The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08/21/2007 MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesdav. August 21,2007, 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 July 17, 2007 5. Public Hearing 7:00 The Regents Senior Housing Development (Kennard Street and Legacy Parkway) Planned Unit Development (PUD) Revisions 6. New Business a. Gladstone Neighborhood Streetscape Study (Presentation by Kimley-Horn) b. Planned Unit Development Clarification - Saint Paul's Monastery (2675 Larpenteur Avenue) c. Executive Summary Report - South Maplewood Study (South of Carver Avenue) 7. Unfinished Business None 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations July 23 Council Meeting: Mr. Pearson August 13 Council Meeting: Ms. Fischer August 27 Council Meeting: Mr. Yarwood September 10 Council Meeting: Mr. Desai 10. Staff Presentations July 30: Annual Tour Follow-up 11. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, July 17, 2007 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Harland Hess Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Joe Walton Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Commissioner Robert Martin Commissioner Joseph Boeser Present Present Present Present Present Present (7:05) Present (7:01) Present Present Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director Bob Mittet, Finance and Administration Manager Ken Roberts, Planner Shann Finwall, Planner Staff Present: III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Trippler seconded. The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood, Martin, Boeser Approval of the planning commission minutes for June 19, 2007. Chairperson Fischer had a correction to the minutes on page 2, paragraph 3, on line 6, remove the word "when" so the sentence reads "Currently, wHef\ with new construction in Maplewood..." Planning Commission Minutes of 07-17-07 -2 - Commissioner Trippler had an addition to the minutes on page 2, paragraph 3, on line 8, "The PAC fund for 2007 is around $3,000 PAC charoe per unit and that money.....", a correction on page 3, paragraph 5, on line 3, remove the words "to him" so the sentence reads "To him that sounds to him like a political statement...", and in the last line on the page, remove the word "in" so the sentence reads "...focus on park reconstruction but ffi park city staff didn't request money..." Commissioner Trippler had a correction on page 4, paragraph 2, on line 2 and 3, remove the words "large discussion" and insert "extensive debate" and remove the words "road or a traffic barring" and insert "traffic/pedestrian" so the sentence reads "Years ago there was a large discussion an extensive debate reqardinq a road or 3 traffic barring traffic/pedestrian bridge across Hazelwood..." Chairperson Fischer had a correction on page 5, paragraph 2, on line 3, remove the word "city's" and insert the word "cities" so the sentence reads "The reason Git]is cities do financing through..." Commissioner Trippler had an addition on page 6, paragraph 4, on lines 4 and 5, so the sentence reads"... task force plan with 850 units, is it possible that the city's share of the $15 million would have offset the cost may have to pay fm would be a much smaller cost been reduced because of the higher unit count cost. Commissioner Trippler had a corrections on page 7, 2nd paragraph from the bottom, remove the words "are located" so the sentence reads "Mr. Roberts said about 1 00 units could still be built on the vacant land near the Beaver Lake Town Homes~ afe located." The last paragraph on page 7, line 2, remove the words "and compared it" so the sentence reads "...compared the 2006-2010 C.I.P. and compared it to the 2008- 2012 C.I.P." Commissioner Trippler had an addition on page 10, in the last paragraph on the page, in line 1, 2, and 3, insert "as a" on line 2 so the sentence reads "He said he was here as a Maplewood resident tonight." and insert and insert "the Planning Commission" so the sentence reads "...Park's commission he would like to address the Planninq Commission as a Parks Commissioner." Commissioner Trippler had an addition on page 11, paragraph 2, line 3, add the word "ask" so the sentence reads"... make recommendations to the city council and should ask the question if this is in compliance or not?" Commissioner Trippler had an addition on page 15, paragraph 2, line 7, remove the word "is" so the sentence reads "She isn't sure this is should be an either/or... .", and on the 3rd line from the bottom, replace "hand" with "hair" so the sentence reads "...'you were right you J:lafI4 hair does stand on end!"" Planning Commission Minutes of 07-17-07 - 3- Commissioner Trippler requested that staff verify the numbers stated on page 16, lines 5, 6, 7 and 8. The numbers were verified and will read "The draft budget on the city website indicated the 2006 debit service property tax levies were ~ $3,016,800, but the current C.I.P. shows it as $2,315,500 and for 2007 the city website shows it was $aA4 $3.140.800 but in the C.I.P. it shows the numberas$aA4 $3.336.800 and that number is the same for 2008." Commissioner Trippler had a correction on page 17, 1st paragraph, line 2, remove the extra "that" so the sentence reads "That is a decision that---tAat should be put in a written policy..." Chairperson Fischer had a correction on page 18, 1st line in 1st paragraph, Chairperson Fischer's name is misspelled, correction to read "Chairperson Fisher Fischer.. ." Commissioner Trippler had a correction on page 21, paragraph 2; a response is missing from a question asked "Commissioner Trippler asked if it would be possible to take 7 Y, feet off of the western edge to meet the 20 foot setback requirement and move the proposed addition over 7 Y, feet?" The minutes will have the response "Mr. Roberts said if that lot line is moved then the new lot would be too narrow." Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the planning commission minutes for June 19,2007 as ammended. Commissioner Hess seconded. Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Hess, Pearson, Trippler V. PUBLIC HEARING The Shores of Senior Housing Development (940 Frost Avenue) (7:15-9:45) Ms. Finwall reported that Bart Montanari of Debar Development is proposing to redevelop the 7 acre St. Paul Tourist cabin site with a senior housing development. The development will consist of 180 units of senior housing in a 4 story building with underground parking. This will be the first redevelopment project within the Gladstone neighborhood redevelopment area. The project will be managed by Walker Methodist. 100,000 square feet of this project will be dedicated to common space. In order to build this development the applicant is requesting approval of 6 land use items. The Community Design Review Board will review the detail design elements of this building at their July 24 meeting. The final review of this project is currently scheduled for city council review on August 13th. Ms. Finwall went over the location of the project and briefly went over the Gladstone Redevelopment Plan, which was approved by city council on March 12,2007. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-17-07 -4- City staff has reviewed the project and finds The Shores Senior Housing Development has the potential of meeting many of the master plan guiding principals and development strategies as outlined in the master plan. Ms. Finwall went over the comprehensive land use map. The new Gladstone High land use designation definitions were adopted in the redevelopment plan but were not included on the comprehensive plan land use map legend. The definitions describing the new land use designations must be added to the city's comprehensive plan. The staff is looking for a recommendation from the Planning Commission on that. Ms. Finwall went over the zoning map. No rezoning is required for this property. Ms. Finwall gave an overview of the project. The property is located within the Shore land Overlay District of Phalen Lake. Within this district, any structure that is over 4 units per building must be approved as a planned unit development, so this property automatically requires this approval from the city. Ms. Finwall went over recently approved senior housing projects within Maplewood that go into the ratio of parking that the city has allowed. It is recommended that 1 00 underground parking spaces should be included. Ms. Finwall went over the engineering department review. SEH states that the general site layout will provide rate control and water quality treatment for The Shores and a portion of Frost Avenue and East Shore Drive. They indicated that no impacts are anticipated to the existing class-5 wetland. Commissioner Hess asked if the parking stalls conform to the city's minimum width. Ms. Finwall said she would verify the parking stall width. Commissioner Hess asked if the parking lot would have any pervious surfacing. Ms. Finwall said that the whole parking lot is impervious surfaces. Commissioner Walton added that if there were more pervious surfaces, the project may not need as many rain gardens and would possibly reduce the number of trees needing removal along the west side. Mr. Roberts clarified the handicap parking stall widths. Commissioner Trippler said that it was ironic that the city is approving a reduction in the width of parking stalls for a senior housing unit. This may result in difficult parking situations for the senior citizens at this housing unit. Commissioner Trippler recommends that if any change should be made to the parking stall size, there should be an increase in size, not a reduction. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-17-07 - 5- Commissioner Trippler asked ifthe Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan allows four story buildings. Ms. Finwall stated that the commission, boards and council still have to review the proposed Gladstone Zoning District which should have more detail about building setbacks and design. Commissioner Trippler clarified that one part of the Gladstone District may allow four story buildings and another part that does not. Ms. Finwall stated that four story buildings were allowed as long as they were set back from the road. Clarification is still needed the staff is hoping to get that through the zoning code that will be reviewed. Commissioner Trippler asked if the staff report stated that Chief Lukin and Assistant Chief Gervais preferred that the building be limited to three stories due to concerns of limited access on the west side of the building, why did the city staff recommend a four story plan? Ms. Finwall stated she originally received comment from Assistant Chief Gervais indicating that he had no concerns with the four story, but Chief Lukin did. Ms. Finwall had inquired about the varying opinions and also pointed out that the developer is proposing an eight foot wide trail that will be located along the west side of the building, which will allow for fire access. In addition, Ms. Finwall pointed out to Chief Lukin that there is a possibility of gaining access to that side of the building through the existing parking lot in that apartment complex. They then came with a joint opinion that the fire department would prefer to have it be a 3 story building. Commissioner Trippler said that if the Chief thinks that the eight foot right- of way is sufficient for fire safety, then this is fine. Commissioner Trippler urges the city council to get a complete report from the fire chief. Commissioner Trippler asked which rooms are to be reduced 141 square feet of floor area from what is required. Ms. Finwall stated there is a sheet included with the information packet that has a break-down of the size of the units. The memory care and assisted living units are the only ones with a floor area reduction and the 141 feet is the maximum amount of reduction to take place. Commissioner Trippler pointed the proposed room size of the assisted living units may not be sufficient. Commissioner Trippler would like a definition of what the living space will include. Ms. Finwall stated that Mr. Link Wilson, the project architect would be able to answer that question. Commissioner Martin asked where the employee parking spaces are. Ms. Finwall said that the employee parking will be in the front of the building and said that Mr. Wilson would be best to answer that question more clearly. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-17-07 -6- Commissioner Yarwood asked about the requirement for TIF financing for this project and what the history of it is and how that might impact other development with in the Gladstone area in terms of funds available for the remaining developments. Mr. Mittet responded that at this point in time the status of TIF for this project is that the city council took a vote and did not approve the project to proceed with the TIF request. The Commission should not assume any TIF for this project. Commissioner Boeser asked if the commercial use of the development will be open to the public. Ms. Finwall said that the only facility that will be open to public use will be one of the community rooms on the first floor. Commissioner Boeser asked if the employees park in front of the building, why is the employee entrance in the back of the building. Ms. Finwall said that the employee entrance will be for loading and unloading, a bus stop will be constructed on the north side of Frost Avenue for future bus service, but said she will let Mr. Wilson describe where employees will enter and exit. Commissioner Trippler asked to hear more about the Gladstone Redevelopment Plan regarding trails. Ms. Finwall said that the city will be constructing a sidewalk along the east side of the entire property line and along the north side of the development. In addition, there are several trails and sidewalks included in the development plan within the facility itself. The public improvements proposed will help link this development to the existing Gateway Trail. Commissioner Trippler asked about the type of road crossing residents will have to do in order to access the trail. Mr. Ahl responded that there will be a crosswalk across the round-about. Also, final designs for phase one have not been finished yet, but at this point in time the sidewalk may not extend all the way to the Savannah, although the city is looking at that option. Commissioner Hess asked how the decision was made that there is a need for a round-about. Mr. Ahl responded that if a signal is added, then turn lanes would need to be put in. These can actually use more right-of-way than a round-about would. Also, 3 way stops are more prone to accidents because not many people actually stop. Commissioner Walton asked the staff to be more specific on how the tree will be protected if the city plans to save the large cottonwood tree that was mentioned in the heritage tree preservation commission. Commissioner Walton asked for clarification on the tree preservation ordinance. Commissioner Trippler responded that the basic concept was trying to save the canopy. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-17-07 -7 - Commissioner Hess asked what the city's plan is to reposition the gate valve in the sewer and how much of that has been addressed. Mr. Ahl responded that all of those issues have been addressed and the city is working with St. Paul Regional Water. The Fire Department is requiring a fire hydrant be installed on the westerly side for fire protection. Commissioner Hess asked about the soil conditions of the property. Mr. Ahl responded that the soils in the area allow a fairly sizable amount of infiltration and easily meet the requirements of the watershed district. The footings should not be a problem as well. Link Wilson of 308 18th Street East, Minneapolis MN, the project architect, addressed the commission. Chairperson Fischer requested him to go through his PowerPoint presentation. During the presentation, he answered questions that the commission had asked earlier. Commissioner Martin asked for clarification on parking distribution to residents. Mr. Wilson clarified that the parking stalls will be distributed to residents of The Shores, employees and visitors as needed. The stalls will not be specifically designated for one or the other unless it is necessary. Commissioner Hess asked if Mr. Wilson is the project architect and if he has designated L.E.E.D. efforts in the building. Mr. Wilson responded that he is a L.E.E.D. accredited professional. He stated that L.E.E.D. accreditation is not a priority for the project. Commissioner Hess stated that when ground-breaking starts for the employee entrance, the project leaders should be careful not to destroy root structure. Mr. Wilson stated that they are looking at shifting the kitchen to the east to stay away from the tree. Mr. Wilson clarified that there will be 93 underground parking stalls available. Ms. Finwall added that she was under the impression that there were only 88. Mr. Wilson went over the total number of parking stalls in comparison to the number of residents estimated to have vehicles and the number of driving employees. Commissioner Trippler stated that he thought the number of parking stalls is insufficient. He then addressed the issue of the reduction of the width of parking stalls. Mr. Wilson stated that there would not be enough room for 100 stalls if they have to be 9.5 feet wide, there would only be room for the number of stalls to be in the low 90's. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-17-07 - 8- Commissioner Trippler asked for clarification on the storage space approved to be less than the required 120 cubic feet. Mr. Wilson clarified that the memory and transitional care units will have locked rooms, one for memory care and one for transitional care, employees will go into that room to find what they need and any missing items will be the responsibility of the Walker staff. That space would be 4 foot by 4 foot by 3 foot shelves inside of a locked room, giving the resident 48 cubic feet of storage. Chairperson Fischer asked about the size of the surface parking spaces. Mr. Wilson responded that they are designed at 9 feet. The consensus is that the parking plan needs to be redesigned. Mr. Roberts pointed out that the parking code has not been updated in about 20 years and is not addressed to senior developments. Mr. Roberts's professional recommendation is to trust the architect's and applicant's experience as to the amount of type and parking they will need. Chairperson Fischer said that having more proof of parking may help. Mr. Martin stated that he is uncomfortable with the size of the parking stalls as presented. Commissioner Pearson gave an example of Lakeview Commons having too many parking spaces at 61 stalls. He recommends a smaller number of spaces but wider stalls. Mr. Wilson stated that he is amenable to create 9.5 foot stalls knowing that there would be a 5% reduction in the number of underground parking stalls. Mr. Wilson went through the status of the Gladstone Development. Commissioner Yarwood expressed a concern of filling out this complex because there are many other developments similar to this one in the City of Maplewood. Mr. Wilson responded that it will take an estimated time of 14-16 months to fill the occupancy of this facility. Commissioner Trippler asked what kinds of changes were made after the city council denied TIF money. Mr. Wilson stated he is not involved with the financial part of this project but knows that the TIF proposal has been realigned and will be resubmitted to the city. There have not been any changes made to the plan. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-17-07 - 9- Commissioner Yarwood asked what level the ground will be graded at. Doug Stahl, the project engineer from Pioneer Engineering said that the 1 st floor elevation is at 877, the loading docks on Frost Avenue will be at about 876. The other entrance on Lakeshore Dr. will be at 868. The entrance East Shore Drive would be the basement grade. Commissioner Hess asked if the floor to floor heights change based on framing. Mr. Stahl stated that those issues have already been designed. Jan McGovern of 1876 East Shore Drive addressed the commission. She handed out a written handout and read it aloud. Ms. McGovern would like to know who owns the property. Ms. McGovern requested that a site line study be made on East Shore Drive. She also requested an amended landscape plan that reflects the concerns of tree removal along East Shore Drive. Ms. McGovern also voiced a concern with the public vacation of the right-of-way and easement, which would take away the perimeter of the natural trees and shrubs. She also feels it is unnecessary to install another sidewalk on that street as there is already a trail on the east side. Ms. McGovern stated that she thinks there should be less parking. She voice concern and asked for clarification on the tree density bonus issue. She questioned what the direct impact would be of having commercial facilities in the building, what kinds of shifts will the employees be working and how this will impact the traffic. Ms. McGovern also stated that this should be a private facility, instead of having community space. She also stated questions concerning the businesses inside of the structure and also asked about the rates of the rooms. Ms. McGovern also stated she would like the building to have more of a "wow factor". Mr. Wilson stated that there is only one space open to the public by reservation that can hold 50 people by code. Commissioner Boeser suggested that the public space be available by appointment to residents and immediate family members. Commissioner Yarwood asked about runoff issues. Mr. Stahl responded that most of the existing wetland up towards Frost Avenue will stay as it is exists. Rainwater gardens will be placed near the entrance on East Shore Drive. Ms. McGovern restated that she would like to have a site line study done from the East Shore Drive side of the property. She also stated a concern about the 2 driveways on East Shore Drive and recommended that a sidewalk not be installed on that street. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-17-07 -10- AI Galbraith of 1770 Edwards Street addressed the commission. Mr. Galbraith is a member of the Maplewood Historical Commission and Gladstone Coalition. Mr. Galbraith stated he is against narrow parking spots. He also questioned who will pay for the amenities and utilities of the facility and the emergency power. Mr. Galbraith stated that he is appalled that the developer was not at the community meeting to answer questions. He also questioned why he did not receive a copy of the memo as a member of the Historical Commission and the Gladstone Coalition. Virginia Davis of 1050 Frost Avenue addressed the commission. Ms. Davis stated that there are no walkers in this area due to the large hill. She also stated that the proposed round-about would have to be considerably smaller than the one on Frost Avenue and does not want any other disturbance to their property through the construction of the round-about as their property is near the proposed site. Mr. Ahl stated that they have not gotten into those design details, but knows of the issue mentioned and wants to work with Ms. Davis to resolve any problems. Jason Zerwas of 1866 East Shore Drive addressed the commission. Mr. Zerwas stated a concern about water runoff and if it will stay on site, as there is already drainage problems onto his property. He also stated concerns about not enough parking, tree removal, and requested that a site line study done from the East Shore Drive side of the property. Mr. Zerwas also stated that he does not want another sidewalk installed as the existing one is not maintained well. He also added that he had concerns about lighting and if any will be installed and if so, what kind. Mr. Ahl said that he will look into the current drainage problem and said he will be visiting Mr. Zerwas' property. Mr. Ahl assured thet commission that the runoff on this project will be much better. Mr. Zerwas added that the city attempted to fix the drainage problem in the 90's but it didn't work because they went off a drawing that was from the 50's and wasn't accurate. Ms. Finwall stated the staff recommends that a site line study be done of the site from Frost Avenue and East Shore Drive. Fran Juker of 1965 Barclay Street addressed the commission. Ms. Juker stated that her concerns are the same as the people who spoke before her. Ms. Juker asked if this building will be similar to the one Oakdale, along the frontage road that can be seen from 694. She stated that if it is similar, the building is too large and should be 3 stories and not 4. Ms. Juker also stated that there should be more parking. She also stated that existing rain gardens are not well kept up and is concerned that the ones proposed will have the same fate. Ms. Juker also stated that the round-about should not be installed because they are dangerous. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-17-07 -11 - Joy Tkachuck of 1088 Gordon Avenue addressed the commission. Ms. Tkachuck stated concerns about the density issue and the height of the building. She also stated concerns about tree removal. Chairperson Fischer closed the public part of the hearing at 9:45. Commissioner Walton stated that the rendering of the building should show security lighting and asked if there is a current drawing that shows lighting. Ms. Finwall stated that there is a photometric plan that was submitted for review by the Community Design Review Board. Commissioner Hess asked how it would affect the project if the building was reduced to 3 stories. Mr. Wilson stated there would be two options if that were to happen; one, where we will to try to maintain 180 units in a three story building, which would require removing almost every tree on the site. Or two, if the units of that floor are just removed, then the ability to deliver the community services to the residents would be disabled due to not enough people in the building. Commissioner Trippler asked how much the 100 units will cost residents as rent. Mr. Wilson responded that one meal is included in the rent and we plan to charge $1.40 per square foot per month but if additional services are taken, then the rent will increase accordingly. Commissioner Walton asked where the market units are located in the building. Mr. Wilson showed the commission on the area plan. Mr. Wilson stated they will provide the site line studies for the Community Design Review Board next week. Commissioner Trippler asked how many stories similar developments have in Maplewood. Ms. Finwall responded that they are mostly three stories high. Ms. Finwall added that there is a four story apartment complex located to the east of this property. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the following recommendations. 1. Approve the comprehensive land use amendment resolution attached. This resolution adds a definition for the Gladstone High (G-H) land use designation of allowing 12 to 30 units per acre for the property at 940 Frost Avenue. The city bases these changes on the following findings: a. The land use plan change is based on eight specific Maplewood comprehensive plan land use and housing goals as follows: Planning Commission Minutes of 07-17-07 -12 - 1) Provide for orderly development. 2) Protect and strengthen neighborhoods. 3) Promote economic development that will expand the property tax base, increase jobs and provide desirable services. 4) Minimize the land planned for streets. 5) Minimize conflicts between land uses. 6) Provide a wide variety of housing types. 7) Provide safe and attractive neighborhoods and commercial areas. 8) Plan multi-family housing with an average density of at least 10 units per acre. b. The land use plan change is based on four specific Maplewood comprehensive plan land use policies as follows: 1) Include a variety of housing types for all types of residents. 2) Disperse moderate-income developments throughout the city near bus lines. 3) Support innovative subdivision and housing design. 4) Protect neighborhoods from activities that produce excessive noise, dirt, odors or which generate heavy traffic. 2. Approve the public vacation resolution attached. This resolution is for the public vacation of 20 feet of right-of-way along East Shore Drive and the vacation of a sanitary sewer easement located on the west side of the property at 940 Frost Avenue. Prior to the city recording this resolution, the applicant must complete the following: a. The applicant shall grant the city a right-of-entry to complete the sanitary sewer abandonment work. b. The applicant shall dedicate additional right-of-way to the city at the southwest corner of the Frost Avenue and East Shore Drive intersection for the construction of the proposed roundabout. 3. Approve the preliminary plat date stamped April 19, 2007, for The Shores (previously called Lake Phalen Estates) located at 940 Frost Avenue. Approval is subject to the following conditions: a. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall comply with all requirements as specified in the city engineering department's May 22, 2007 review and SEH engineering consultant's May 17, 2007 review. b. Prior to final plat approval, the following must be submitted for city staff Planning Commission Minutes of 07-17-07 - 13- approval: 1) Drainage and utility easement agreements around all public storm water facilities on the site. 2) Dedication of a ten-foot-wide drainage and utility easement along the south side of Frost Avenue, along the entire northerly boundary of The Shores property. 3) Dedication of a ten-foot-wide sidewalk and trail easement along the south side of Frost Avenue, along the entire northerly boundary of The Shores property. 4) Rename the plat The Shores. c. Record all easements agreements with the final plat. Commissioner Pearson seconded the motion. Ayes - All The motion passed. Chairperson Fischer directed the discussion to the conditional use permit. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the following recommendations. 4. Approve the conditional use permit resolution which approves the conditional use permit for a 180 senior housing planned unit development within the Shoreland Overlay District of Phalen Lake. a. The engineering department shall review and determine approval of all final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall comply with all requirements as specified in the city engineering department's May 22,2007, review and SEH engineering consultant's May 17, 2007 review. b. All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped April 19, 2007, and with revisions as noted in this approval. The city council may approve major changes to the plans. City staff may approve minor changes to the plans. c. The project is approved with 120 underqround and surface parkinq spaces (emphasizinq the use of underqround parkinq) and 30 proof of parkinq spaces 100 underground parking spaces, 27 surface parking spaces, and 20 proof of parking spaces. This is a parking reduction of Planning Commission Minutes of 07-17-07 - 14- 210 ~ parking spaces (360 parking spaces are required per city code). The applicant shall maximize the use of pervious pavers for the surface parkinq spaces. d. The project is approved with a 141 square foot floor area reduction in the required unit floor area for the memory care and assisted living units (580 square foot units are required per city code; 490 to 509 square foot units are proposed). e. The project is appro'/ed with a 0.5 f-oot parking space width reduction (9.5 foot wide parking spaces are required per city code, 9 foot wide parking spaces are proposed). foe. The proiect is approved with a 20-foot front yard setback alonq Frost Avenue for the one-story kitchen portion of the buildinq (30-foot front yard setback required per city code). ~t The project is approved with storage space of not less than 48 cubic feet less than the required 120 cubic f{)et per unit for the memory care and assisted li'ling transitional care units (120 cubic feet of storaqe area per unit required per city code). g. The project is approved with four floors. h. All signs on the property must be approved by the community design review board. i. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of city council approval or the permit shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year. j. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Commissioner Pearson seconded the motion. Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood, Martin, Boeser Nays - Walton Commissioner Walton voted nay because he does not feel comfortable with the structure having 4 floors due to open questions related to the safety and general welfare in the event of an evacuation during an emergency, understanding that there are top of the line fire prevention systems installed. The motion passed. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-17-07 - 15- This item is scheduled to go to the city council on August 13, 2007. VI. NEW BUSINESS City Code Amendment - Planning Commission Mr. Roberts reviewed the staff report with the commission. The commission had a question and answer session with the staff about the proposed changes. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the City Code Amendment as amended. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING DIVISION 4. PLANNING COMMISSION The Maplewood city council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): DIVISION 4. PLANNING COMMISSION* Sec. 2-246. Established. The city council establishes for the city a planning commission as an advisory board to the city council, as provided in Minn. Stats. ss 462.351-- 462.364. (Code 1982, S 25-17) Sec. 2-247. Advisory body; exceptions. All actions of the advisory planning commission shall be in the nature of recommendations to the city council, and the commission shall have no final authority about any matters, except as the council may lawfully delegate authority to it. (Code 1982, S 25-18) State law reference-- City planning agency to be advisory, except as otherwise provided by state statute or charter, Minn. Stats. S 462.354, subd. 1. Sec. 2-248. Composition; appointment; qualifications; terms. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-17-07 - 16- (a) The planning commission shall have nine members appointed by the city council. The members shall be residents of the city and may not hold an elected city public office. When possible, the council shall select commission members to represent the various areas of the city and to help meet the needs of the residents. (b) The city council shall appoint members of the planning commission for three- year terms. The city shall divide the membership into three groups of three members each. The terms of the three members in the same group shall end in the same year. If the appointment is to fill a vacancy, the appointment would be to finish the unexpired part of the vacated terms. All terms shall expire on December 31 of the year in which the appointment ends. (Code 1982, S 25-19) Sec. 2-249. Chairperson and vice-chairperson. The planning commission shall elect a chairperson and a vice-chairperson each year durinq the first planninq commission meetinq in June. at the second planning commission meeting in January each year. The chairperson shall be responsible for calling and presiding at meetings and shall have an equal vote with other members of the commission. If the chairperson is not at a meeting, the vice-chairperson shall assume the duties of the chairperson for that meeting. If the chairperson resigns from or is otherwise no longer on the planning commission, the vice-chairperson shall become the acting chairperson until the planning commission can hold an election for new officers. (Code 1982, S 25-20) 'State law references--Municipal planning, Minn. Stats. S 462.351 et seq,; city planning agency, Minn. Stats. S 462.354, subd. 1; metropolitan government, Minn. Stats. ch. 473; Ramsey County included within "metropolitan area" over which "metropolitan council" has jurisdiction, Minn. Stats. S 473.121, subds. 2, 3; metropolitan land use planning, Minn. Stats. S 473.851 et seq. ADMINISTRATION Sec. 2-250. Vacancies. (a) Any of the following may cause the office of a planning commissioner to become vacated: Planning Commission Minutes of 07-17-07 -17 - (1) Death or removal from the city. (2) Disability or failure to serve, as shown by failure to attend four meetings in any year, may be cause for removal by council majority, unless good cause can be shown to the council. (3) Resignation in writing. (4) Taking public office in the city. (b) Vacancies shall be filled by the council for the unexpired portion of the vacated term. (Code 1982, S 25-21) Sec. 2-251. Officers; meetings; rules of procedure. (a) The planning commission shall elect its own officers, establish meeting times in coniunction with the availability of city facilities and the meetinq times of other qroups as directed by the city manaqer, and adopt its own rules of procedure to be reviewed and approved by the city council. (b) All meetings of the planning commission shall be open to the public. (Code 1982, S 25-22) Sec. 2-252. Duties and responsibilities. The planning commission shall have the duty to: (1) Prepare and recommend a comprehensive plan of development for the city. (2) Conduct hearings and make recommendations to the city council about the adoption of the city comprehensive plan and any amendments thereto. The comprehensive plan certified and adopted by the city council shall be recognized as the city's official comprehensive plan. (3) Study and make recommendations to the city council about implementing the comprehensive plan and any land use regulations. (4) Study and make recommendations to the city council about zoning code amendments. (5) Review, prepare and make a report to the city council by the second city council meeting in February of each year regarding the commission's activities in the past year and major projects for the new year. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-17-07 - 18- (6) Maintain a liaison and coordination with government and private agencies so that the city council may be familiar with the planning activities of such agencies in order to establish an order of planning and development unity for the city. (7) Review and recommend, on or before June 30 of each year, a capital improvements program to the city council, which is designed to accomplish the comprehensive plan for the city. (8) Review and make recommendations to the city council on development applications, such as rezonings, conditional use permits, variances, vacations, preliminary plats and home occupation licenses. (9) Accept such other and further duties as may, from time to time, be directed by the city council, including conducting hearings. (Code 1982, S 25-23) Sec. 2-253. Compensation; expenses. All members of the planning commission shall serve without compensation. However, approved expenses of the planning commission shall be paid from available city funds. (Code 1982, S 25-24) Sec. 2-254. Responsibilities of city planninQ staff community development direGtor. Subject to the direction of the city manager, the planning commission and its chairperson, the city planninq staff community de'/elopment director shall: (1) Conduct all correspondence of the commission. (2) Send out all required notices. (3) Attend all meetings and hearings of the commission. (4) Keep the dockets and minutes of the commission's proceedings. (5) Keep all required records and files. (6) Maintain the files and indexes of the commission. (Code 1982, S 25-25) Planning Commission Minutes of 07-17-07 -19 - Sec. 2-255. Duties of city engineer, city attorney, city inspectors and other city employees. (a) The city engineer and the city attorney shall be available to the planning commission. The city engineer and attorney shall have the right to sit in with the commission at all meetings, but shall not be entitled to vote as members of the commission. (b) All city inspectors and other regular employees or personnel of the city shall cooperate with the planning commission and make themselves available and attend meetings when requested to do so. (Code 1982, S 25-26) Secs. 2-256-2-280. Reserved. This ordinance shall take effect after publishing in the official newspaper. RULES OF PROCEDURE Approved by the Planning Commission on February 21, 1983 Revision on February 17, 1999 Revision adopted on January 3, 2005 Last Revision proposed on July 17, 2007 We, the members of the Planning Commission of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, created pursuant to Chapter 2 2&;- as amended, of the Maplewood Code of Ordinances, do hereby accept the following Rules of Procedure, subject to the provisions of said ordinances, which are hereby made a part of these rules: A. MEETINGS 1. All meetings shall be held in City Hall unless otherwise directed by the chairperson, in which case at least 24 hours notice will be given to all members. 2. Regular meetings shall be held at 7 p.m. on the first and third Tuesdays Mondays of each month. If a regular meeting falls on a legal holiday, such meeting shall be rescheduled as a special meeting, if needed. 3. Special meetings shall be held upon call by the chairperson, or in their absence, by the vice chairperson, or by any other member with the concurrence of five other members of the Commission. At least 48 hours notice shall be given to all members for special meetings. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-17-07 -20 - B. QUORUM 1. A simple majority of the current membership of the Commission shall constitute a quorum. 2. Any member having a conflict of interest shall declare the same before discussion of the item in which he or she has a conflict. Any member who abstains from voting on a question because of possible conflict of interest shall not be considered a member of the Commission for determining a quorum for the consideration of that issue. 3. Approval of any motion shall require the affirmative vote of a majority of the members present. C. DUTIES OF CHAIRPERSON In addition to the duties prescribed in Section 2-249 ~ of the Code of Ordinances, the chairperson shall appoint such standing committees and temporary committees as are required, and such committees will be charged with the duties, examinations, investigations, and inquiries about the subjects assigned by the chairperson. No standing or temporary committee shall have the power to commit the Commission to the endorsement of any plan or program without its submission to the full Commission. D. ELECTION OF OFFICERS 1. A chairperson and vice chairperson shall be elected at the second meeting of each calendar year first planninq commission meetinq in June, and will serve until their successors have been elected. 2. In the absence of the chairperson, the vice chairperson shall perform all duties required of the chairperson. When both the chairperson and the vice chairperson are absent, the attending members shall elect a chairperson pro tem. 3. If the chairperson resigns from or is otherwise no longer on the planning commission, the vice chairperson shall become the acting chairperson until the planning commission can hold an election for new officers. If the vice chairperson resigns or is otherwise no longer on the planning commission, the planning commission will elect a new vice chairperson at the next possible planning commission meeting. E. REPRESENTATION AT COUNCIL MEETINGS Planning Commission Minutes of 07-17-07 -21 - A representative from the Commission shall appear at each Council meeting, where a planning item is on the agenda, to present the Commission's recommendation and to answer questions from the City Council regarding the decision. The Commission shall adopt a rotating schedule of its members at the first meeting of each year to attend these meetings. F. PLANNING DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT In addition to carrying out the duties prescribed in Section 2-254 ~ of the Code of Ordinances, the city planninq staff director shall: 1. Prepare the agenda and minutes for each meeting of the Commission. 2.Act as technical advisor to the Commission. 3. Present written alternatives and make recommendations on matters referred to the Commission. 4. Maintain a record of all agenda items from application to final action by the City Council. G.AGENDA 1. Copies of the agenda, together with pertinent planning office reports and copies of the minutes of the previous meeting, shall be distributed so that the members of the Commission shall have a copy at least three days prior to the meeting concerned. 2. The agenda shall consist of the following order of business a. Call to Order b. Roll Call c. Approval of Minutes d. Approval of Agenda e. Public Hearings f. Unfinished Business g. New Business h. Visitor Presentations i. Commission Presentations j. Staff Presentations k. Adjournment 3. No item that is not on the agenda shall be considered by the Commission. H. Except as herein provided, Robert's Rules of Order, Revised and Robert's Parliamentary Law shall be accepted as the authority on parliamentary practice. I. Amendments to the comprehensive plan shall require that the Planning Commission follow the same procedure for hearings and notices as required by State law for zoning ordinances. J. APPOINTMENTS The city council shall make all appointments to the planning commission by following the current city appointment policy. K. AMENDMENT 1. Any of these rules may be temporarily suspended by the vote of two-thirds majority of the members present. 2. These Rules of Procedure may be amended at any regular meeting of the Commission by a majority vote of the entire membership and submitted to the City Council for approval. L. These "Rules of Procedure" shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission at the first meeting of each year. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes - All The motion passed. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a) June 25 Council Meeting: Mr. Desai (Mr. Roberts) The items discussed included the Pond overlook townhouse project, which was approved by the city council, ayes all. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-17-07 23 b) July 9 Council Meeting: Mr. Hess (Mr. Roberts) The items discussed included the lot division and lot variances at 2291 Hazelwood. The site plan was revised to show the addition to the house meeting the rear yard setback so that only the existing house would have the rear setback variance request. This was approved, ayes all. The Keller Lake Convenience Store was originally scheduled to be discussed but was tabled until July 23, at the request of the neighbors. c) July 23 Council Meeting: Mr. Pearson The items to be discussed include the Keller Lake Convenience Store at County Road B, by Menards. d) July 30: Annual Tour Mr. Roberts asked if anyone else would like to R.S.v.P. for the annual tour. The entire commission confirmed they are going on the tour. e) August 13 Council Meeting: Ms. Fischer Chairperson Fischer stated she is planning on attending the meeting but will know for certain close to the date. The items scheduled to discuss include The Shores project. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS None. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. If one would like complete coverage of the meeting, a DVD copy of the meeting may be purchased from City Hall for $5. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Regent at Legacy Village SE Comer of Legacy Parkway and Kennard Street August 9, 2007 INTRODUCTION Frank James, of the Hartford Group, is requesting approval of revised plans for the Regent at Maplewood, the senior apartment building at Legacy Village. The project was originally approved to have 120 units of assisted living when the PUD (planned unit development) was approved in 2003. Last year, the community design review board (CDRB) approved the development plans which had the number of units reduced to 116 independent-living units. Now, the applicant has revised their plans to expand the complex to a 150-unit facility consisting of 87 independent-living units, 48 assisted-living units and 15 units of intensive-care suites. Refer to the applicant's narrative. The revised plans require the following: . A revision to the approved Legacy Village development concept plan because of the proposed increase from 120 to 150 units. Also, the applicant is requesting that the unit size for their 15 intensive-care units be reduced from the required 580 square feet to 400 square feet. · Approval of a parking reduction. The city code requires two parking stalls for each unit, one of which must be a garage space. The applicant is proposing a total of 131 parking stalls consisting of 100 garage spaces and 31 surface parking spaces. . Approval of design plans. BACKGROUND July 14, 2003: The city council approved the Legacy Village PUD, comprehensive plan amendment, tax-abatement plan, and preliminary plat. Refer to the approved PUD concept plan. Since the council approved the Legacy Village PUD, the following projects have been approved: · Heritage Square Townhomes (220 units) - under construction . Heritage Square 2nd Addition (81 units) - under construction . Wyngate Rental Townhomes (50 units) - completed . Ashley Fumiture - completed . Kennard Professional Building -completed . Maplewood Sculpture Park -completed . Legacy Shoppes Retail - not started . Ramsey County Library - completed DISCUSSION PUD Revision to Increase Number of Units Staff reviewed the density allowed in the original PUD approved in 2003. At that time, the Legacy Village residential density included the following: For-Sale Townhomes Rental Townhomes Wyngate Rental Townhomes Seniors Apartments 250 units 198 units 50 units 120 units Total 618 units The actual development densities that have occurred, or are proposed, are as follows: For-Sale Townhomes (Heritage Square) Rental Townhomes East of Kennard St. (Heritage Square II) Rental Townhomes West of Kennard St. (Legacy Townhomes of Maplewood) Wyngate Rental Townhomes Seniors Apartments 220 units 81 units 91 units remaining to be built 50 units 150 units Total 592 units As the totals show, the proposed built-out density for Legacy Village will be 26 units less than originally approved. The affect on the site itself should not cause any problem since the residents on this site would not generate the quantity of traffic a normal multi- family development would generate. Staff, therefore, sees no problem with the proposed increase in density for the proposed senior complex. Parking Reduction City code requires two parking stalls for each unit, or in this case, 300 parking stalls. Half of these, or 150, must be garage spaces. The applicant is proposing a total of 131 parking stalls. One hundred would be garage spaces and 31 would be open parking spaces. Staff had concerns about whether there would be enough parking for the residents, staff and visitors during peak visiting days (Mother's Day, Father's Day, holidays, etc). Also, there would be no area available for future parking should a shortage develop. The applicant addressed these concems with the following statement: 'We anticipate staff levels to be 17 to 20 employees at peak times and 3 to 4 overnight staff, with an average of 10 to 12 staff on site at any time. Based on our direct experience at Regent at Burnsville senior project, on which the Maplewood project is 2 based, only 40 to 50 of the underground spaces will be reseNed and used by residents at anyone time. (Bumsville has 136 units and 92 UG spaces, of which only 30 to 40 have been reseNed and used at any time over the past 3 years.) Accordingly, there is plenty of room for staff to use the underground parking. Assuming 50 UG spaces used for residents and 20 for staff (this is a maximum assumption), there would still be an additional 30 spaces available for family/visitor overflow parking in the underground garage and the entire surface parking lot for holidays/special events, etc. Also, there are a few spaces on the surrounding streets. The 31 spaces include those covered under the city parking easement. However, given the available parking described above I do not believe this will cause any problem." Last year, the Regent was approved to have 180 parking stalls to serve 116 independent-living units. This was 1.55 parking spaces per unit. Presently, the new Regent proposal would have 131 parking spaces for 150 units or .87 spaces per unit. The main difference now, however, is that there would be 87 independent-living units and the rest would be assisted-living (48) and intensive-care (15) units rather than them all being independent-living units like previously proposed. It is a fair assumption that none of the "intensive-care" residents will drive and likely most of the "assisted-living" residents will not as well. This leaves the primary drivers to be those in the 87 independent-living units. With these figures considered, it seems reasonable that the proposed 131 units will suffice for this project. Shared Access and Parking Another parking consideration is that the applicant and the city have an agreement that six parking spaces shall be available for sculpture-park parking. Reserving these six spaces for park use will lessen the number of parking spaces available for the Regent complex. This shared-parking agreement was arranged by Bruce Anderson, the former Parks and Recreation Director, and the applicant. The applicant should enter into a cross-easement agreement with the city which would guarantee the sculpture-park parking rights and to establish maintenance responsibility. Proof of ParkinQ The current plan does not include any proof-of-parking spaces as originally recommended by the city council. Likely, the amount of parking proposed will suffice for the needs of this facility, but the use of underground parking for visitors seems unrealistic. It is not likely that a visitor will know that they can park in the underground garage if the surface spaces are full. The applicant may need to utilize garage parking for staff and residents as their primary parking area and reserve the surface spaces for visitors and the half a dozen park spaces. Another problem would be if the use of the building changed to that of more independent-living units. In this event, there could be a greater demand on the available parking stalls. Parkinq Summation Staff is inclined to accept the applicant's proposal, but with some reservations. Staff recommends that the management be required to make their staff and residents use the garage as their primary parking lot should surface parking become short. Staff is relying 3 on the applicant's justification and on the realization that this use will not likely change to a higher multi-family use. In fact, the parking limitations will prevent such a conversion should that be considered in the future. Building and Site Considerations Buildinq Desicn The proposed building is attractive. The materials proposed are no-maintenance and are compatible with the design and exterior material of the existing Legacy Village structures. Room-Size Reduction All the room sizes meet the city code minimums for square footage with the exception of the "Studio Care" efficiency-size apartments for residents with greater medical needs. The city code requires a unit-size minimum of 580 square feet. These proposed units would have 400 square feet. The minimum floor-area requirement of 580 square feet was intended for typical "efficiency" apartments. The proposed unit sizes should suffice in this instance since they are for persons with limited mobility that need medical assistance. Landscapinc The proposed landscaping would be attractive and in compliance with the PUD conditions. Staff is recommending, though, that the plan be revised to make the comer landscaping feature at the roundabout of taller plantings to match those planted at the other comers. Also, there should be two additional trees planted east of the main entrance drive and in the yard area at the northwest corner of the site by the intersection. Trash Storace The applicant has not shown any outdoor storage area for trash or recycling containers. The lower level, the garage level, shows that there will be trash storage in the garage area. It trash is later stored outdoors, it must be within an architecturally-compatible trash enclosure. The city, furthermore, is now requiring recycling containers for multi- family properties. Retaininc Walls There are retaining walls shown on the original site plan. Retaining walls that exceed a height of four feet must have a fence or guardrail on top for safety and must be designed by a structural engineer. SidewalkslTrails The site is surrounded by sidewalks along the two streets to the north and west and by the park trails to the south and east. Sidewalk connections are proposed to connect these pedestrian ways. 4 Site LiqhtinQ The original photometric plan has been prepared and meets city requirements. The proposed increase in living density should have no effect on this. Engineering Comments Refer to the engineer's report. Building Official's Comments Dave Fisher, Maplewood's Building Official, gave 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. . Provide adequate fire department access to the buildings. · The building must have a fire sprinklering system in compliance with NFPA 13. . The developer should have a preconstruction meeting with the contractor, the project manager and the city building inspection department Police Comments Lieutenant Kevin Rabbett reviewed the new proposal and stated that there were no public safety concems with the revised plan. Fire Marshal Butch Gervais, the Maplewood Fire Marshal, reviewed the new proposal and requires the following to be provided or accomplished: . Fire protection per code . Fire alarm per code . A 20-foot-wide fire department access road . A fire department key box (order from AC/FM) . Annunciation panel at the main entrance . Room directions . Proper marking of fire protection room and fire alarm room 5 RECOMMENDATIONS A. Adopt the attached resolution to approve the revision to the previously-approved PUD concept plan allowing the Regent at Legacy Village senior building to increase the number of units from 120 to 150. This PUD revision also allows the reduction in the square-foot area of the intensive-care units from 580 square feet to 400 square feet. Approval is based on the findings required by ordinance and because of the following reasons: 1. The proposed built-out density of the entire Legacy Village PUD will be less than that originally approved by 26 units. 2. The affect on the site itself should not cause an overcrowding problem since the residents on this site would not generate the quantity of traffic a normal multi-family development would. 3. The minimum floor-area requirement of 580 square feet was intended for typical "efficiency" apartments. The proposed unit sizes should suffice in this instance since they are for persons with limited mobility that need medical assistance. B. Approval of a parking waiver to provide 100 underground and 31 on-grade parking spaces rather than the 300 required by ordinance. Approval is because the proposed senior housing complex would not generate the amount of traffic associated with typical multi-family uses. This parking reduction of 169 spaces is subject to the requirements of city ordinance should the use of the building be proposed for a change to a higher traffic-generating use. C. Approve the revised plans date-stamped June 15,2007 for the Regent at Legacy Village. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: 1. 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 revise the plans or do the following for staff approval: . Enter into a cross-easement agreement with the city for the shared parking spaces for the use of the city's abutting sculpture park. This agreement shall be prepared by the city attorney and shall require that the developer of the senior complex be responsible for driveway maintenance and snowplowing. This agreement shall be subject to the requirements of the director of public works. . Provide the city with cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the exterior landscaping and site improvements. . Meet all requirements of the engineering report by Jon Jarosch dated July 5, 2007. 6 . Meet all requirements of the fire marshal and building official. · Provide engineered plans to the building official for all retaining walls that exceed four feet in height as measured from the bottom of the footing. All retaining walls that are four feet tall or taller shall have a protective fence or guardrail on top. · Provide a site and design plan for the screening of any trash and recycling containers if they would be kept outside. Should a trash enclosure area be proposed in the future, it shall not be placed in any parking space. · Provide a screening plan for any exterior utility meters, if there would be outside meters, subject to the requirements of the community design review board. . Provide sidewalks to the existing trails and public sidewalks as required by the original PUD approval. The location of these sidewalks is dependent upon the location of exits from the building. 3. Before getting a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall: · Comply with or complete all aspects of these plans or any required revisions. . Provide in-ground lawn irrigation as shown on the plans. . Install traffic and address signs, subject to staff approval. . Install wetland-protection buffer signs around the west side of the abutting wetland area. 4. The community design review board shall review major changes to these plans. Minor changes may be approved by staff. 7 CITIZEN COMMENTS Staff surveyed the 88 property owners within 500 feet of this site for their comments. I received one response. That was by telephone. This person did not give their name and was in opposition to the proposal. They were not aware that this senior building was part of the Legacy Village PUD. REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 3 acres Existing Use: Undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Legacy Parkway and the Kennard Professional Building South: Birch Run Station Shopping Center East: Maplewood Sculpture Park West: Kennard Street and the Heritage Square Townhomes PLANNING Land Use Plan: R3H (high density residential) Zoning: PUD APPLICATION DATE We received the complete application and plans for this proposal on July 21,2007. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications. A decision on this request is required by September 19, 2007, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. p:sec3\1egacy\Regent Snrs mj 7 07 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Legacy Village PUD Concept Plan 3. Site/Landscape Plan 4. Building Elevations 5. Project Summary from Hartford Group 6. Engineering report dated July 15, 2007 7. Resolution 8 Attachment 1 ------- "llr' I( II I I I t. q 'I q .., [I 11 I 'i1111!iilillIIIEEli ,) I[ JI I[ 1IIImll '" Ii )1 (I I) lid l) I \........._ 1___..... L__U \J:_--, I \ J} " - ~ .... ~,.. ........ ....l ' - . .-------....--- -- --- --- ,'~~____________________________________________lJ)llN1JtRll[l_______ ___________~ I( ~ ~ @: 11" cr: r II Cl [ i J ::I:, Z [ II tel, ::} I II 1 ~ I II ~ I It 0 r ltl ~ I I II I' II I J II I' II I I II I 1 II EGACY PHWI I I I J /1 "00 I II CJ,,'J.:-'~ II \ld,:OOO ' II I II I I I LEGACY PKWI I i ( 0[10[10 I rIm!' - ,,;-~ "1 I II g,2lD ! 110"= I II I II L::l';1::=J 1 11=;=' r --- I J CJ CJl] 1 /-' __/-~ I, i 00""-0' '"OPO'" 0 i i / & II I l' f J:t II f Jj \ ~ I' d I II PROPOSED I ~ I \ ! It }I{l I I i REGENT SENIORS' 1\ I \ : [ I I ~I I \ \ : : APARTMENT SITE i i! \>" II \ il '- '\ II , j~ \ \ \ II ! I 1 I t /-~....\ \_-'. -' I - ~~~~~~~:-~~~~~~~~;=~~ ----~~---/ ~~~ I ( \ f ~I II " t II If 1 I ] I I I ~ Ii II )1 I ~ I {, I, \ ! I[ } \, i I (0) i i~ t r .......L \ I \ - I I , 1 I I I I I f ] I I I 1 J I 'I' V I) }.1 ~ t -J~iJ h ~ ~ ~~'~J II LS~-- _______~ .---=---:..--=----" <-':::=--=--=--=::::::::: ::-=--=--=--=--==__=__=:=__:flE.7.l."M--:-A.:\tS"-=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=-" cO -=--=--=c:;=--::.:::::::=--=--:::::::::.====-=-_=__=__=_-=--=--=-.::--=-=--=--=--=--=--=--=-= <-=--=--=-co :;.) fi ~--:.------ ------.--------- --- ---- ~- --- -- ----.-~... ,r.---'- -~ --- -----~ -- ----------~--...-- ---- --- ~~. "..-- --- LOCATION MAP 9 \ Attachment 2 lEGACY VillAGE AT MAPlEWOOD ---- . " ~':;;"'I..'!.-~" (f) \\~ ~i~ 'u !l.', ,\~?_---g ~ ---.--'~ ". ~t__ \ :._--------------------- ! OUn.OT H , POR SAU! TOWHHQMI!! GROSI1U.k1. ~.--y-- ,/ .-- ,,' -:.._~;@-;;\ \ " -~. -;;'>;j"" ., t. f'rof'os.d APPROVED PUD S..+' DEVELOPMENT-CONCEPT PLAN JULY 14, 2003 10 · , '~~I!lh I IHI J D j!! . , =te 10." 1,111 il" , " i~,!i~ II' ~ ; " . ,j':<illj'!I! nil j ~ Ij!,lii ~ ~~ I ..!~~F!;l,:: 'I,ll 1 ! ~ f ;'j:!~ ~ < 0 "> n'n,..~"" I~, .. I \! \l _~ t ! "I i! 'I! 1,1 '! i I III , ! II II III I, 11!1 I hi II! II I I" I! ill II II !! I , j' i! ill! !lll ! 'i! in! ! ! II ' I ! ill II ~, l! I ! Iliil l!lll! ihl ! III! liP ! I! ! II I I !ll, I"I! !ll I !I! ! I "'I Ill;",!!! III pI! I p'l!'l W III II! ~ I m!il~i Ilil! ill.! lllW illlij~~llll!~ I 11,1" ~li~ ir,~ ,~it~ m ii!~li I~ Ii i I 1m Ii 111\ I III!I !, .I! .11.11.1> .,111 ~11.h! .11 J J,...,.! "I" ,I, 'lll.",...I1 "ll.l! 1 '1'1 ! I" '1 I ! . . !lllll ll,.J i ! I '111 11 il.i 1 ! II ' 'Ill !'l I' i! 11 iili hi 1'] ~~ Iii 111111 1111' H! I ! i I ~!i II: ~ I Ii ~ I i~ ~"il ijl ~ !Ii II '!~-!f I, Jli;~[ 11 I"l iii' !I,! I ,/IH. 'I Ii,;il. 'Iii ! liji hill III ',I 1. t Ii '. ., :ll ' r~ ~!!I~ bl mU~~!~li,nll!~ 11JJ!m~11111!1111~ ' ! I Ilil!! II' l~' I. ; lI" 11.!1l '10"'" jll ! Ii 11!' 1111 ill.ll -ii ,! I ill! illl !m ! ! lill !illl.l! i! Ii ill !II !il11 III Ii III 1111I111 I!!!! III 11I1 hi IIliIIb! I. i! I ~ .--. , . ~ : .0' , ','~~'~I~I;:~i.p~__._,\ '.';i - . . - ., -I v: ;'/.: ~ ..-r" -'---.;~,' \ ~ \ \ /' v"" \ \ } } - '.fa I' --:-1, .. 'I ' " --:--- -4 r=1------r " -, , - : - ~~. --:Jf: ~~ ~ ~:. > "j J~-;;' ! j t,." i f: Attachment 3 ~ Iii l !~f I::!(~::.j ~~\\ ~;r;[[ '~ )h1al" , o " ~ li;I!!II~~ llilUUlj ., ~( :> }-z .JO ~l= " :<:~ R1'" _f- >!j1 il!o "," 0'" ~o ~ f- o Z .d n 11 !l . III 'i' ,11, ~ :":J{. I ~~ ~ ! ~ . . :.i ~ !:is )J . ~ [:;3 Li!!-1 ',t,li ':~ J III 11 Q 11 11m.!!; !~ I !ll;~l ~m i i'.it:j .. milll ~ ~ ~ ~1Ii;, lI! I ~ ! I, ',II I! 'I ;!I ill ! ; '1 1'1 I '!!" I, n i Illll'!I! lIt " I, ! II' !ili i i Illl! Ii! ~ --! '. I!!! ,Ij I,! ! " ! ! 1 ~ ~ i ! Ii; I ! ~Mt)~0iB '" '" , .--, . , ., : . ,/ " : .1.1' \./" --- '" I' /' ':,' .' -<'--'~~': .'~::..'::.::.- . ,<-,/' /' ,~,=,,~~=-..:":=-:"'-:-;V"~~_U~- ru 11 W'd-1~>C>l.<'-'....L9.=''''JiV''.="".,z".;\__,, <f) <f) "' ~ <f) l- I" l- I- ~ Z Z z () I-}- <(~ >'L Wit .J<>; WIL I-}- \fJ~ Will S:11J z () I- <l:}- ><>; W1 .J1t W<>; IlL I-}- It~ () III z11J N Attachment 4 12 =a l~~I!)h ! b! j JD lrll I~~ r" Ii I i III 111!~~ II ~ Ii ~ ()ri" jl &" , " ill' , ' . I i'o~IPllhl aH 1 ; Illlil~ I H ~ " !~~i!lll:!!!! . · Ill' ~ ~ ..., I !lil 3 , II I HII,I iB -<$ ~ I I :'.' ~;.; I I I $ <$ i~~ ~ I, ;! J ! ~ g i ~ ~ ~ ~! ;; I! J ii ill! l'! i, lll'.'. hI 'I , "1- hj'!!' ;,1 po; h!!h;ll!!!lllillll:!li Ill!! 8888 8S 8 8S iSii iSiS i .. . ~.: '.~m~~ ~ !! ~!! i> ~ ~ ~ . . , . ~ 2 0 " " ~l ~l "i i ~! h " , 2 o ~ ~; ~! ~ ~ ~ . . Z o ~ ~i !! f ffff'f , I I I I , I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I Ii> '~ I. , , " ~ " '~ Iii; I i _.: ~! r o.~-~;Q.<.""""",""""',(M;~"",y-. 13 19 Attachment 5 IH I HARTFORD .~ REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT' AROiITECTURE. ENGINEERING. MANAGEMENT June 12, 2007 Irv~@~ollJ~m UlJ JUN 1 52007 Wi REGENTATMAPLEWOOD By A SENIOR CONTINUUM OF CARE/ASSISTED UVING COMMUNITY CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA Narrative in Support ofPUD Amendment PROPERTY OWNER ARClUTECTSffiNGINEER Legacy Holdings-MW, LLC 7900 Xerxes Avenue South, Suite 1300, Bloomington, MN 55431 952-838-2400 Fax: 952-838-2401 Hartford Group, AlE, Inc. Thomas Wasmoen, AlA Patrick Sarver, ASLA Aaron Archbold, PE 7900 Xerxes Avenue South, Suite 1300, Bloomington, MN 55431 952-838-2400 Fax: 952-838-2401 www.hartfordgrp.com PROJECT SUMMARY Regent at Maplewood is a 4-story, 150 unit senior continuum of care project to be located at the SE comer of Legacy Parkway and Kennard Street in Legacy Village. In addition to each resident's residential unit in Regent, all residents are provided a progressive level of health and life assistance services based on individual needs. Of the 150 units, approximately 87 units will be for Independent Living residents and 48 for Assisted Living residents. The remaining 15 units are dedicated to more service intensive Care Suites. Details of the services provided for each of the three continuum levels are found in the Additional Information section below. The site plan has 131 parking stalls -- 100 heated, underground stalls and a surface lot with an additiona131 parking stalls. 7900 Xerxes Avenue South. Suite 1300 . Bloomington, MN 55431 . 952-838-2400 (P) . 952-838-2401 (F) . www.hartfordoro.com 14 PUD AMENDMENT/WAIVER REQUEST Hartford requests an amendment/waiver of the existing Legacy Village PUD to allow 150 units at the Regent project. Although the Regent has 30 more units that currently permitted under the ordinance, its impact on the Legacy Village development and local public services will actually be less than that of a permitted 120 unit age restricted senior apartment building. Regent is a continuum of care/assisted living facility. As described in more detail below, its residents will be made up of seniors who desire and require their housing to provide additional life and health related services on site. The projected average age of the residents is 82 years old. All residents will receive at least one meal as part of their residency. A large percentage of the residents will receive in-house personal and health care services. Accordingly, the number of trips to and from the property is greatly reduced as compared to a similar senior apartment building that is age restricted only. This applies to the Independent Living residents, and even more so to the Assisted Living residents. In particnlar, the level of care required and provided in the 15 Care Snites is akin to that of a nursing home, making mobility very limited and the need for a vehicle virtually nonexistent. As a comparative example, Hartford currently owns the Regent at Bumsville, a 136 unit assisted living project on which the Regent at Maplewood is directly based. Completed in Jnly 2005, it is fully leased and contains 80 Independent Living units, 40 Assisted Living units and 16 Care Snites - only somewhat smaller than Regent at Maplewood. Regent at Burnsville has 92 underground parking spaces, a 50 space surface lot and no street parking. Of the 92 underground spaces available to residents only 35 are reserved and used. The surface parking lot is used at approximately 50% capacity. Augustana Care, the property manager, says that demand for parking spaces is low as many of the residents; particularly those in the Assisted Living and Care Suites do not have cars as they do not or cannot drive. Instead, they take advantage of the transportation services provided to them through Regent. Based on these factors, Hartford requests the approval of the increased unit density. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Residents living at the Regent will enjoy the active lifestyle of quality senior living, combined \vith tailor- made assisted living services. The Regent will offer convenient access to local restaurants, offices, retail developments, St. John's Hospital and the new Ramsey County library. AGING IN PLACE Regent at Maplewood's unique concept of "aging in place" will allow residents to develop a sense of place and home, free from worry of any changing health status that may require additional services. If a 7900 Xerxes Avenue South . Suite 1300 . Bloomington, MN 55431 . 952":838-2400 (P) . 952-838-2401 (F) . www.hartfordaro.com 15 resident's health should change, life and health care services as needed will be delivered directly to that resident's home upon request. This concept further allows Regent a fluid and dynamic approach to market conditions, thereby increasing initial occupancy and absorption rates, stability and the long-term feasibility of the project. CARE AND SERVICES Care/living options for Regent residents are planned with three levels of services: -Independent Living -Assisted Living -Care Suites It is the goal of Hartford Group that eveI)' resident at The Regent at Maplewood will be able to enjoy each day with the ability to achieve maximwn independence with no sacrifice in quality of life, health and happiness. Independent! Assisted Living residents will have the option to remain in the same apartment home regardless of tlle services needed or utilized. With a wide range of services available and specifically catered to eveI)' individual, the needs of residents will consistently be met. Independent Living The Independent Living option is designed for independent seuior adults who desire limited services, bnt want to enjoy a lifestyle filled with recreational, educational and social activities with other community residents. This option will allow residents at the Regent to live independently while enjoying the security, service and conveuience of community living. Residents will have a modest level of services provided, with the option to ntilize additional services upon request. Planned Independent Living unit services will include but not be limited to: . One meal per day . Periodic housekeeping service . Scheduled transportation services . Social, recreational and fitness programs . Health and wellness programs . 24-hour emergency call service . 24-hour staff on-site . Varying selections of large floor plans with full kitchens . Individual patios or screened balcouies in selected residences . Security safe doors and emergency call systems . Utilities - including electricity, water, sewer and trash collection . Private bathrooms with handicap accessible, walk-in shower . Individually controlled heating and air conditioning . In unit laundry machines 7900 Xerxes Avenue South . Suite 1300 . Bloomingtonr f'.m 55431 . 952-838-2400 (P) . 952-838-2401 (F) . www.hartfordoro.com 16 Options available at additional cost . Additional health, nursing and personal care services . Additional housekeeping Additional meals and guest meals . Available guest suite for family and friends Meal tray service . Beauty and barber shop services . Personal laundry . Enclosed heated parking Assisted Living The Assisted Living option will provide a special combination of residential housing, standard personalized supportive services and ongoing healthcare. Regent Assisted Living is designed to meet the individual needs of those requiring elevated assistance with the activities of daily living, but do not need the same level of comprehensive and intensive medical care provided in a traditional nursing home. Assisted Living options will provide residents with the care of a well trained staff, 365 days a year. Services provided will be "a la carte" allowing residents to select only those services needed. Many services will be provided in individual residences, which include a conveuient kitchen and 24-hour emergency call system. Planned Assisted Living unit services include the services offered to Independent Living residents and the following: . Three daily meals . Weekly housekeeping . Medication set-up and reminders . Personalized health and medical assistance Options available at additional cost . Additional housekeeping . Case management by health care professional . Tailored personal care and health related services as needed . Rehabilitation services . Personal laundry services Care Suites The 15 Care Suite units offer a more compreheusive level of care for its longer term residents, together \vith an option for a place to stay or recover following a hospital slay or short-term medical need for Independent or Assisted residents. Planned services in the Care Suites will include: . TIuee daily meals served in a private home-like dining room 7900 Xerxes Avenue South . Suite 1300 . Bloomington, MN 55431 . 952-838-2400 (P) . 952-838-2401 (F) . w\-w.hartfordoro com 17 . Personal laundry services . 24 hour 5: 1 dedicated staff ratio Tailored personal care and health-related services, as needed . 24-hour emergency call system and staff'mg . Staff members trained in addressing more rigorous medical needs . State-of-the-art programming that enhances independence . Social and wellness programs . Physical, speech, music, respiratory and occupational therapies as ueeded . Apartments with a residential atmosphere . An environment providing freedom of movement for residents . Private, handicap accessible bathroom PROJECT MANAGEMENT Regent will be managed by a professional management company experienced with seniors and assisted living projects. The property manager will provide the required professional staffing and licenses required for this type of facility. As an example, Hartford's Regent at Burnsville project is managed by Augustana Care, a locally based, non-profit provider of senior health care and housing. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES Given the more limited mobility of many of the residents, Regent will provide transportation on a daily basis to surrounding retail areas, religious services, restaurants, community events and other amenities. Specific travel services will also be available to residents as requested. 7900 Xerxes Avenue South . Suite 1300 . Bloomington, MN 55431 . 952-838-2400 (P) . 952-838-2401 (f) . ww\v.hartfordaro.com 18 Attachment 6 Page 1 of3 EDl!:ineerinl! Plan Review # 2 PROJECT: Regent at Maplewood Development PROJECT NO: 06-19 REVIEWED BY: Jon Jarosch, Staff Engineer DATE: July 5, 2007 The Hartford Group is requesting City approval of a proposed senior-apartment building at the southeast comer of Legacy Parkway and Kennard Street. This is a 2.95 acre site within the Legacy Village of Maple wood Development. The developer and project engineer shall address the concerns stated below by making the corresponding changes to the plans, as well as to the site. Drainage & Treatment 1. Soil borings must be taken in all rainwater gardens and infiltration areas to ensure that infiltration rates assumed in hydraulic calculations are correct. 2. Rainwater garden, rock-sump, and rip-rap construction details shall be included within the plan set. Please include updated Maplewood Rainwater Garden detail, standard plate #116. This detail can be found on the City of Maple wood Website. 3. Please call out all Emergency Overflow Elevations for the rainwater gardens. 4. CB-MH 101 shall have a 3' sump to capture sediment before it can enter the ponding system. 5. A HydroCad or TR-55 storm-water routing model shall be submitted for the rainwater garden systems as well as the piping network. 6. CB-201 shall have a shut-off valve installed. This is necessary to stop direct discharge into the wetland if the were an emergency (chemical spill, etc.). 7. It is suggested, but not required, that CB-201 utilize a slot drain across the entire width of the entrance/exit ramp to the garage. This would eliminate the uneven pavement necessary in this location with the standard grate shown. Grading & Erosion Control 1. Please include a note on the estimated amount of cut/fill anticipated for this project. 2. Please include updated City of Maple wood Plates No. 350A-350E for details on sediment and erosion control measures. 19 Page 2 oD 3. Call out inlet protection devices to be used as specified by Maplewood plate No. 350A-E Please note that a simple piece of geotextile fabric placed beneath catch-basin grates is not an acceptable inlet protection device. 4. Please include a note on construction phasing. 5. Please call out inlet protection devices for catch-basins in Kennard Street directly west of the proposed development. 6. Please specify a concrete washout and excess fill stockpile locations on the erosion control plan. Utilities 1. The water-main and connection must be approved by Saint Paul Regional Water Service. Landscaping 1. The bottom of all rainwater gardens, as well as the first I-foot of contour above the bottom of the gardens, shall be planted with plugs. All other areas of the rainwater gardens may be seeded as is currently proposed. This requirement is due to the extreme difficulty observed on past projects in establishing plants via seeding in the bottom of rainwater gardens. 2. It is strongly suggested that all areas of the rainwater gardens be planted with plugs. There is a much higher success rate when planting with plugs and the aesthetic quality of the gardens is achieved immediately. This aesthetic quality near the building will help give the development a finished look to potential residents. Because plantings establish more quickly than seedings, the city can sign off on the project and release escrow sooner. On seedings, we inspect during the first season but most are not ready for sign off until the second or third season. Escrow is not released until we sign off that native vegetation has established. If it does not establish within 2-3 years it must be redone and the waiting process begins all over. Since the city began checking for establishment of native plants a few years ago, we have only been able to sign off on two or three projects. Miscellaneous 1. A noise study shall be performed to ensure that noise levels at the development are within both daytime and nighttime state standards. If the noise levels are over state standards, noise reduction techniques must be employed within the development to meet these standards. 2. A detailed definition for the access easements shown shall be submitted to the City of Maplewood. 20 Page 3 of3 3. Please submit a set of plans to the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District for their approval. 4. All retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height require an engineered design, a building permit, and shall include a fence at the top of wall. The contractor or the project engineer shall provide more detailed information about the walls and their construction at the time of requesting a building permit. 5. 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. 6. The developer shall enter into a maintenance agreement, prepared by the city, for the rainwater gardens, basins, sumps, and stormwater treatment structures (StormCeptor). 7. The developer and project engineer shall satisfY the requirements of all other permitting agencies. 8. The developer or project engineer shall submit plans to Saint Paul Regional Water Services and Ramsey County for their reviewals. 21 Attachment 7 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REVISION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, The Hartford Group applied for a revision to the planned unit development (PUD) for The Regent, the senior's housing complex at Legacy Village of Maplewood. The proposed PUD revision was to increase the previously-approved density from 120 to 150 multi-family units. This PUD revision also includes a reduction in unit size for the 15 intensive-care units from 580 square feet to 400 square feet. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the three-acre site in Legacy Village lying southeast of the intersection of Kennard Street and Legacy Parkway. Drive. The legal description is: Lot 1 , Block 3 of Legacy Village of Maplewood. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On August 21, 2007, the planning commission held a public hearing to review these requests. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff. 2. The city council reviewed this proposal and considered the planning commission's recommendation on ,2007. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and those in attendance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above- described PUD revision because: 1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3. The use would not depreciate property values. 4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, 22 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. 10. The proposed built-out density of the entire Legacy Village PUD will be less than that originally approved by 26 units. 11. The affect on the sit itself should not cause an overcrowding problem since the residents on the site would not generate the quantity of traffic a typical multi-family development would. 12. The minimum floor-area requirement of 580 square feet was intended for typical "efficiency" apartments. The proposed unit sizes should suffice in this instance since they are for persons with limited mobility that need medical assistance. The Maplewood City Council this resolution on ,2007. 23 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PROJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Gladstone Neighborhood Streetscape study Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Project Frost Avenue West of English Street August 14, 2007 INTRODUCTION The city council is seeking input from the city's advisory committees regarding the Gladstone Neighborhood Streetscape Study which is part of the Gladstone Neighborhood Redevelopment Project. The city's streetscape-design consultant, Tom Harrington of Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., has presented his streetscape-design proposal to the community design review board, the environmental and natural resources commission and the parks and recreation commission. Mr. Harrington will now present his work to the planning commission and the historical preservation commission. RECOMMENDATION The planning commission and the historical preservation commission should forward their comments regarding the Gladstone Neighborhood Streetscape Study to the city council. p:sec16\gladstonelstreelscape presentation 8 07 Attachment: Location Map of Phase I Gladstone Neighborhood Streelscape Study MEMORANDUM LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Consideration of Partnership Change-St. Paul's Monastery Property Development 2675 Larpenteur Avenue East August 9, 2007 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION Past Action On May 14, 2007, the city council approved a PUD (planned unit development) and a preliminary plat for the St. Paul's Monastery development proposal at 2675 Larpenteur Avenue East. This development included the following: . A 40-unit senior-housing apartment building to be operated by CommonSond Communities. CommonBond is a developer and manager of affordable housing. . A 50-unit town house development also to be built and operated by CommonSond. The existing 110-car parking lot for the monastery on this site would be removed and relocated south of the monastery building. . A change in use of the existing monastery building. This building would be sold to the Tubman Family Alliance for use as a family-violence shelter/residence. This proposed facility would be used for offices, housing, community support, information and training, child care and education. There would be a 1 08-car parking lot added to the south end of this proposed parcel for the Tubman Family Alliance. There would also be a 33-car parking lot provided northeast of the monastery building. The Tubman Family Alliance use of this building would include 37 housing units as follows: six for single women; 18 for mothers with one to two children; six for mothers with three or more children; four for adult males and three for mothers with teenage boys. . A future monastery on the north end of the property. The existing monastery building was constructed to house 278 Sisters. Today, the community consists of 58 Sisters, 35 of which reside on site. Therefore, there is no need for such a large building. The PUD conditions are attached for reference. Tubman/Chrysalis Merger At the June 11, 2007 city council meeting, the city council discussed a merger between the Tubman Family Alliance and Chrysalis, another such service organization. The council was questioning if this merger would result in an intensification of activities and an increase in the anticipated traffic in the neighborhood beyond that discussed during the PUD-review process. The council directed staff to schedule a review of this matter with the city's planning commission and then bring it before the city council for discussion. DISCUSSION The city council has asked the planning commission to consider the potential for increased impact on the approved site use or traffic as it results from the Tubman/Chrysalis merger. Ms. Dusso's attached letter explains that there will be none. RECOMMENDATION The planning commission should discuss this and forward their comments to the city council. p:sec13-29\priory tubman chrysalis 8 07 Attachments: 1. LocatlonlZonin9 Map 2. Site Plan 3. May 14, 2007 City Council PUD Conditions 4. Letter from Beverly Dusso 2 b. N ,~, ~ cjJ ~ 'ff' [;J Q o 'B 'S ,0 'El. D "'" CJ, Attachment 1 N ~ ~ . . [JO [? (J Do 0 o 0 ~ ~= " . c:P 0 " "j] ltfjO ,01\] 0 ~ o c'J = rr 2 ~ Location I Zoning Map 2675 Larpenteur Ave E St Paul's Monastery 3 w !::z CI,>::5 ~Q. 01- -z O:::w Q.:e co.. wO CI)..J ow 0..> Ow o:::C Q. Attachment 2 -, ~III ~3 ~ t~ llJ ~~ I l:ijg !J~ . - ~" ", -<r:: Ii I~ ~ ~I! Iii. ~'I' I I "I , Cl !!:: ~ L .J s~m~~ " '" ~!;.\; w lrr- ill ,I, ~ '; i .'1 zr : ~ , EI I "l , , i <, ~' .~I ~ ! 4 * Attachment 3 Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes-all Councilmember Rossbach moved to direct staff to look at the additional proiects that Director Ahl listed. do the preliminary work on concrete alternatives and then submit this information to the citv council. Seconded by Council member Cave Mayor Longrie questioned what this motion was requesting. Council member Rossbach clarified that this motion is requesting information and includes spending $40,000. The council voted: Nays-Juenemann, Hjelle, Mayor Longrie Ayes-Councilmembers Rossbach, Cave K. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Markham Pond Wall Motion for Reconsideration and Recommendation to Table pending further research by the City Attorney Councilmember Hjelle moved to reconsider the previous council action. Seconded by Mayor Longrie Ayes-Councilmembers Hjelle and Cave, Mayor Longrie Nay-Councilmember Juenemann Abstention-Councilmember Rossbach Mayor Longrie moved to table this matter pendinq further review of the historv of this matter. Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle Ayes-all 2. COBRA Benefits for 911 Dispatchers a. City Manager Copeland presented the report. Councilmember Cave moved to authorize pavment of COBRA benefits in the amount of $6.284 for all transferrinq 911 dispatchers as a severance benefit at the time of emplovee transfer to Ramsev County. Seconded by Councilmember Juenemann Ayes-all 3. Sl. Paul's Monastery Redevelopment (Century and Larpenteur Avenues) Public Comment on this matter was taken at a Special City Council Meeting on May 7, 2007. Public Comment is now closed. Discussion is limited to City Council questions for City Staff. a. Application for Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development b. Preliminary Plat for Century Trails Commons Senior Planner Ekstrand presented the report and responded to questions from the council. Ellen Higgins, in charge of development for Common Bond Communities, addressed the council regarding the proposed affordable housing. Mayor Longrie thanked Ms. Higgins for her suggestion that a transportation task force be created to work toward increasing public transportation to this site. Mayor Longrie stated May 14, 2007 City Council Meeting 5 her support for increasing transportation on the site and creating a task force to look at these issues. Councilmember Hjelle moved to adopt the followinq resolution approvinQ a conditional use permit for a planned unit development for the Sisters of St. Benedict of St. Paul's Monasterv. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION 07-05-071 WHEREAS, the Sisters of St. Benedict of St. Paul's Monastery applied for a conditional use permit for a planned unit development to develop their 31.04-acre site with a 50-unit town house development; a 40-unit seniors housing apartment building; to convert the existing monastery building as a multi-use family-violence shelter with 37 housing units, offices and support facilities and to build a future monastery building on the north end of their propertY. WHEREAS, Section 44-1092(3) of the city ordinances requires a conditional use permit for institutions of any educational, philanthropic and charitable nature. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property located at 2675 Larpenteur Avenue. The legal description is: That part of the South % of the Southeast Quarter of Section 13, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota lying east and north of a line described as beginning at a point on the south line of said Southeast Quarter of Section 13 985 feet west of the southeast comer of said Southeast Quarter of Section 13; thence 78 degrees 40 minutes to the right proceeding in a north-northwesterly direction for 620 feet to a point of curve; thence to the left on a curve having a radius of 100 feet a distance of 157.08 feet to a point of tangent; thence 90 degrees to the right, at right angles to the tangent to said curve at said point of tangent, a distance of 450 feet; thence 90 degrees to the left a distance of 200 feet; thence 90 degrees to the right a distance of 225 feet, more or less, to the north line of said South % of the Southeast Quarter of Section 13. Except that part of the Southeast Quarter of said Southeast Quarter of Section 13 which lies northeasterly of a line parallel with and distant 100 feet southwesterly of a line described as beginning at a point on the east line of said Section 13, distant 1324.13 feet north of the southeast corner thereof; thence run westerly at an angle of 90 degrees with said east section line for 186.63 feet; thence deflect to the right on a 10 degree curve, delta angle 29 degrees 20 minutes, for 293.33 feet; thence on tangent to said curve for 100 feet and there terminating; together with all that part of the above described tract, adjoining and southerly of the above described strip, which lies easterly of a line run parallel with and distant 60 feet westerly of the following described line: Beginning at the point of intersection of the above described line with the east line of said Section 13; thence run southerly along the east line of said Section 13 for 540 feet and there terminating; also together with a triangular piece adjoining and southerly of the first above described strip and westerly of the last described strip, which lies northeasterly of the following described line: From a point on the last described line, distant 150 feet southerly of its point of beginning, run westerly at right angles to said line for 60 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence run northwesterly to a point on the southerly boundary of the first above described strip, distant 100 feet westerly of its intersection with a line run parallel with and distant 33 westerly of the east line of said Section 13. Which lies easterly, northerly and easterly of a line described as commencing at said southeast corner of the Southeast Quarter of Section 13; thence westerly, along said south line of the May 14, 2007 City Council Meeting 6 Southeast Quarter of Section 13, a distance of 832.02 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence deflecting to the right 78 degrees 40 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 750.06 feet; thence deflecting to the left 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 204.00 feet; thence deflecting to the right 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 638.98 feet to said north line of the south half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 13 and said line there terminating. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On March 20, 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 May 7,2007, 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. May 14, 2007 City Council Meeting 7 Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. This planned unit development shall follow the concept plans date-stamped January 11, 2007. These plans are considered concept plans because the applicant must submit design plans to the city for approval for the proposed apartments, town houses, future monastery; shelter and any other future use. Staff may approve minor changes. 2. This planned unit development does not give any approvals for Lot 1, Block 1 since this site has not been proposed for any future development and its future use is unknown. The development of this site would require a revision of this planned unit development and must comply with all city development requirements. 3. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. 4. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 5. The property owner shall be required to dedicate right of way for a roadway to be studied by the City Engineer during the next three to five year period. The final location of the roadway shall be studied by the City Engineer and reported with a recommendation to the city council. The final need for the roadway has not been determined but will likely be necessary if additional development occurs on this property in excess of that currently being proposed or at higher density levels than approved; and also if property sold includes a major expansion of uses that generate significant additional traffic to be generated at Hill-Murray. 6. The applicant must obtain all necessary and required permits from the Minnesota Department of Transportation, Ramsey County and the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. 7. The applicant must provide a right-turn lane on Century Avenue into the site, subject to MnDOTs approval. 8. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the engineering reports by Erin Laberee and Michael Thompson dated February 22, 2007 and by R. Charles Ahl dated April 19, 2007. 9. The applicant shall install sidewalks wherever possible along Larpenteur Avenue. 10. Staff may approve minor changes to the plans. Seconded by Council member Rossbach A friendly amendment was added to the motion requiring the following conditions be included in the resolution: 11. Establish a neighborhood committee of no less than nine members whose membership composite shall be one representative from Hill-Murray administration or trustees, one day care parent from Maple Tree Day Care, one parent whose child attends Hill-Murray, three neighborhood citizens who signed the petition included in the council packet and three neighborhood citizens who are from the yellow cards received by the city. The committee's purpose shall be to facilitate communication, develop neighborhood solutions to neighborhood concerns, and provide feedback to all parties subject to the planned unit May 14, 2007 City Council Meeting 8 development. The committee shall report periodically to the council and disband when no longer needed. 12. Establish a transportation task force of neighbors and parties to the planned unit development to work on public transportation service and options for the site, to work in coordination with the neighborhood committee. 13. The proposed project shall be reviewed by the Community Design Review Board and all requirements of that board shall be followed. 14. Include two playground areas within the planned unit development as discussed at the hearing that were to be added to the plans. 15. Develop a security plan in partnership with all of the parties subject to the planned unit development and the neighborhood committee. 16. Monastery Way and Bennett Road shall be public roads and the cost of city sewer, storm water, public street infrastructure and city water shall be borne by the developer. 17. The applicant shall install sidewalks along applicant's property on Larpenteur Avenue and intemal streets. The council voted as follows: Ayes-all The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on May 14, 2007. Councilmember Hjelle moved approval of a preliminary plat for Centurv Trails Commons located at 2675 Laroenteur Avenue. Approval is subiect to: 1. Redesigning the public street right-of-way within the site to be 60 feet wide. 2. Complying with the applicable requirements of the engineering reports by Erin Laberee and Michael Thompson dated February 22, 2007 and by R. Charles Ahl dated April 19, 2007. 3. Street lights shall be installed if required by the city engineer, subject to his approval. 4. The applicant shall dedicate any additional right-of-way if required by Ramsey County and the Minnesota Department of Transportation. 5. The property owner shall be required to dedicate right-of-way for a roadway to be studied by the City Engineer during the next three to five year period. The final location of the roadway shall be studied by the City Engineer and reported with a recommendation to the city council. The final need for the roadway has not been determined but will likely be necessary if additional development occurs on this property in excess of that currently being proposed or at higher density levels than approved; and also if property sold includes a major expansion of uses that generate significant additional traffic to be generated at Hill-Murray. Seconded by Councilmember Rossbach Ayes-all Councilmember Cave moved to extend the meetinq to finish the aqenda. Seconded by Councilmember Hjelle May 14, 2007 City Council Meeting 9 Mayor Longrie and Council Members Page 1 of2 Attachment 4 Tom Ekstrand From: Randy Schubring [rschubring@tubmanfamilyalliance.org] Sent: Tuesday, July 17,2007 1 :28 PM To: Tom Ekstrand Subject: Maplewood letter 61407 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red Tom Attached is a copy of the letter Beverly Dusso sent to Mayor Longrie, Council Members and City Manager Copeland regarding the Tubman-Chrysalis merger. As outlined in the letter, the merger does not effect what we will provide in the Monastery building. If you have further questions, please feel free to call me at 612-767-6693. Thanks so much for following up. Randy Randy Schubring Director of Public Affairs Tubman Family Alliance Mayor Diana Longrie Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road BEast Map1ewood, MN 55109 Dear Mayor Longrie: We leamed that your council colleagues expressed some concern at Monday's Council meeting regarding our recent merger and proposal for state grants. We are genuinely committed to transparency and a strong working relationship with Maplewood officials. However, because of our confidentially agreement, we were legally prohibited from discussing the possible merger with Cluysalis prior to our boards' recent decisions. Where we can, we are glad to provide information about our plans, strategies and approaches with Members and staff of the Council. We understand that this merger will bring up questions about the potential impact on the use of the Monastery site. Let me reiterate that it does not change our plans for the Monastery building from those outlined in the PUD application. It does not change the residential use of the building nor the number of employees/paltners working there. It does not alter the number of programs we will offer in the building, nor the number of clients coming in and out of the facility. Finally, there will be no discernible impact on level of traffic at the site. Our plan is to continue the Chrysalis program at its current Minneapolis building designed and built less than five years ago to specifically house its services. Because we understood the City's expectation that construction work on the project begin at the earliest possible moment, we launched our fundraising plans on the day following approval of the PUD. Even though we were unable to officially submit requests prior to the PUD approval, several private donors have already stepped up and contributed over $500,000. Tubman has a history of successfully raising funds for capital building projects. When we built Minneapolis' Tubman Center, we secured a mix of public-private donors including GO bonds. This is a well established model for nonprofit capital campaigns---even more so for agencies like ours that offer public safety services. We are actively approaclung public and private sources at the federal, state, county, cOlporate, foundation and individual levels. However, we have no plans to seek funding from tbe City of Map1ewood. As with all capital campaigns we expect to 7/27/2007 10 Mayor Longrie and Council Members Page 2 of2 bring in the large grants and gifts (those over $250,(00) in the next 12to 18 months to meet construction timelines. Again, we are glad to provide information about our plans, strategies and approaches with the Council or staff. If a further meeting or workshop with the Councilor staff is of interest, we would be delighted to participate. If you have any questions, please contact me at 612-767 -6690 or Randy Schubring, our director of public affairs, at 612-767-6693. Beverly Dusso President! Executive Director 7/27/2007 11 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner South Maplewood Study - Executive Summary Report South of Carver Avenue August 14, 2007 INTRODUCTION The city recently received the Executive Summary Report for the South Maplewood Study as prepared by Schoell Madson. The purpose of this memo is to review this report and to get direction from the planning commission about what actions or changes, if any, they think the city should take for land use regulations and for future development for this part of Maplewood. BACKGROUND On October 9, 2006, the city council directed staff to start preparing a moratorium on development for the area of Maplewood south of Carver Avenue. (See the location map on page eight). The council gave staff this direction in response to a request from the planning commission. On November 13, 2006, the city council, after a public hearing, adopted a moratorium ordinance for the area of Maplewood south of Carver Avenue. This ordinance prohibits any new development or land divisions in the moratorium area until after the city adopts new land use regulations or until after the moratorium expires. On March 12, 2007, the city council authorized the hiring of Schoell Madson to continue the south Maplewood study for the city. DISCUSSION As part of the study of south Maplewood, the city hosted four neighborhood meetings. The first meeting was on January 29,2007, at the Londin Lane Fire Station. On Tuesday, March 13, 2007, the city held the second meeting in the Carver Elementary School gym. The city also held neighborhood meetings on May 10, 2007, and on June 4, 2007, in the Carver School gym. The purpose of these meetings was get input from the public and the residents of the area and for staff and the consultant to share information and ideas as they became available. The city hired Schoell Madson, in part, to do an objective analysis of the entire study area. This included a listing of the existing conditions, a compilation of data, the location of existing utilities and drainage facilities. Schoell Madson then prepared two general concept plans for the area and findings for the area and the city. These start on page 11 of the summary report and include sections about transportation, parks, trails and open space, the Mississippi River Critical Area, archeological, the shoreland overlay district, infrastructure costs and land use/sewer planning. The consultants conclude their findings by stating, "the city is in the position where it can determine the best land use for this study area as the future plan can be any combination of land uses." In other words, the city, according to the consultants, may decide what type of land use pattern (and thus land use designations and zoning classifications) the city wants to implement for this part of Maplewood. 1 On August 13, 2007, the city council, during a workshop session reviewed the Executive Summary Report. The city received written comments about the study from one resident in the area. I have included these thoughts on page nine. During the regular council meeting on August 13, 2007, the council was to consider a request of the city manager to hire Schoell Madson to prepare the materials and information the city needs to finish the South Maplewood study. This work is to include the preparation of comprehensive plan amendments, land use map changes, new zoning regulations and possibly zoning map changes for some or all of the study area. All of these changes may be necessary to implement the policies and future land use and development patterns that the city council decides it wants for this part of Maplewood. Unfortunately, due to meeting time constraints, the council did not act on the hiring request. The council should consider the matter during the continuation of their meeting on August 16,2007. RECOMMENDATION Direct city staff, the planning consultants and the city council as to what land use and development patterns (and thus land use and zoning designations) are appropriate for the South Maplewood study area. This could include the possibility that the land use and zoning designations for some properties are not consistent with each other (and that the city should make land use or zoning changes to make the designations consistent with each other) and possibly changes to the comprehensive plan or to the zoning code. 2 REFERENCE On December 9, 2002, the city council enacted a one-year moratorium on development of property in Maplewood from Linwood Avenue to the southern border of the city. The moratorium was a result of concerns about the land use and development of the remaining undeveloped or underdeveloped property in south Maplewood. The previous sewer system plan for this area showed urbanized municipal sewer between Linwood Avenue and Carver Avenue and undefined sewer systems south of Carver Avenue. Without a municipal sanitary sewer system, large lots with a minimum size requirement would be necessary to accommodate houses or properties with individual sewage treatment systems (ISTS). On January 31,2003, the city council authorized a separate Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Study of south Maplewood. This study was initiated to address land use and development issues in south Maplewood, focusing on the area south of Linwood Avenue to the city's southern border. Short- Elliot-Hendrickson (SEH), a consulting engineering firm, completed a report detailing the results of this study. Staff incorporated the results of the South Maplewood Sewer Study into the overall Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan update. On May 27,2003, the city council adopted the 2003 Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan update. This sewer study included a detailed study of the sanitary sewer needs and availability for the part of Maplewood south of Linwood Avenue. (See the reference section on pages four through six of this report for more information about this study.) In addition, this study recommended that the city study and possibly implement a larger minimum lot size for the areas of the city that will not likely have sanitary sewer for the foreseeable future. (This is primarily in sewer districts 10, 57 and 70 as shown on the maps on pages 10 - 12.) On August 25,2003, the city council adopted an ordinance amendment that created the R-1 (R) zoning district. Specifically, this amendment added the R-1(R) zoning district to the zoning code. This code requires a two-acre minimum lot size for residential properties where the city does not expect nor do they have sanitary sewer available to the property. 2003 South Maplewood Sewer Study Study Assumptions Staff made several assumptions when preparing the South Maplewood Sewer Study in 2003. The following is a summary of some of these key assumptions: . If municipal sanitary sewer is extended to serve the area, land uses at full development will correspond to the city's current Land Use Map. The projected sanitary sewer flows staff listed in the report are based on full development and on the Land Use Map. . Future densities of R-1 land use will be 2.9 persons/unit and 2.8 units/acre. . Because of topography and existing pipe size, future sanitary sewer flows from the Bailey property in Woodbury and Newport will need to be conveyed through Maplewood to the Carver Lake interceptor. . Future sanitary sewer flows from the Bailey property in Woodbury and Newport will be similar to those generated by typical single-family residential uses. 3 It is important to note that the South Maplewood Sewer Study is only a planning document. In addition, the land use assumptions made above do not bind the city to any of these possible changes. Staff made the land use and sewer assumptions on a conservative basis to identify the maximum sanitary sewer flows that the land uses could possibly generate in each of the sewer districts. 2003 South Maplewood Sewer Study Conclusions 1. Soils within the study area range from a sandy soil in the south to a sandy loam with some clay loam and silty clay in the north. The sandy soils are good for installation of individual sewage treatment systems (ISTS) whereas the clay loam and silty clay pockets may require the use of non-conventional systems. 2. If properly maintained, evidence indicates that the life expectancy of an ISTS site is at least 25 to 30 years. 3. Septic systems (ISTS) are a safe and effective soil-based method to treat household wastewater, provided there is enough soil area and the soil conditions are conducive to treatment. Septic systems treat sewage equal to or better than municipal treatment facilities when they are properly designed, installed, and maintained. 4. Cities or areas with marginal soils, steep slopes, and wetlands will require a larger minimum lot size for lots with ISTS sites than those with good soils, few slopes and few wetlands. 5. Minimum lot sizes for lots with ISTS sites typically range from 1 acre to 5 acres in size. Many communities use a minimum lot size in the range of 2.0 to 3.0 acres. 6. Gravitv sanitarv sewer can serve new development in Sewer Districts 50. 51. 53. 54. 55. 56. 58. and 66. 7. A gravity sanitary sewer can serve District 70 and the sanitary sewer flows from the 240-acre Bailey Nursery property in Woodbury and Newport. When the city or a developer extends municipal sanitary sewer to serve District 70, the new pipe must be sized large enough to serve the entire 240-acre Bailey Nursery parcel. 8. The capacity of the Carver Lake interceptor is large enough to accommodate flows from all of the study area, as well as the 240-acre parcel in Woodbury and Newport owned by Bailey Nursery. 9. Connections to the Carver Lake interceptor will be allowed by permit from the MCES. The interceptor would be metered at the points where it enters and exits Maplewood. Any flow that enters the interceptor between these two locations will be billed to Maplewood based on the difference between the two meter readings. 10. In Districts 10 and 57, the existing terrain varies drastically and there are significant elevation changes. As such, the use of lift stations will likely be necessary to convey sanitary sewer flows from lower areas to higher areas. 11. Districts 10 and 57 have a relatively high cost-to-benefit ratio associated with the extension of municipal sanitary sewer to serve the districts. As a result, the city does not now expect any near-term municipal sanitary sewer improvements in these districts. 4 12. With the exception of Districts 10 and 57, it is anticipated that the rest of the study area could have sanitary sewer service within the next 20 years. However, before the city agrees to construct any municipal sanitary sewer extension, the city should prepare a feasibility study to identify pipe sizes, pipe alignments, construction costs, and other important project details. 2003 South Maplewood Sewer Study Recommendations 1. Adopt the South Maplewood Sewer Study, Project 03-03, as part of the 2003 Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan Amendment. (The citv council did this on Mav 27.2003.) 2. The city should establish a minimum lot size requirement of 2.0 acres for non-sewered residential areas in the city (subject to performance standards), including the study area. (The citv did this with the adoption of the R-1(R) zoninQ district in 2003.) The city expects to use this designation primarily in areas with steep slopes and with pockets of marginal soils. The performance standards would be to ensure that the soils and conditions on any future lots would be such that the proposed lot could accommodate a house, driveway, a well and at least two drain fields. 3. The city should change (if necessary) the future land use plan and zoning designations of properties to reflect the minimum lot size requirement (if changed) for non-sewered areas. ~ citv did chanoe the zonino of several properties in the area to R-1(R) in 2003 after the city created the new zonino district.) 4. The city should first consider those districts with a lower cost-to-benefit ratio for municipal sanitary sewer service before the districts that have a higher cost-to-benefit ratio. Other South Maplewood Reference Information R-1(R) Zoning The intent of the R-1(R) zoning district, as adopted by the city council in 2003, reads: "Maplewood intends to protect and enhance the character of areas of the city that, because of topography or other factors, do not have, nor does the city expect to have, municipal sanitary sewer or water service. To allow for and to protect a very low density, semi-rural, residential life style, the city creates the R-1 (R) zoning district. This zoning district is for the areas of Maplewood that are not suitable for suburban or tract development because of topography, vegetation or other factors that make the installation of municipal sanitary sewer unlikely. The city finds the most suitable use of these areas is single dwellings on large lots. Such low-density residential development will lessen grading and soil erosion and will help protect ground water, vegetation and wooded areas. The lots and parcels in the R-1 (R) zoning district are generally much larger than those in the R-1 (single dwelling) district and those with municipal sanitary sewer and water." Ideally, the land use designation and the zoning designation that the city places on each property would be the same or at least consistent with each other. This, however, is not always possible. A primary reason that the designations the city gives to a property are not always the same is that the land use categories in the comprehensive plan are not the same as those the city has in the zoning code. (See the lists on pages 13 - 15.) 5 An important matter for the city to consider is to define consistency between the R-1 (single dwellings) land use plan designation and the R-1 (R) and F (farm residence) zoning designations. In other words, if the city has designated a property R-1 on the land use plan, is it consistent with that designation if the zoning of the same property is R-1 (R) or F? All three of these designations are for single dwellings, but the allowed density and minimum lot sizes between the three are quite different. Development Topography, property ownership, the existing street pattern and the availability of public utilities will all affect how and when development will occur in the southern part of Maplewood. These are all factors and considerations that staff will review when studying this part of the city. Lot Sizes The issue of minimum lot sizes came out of the city council's review of the Haller's Woods plat in 1997. Several neighbors near Haller's Woods thought the city had a 5-acre minimum lot size for non-sewered lots. However, both the zoning code and the comprehensive plan do not have a 5-acre minimum. In fact, the 19 residential lots along Sterling Street near Haller's Woods range in size from 0.84 acres to 9.7 acres, with an average lot size of 4.05 acres. For lots that do not have public sanitary sewer, the code requires a minimum lot size large enough to fit the house and two on-site sewer treatment systems. This usually means a minimum lot size of at least one acre (43,560 square feet) to fit everything on the property. The zoning code also requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet for single dwellings in the R-1 (single dwelling) and F (farm residence) zoning districts. In the RE-40 (residential estate) zoning district, the minimum lot size is 40,000 square feet while the R-1(R) zoning district requires a two-acre minimum lot size. Staff contacted several cities in the area to see what they use for a minimum lot size for non- sewered areas. The survey showed a range of 22,000 square feet in White Bear Township to a 5- acre minimum for new developments in Grant. The minimum lot sizes for non-sewered lots in other cities are 30,000 square feet in Oakdale, 1.5 acres in Cottage Grove, 2.5 acres in Inver Grove Heights and 3 acres in Woodbury and Newport. Rural Residential Zoning District The sanitary sewer study, as adopted by the city council, recommended that the city prepare a rural residential zoning district to add to the city code with minimum lot size, a minimum lot area, and the permitted and conditional uses. Such a district is for non-sewered single dwelling development. In December 1997, city staff surveyed 32 property owners in south Maplewood to help us in preparing the new rural zoning district. In this survey, we asked the owners for information about their property and for their ideas about creating a rural residential zoning district. The existing lots south and east of 1-494 range in size from 0.6 acres to 39 acres. Many of the residential lots are less than 3 acres in size. Because of topography and existing house locations, these lots are probably not large enough for the owners to subdivide them into additional bUilding locations. Based on the information from staff and from area property owners, staff prepared a new rural residential zoning ordinance. This is the R-1(R) zoning ordinance adopted by the city council in 2003. The ordinance has a 2-acre minimum lot size and a minimum lot width of 120 feet. The city intends this zoning district for areas of Maplewood without municipal sewer and water and with a semi-rural, very low-density residential lifestyle. 6 The city, after creating the new R-1(R) zoning district, then changed the zoning for several properties south of Carver Avenue to R-1(R). These are shown on the property line/zoning map on page 17. I have marked with an x on the land use plan map (page 16) and on the property line zoning map the properties with an R-1land use designation that the city has zoned R-1(R) and F (farm residence). These may be the properties that the city could consider having an inconsistent land use and zoning designation. p:sec 24-28/moratorJum - South Study Summary - 2007 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. August 6, 2007 letter from Jim Kerrigan 3. June 2003 Sewer District Map 4. April 2003 Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Map 5. South Maplewood Sewer Study - 2003 6. Table 4 - Maplewood Comprehensive Plan 7. Table 5 - Maplewood Comprehensive Plan 8. Section 44-9 of Maplewood Zoning Code (Zoning Districts) 9. South Maplewood Land Use Map 10. South Maplewood Property UnelZoning Map 11. 2006 Moratorium Ordinance 7 II ./:i \,. ", \~ \~~ (--.;;<~:-,...- ~ -'.' I I I , '7::.~._::::::::-o=._=_==_:::::.."""..""._"",._=_=.=_.,, i.:c.-"O"-___~_______, , , I , I , I , I \ I , I I I I , I I I , I , I I I , , I , I , I I I I I I I I L , CJf>-ErJ :::5P-tte:::E q --ell; il " " " ,I II " (~...._) I 0~1 IiI 1'1 li,t I., \.~~~-, ...:;,;~~ . I , f / I I ,.__J Attachment 1 I, " " ~ i_c_=~~~,cA," I :,";:;::'J ~ \1\ J " ~i .i] ......' '-J: ~l /:IJ : "',Z"'~~" ,\; t I -.-...~:~O~<;.";.,::>" ,,,/) ~ \ Iii <.;;~.(P [I: ~'~-fP !;i /) " ,-''1;> II .....~/ " , -lf~<~ l, I ~"3",. I ..~~.> ,__ ~'".......... " {!~,~ /:.:~.:::.:.::~~) ~-, ., '~':c.~--- -'\" ....... I ~rS-7)lp I ._~_~--,_.:;--". (I <J-~~,",,",.,J IJ 8 \r N LOCATION MAP Attachment 2 August 6, 2007 Jim Kenigan 2620 Carver Avenue Maplewood, MN 55119 Greg Copeland City Manager City of Maplewood 1830 County Road BEast Maplewood, MN 55109 cc: Tom Ekstrand Dear Mr. Copeland: I recently received the Executive Summary Report of the South Maplewood Study. Based on my initial review I think Schoell Madson has done a good job of identifying the various relevant issues. At all of the neighborhood meetings the clear message from the neighborhood has been a desire to keep the areas' future development low density. Unfortunately, only two concept plans are detailed in the study, with neither one realistically addressing this option. Based on the existing zoning and land use designation it appears that all the property in the study area is shown at a higher density, except for a portion of the Bailey Nursery property. Presently, all oflhe buildable properties in the study area are zoned R1-R, rural residential, or F, fann. R1-R requires 2 acres per residential unit The F zoning does not allow for any residential subdivision until the subject property is rezoned. From what has been expressed by the neighborhood at the recent public meeting the desire is to also keep future development of these fann zoned areas as low density, (i.e. R1-R density). Concept 2 proposes all of the property in the study area (exclusive of a portion of the Bailey Nursery property which is for the most part located in the City of Newport) would increase in development density. The present R1-R properties would increase by 100-400% (1 unit per 2 acre to approximately 1-4 units per acre). At previous public meetings I have especially voiced my concem over the idea of rezoning various properties on the North side of the study area to an R-1 density (10,000 sq. ft. lots). By allowing such a density approximately 105 units could be buill on these properties. Under the existing R1-R zoning the maximum number of units that could be constructed would be approximately 12 housing units. Even ifthe zoning was increased to the same density as the existing Haller's subdivision (40,000 sq. ft. per unit) the maximum number of units would be 24. 1-2 acre lot requirements are commonplace in many communities throughout the Twin Cities. I think if you took a poll of the neighborhood a clear majority would not want to see a 4 unit per acre density on any of the properties. Besides increasing density in the neighborhood it also opens the door for future councils to legitimize an expansion of the R-1 zoning in this area. I am sure developers are arguing they need to increase density to make a project financially feasible or that they have some legal right I would not agree with either of these arguments based on the fact that the existing zoning classifications have been in place for several years. In the end, the City Council with recommendations from it's board and commission will need to take action on the future development of the study area based on the desire of the neighborhood and what is felt best for Maplewood as a whole. In conclusion, I appreciate all the effort that the Council and staff have made to involve the neighborhood in this process. I would ask that you provide a copy of this letter in the staff reports to the City Council and various boards and commissions in their review of the matter. Best Regards, 9 ~ ~ t: \fI 55 I Newport Attachment ~I J- ~ \t) ~ ~ Carver Lake EXHIBIT 1 .JtJtJE 200'3 5E. WE t2 ;:J /5712 /CT /Yrtip 10 SOUTH MAPLEWOOD SEWER STUDY AREA '~ l<<<<Attachment 4 i i ~ ~ ~--' V\ ~- ~ <b Cl ~ ~ APt2/L 2003 EXHIBIT 3 L.o/Y}p/2E/-fEN6fVE... SEWER... PL+lN W6i1tE 11 Attachment 5 ClIO a 5 o CI IJ Co = !> o III [Jj C> , oj ~1 lJ ~c'j. ~ "" \looo '" o '" () <Cl ~ -~~ ''''''''....... ......_"""" -- """"",__e.,,,,,,, 50 UTI-! /YJAPLE. wooD 5E.. uJEK :5ruQ Y - --zco3 12 EXHIBIT Z " CARVER LAI<I! J-. ~ Q{) ~ ~ TABLE 4 NEIGHBORHOOD LAND USE PLAN LEGEND Residential Land Uses RE-40 RE-30 RE-20 R-1 R-1S R-2 R-3L R-3M R-3H Residential Estate (40,000-square-foot lot areas) Residential Estate (30,000-square-foot lot areas) Residential Estate (20,000-square-foot lot areas) Single Dwelling (10,000-square-foot lot areas) Single Dwelling (7,500-square-foot lot areas) . Single and Double Dwellings Multiple Dwellings (4.4 - 6.3 units/acre) Multiple Dwellings (4.9 - 7.0 units/acre) Multiple Dwellings (8.4 - 12.0 units/acre) Commercial Land Uses LBC NC CO BC(M) BC Limited Business Commercial Center Neighborhood Commercial Center Commercial Office Center Business Commercial (Modified) Center Business and Commercial Center Industrial Land Uses M-1 Light Manufacturing M-2 Heavy Manufacturing Community Service Land Uses OS Open Space P Parks S School C Church W Public Water Facility CEM Cemetery FS Fire Station G Government Facility L Library CH City Hall C:crrnP;2EH-E/'J :5/tJE- ? ,(/IN 13 Attachment 6 Attachment 7 TABLE 5 ESTIMATED PERSONS PER DWELLING UNIT AND PLANNED MAXIMUM DENSITY OF DWELLING UNITS R-3L R-3M R-3H People/Gross Acre (aooroximatel 11 9 13.3 22.8 Type of Dwelling People/Unit' Planned Maximum Density (Units per gross acre) Single Dwelling' 2.9 4.1 4.6 Double Dwellings' 2.2 5.4 6.0 10.4 Townhomes 2.2 5.4 ' 6.0 10.4 Manufactured Homes 2.0 6.0 6.7 11.4 Apartments (3-4 unitslbldg.) 2.4 5.0 5.5 9.5 Apartments (5-9 units/bldg.) 2.2 5.4 6.0 10.4 Apartments (10-19 units/bldg.) 1.9 6.3 7.0 12.0 Vt Apartments (20-49 units/bldg.) 1.6 7.4 8.3 14.3 Apartments (50+ units/bldg.) 1.4 8.5 9.5 16.3 ---q Apartments (1-bedroom senior) 1.1 (Based on bedroom mix.) Apartments (2-bedroom senior) 2.0 (Based on bedroom mix.) Apartments (3-bedroom senior) 2.5 (Based on bedroom mix.) Notes: (1) From the 1990 census. (2) The City shall determine the maximum allowed density by the minimum-lot areas In the zoning code. The City shall determine the maximum number of units from Table 5 If minimum-area lots for each unit are not platted. The City may allow reduced minimum-lot areas In planned unll developments (PUDs) where the overall PUD project does not exceed the maximum allowed density. (3) The City intends to review the density figures in Table 5 after each federal census. /7L'iI-Ef../S/VE C07Ylp~G riffN 14 ~ 44-8 MAPLEWOOD CODE Sec. 44-8. Violations. Attachment 8 Any person violating a section of this chapter, including violations of conditions established concerning variances or conditional use permits, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be punished in accordance with section 1-15. Violations of this chapter can occur whether the city or state requires a permit for a regulated activity. Each day that any violation continues shall constitute a separate violation. (Code 1982, ~ 36-8) Sec. 44-9. Zoning districts. The city is hereby divided into the following zoning districts: F Farm residence district -' R-1 Residence district (single dwelling) R-1S Small-lot single-dwelling district - R-2 Residence district (double dwelling) -R-3 Residence district (multiple dwelling) R- E Residence estate district -- NC Neighborhood commercial district CO Commercial office district BC Business and commercial district LBC Limited business commercial district BC(M) Business commercial modified district SC Shopping center district M-1 Light manufacturing district M-2 Heavy manufacturing district (Code 1982, ~ 36-9) Sec. 44-10. Zoning map. , "-0 c. rl' \' 'J'- ;2-; (,.e) /2 ()1?.. If I- j2 E -6, I D.E/l../1/ ilL (a) Generally. The boundaries of the districts desiguated in section 44-9 will be shown on a map, and the map is hereby made part of this chapter, which map shall be known as the zoning map ofthe City of Maple wood. The map shall include any zoning changes recommended by the planning commission or the city council. Before the map is finally approved and adopted by the city council, the council shall hold an open public hearing pursuant to at least. ten days' published and posted notice. Publication shall consist of at least one notice in the official newspaper of the city, and posting shall be in three prominent places within the city. All interested persons shall be heard at the hearing or any adjournment thereof. After the hearing the city council shall adopt the map; and all notations, references and data shown thereon are hereby incorporated by reference into this chapter and shall be as much a part ofthis chapter as if all were fully described. The map shall be kept up to date as provided in subsection (c) of this section. ZONING> CDPE CD44:20 15 Attachment 9 '!- III II Y /} 1'// ell /" >1 ~ ~ 1)7 t) ~ ) ~fC Bh ~ 0''0 I - c J ~' ': DM. Sp,,~ l lLJ L! l 1)( ~j .~ f i ff / L;/ G' \:::-- c- f !'!c 0:' Dpo. ;:;: 'f f Y ~ d \ Space \ , 1"-,-",, _I ;'/-X X. \ 'f --r.. /;/-.--/ X. \ 'j 'f. /0/11 >< j .--/ >-- /])- /\ 'S- f.-... E-Ll \; ~ - f/:..}- r- ,'-1 --..:;... / f... y I ~t-- '\' 11..1. 7~ -- I III (<:~h--,-~ 7/!!f!!{ IIII IN \\1/ ~I . d - =j I II I ~I ;l Open Space //' J =- 1-- - \~- '\1= = ~ ~ Open Sp ce r:7 'f f.. r1 'f- If/ , L., / 1- }r-L/ .-/- / )( / ~ / 1-- ~ xc~ 'f. '~ 1. Open Space os ! LAND USE MAP 16 Attachment 10 ZONING MAP 17 Attachment 11 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE PLANNING PROCESS AND FOR DEVELOPING LAND USE AND ZONING STANDARDS AND LAND USE PLANNING FOR THE AREA SOUTH OF CARVER AVENUE IN MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA The area under consideration in this ordinance (hereinafter referred to as the "South Maplewood Study Area") includes all the land south of Carver Avenue in Maplewood (refer to the South Maplewood Study Area map for the location) that the city has zoned F (farm residence) and R- 1 (R) (rural residential). The Maplewood City Council ordains: SECTION 1. PURPOSE 1.01 The City of Maplewood is currently conducting a study that includes land use, zoning and planning components for the area south of Carver Avenue. 1.02 The objective of the study is to review existing and planned land uses and zoning designations and the existing natural and constructed features in the south Maplewood study area. From this information, the city may make changes to the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance or the land use plan in the area to create better-planned and constructed developments and neighborhoods. 1.03 In addition to the study, the city may need to revise the city's zoning ordinance, zoning map, land use map and comprehensive plan because of the following issues: Land use Minimum lot sizes Public utility availability (including sewer and water) Building setbacks Open space connectivity Existing city and county public land uses Mississippi River Critical Area Mississippi National River and Recreational Area (MNRRA) Metropolitan Council Requirements and Land Planning Guide Book Pedestrian flow and safety Parking Historical features Topography Wetlands, ponding and other water features Storm-water systems and management requirements Housing density Financial impacts on the city Street pattems and traffic flows Watershed District Requirements MnDOT Highway and Traffic Plans Preservation of the existing life-style 18 1.04 There is a need for the city to do these studies so that the city staff and the city council will have current and relevant information before considering or making any changes to the city's comprehensive plan and to the city's zoning ordinance, zoning map and land use map for the area south of Carver Avenue. SECTION 2. DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT STUDY; MORATORIUM 2.01 The city council authorizes the city staff to do this study. City staff shall coordinate this study with the planning commission, other government agencies, property owners, interested citizens, the city council and any other entities that may provide input to the study. 2.02 Upon completion of the study, city staff will present the study and its results to the planning commission for their review and recommendation to the city council. 2.03 A moratorium on development in the south Maplewood Study Area is adopted pending completion of the study and/or the adoption of any amendments to the city's zoning ordinance, zoning map, land use map or comprehensive plan as the city deems necessary because of the study. The city will not approve any new development, subdivision or building permit for a new building, except for those parcels that are two acres in size or smaller and now of record. during the moratorium period. Maplewood may issue building permits for the expansion or remodeling of existing structures, for accessory structures or for one new principal structure on an existing lot of record where the owner does not subdivide the property. SECTION 3. TERM 3.01 The term of ordinance shall be for one year or until the city council adopts amendments to the city's zoning ordinance, zoning map, land use map or comprehensive plan as the city deems necessary because of the study or the city council takes any action that directly affects the study or the ordinance. SECTION 4. VARIANCES 4.01 The city council, at their discretion, may grant variances from this ordinance based upon a determination that a proposed subdivision or development would be compatible with proposed land use and zoning, and that such proposals would keep with the spirit and intent of this ordinance. The procedures to be followed in applying for a variance from this ordinance shall be in accordance with state law on findings for variances and shall include the following: a. The applicant shall file a completed application form, together with required exhibits, to the Community Development Department. b. The application for a variance shall set forth special circumstances or conditions that the applicant alleges to exist and shall demonstrate that the proposed subdivision or development is compatible with existing or proposed land use and zoning. 19 c. The city will submit the application to the planning commission for their review and recommendation to the city council. d. The city council may set, at its discretion, a public hearing before making a final determination on the requested variance. e. The city council may impose such restrictions upon the proposed subdivision or development as may be necessary to meet the purpose and intent of this ordinance. SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE 5.01 This ordinance shall take effect after the city publishes it in the official newspaper. The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on November ,2006. Mayor Attest: City Clerk 20