposed project with the applicant. 3. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. 4. After everyone is the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting. 5. The Board will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. 6. The Board will then make its recommendations or decision. 7. Most decisions by the Board are final, unless appealed to the City Council. You must notify the Gity staff in writing within 15 days to register an appeal. kd/misc\cdrb.agd Revised: 6-18-93 MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MAY 26, 1998 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Erickson called the meeting to order at 6 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Marvin Erickson Present Marie Robinson Present Ananth Shankar Present Tim Johnson Present Matt Ledvina Present III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 12, 1998 Boardmember Shankar moved approval of the minutes of May 12, 1998, as submitted. Boardmember Robinson seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OFAGENDA Boardmember Johnson moved approval of the agenda as submitted. Boardmember Shankar seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Billboard Request, 1255 E. Highway 36 (Metcalf Mayflower) - Universal Outdoor, Inc. and Alan Metcalf Alan Metcalf, owner of Metcalf Mayflower, was present. Mr. Metcalf said that there was 9-1/2 years left on the lease they have with the Universal Sign Company and that Universal Sign Company has no intention of removing the sign. Mr. Metcalf said they may not be able to go through with the building project because their bank has told them they have to get a release from Universal Sign Company saying that they either would remove the sign or that the sign would be moved to another location. Mr. Metcalf said that if the sign were permitted to be moved they would guarantee that after the 9-1/2 year lease expired the sign would be removed and that there would be no other sign on their property by an outdoor sign company, such as, Universal. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 05-26-98 -2- Staff said they had approached Mr. Metcalf with the idea of an alternative location but Mr. Metcalf said that the sign company would not go with that location, it would be either as they proposed it or it stays where it is and then that conflicts with their building proposal. Staff recommended denial of the conditional use permit. Mr. Metcalf said the reason the sign company won't take the alternate location is because they feel it sets it back off the highway too far for visibility. Boardmember Robinson said that this issue came up a couple of months ago and she wanted to know why nothing was brought up at that time. Mr. Metcalf said that, at the time, the Universal Sign Company said that they saw no problem with it and they would apply for the permits. Metcalf didn't get involved until they found out the movement of the sign was not approved and that is when Universal said they were not going to move the sign. Boardmember Shankar asked how the existing location conflicts with the building proposal. Mr. Metcalf said that the present location of the sign, they feel, would detract from the appearance of their building. Boardmember Erickson asked if the new building could be moved back a little. Mr. Metcalf said if they moved the building back then they would cut down on the rentable space. Staff said the sign, if it were left where it is, would be right in the middle of the proposed parking lot. Boardmember Ledvina moved that the Community Design Review Board deny the conditional use permit for the relocation of the billboard on the Metcalf Mayflower property, 1255 E. Highway 36. Denial was based on the following reasons: The proposed billboard would not be located to be in conformity with the city code of ordinances because of its substantially reduced setback from the Metcalf Mayflower building. The applicant proposed an 11-foot setback--the code requires 100 feet. 2. The proposed billboard would appear to crowd the building and, therefore, give a cluttered appearance. 3. The city previously denied a conditional use permit for a billboard that would have had less aesthetic impact along Highway 36 than the proposed billboard. Boardmember Johnson seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 05-26-98 VI. DESIGN REVIEW A. Side Yard Setback Variance and Design Review - First Financial Center Tony Sampair, the applicant, was present. Mr. Sampair said that he could meet all of the recommendations in the staff report. Boardmember Ledvina asked if the driveway, that is blocked by the rock berm, would be eliminated. Mr. Sampair said they would be eliminating the driveway. Boardmember Erickson asked where the trash dumpster would be located. Staff said it would be located in the northeast corner and would have an opaque gate on the front of it. Boardmember Erickson asked if there would be a preblem with cars coming into the parking lot at night and the lights shining across to the Emerald Inn. Mr. Sampair said they don't operate at night, their business hours are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., so this shouldn't be a problem. Boardmember Erickson asked about signage. Mr. Sampair said that in the front of the building there would be a pedestal sign with the name of the financial center and names of the tenants on it. The sign facing the freeway would say Remax. The sign on the building would say ReMax First on the side towards the freeway, lit up like the sign at the Emerald Inn but not as large. Staff stated that signage could be handled at staff level if there were no more than four businesses in the building. If there are five or more businesses it would have to come before the board. Boardmembers asked about the materials and colors of the building. Mr. Sampair said he didn't have samples with him but he could get them and give them to staff. Mr. Sampair said there would be no brick on the second level which was not shown on the plans date-stamped May 13th. They have decided to go with stucco on the second level because it would be more cost effective and it would not affect the appeal of the structure. Boardmember Robinson asked if anything else had changed on the plans. Mr. Sampair said there was nothing else. Boardmember Ledvina had concerns about the screening on the east side of the site. Staff said there was sufficient screening, in that, the dwelling on the east side was 225 feet away from the lot line and there are a lot of trees in between. Boardmember Ledvina would like to see conifer trees planted in this area. Mr. Sampair suggested that he could put in a three foot high berm and have the trees at the lower spots of the berm. The board decided to leave this open and suggested the applicant do what would be best to avoid problems down the read. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 05-26-98 Boardmember Robinson moved the Community Design Review Board: Adopt a resolution approving a 20-foot side yard building setback variance and a five-foot parking side yard setback parking lot variance for the proposed office building project east of 2025 E. County Road D. Approval is based on the following reasons: Requiring side yard parking and building setbacks to meet code would result in an unattractive and ill-conceived site plan because the building would be crowded toward the west lot line. The adjacent lot to the east is planned for BC (business commercial) and will be considered for a land use plan change to BC in the near future by the city staff. Complying with the code would cause the applicant undue hardship because of the inconsistency of the zoning and land use designation for the lot to the east. The proposed variances would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance because the house on the abutting lot is 225 feet away and is screened by mature trees. Approve the plans date-stamped May 13, 1998, for the proposed First Financial building east of 2025 E. County Road D. Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to the following conditions: Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Before getting a building permit the applicant shall: a. Submit grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans for city engineer approval. b. Revise the site plan for staff approval by: (1) Omitting the driveway connection to the adjacent lot. (2) Adding one more handicap-accessible parking space for a total of 58 parking spaces. (3) Providing a 15-foot parking-lot setback from the north lot line. 3. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: Install a handicap parking sign for each handicap parking space. Handicap spaces must comply with ADA requirements. One space must be van accessible. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 05-26-98 -5- .b. Paint any rooftop mechanical equipment to match the color of the upper part of the building. (code requirement) Construct a trash dumpster enclosure to match the building with a 100 percent opaque gate. (code requirement) do Install an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. (code requirement) e. Direct or shield the site lights so they do not shine in driver's eyes. f. Provide continuous concrete curbing around all parking lots and drives. Post the nine-foot-wide parking spaces for employees only. (code requirement) Parking spaces for visitors or customers must be at least 9 ~ feet wide. Sod all turf areas, including the boulevard, except planting beds if a different ground cover or mulch is to be used. 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 200 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter or within six weeks if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. Signs are not approved in this review. The applicant must submit the sign plans to staff for approval and obtain the necessary sign permits. 6. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. Plans shown with brick on the second story, at the applicant's request, we are approving no brick but stucco on the second story exterior. Boardmember Ledvina seconded. Ayes--all The motion passed. Community Design Review Board Minutes of 05-26-98 -6- VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS There were no visitor presentations. VIII, BOARD PRESENTATIONS There were no board presentations. Xl, STAFF PRESENTATIONS A. Representative for June 22 City Council Meeting: Ms. Robinson will attend this meeting. B. The next Community Design Review Board meeting will be on June 9. X, ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 6:55. p:com-dvpt\cdrb.min MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner Roof Equipment Screening Waiver - Good Samaritan Nursing Home 550 Roselawn Avenue June 2, 1998 INTRODUCTION Tad V. Hoskins, Operations Manager for Helgeson Development Company Inc., is requesting that the community design review board (CDRB) waive the screening requirement for the new roof equipment installed at the Good Samaritan Nursing Home, 550 Roselawn Avenue. Helgeson Development is the contractor for Good Samaritan's recent building addition. Refer to the maps on pages 4-6 and the letter on page 7. BACKGROUND Past Action October 14, 1996: The city council approved the following for Good Samaritan: 1. A land use plan change from R-1 (single dwelling) to R-3H (multiple dwellings - high density). 2. A rezoning from R-1 (single dwelling residential) to R-3 (multiple dwelling residential). 3. A conditional use permit (CUP) for the expansion of a nursing home. 4, The building and site plans. Code Requirement Section 36-27(b)(3) requires screening for mechanical equipment on the roof if the equipment would be visible from a residential lot line. Roof-top equipment is defined as mechanical equipment, vents, exhaust hoods, stacks and similar items on top of a building. Roof-top equipment shall not include chimneys, plastic plumbing vents and antennas. The city shall not require screening for single dwellings, double dwellings, mobile homes or equipment'for individual town house units. The community design review board may waive the screening requirement for mechanical equipment if they determine that screening would not improve a building's appearance or protect property values. The community design review board may require screening on all sides of roof- top equipment if the premises abuts a residential lot line, not just the side facing the residential lot line. The review board may also require modification of architectural plans for taller parapets or modified roof designs to conceal roof-top equipment no matter where the building is located. The community design review board may also require screening if needed for sound reduction around the equipment. In all instances, roof-top equipment that is visible from any public street or adjoining property shall be painted to match the building. Screening, when required, shall be compatible with the materials and design of the building and subject to staff or design review board approval. DISCUSSION The city council's motion required that "the new roof-top mechanical equipment shall be painted to match the building and the need for screening shall be reviewed by staff." Upon final inspection, I determined that the units were visible and screening was needed. Furthermore, the units have not been painted. Staff has mixed viewpoints with this request. There is some merit in waiving the screening requirement because of the large amount of highly visible, unscreened equipment on the original building. Requiring screening of the new units on the addition, with the large amount of unscreened vents, ducts and mechanical units still visible, would not be very beneficial to the aesthetics of the building. On the other hand, the addition is closest to the nearby homes and is the part of the building most easily seen from those properties. The goal of the ordinance is to require screening to soften the view for these nearby home owners. With this last point in mind, staff recommends that the board uphold their earlier requirement for screening the roof-top units on the addition. If the CDRB chooses to waive the screening requirement, staff would recommend that the applicant paint the new units to match the building as originally required. If the units are screened, painting would not be needed. RECOMMENDATION Take no action, thereby requiring the applicant to screen the new roof-top mechanical equipment on the Good Samaritan addition at 550 Roselawn Avenue. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 3.6 acres Existing land use: Good Samaritan Nursing Home SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Roselawn Avenue, single dwellings and Edgerton Elementary School South: Single dwellings West: Single dwellings East: Single dwellings PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: R-3 Zoning: R-3 p:sec17\goodsam.apl Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Site Plan 4. Applicant's Letter dated June 1, 1998 3 Attachment 1 LOCATION MAP N Attachment 2 SCHOOL DISTRIC~ I ! ~23 EDGERTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ~1~1938 f930 58 ,.<.. ( 500- 510 )D SAMAI; -- 539 '= 557 512 52Z AV )05' :1889; .~1 FOREST LAWN CEMETERY ? s'r. PAUL CEME'TERY C PLAT A o? Attachment 3 LOT T ROEELAWN AVENUE EXIBTINQ BUILDING EXISTING RECEIVING AREA ~'---'=---=-~m~ ....... - ....... - ..... --- t' :~ /7_- - - r- ........ '">"'"i ~ I .... 'l__-_r~-*l - U ~_.LJ U ~ EXIBTING &-~ PARKING LOT ~ SITE PLAN N 06/01/98 M0N 15:45 FA~ ~ _--. Clty of Maplewood ~.~' - Attention: Tom Exstrand ~ 1830 East County Road B · ~i. Maplewood, MN 55109-201 ~]OOl Attachment 4 DEVELOPMENT COMPANY INC. Consultants and Contractors SPECIALIZING IN SENIOR HOUSING OPTIONS Mr. Exstrand: ASwe discussed earlier today, I would like to address the Design Review Board at their meeting of June 9, 1998. The topic that is of concern to me is an irrevocable letter of credit issued by First American Bank for Helgeson Development Co., Inc. To the best of my knowledge, all of the issues have been addressed except for the potential need for roof-top enclosures. It is very important that this issue gets attention soon in order to allow my workers time to complete any additional work before the July 1st deadline. If you need any more information, please call me. at the n~mber listed below. Thank you for your assistance in thiS matter. sincere / / Tad V. Hoskins, Operations Manager HELGESON DEVELOPMENT CO., INC. 1221 First Street Northeast · Sartell, MN 56377 (320) 255-0085 · FAX (320) 252-5860 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: APPLICANT: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Cardinal Pointe Hazelwood Street, between Beam Avenue and County Road D Presentation Homes (Paul Sentman) June 2, 1998 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Paul Sentman, representing Presentation Homes, is proposing to build 108 units of senior housing. He is proposing to build this project on a 6.75-acre site on the west side of Hazelwood Street between Beam Avenue and County Road D. (See the location map on page 12 and the property line/zoning map on page 13.) The project would be a 3-story apartment building with underground parking for 108 cars. There would be 14 one-bedroom units, 94 two-bedroom units, and a dining room, a craft room, a sun room, patio and office near the center of the first floor. There also would be a storm shelter in the garage area of the building. Requests To build the development, the applicant is requesting that the city approve the following: A change in the city's land use plan. This change would be from M-1 (light manufacturing) to RH (residential high density). (See the existing and proposed land use plan maps on pages 14 and 15.) City staff also is proposing that the city drop the planned major collector street that would connect Highway 61 and Hazelwood Street between Beam Avenue and County Road D. This street would have gone through this site and through a wetland. A conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for a 108-unit senior citizen housing development. The applicant is requesting the CUP because the M-1 (light manufacturing) zoning limits the uses in the district to commercial and industrial activities and prohibits residential uses. (See the property line/zoning map on page 13.) A reduction in the number of city code required parking spaces. Code requires two spaces for each unit or 216 spaces. The proposed site plan (page 16) shows a total of 149 parking spaces on the site. These include 108 underground garage spaces and 41 uncovered spaces near the apartments. In addition, the plan also shows 69 future parking spaces along the proposed driveways. 4. Design approval. DISCUSSION Land Use Plan Changes This is a good site for senior housing. It is on a major collector street (Hazelwood Street) and close to an arterial street (Beam Avenue), Saint John's Hospital, parks and open space and, of course, shopping. The project should be a good neighbor to the nearby homes. Seniors are quiet neighbors and there would be a ponding area between the building and the homes to the east and north. This senior housing project would be a transitional land use between single dwellings and commercial and light manufacturing uses. As proposed, the 108 units on the 6.75-acre site means there would be 16 units per acre. This is consistent with the maximum density standards in the comprehensive plan for apartment buildings with more than 50 units. One should note that the city shows the land use plan designation for all the area east of Hazelwood Street (including the existing houses on the east side of Hazelwood Street) as BC (business commercial). (See the existing and proposed land use maps on pages 14 and 15.) This designation means that the city expects this area to eventually be developed or used for commercial land uses. As I noted earlier, city staff is proposing that the city drop a planned major collector street from the land use plan. This street would have been between Beam Avenue and County Road D and would have connected Highway 61 and Hazelwood Street. After reviewing the area, staff determined that this street would have gone through a wetland and probably on part of the golf course. There also are concerns about the suitability of the soils near the wetland and golf course for building a street. Conditional Use Permit The applicant has applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for a planned unit development (PUD) for the 108-unit senior citizen housing development. They are requesting the CUP because the M-1 (light manufacturing) zoning limits the uses to commercial and manufacturing activities. A concern that Acting Police Chief Ryan noted with this proposal is the impact on emergency services (especially medic services) that senior housing has. He stated that over one-half of the medic runs that the city makes are to senior housing locations. Having more senior housing does have an impact on the police and fire departments. The city council should recognize this impact when reviewing this proposal. Even with this concern, the city should approve the CUP since the proposal meets the criteria for a conditional use permit. Reduced Parking Spaces As proposed, the number of parking spaces should be adequate for a senior housing development. The ratio of spaces to units is similar to the Village on Woodlynn senior project (the former Cottages of Maplewood) and the Carefree Cottages on Gervais Avenue. Multiple dwellings limited to seniors usually have fewer cars per unit than multiple dwellings that are not restricted to seniors. The city has recognized this by approving other senior housing projects with fewer parking spaces. (See the list on page 9.) Design Approval Building Design and Exterior Materials The proposed building is attractive. It would have an exterior of vinyl shake siding with cultured stone accents and the roof would have asphalt shingles. (See the drawings on pages 19 and 25.) The proposed building would have 3 stories above grade and an underground parking area. Landscaping The proposed plans keep many of the existing mature trees on the south end of the site. As proposed, the developer would plant several black hills spruce trees between the proposed storm water pond and Hazelwood Street, north of the north driveway. These trees would provide some screening of the site from the houses on the east side of Hazelwood Street. The neighbors across Hazelwood from the site have requested that the developer plant more trees on the berm between the driveways. By moving some of the proposed trees from the west side of the building and adding more trees to the site, the developer could meet this request. RECOMMENDATIONS Approve the resolution on page 26. This resolution changes the land use plan from M-1 (light manufacturing) to RH (residential high density) for the 6.75-acre site of the Cardinal Pointe senior housing development. This resolution also drops the planned major collector street between Beam Avenue and County Road D that would have connected Highway 61 and Hazelwood Street. The city bases these changes on the following findings: 1. This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for high-density residential use. This includes: a. Creating a transitional land use between the existing Iow density residential and commercial land uses. b. It is on a collector street and is near Saint John's Hospital, shopping, an arterial street, parks and open space. 2. This development will minimize any adverse effects on surrounding properties because: a. The proposed on-site pond and large setback from the street will separate the senior housing from nearby homes. b. Studies have shown there will be no adverse effect on property values. c. There would be no traffic from this development on existing residential streets. The city does not plan to build the proposed collector street between Beam Avenue and County Road D that would connect Highway 61 and Hazelwood Street because the existing wetlands and golf course would make it difficult to build a street in this area. Appreve the resolution on page 27. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the Cardinal Pointe senior housing development. The city bases this approval on the findings required by code. (Refer to the resolution for the specific findings.) Approval is subject to the following conditions: All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped May 11, 1998. The city council may appreve major changes. The director of community development may appreve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council appreval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. The owner shall not convert this development to non-seniors housing without the revision of the planned unit development. For this permit, the city defines seniors housing as a residence occupied by persons that are 62 years of age or older. 4. There shall be no outdoor storage of recreational vehicles, boats or trailers. Residents shall not park trailers and vehicles that they do not need for day-to-day transportation on site. If the city decides there are excess parking spaces available on site, then the city may allow the parking of these on site. 6. If the city council decides there is not enough on-site parking after the building is 95 percent occupied, the city may require additional parking. The developer shall provide an on-site storm shelter in the apartment building. This shelter shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Emergency Preparedness. It shall have a minimum of three square feet per pereon for 80% of the planned population. The developer shall give the city a market study. This study must document that there will be enough demand from seniors (62 or older) to keep this a senior housing project. The city must approve this study. 9. The city council shall review this permit in one year. *The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or a building permit. Appreve 149 parking spaces (108 garage spaces and 41 open spaces), rather than the 216 spaces required by code, because: 1. The parking space requirement is not preper for senior housing, because there are fewer cars per unit in these projects. 2. The city has appreved fewer parking spaces for other senior housing, including the Village on Woodlynn and the Carefree Cottages. Appreve the plans date-stamped May 11, 1998 (site plan, landscape plan, grading and drainage plans and building elevations) for Cardinal Pointe. The city bases this approval on the findings required by the code. The developer or contractor shall do the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit: Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, sidewalk and driveway and parking lot plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions: (1) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with city code. (2) The grading plan shall: (a) Include building, floor elevation and contour information. (b) Include contour information for the land that the construction will disturb. (c) Show sedimentation basins or ponds as required by the watershed board or by the city engineer. (d) Show all proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 on the proposed construction plans. The city engineer shall approve the plans, specifications and management practices for any slopes steeper than 3:1. (e) Show all retaining walls on the plans. Any retaining walls more than 4 feet tall require a building permit from the city. (3)* The tree plan shall: (a) Be approved by the city engineer before site grading or tree removal. (b) Show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan shall include an inventory of all existing large trees on the site. (c) Show the size, species and location of the replacement trees. The deciduous trees shall be at least two and one half (2 %) inches in diameter and shall be a mix of red and white oaks and sugar maples. The coniferous trees shall be at least eight (8) feet tall and shall be a mix of Austrian pine, eastern red cedar and other species. (d) Show no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. (4) The design of the storm water pond shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. The developer shall be responsible for getting any needed off-site grading or drainage easements. (5) All the parking areas and driveways shall have continuous concrete curb and gutter except where the city engineer decides that it is not needed for drainage purposes. (6) The driveways shall meet the following standards: 24-foot width--no parking on either side 32-foot width--parking is allowed on one side The developer or contractor shall post the driveways with no parking signs to meet the above-listed standards. b. Submit a lawn-irrigation plan to staff showing the location of sprinkler heads. c. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction. d. Revise the landscape plan for city staff approval showing: (1) That all proposed trees would be consistent with city standards for size, location and species. (2) Additional trees on the berm between the driveways. (3) The planting of native evergreens on the site to replace some of the proposed Black Hills Spruce. These should include Austrian pine and eastern red cedar. These should be primarily on the east side of the site and near the storm water pond. (4) Planting (instead of sodding) the disturbed areas on the north and east sides of the apartment building around the storm water pond with native grasses and native flowering plants. The native grasses and flowering plants shall be those needing little or no maintenance. This is to reduce maintenance costs and to reduce the temptation of mowers to encroach into the pond. (5) The planting of native grasses and flowering plants around the proposed storm water pond. This type of planting shall extend at least four feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the pond. Complete the following before occupying the buildings: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. b. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. c. Install reflectorized stop signs at the Hazelwood Street exits, a handicap-parking sign for each handicap-parking space and an address on the building. In addition, the applicant shall install stop signs and traffic directional signs within the site, as required by staff. d. Paint any roof-top mechanical equipment to match the uppermost part of the building. Screen all roof-mounted equipment visible from streets or adjacent property. (code requirement) jo Construct trash dumpster and recycling enclosures as city code requires for any dumpsters or storage containers that the owner or building manger would keep outside the building. Any such enclosures must match the materials and colors of the building. Taper. the sidewalk along Hazelwood Street to match the driveway grades. Install and maintain an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas. Install continuous concrete curb and gutter along all interior driveways and around all open parking stalls. Install a storm shelter in a central location in the apartment building. This shelter shall be subject to the approval of the Maplewood Director of Emergency Preparedness. It shall have a minimum of three square feet per person for 80% of the planned population. Install on-site lighting for security and visibility, subject to city staff approval. The developer or contractor shall: (1) Complete all grading for the site drainage and the pond, complete all public improvements and meet all city requirements. (2)* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits. (3) Remove any debris or junk from the site. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The city receives cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 200 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. Any unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in the fall or winter, or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the spring or summer. c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. 5. This approval does not include the signs. 6. All work shall follow the approved plans. approve minor changes. The director of community development may CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the nine property owners within 350 feet of the site about the proposal. Of the seven responses, three were for the project, two were against and two had no comment. For 1. It is an excellent use of the property and serves a community need. (Schreier - Maplewood) 2. It is the least offensive of developments as long as it is an attractive building with nice grounds. (Gates - 3056 Hazelwood Street) 3. Electric and gas service are readily available. (NSP) Against 1. The building is too close to the road, too tall, no landscaping, make it two stories. (Peterson - 3016 Hazelwood Street) 2. A three-story building is too high for this area. Make it a single story building to conform with the R1 on the east side of Hazelwood. (Supan - 3050 Hazelwood Street) 8 REFERENCE Site Description The site is undeveloped. Surrounding Land Uses North: NSP power lines, pipelines and County Road D. East: Saint John's Hospital property and single dwellings across Hazelwood Street. South: Undeveloped property and future Freedom Convenience Center at Beam Avenue. West: Railroad tracks and future Ramsey County trail Reasons for the Requests This proposal needs a land use plan change because: 1. State law does not allow a city to adopt any regulation that conflicts with its comprehensive plan. 2. One of the findings required by code for a CUP is that the use is in conformity with the city's comprehensive plan. The land use plan shows this site for M-1 uses, which do not include multiple-family housing. The developer is applying for a CUP because the zoning on this site is M-1 (light manufacturing). The M-1 zone allows offices, commercial uses and light manufacturing uses. The developer chose to apply for a CUP, rather than a zone change. The city may approve any development with more than five acres and more than one use or building with a CUP in any zoning district. A CUP for a PUD is only for a specific use and site plan. A rezoning to R-3 (multiple dwelling residential) would allow a variety of multiple-dwelling uses and plans. Past Actions - Parking and Garages The city has approved reduced parking and garage requirements for all past senior housing. This includes the following: 1. Concordia Arms: 100 spaces for 124 units or .8 spaces per unit. 2. Hazel Ridge: 75 spaces for 75 units or 1 space per unit. 3. Casey Lake (Harmony School site - never built): 62 spaces for 62 units or 1 space per unit. 4. Village on Woodlynn (former Cottages of Maplewood): 87 spaces for 60 units or 1.5 spaces for each unit. 5. Carefree Cottages: 132 spaces for 108 units or 1.22 spaces for each unit. 9 Planning Considerations Existing Land Use Plan Designation - M-1 (light industrial) Proposed Land Use Plan Designation - RH (residential high density) CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL There are no specific criteria for a land use plan change. Any land use plan change should be consistent with the goals and policies in the city's comprehensive plan. The resolution starting on page 27 gives the findings required by code for approval of a conditional use permit. Section 25-70 of the city code requires that the CDRB make the following findings to approve plans: That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to neighboring, existing or proposed developments and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion. That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal plan. That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good composition, materials, textures and colors. HOUSING POLICIES The land use plan has eleven general land use goals. Of these, three apply to this proposal. They are: minimize land planned for streets, minimize conflicts between land uses and provide many housing types. The land use plan also has several general development and residential development policies that relate to this project. They are: Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments. 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, town houses, manufactured homes, single-family housing, public-assisted housing and Iow- to moderate-income housing, and rental and owner-occupied housing. Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate buffering and separation. The housing plan also has policies about housing diversity and quality that the city should consider with this development. They are: lO Promote a variety of housing types, costs and ownership options throughout the city. These are to meet the life-cycle needs of all income levels, those with special needs and nontraditional households. The city will continue to provide dispersed locations for a diversity of housing styles, types and price ranges through its land use plan. The city's long-term stability of its tax base depends upon its ability to attract and keep residents of all ages. To do so, the city must insure that a diverse mix of housing styles is available in each stage of the life cycle of housing needs. kr/p: Sec 3/Cardpont. mem Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line/Zoning Map 3. Existing Land Use Plan Map 4. Proposed Land Use Plan 5. Site Plan 6. Landscape Plan 7. Grading Plan 8. Building elevations 9. Unit Floor Plans (3 pages) 10. Developer's statement date-stamped May 11, 1998 11. Cooperative Housing information dated May 27, 1998 12. Color building elevation 13. Resolution: Land Use Plan Changes 14. Resolution: CUP for PUD 15. Project Plans date-stamped May 11, 1998 (Separate Attachment) 3.3. · VADNAIS HEIGHTS Attachment 1 COUNTY RD. D 1. SUMMIT 2. COUNTRYVI 3. DULUTH CT. 4. LYDIA AVE,  KOHLMAN AVE. COUNTY UNCT/O! GERVAIS AV~. VIKING SHERREN AVE. DEIdONT AVE, Z z ~,. Loke AVE. LaRK LOCATION MAP 12 COUNTY RADATZ P. AMS~ COUNTY COURT KOHL.MAN EDGEHILL RD. CT. AVE. COPE AVE. Attachment 2 M1 SITE a66 GOLF COURSE i 3062 3056 3050 301 -COlIN'T'Y--- SAINT JOHN'S HOSPITAL PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP 13 Attachment 3 1 interchange Vadnais Heights major co ImmmI arterial REVISED 07/06/93 7-20-95 12/06/94 10-13-95 12/12/94 1/19/95 11-01-96 Principal arterial 694 O; Co._Rd. D _~ iI ~ ~I ; ,. ~I · BC ii II ...,~.,,.-~ · BC -; E d.C _ M-1 , · ~ a.j o,r..~col III!I lector I R-3 interchange 'majo¢ c011ec.tor major collector M-1 , .. '-'=:M. 1 LBC F_ Attachment 4 interch.~nge REVISED 07/06/93 7-20-95 12/06/94 ~' 10-13-95 ., principal arterial 694 interchange Vadnais Heights .? arterial d.C CO major collector M-1 ~'" !Ii',~ io~l:,/collector a / BC Co. Rd. D · BC .; ~ E P BC(M) major collec;tor p C~ OS ~ -3(H) M- 1 .i ' ' M- 1 LBC BC(M)_ -: Attachment 16 ~7 7 18 --e'e'="_-_-we ' .... I 19 I 2O i Sent By~'Sentman EnterprZses~ Inc.; 612 §53 5673; May-Il-98 5:37PM; Page 2/2 Attad~ 10 Cardinal Pointe of Maplewood Presentation Homes, L.L.P, proposes to develop 6.75 acres of land on Hazelwood Avenue north of Beam Avenue into a 108 living unit, limited equity, senior, cooperative community. To quantify the current market demand for independent senior housing in the area the appraisal services and market research capabilities of Essential Decisions, Inc. (EDI) were employed. In their May, 1998 study, EDI reported that only three facilities are presently serving the needs of this - type of~aoti~,e senior population in the study area (~tudy area shown on accompanying page). These three fecllifi~s together only show a total number of 217 competitive units. VVlth some 4,060 income qualified households in the study area, even after a critical market demand analysis show in the EDI report, there was an adJusted current demand in 1997 of 138 housing units. This demand is continuing to grow. It is our belief that with this location and with the services available in the Immediate area around C~,~el Points, along with the type and quality of the proposed development, that the market demand will be even greater than projected in the EDt report. Cerd~ Po~ of Maplewood will house living units from 796 to 1,407 ~quare feet in size with 94 of the 108 units being 2 bedroom in design. The investment needed to purchase a cooperative share Is projected to range from $21,900 to $45,900, based on the size of the living unit. The monthly service fees are proposed to begin around $630 and go up to about $1,160. The monthly service fee Is projected to include all related costs except for the owner's monthly electrical end phone bills. Cooperative housing combines the best of owning ones home with the conveniences of community living. There are the advantages of personal ownership and homestead property taxes. The value of the purchased is under the control of the cooperative membership - that's the Individual share owners. The people who live in a cooperative are 'owners' not 'renters.' As an owner of a cooperative share one has equity. Each share has value and can be sold. This means that the share owner or their estate can get money invested in purchasing a share back again. Cooperatives come in different forms but all have certain principles in common. There is Joint ownership and control. As a share owner in a cooperative one will elec~ their own Board of Directors and will hire management to make all the necessary decisions in keeping everything operating and in good condition. A share owner can go south in the winter, north in the summer or travel with friends and family without any more worries about who's taking care of the 'house' and protecting personal belongings. At Cerdind Po~te of MapJewood, each member (age 62 or older) purchases a share Jn their own common-interest corporation, UnliKe a condominium where each buyer must qualify and obtain individual financing from a lender, the cooperative has its own mortgage which is an obligation of the cooperative association, not the obligation of the share owner aa an individual. The mortgage ts to be Insured by HUD/FHA. This means rigorous guidelines must be followed in quality and operational standards. There is the monthly service fee to cover costs, but no landlord will ever raise the rent again. Cergimd Points of Maplewood has been planned as s *limited equity' senior housing cooperative. Under a formula prescribed in the by-laws, member's shares can grow in value at a limited rate. This Is planned to keep shares affordable and in high demand. One of the better examples of this basic concept is 7500 York in Edina. This limited equity cooperative currently requires a $5,000 reservation deposit. It has a waiting list of several hundred people who will possibly have to wait for 5 to 10 years to.purchase a share allowing them to join that cooperative community. Cooperative living at C~rE~el PoRte offers a life style of comfort and security with brand new surroundings. It's location is within walking distance of Maplewood Mall, many rsmtaurents, theaters, a variety of additional retail end service businesses plus Maplewood / Ramsay County Librany. St, John's Hospit~t is close by with many medical c,/iniom. An 18 hole golf course is right aorou the back Adequate utilities ere available to the proposed building site. The development of Cergl~ i~ot~te will give Maplewood citizens the opportunity of staying in their own area with their long established fden(Is, churches and professional service providers. Presentation Home8 Is not requesting any financial assistance from the City of Mapelwood and hereby requests the approval of our proposal and requests. 23 Cardinal POINTE ''7~'0~ /1 Senior Housing Cooperative in Maplewood ~ 748-9311 What is cooperative housing? Cooperative housing combines the advantages of private home ownership with conveniences of community living. Ownership with convenience Cooperatives can be structured in different ways, but all have certain principles in common - joint ownership and control. Purchase a share in a cooperative and the value remains under the control of the cooperative membership - that's you! The people who live in the cooperative are owners and elect their own Board of Directors. The Directors hire management to make necessary decisions to keep all things operating and in good condition. You, as owner, no longer have to worry about the maintenance of your home. Feel free to travel south in the winter, Cardinal POINTE Ownership with convenience A common-interest corporation A wise investment vacation at the lake during the summer, or visit friends in other parts of the world. No more snow to shovel, pipes to freeze, lawn to mow, or rake. Now that's a carefree lifestyle! A common- interest corporation At Cardinal Pointe of Maplewood, each member purchases a share in the common-interest corporation. Unlike a condominium where each buyer must qualify and obtain individual financing from a lender, the cooperative has its own mortgage which is an obligation of the cooperative association, not you as an individual. The mortgage will be insured by FHA. Rigorous guidelines will be followed in quality and operational standards. Cooperative members pay a monthly fee set by the Board of Directors to cover operating costs. Members remain in control of fees, expenses and the living environment. Both state and federal law grants cooperative members the right to be considered homeowners. This gives you, as a cooperative member, the right to deduct a proportionate amount of building mortgage interest and real estate property taxes from your individual tax retum. A wise investment As owner of a cooperative share, you have equity. Your share has value and can be sold. You or your estate can receive money which you invested when the share is sold. Cardinal Pointe of Maplewood is planned as a "limited equity" senior housing cooperative. Under a formula prescribed in the by-laws, members' shares grow in value at a limited rate. This keeps the shares affordable and in high demand. Cooperative living at Cardinal Pointe offers you a lifestyle of convenience, carefree living, privacy and security, ail with the advantages of home ownership. Call 748.9311. , /~tt, adlmnt 13 LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Paul Sentman, representing Presentation Homes, Inc. applied for a change to the city's land use plan from M-1 (light manufacturing) to RH (residential high density). WHEREAS, this change applies to the undeveloped property located on the west side of Hazelwood Street between Beam Avenue and County Road D. WHEREAS, city staff also requested a change to the land use plan to drop the planned major collector street between Beam Avenue and County Road D that would connect Highway 61 and Hazelwood Street. WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: On June 15, 1998, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the plan amendments. On July 13, 1998, the city council discussed the land use plan changes. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described changes for the following reasons: This site is proper for and consistent with the city's policies for high-density residential use. This includes: Creating a transitional land use between the existing Iow density residential and commercial land uses. bo It is on a collector street and is near Saint John's Hospital, shopping, an arterial street, parks and open space. 2. This development will minimize any adverse effects on surrounding properties because: The proposed on-site pond and large setback from the street will separate the senior housing from nearby homes. b. Studies have shown there will be no adverse effect on property values. c. There would be no traffic from this development on existing residential streets. The city does not plan to build the proposed collector street between Beam Avenue and County Road D that would connect Highway 61 and Hazelwood Street because the existing wetlands and golf course would make it difficult to build a street in this area. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on 1998. Attachment 14 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Mr. Paul Sentman, representing Presentation Homes, Inc. applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) for the Cardinal Pointe senior housing planned unit development (PUD). WHEREAS, this permit applies to the undeveloped property on the west side of Hazelwood Street between Beam Avenue and County Road D. The legal description is: The North 955.5 feet of the South 2075 feet of that part of Northwest Quarter in Section 3, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota, lying East of the East line of the right-of- way of the Saint Paul and Duluth Railway (now Northern Pacific railway), according to the United States Government Survey thereof. Subject to Hazelwood and easements of record. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On June 15, 1998, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. 2. On July 13, 1998, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also 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. 27 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: All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped May 11, 1998. The city council may approve major changes. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. The owner shall not convert this development to non-seniors housing without the revision of the planned unit development. For this permit, the city defines seniors housing as a residence occupied by persons that are 62 years of age or older. 4. There shall be no outdoor storage of recreational vehicles, boats or trailers. o Residents shall not park trailers and vehicles that they do not need for day-to-day transportation on site. If the city decides there are excess parking spaces available on site, then the city may allow the parking of these on site. 6. If the city council decides there is not enough on-site parking after the building is 95 percent occupied, the city may require additional parking. The developer shall provide an on-site storm shelter in the apartment building. This shelter shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Emergency Preparedness. It shall have a minimum of three square feet per person for 80% of the planned population. The developer shall give the city a market study. This study must document that there will be enough demand from seniors (62 or older) to keep this a senior housing project. The city must approve this study. 9. The city council shall review this permit in one year. *The developer must comPlete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or a building permit. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on 1998.