Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/28/2007 AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Tuesday, August 28, 2007 6:00 P.M. Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. RollCall 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes: July 24, 2007 5. Unfinished Business: None Scheduled 6. Design Review: a. Regents Senior Housing (Legacy Village - Kennard Street and Legacy Parkway) b. Lexus Parking Lot Expansion (1245 County Road D) 7. Visitor Presentations: 8. Board Presentations: a. August 13, 2007, City Council Report 9. Staff Presentations: a. Reschedule September 11, 2007, CDRB Meeting Due to Primary Elections b. Representation at the September 10, 2007, City Council Meeting -Item to be Discussed Include Regents Senior Housing 10. Adjourn DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, JULY 24, 2007 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Olson called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Board member John Demko Vice-Chairperson Matt Ledvina Chairperson Linda Olson Board member Ananth Shankar Board member Matt Wise Present Present Present Present Absent Staff Present: Shann Finwall, Planner Chuck Ahl. Public Works Director Steve Lukin, Fire Chief III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Board member Ledvina moved to approve the agenda. Board member Demko seconded. Ayes - Demko, Ledvina, Shankar, Olson The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for June 12, 2007. Board member Ledvina had a correction on page 28, section a, the sentence should read, "The only CDRB item was the Corner Kick proposal which was approved by the city council. Matt Ledvina attended the meeting and gave a report on the board's review of the project." Board member Ledvina moved approval of the minutes of June 12,2007, as amended. Board member Shankar seconded. Ayes - Demko, Ledvina, Shankar, Olson The motion passed. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None scheduled VI. DESIGN REVIEW a. The Shores (Redevelopment of St. Paul Tourist Cabin Site with Senior Housing) - 940 Frost Avenue. Community Design Review Board Minutes 06-12-2007 2 Ms. Finwall introduced the project. The applicant is requesting that the city approve 6 land use requests for the construction of a 180 senior housing development at 940 Frost Avenue called The Shores. The development requires several land use permits including the clarification of the Gladstone Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map, public vacation of 20 feet of right-of-way along East Shore Drive, public vacation of a sanitary sewer easement, preliminary plat, conditional use permit for a planned unit development within the Shoreland overlay district of Phalen Lake and design review approval. The planning commission recommended approval of the first 5 items mentioned at the July 17 meeting. The Community Design Review Board should review and make a recommendation on the design of the development at tonight's meeting. The final review of this project is currently scheduled for city council review on August 13,2007. City staff recommends approval of the plans which were date stamped April 19. 2007, for the 180 unit four story Shores Senior Housing Development which will be located on 940, Frost Avenue. This recommendation is conditioned on several conditions as outlined in the staff report. Board member Ledvina asked if city staff has discussed the tree placement for screening for Lake Phalen. The condition is laid out as non-specific. Ms. Finwall stated that condition is added based on the Shoreland Overlay ordinance, the requirement is that this building be screened at least 80% from the center of Lake Phalen. The condition should be reworded to state that the building be screened at least 80% from the center of Lake Phalen. Link Wilson of Kaas/Wilson Architects addressed the board. Mr. Wilson went through the presentation of the project which went over alterations to parking spaces, screening of the building and other areas of concern. Board member Shankar asked if there are only 50 parking stalls for the whole development. Mr. Wilson responded that there are 50 surface and 100 underground parking stalls. After a study done regarding other Walker facilities of similar size, it is determined that this should be a sufficient number of stalls for residents, staff and visitors. Chairperson Olson asked how many employees will be staffed. Mr. Wilson replied the total hired staff will be about 120 people, but the number of staff working at one time will be around 32. Chairperson Olson asked what the maximum capacity of the building is for residents. Mr. Wilson responded that there are 180 units. Chairperson Olson asked if any were double units. Mr. Wilson said that there are 6 units that are 1,150 square feet with two bedrooms that may have a married couple. The rest are one bedroom plus a den and smaller two bedrooms. Community Design Review Board Minutes 06-12-2007 3 Chairperson Olson asked how many elevators were in the facility. Mr. Wilson replied there are 4 elevators and a 5th shaft that is installed at the center of memory care, where an elevator could be added at a later date if needed. Board member Shankar asked which route would be taken in the parking lot if a driver were dropping someone off and parking of their car. Mr. Wilson showed on the screen the route a driver can use to drop someone off under the canopy. The drive isles are wide enough for 2-way traffic. Chairperson Olson asked Mr. Wilson to show on the screen which area is to be eliminated in reference to the earlier mention of removal of the street entrance to the underground parking and asked for clarification on the emergency vehicle access. Mr. Wilson responded that there is enough room for the emergency vehicles to move through the site and back. If this entrance is removed the path would then need to be connected so that emergency vehicles can drive through and continue on. The emergency path is designed for fire emergency use. Board member Ledvina asked what the intentions are for the site signage and if any signs are intended to be on the building. Mr. Wilson stated that the largest sign proposed is a freestanding sign along Frost Avenue and a smaller sign along East Shore Drive. There would probably not be many other signs other than the address sign, which is required to be 12 inches for fire department identification. Chairperson Olson confirmed that there will be green shingles on the building. Mr. Wilson stated that was correct. He did not bring samples of materials but stated the images in the power point clearly represent the building materials. He can supply city staff with samples if needed. Chairperson Olson opened the floor to any visitors. Jan Steiner-McGovern of 1876 East Shore Drive addressed the board. Ms. McGovern handed out a copy of her list of concerns and read them aloud. Ms. McGovern asked if the perimeter trees remain after the vacation of the 20 feet on East Shore Drive. She requested that the perimeter shrubs and trees on East Shore Drive be saved at all cost. The proposed sidewalk is unnecessary because there is already an existing sidewalk on the east side of the East Shore Drive. Ms. McGovern proposed a crosswalk and stop sign near the south end of the property. There is no need for extra light fixtures along East Shore Drive, as the existing ones are sufficient. Ms. McGovern strongly requested the community room not be open to the public. She went over her concerns with parking. Ms. McGovern asked if Chief Lukin could go over his concerns about the building being four stories. She suggests that the common space be minimized and the living units be moved into the common space and the building be reduced to three stories. Ms. McGovern stated concerns with the businesses inside the facility and the increase in medical calls to the building. Community Design Review Board Minutes 06-12-2007 4 Chairperson Olson stated that the tree preservation, sidewalk, community room, the height of the building and parking concerns are matters that the planning commission addresses and requested that Mr. Wilson cover the remaining questions. Mr. Wilson responded to Ms. McGovern's questions. Mr. Wilson addressed the driveway, sidewalk, preservation of the trees and the parking concerns. The proposed driveway is where the existing driveway already is. The sidewalk concern is really a city issue and that to his understanding the city will move forward with this improvement regardless of this development. Mr. Wilson said they are working with S.E.H. to see if it is possible to make the rain gardens and storm water ponds smaller. He stated that they are willing to work with the city to preserve as many trees as possible. Mr. Wilson clarified that this will be a private building that is enclosed, and there won't be many people coming and going 24 hours a day. He also clarified that included in the calculations of common space are the elevators, corridors and stairs as well as the different rooms that are common space. The senior amenities or common space rooms take up 40,000 square feet of the 92,000 square feet. The community room in question can only hold 42 people and is less than 1000 square feet. Chairperson Olson requested that Fire Chief Steve Lukin go over his concerns with four story building. Chief Lukin stated he has concerns about ground ladder equipment but still believes that they would be able to handle an emergency at this property as a four story building. The fire safety aspect is the same in either a three story or four story building. The city has a truck that can service a building up to seven stories but would prefer to keep buildings at three stories to prevent too many buildings going taller than that. The life safety issue is very minimal and is the same for three and four story structures. Chairperson Olson asked Chuck Ahl, the Public Works Director, to address the issue of the sidewalk. Mr. Ahl stated that the city's designers are looking in detail on the issue of the sidewalk. The city designers are suggesting that the existing sidewalk on the east side of East Shore Drive is in need of repair and the city's money may be best spent repairing that sidewalk. This is something that can be discussed more next month when the designers finalize this item. Chairperson Olson asked if there is a bus route already on Frost Avenue. Mr. Ahl responded that there is not but usually the bus service is open to adding additional routes to an area that may generate bus business, such as this development. AI Galbraith of 1770 Edward Street addressed the board. Mr. Galbraith asked if Walker is the owner 100% and what the track record is of the developer. He stated that the proposed area for the round-about is dangerous because it is on a slope. He is also concerned about the amount of emergency calls that would take place at the property and concerned about snow removal. Mr. Wilson responded that Walker is a minority shareholder in the project. The project is owned by a board of directors who are investing in the project, which is not an unusual circumstance. Mr. Wilson then gave a history of his past development projects. It is the Community Design Review Board Minutes 06-12-2007 5 responsibility of the maintenance crews to maintain the property when it snows. Mr. Wilson stated that he cannot speak about the number of emergency calls but can say that Walker staff gives quality care and tries to care for the medical needs of the residents to prevent excessive emergency calls to the property. Ms. McGovern restated that she would like the developers to move the main driveway as far south as possible because of the ambient light that will come off the property. Chairperson Olson stated that the current city light code prohibits any light creep beyond the edge of the property. The revised lighting plan has to have a zero foot candle creep at the property line. Chairperson Olson asked if the proposed round-about will be able to handle bus traffic. Mr. Ahl responded that the final size has not been determined at this time but will be designed to handle buses. Chairperson Olson asked if Chief Lukin could address the issue of the number of emergency calls to other senior centers and if there would be any problems with maneuvering emergency vehicles in the round-about. Chief Lukin responded that the city did a study on the number of emergency vehicles called to senior housing earlier this year. He didn't have the results of that study for this meeting so that information was not brought at this time. Chief Lukin stated that he does not anticipate any issues with the round-about as the Public Works Director knows the size that is needed for emergency vehicles. Chairperson Olson closed the public discussion. Chairperson Olson stated that she likes the idea of eliminating the sidewalk on the west side of East Shore Drive to save trees. Board member Ledvina stated it would be nice to eliminate the sidewalk along the entire site on the west side of East Shore Drive, but would defer to staff and engineering on how that fits into the regional picture for the trail systems and such. The applicant should work with the staff on this issue. Chairperson Olson said that the southern part of the sidewalk would be used by residents to give access to the lake and should be kept in the plan. Ms. Finwall pointed out that all phase one public improvements will be back before the board, planning commission and city council for review later this year. That would be the time to review the sidewalk issue. Chairperson Olson expressed a concern about the number of parking stalls being insufficient. However, if the applicant believes that staff at The Shores will be able to park in the underground parking stalls, that would take care of most of the concerns. Community Design Review Board Minutes 06-12-2007 6 Board member Shankar would like to discuss the possibility of closing the north driveway and keeping the south driveway. Board member Demko responded that removal of the north driveway would direct traffic through the parking area, which would not be optimal. The proposed north drive should not affect the site line issues as it is sloped and the landscaping on both sides of the drive help to buffer that concern. One of the drives should be closed and he believes that the south driveway should be closed. Chairperson Olson added that having the driveway more towards the middle of the property may actually slow traffic because of the slope and curve of East Shore Drive. Board member Demko stated a concern that the removal of the second driveway will increase the traffic through the parking lot because there is only one entrance. Chairperson Olson stated that the board should not be redesigning the parking layout and let the applicant, city staff and engineers work that out. The board agreed. Board member Ledvina stated that improvements can be made on the landscaping design. A recommended change is in condition 3a, the requirement should be focused to 20% visibility from the center of Phalen Lake and not specify the height of the evergreen trees. Board member Ledvina stated that the applicant should resubmit a lighting and photometric plan. Board member Ledvina stated that a change to condition e, the city doesn't normally regulate interior signage of a building and this condition does. The last part of the condition that includes interior signage should be removed. Board member Ledvina moved to recommend approval of the plans date stamped April 19, 2007, for the 180-unit, four-story Shores senior housing development to be located at 940 Frost Avenue. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following (changes made by the Community Design Review Board during the July 24, 2007, meeting are underlined if added and stricken if deleted): a. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. b. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant must submit to staff for approval the following items: 1) Verification The Shores plat has been recorded. 2) 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. In addition, the engineering plans should be revised as follows: Community Design Review Board Minutes 06-12-2007 7 a) Trees Preservation: 1. The revised grading plan shall preserve the large specimen cottonwood tree (heritage tree) located on the north side of the property, adjacent Frost Avenue (48-inch tree). 2. Revision to the grading plan showing that the most easterly retaining wall is shifted to the west to make every effort to preserve the three specimen oak trees and other significant trees in the area. 3. Revision to the grading plan shifting the retaining wall located on the north side of the wetland to the north, toward the building, to make every effort to preserve significant trees in this area. b) The applicant shall work closely with the city engineering department to reduce the size or quantity of rainwater gardens needed on the site in an attempt to reduce grading and ultimately preserve trees. c) The applicant shall work closely with the city engineering department to explore areas on the development where pervious pavers can be implemented. 3) Revised landscape/tree replacemenUshoreland screening plans showing: a) Revised detail of south elevation building ele'lations from the center of Phalen Lake showing compliance with shoreland screening requirements (code requires that the buildina be at least 80 percent screened from the lake). To ensure compliance, the applicant shall submit a reviced I:lndscClpe detClil of the southerly ponding area sho'A'ing Cl drastic increase in the numbor and size of replacement treec (poccibly ac large ac 15 foot high evergreen treec) in order to ensure reduced visibility from the lake. b) Revised tree preservation plan shall maximize preservation of the significanUspecimen trees on the site. The revised tree plan and replacement calculation to be approved by staff prior to issuance of a building permit. The Community Desiqn Review Board encouraqes the citv to redesian or remove the sidewalk proposed alonq the west side of East Shore Drive. adiacent the Shores property, in an attempt to preserve trees alonq the west side of the propertv. c) Revised landscape plan which shows additional plantings in front of the loading dock and the location of all proposed ground mechanical units which are screened by landscaping. d) Revised rainwater garden plantings based on any grading changes. Rainwater gardens to be reviewed and approved by the city's naturalist prior to issuance of a building permit. Community Design Review Board Minutes 06-12-2007 8 e) Revised landscape plan showing the installation of underground irrigation for the landscaped areas. The applicant should explore the use of conservation sensor sprinkler devices which will shut off when it is raining. 4) Revised site plan showing: a) The location of trash and recycling receptacles throughout the site. b) The location of benches scattered throughout the site, along the trails and sidewalks. c) Removal of the south drivewav on East Shore Drive. 5) Revised elevations showing: a) Sight line perspective of the building as seen from East Shore Drive and Frost Avenue. These perspectives should show the height of the building in relation to mature trees, proposed lighting, adjacent buildings, at a human scale. b) An increase in the height of the loading dock screening fence along Frost Avenue. This can be accomplished through the use of design elements proposed on the arcade/trellis to increase the height and create more of a screen to the loading dock. c) The proposed northwest patio and entry door on the building elevations. d) The proposed fence around the healing garden. 6) Watershed district approval. 7) Building material samples showing color scheme for the project as shown on the power point presentation presented to the Community Design Review Board during the July 24,2007, meeting. 8) Enter into a developer's agreement with the city which will cover the installation of all public improvements surrounding and within the property. 9) Sign a maintenance agreement for the ongoing maintenance of all required rainwater gardens and infiltration basins. 10) A cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for all required exterior improvements. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the work. c. The applicant shall complete the following before occupying the building: 1) Replace any property irons removed because of this construction. Community Design Review Board Minutes 06-12-2007 9 2) Provide continuous concrete curb and gutter around the parking lot and driveways. 3) Install all required landscaping and an in-ground lawn irrigation system for all landscaped areas. 4) Install all required outdoor lighting. 5) Install all required sidewalks and trails. d. The lighting and photometrics plan is not approved. The applicant must submit a revised lighting and photometrics plan for community design review board approval which complies with city code and is compatible with the Phase I Gladstone public improvements. e. Signage is not approved. The applicant must submit a sign plan for community design review board approval. The plan must show a monument sign to be located at the intersection of Frost Avenue and East Shore Drive which announces the entryway to the Gladstone Neighborhood, interior or exterior cignage which calls out the previous use of the property as the 51. Paul Tourist CClbin Site, and any exterior signage advertising The Shores. f. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: 1) The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. 2) The above-required letter of credit or cash escrow is held by the City of Maplewood for all required exterior improvements. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished exterior improvements by June 1 of the following year if occupancy of the building is in the fall or winter or within six weeks of occupancy of the building if occupancy is in the spring or summer. g. All work shall follow the approved plans. City staff may approve minor changes. Chairperson Olson seconded. Board member Shankar made a friendly amendment to add to item 5.b.7. as follows: "Building material samples showing color scheme for project as shown on elevations included in the power point presentation presented to the board on July 24,2007." Board member Ledvina made an addition to item 4, an addition of c to read "Removal of the south driveway on East Shore Drive." Ayes - Demko, Olson, Shankar, Ledvina The motion passed. Community Design Review Board Minutes 06-12-2007 10 This project is to go before the city council on August 13, 2007. VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS No visitors presentation. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS No board presentations. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Community Development Department Bus Tour Reminder - July 30, 2007, from 5:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Please R.SVP to the Community Development Office. b. Representation at the August 13, 2007, City Council Meeting - item to be discussed include The Shores. Chairperson Olson volunteered to be the Community Design Review Board representative at the city council meeting. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:24 p.m. For complete coverage of the meeting, one can purchase a DVD copy of the meeting for $5 from City Hall. 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 un its 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 Burnsviffe senior project, on which the Maplewood project is 2 based, only 40 to 50 of the underground spaces will be reserved and used by residents at anyone time. (Bumsville has 136 units and 92 UG spaces, of which only 30 to 40 have been reserved 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 availab/e forfamily/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 wiUlessen 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 Parking 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. Parking 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 applicanfs 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 Buildino Oesion 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. Landscapino 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 corner 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 Storaoe 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. Retainino 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. SidewalksfTrails 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 Liohtino 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 PU D 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:sec31legacylRegent 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 ----~--~------~----------- I "Hr' II II I I ['lil;fl;fl;lfiiEB!1 II II [I I[ 1111 [I ! II I I[ II Imll q !l II 1,1 llil [I '" I ~.~....+_jl__....l!_Uu:_Jl\1 ;} 0 ._- ~ ~ ..... r' -..-" -' '- - - ,~- _-------------------------------------------~liNIJLBJl[l----___ ____________ - j" ~- >..... 1--( { SG :? ~ \ 1 I ~ 0: I II Cl I \ I ::I=. ~ I I I 1. ....I I II ~ u. I II .,., II ~ 1\ U II ~ II II II II II II II II II II " II II \ I II II " II II II II II II \1 II II II II II II II Ii OlJDDO II II I' I' I' " Ii II II II II I I I I /-----,__ ,-'-~\ . ~;:.;.;:~;..;:~-~~~-. ~WI'1N -=--=-~.i._.....j I --------....., f~----------- I I, I " I I " I !I lj II II II }.... " t (c ''I I ~ - . I l .~_...i II I I I . I r I I I I I I I ./ '1 \ }11 ~ ~ ! 111\ ]c-J h t; - ~~~J u 2.~- _. ___. _______~ ~ ~~ ~ ~--o--- _co-co-~-=_=__" <.c::,,;:::=.c::::-=:::::::-=:::::-::::::::::::::::B:E1.I."""M:;A;.:\I=S"=======.o- c:::::=::::::co-co--=::::::::..-=-::-=-::::::::::'::-'::-'::--=-==_-_C"======':::'> .:=.::::-:: PROPOSED REGENT SENIORS' APARTMENT SITE I I I I I I I I I I I I J EGA.CY PI1:\AN f 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 //~/"" 1/" 1; I iij II f Fi II' " I I " " 'I 11'11 I )11,1 Ii I I I 1\1) , I ~l I \ l \ \11 \ \, I ~ l ",,- ~""" ! ~ I -... \ ! ~ ~ \. \ l' \ , , .' - ~ I 00 =",-",.. dODO LEGACV PHIJ.}I og D[!O ~:;~O C:lt; c::J C::'v = r.::::J;c;:J. ==0 =0 ':":-77.1_::;'...-' .....~.!:;' 1 I 1r I I I I I I .( ~ I I I I I IJ I II I I '..J I ~! I:> i ",I \ ~) i1 ~-:.------------'-----~~------------------.""'., ,'-'-.....---------~-~-----~------~-----------_. /~--- LOCATION MAP 9 \ Attachment 2 lEGACY VillAGE AT MAPlEWOOD ...... " ~ OUTLOT H , po....... TOWNHOMES GROSS 11.71A4. .~_.-__ta_ -- ....-~-- \"> I,;.:. , .--:-------------------~'"'-- - t.- f'rof'os.d APPROVED PUD S..+. DEVELOPMENT-CONCEPT PLAN JULY 14, 2003 10 r~" ~~Illl'!l! III J D- ii~li" ; tm I. i", i'o~IlII!1 HI ! ~ - 1i'i* ~ I ~; fl ii' L--:..,., ~~ il!l:: lH J ~ I ~ ll!~ ~ ~" > ; I '1'1 il 'I! 1'1 'I ill'; , i IIII hll" ,!I! 'l'lI 1111 i ! !!i I Iii 'Ii II !I! I 'I" 'I I'I!_ Ill! I ,"I II ! 'il l! II: I ;' :. i I !"'I !'I'i'llll ! II, 'jOI' " I I I' !Il! '.I 11 ,i! i I P 1 "l oj >ll I II' I,P II '1I I : 'I II' ,I II, Ililil III III % II ,11!1i I Ii Ii! illi II! IIlidd !! Iii i II il<lll!! II! lil!lllll ~ !111!1! III '1111 ! 11' nlll I! ! iI illilflll I III! Ii I , I' I', .<, 11l!'<! ~, In! III 'liP' 'i', ! I ill WI" 'r!!' I il! III Iii ili ii! 1Il1! i 111111111 illl ! III! Ii III! ! II ! 1111 I! I ! Iii i II! II ! '! I I" 'l II! ill! iii jl . J I ill! II Ii ill I II i lill! II!IIII" II! !! III! !l! Ii I!I~ /11.1 i!i!~ UIWf.lI i'~ i~~~ ; ~1 ,I ~ liilllli !III! iln!i! !iI! lUll fill! IB !liil! ~ ~~ II,illlj"!Pil tll!llg ill! 'II 1111l! II' I~' I;~ ~ II '. 'I: II 'I, -. 'I ~ Ii 1 ! llll!" Ill! Ill-I! .il i ,I Illl i !lll ili! ! ! !ill ill II: II I! Ii !il !in!i! II II; nil! 1111I11111111 !Il !III III III1I Ill! . ' ;: i,1 :; :"lj ',"" ,', , ,- """ .- --,.-..- :.! -~ ,,; '~/}R~f;i;t~_---l -f -':1 .. -'1--- .. ~"" ~ -.~ ~ ~ ~ '1' --'il\ ' , ";f .>';' -", . '. -~: -:'! , , ' ~ ., Attachment 3 I !II 111J) Ii ~ I Ulllll ~ 31 ~; () ~ - i -1 . ~ ~~~~ }-z ~ '2.2 at) 2 . ~ . lli ~ ><0 WZ <'A <," 0<' ~o ~ I- o II z !! 11 , II " III !.II, . '!;i!;i!;i~ ~~H . .... R ~~~;: In c " I ~~ :: , z i,!J lb i ,'Ij @"''''' I. .". '"" i~1 c;";<>:: ;! .n ~ g: ~ 8w !1, 'is1:::l:3. ! Ll!!-1 I'" Ii ,;~ I Hi i; ~ Uii il~I~: 1 ! ~Il:i:ll A Ii ~ ,f'M ~E. ,!~ill: "'; Idoi, III I 5 l II id Ii Ii! ~~I m~ ~ , II, I'l II" 118 II ! Iii!! ,I! n ! l.ld II ~ Wi! ! illll,l!! '-":I @ i!ipi!!id ~n.. n 1 III I !M~h~0Xl e e --. --- -...-'--'. ---- --::=,: ~==-~=- -~~~ -=-~.~---~~-~--~--~~ ._~ . ,....-~--,. -- .~"--~~-~~.~~ . . '-~' _.~ _ 4_~=~==:-1~~~~~~~~~_:~;.~..~;~~:;:~~~(<~'\. ,~.. ,~~~ ~~:-~.-._~~~~._- .~~/" 1 1 ~ "--... 11 ~1Cr<OlS-_'S\J()l!.'~'>1 '" '" w w ~ ~ <( <C " ~ '" 2 2 >-- >-- >-- >-- J) a z z z z z () Q I-- I-- }- <( )- <( <( > <( >s.: nu s.: ill"'- -.J "'- OC -.JOC ill <( ill,f I "- \--)- \-- }- Ild It \) <( ill<!l () <!l S:':J Ul z -' N 12 Attachment 4 j> -~DII jh J D Il~~ 0 Ii ! III Il/ll ~ ~ ~! ~ oil t OC~ ~h2 l I.. , 0 }-W 1~lg~i!III!1 1M i ~ _ 1[!~i ~,~ 00 Jij , ~ ~< m~ I . . "'~'l .. 'o- J ~ ~ Ii;; . ~ "> l!U H~ ;- 'I i..( 12t t~ ill ~ ! :'-_~.J::r. . >, > 3 a .i . ~ $ ~ i~$ $" II I! 1 , "Ii I " '-I . I' , 11 'l! h l '! I,;l ! lhi ,I 0;" q l I, !, "I> 1-,1, 1i _~i1:;: ~ ~ l!~ ~~~ HI~~ P:;~i.!_ ~m!hh!lilll!!lll !lliilim <888888 8 88 i8ii iiii i -. . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _.._.1 ~. -.:" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ill i! I I N i> ~ ~ , li ~ ~! u~ ~l .. , z o ~. ~i ~l ~ , li " !~ .' ~l ~ " j> ~ ~ , z o " !! ~l J "",; i> ~ ~ , l> ~ ~ , li " !~ ~~ 21 13 li " ~. ~! ~ !l ~ .9 """"Kl>m.~~_", Attachment 5 IHI~ REAL ESTATE DBlELOPMENT. ARCHITECTURE' ENGINEERING' MANAGEMENT June 12, 2007 I~~@~DW~~ lm JUN 1 5 Z007 @I REGENT AT MAPLEWOOD By A SENIOR CONTINUUM OF CARE/ASSISTED liVING COMMUNITY CITY OF MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA Narrative in Support ofPUD Ameudment PROPERTY OWNER ARCIDTECTSIENGINEER 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 wWlv.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 coutinuum levels are found in the Additional Information sectiou below. The site plan has 131 parking stalls -- 100 heated, underground stalls and a surface lot with an additional 31 parking stalls. 7900 Xerxes Avenue South . Suite 1300 . Bloomington, MN 55431 . 952-'838-2400 {P} . 952-838-2401 (F) . www.hartfordaro.com 14 PUD AMENDMENTIWAIVER 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 fucility. 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 Suites 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 Regeut at Burnsville, 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 Suites - only somewhat smaller than Regent at Maplewood. Regent at Bumsville 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 with 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.haltfordaro.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 every resident at The Regent at Maplewood will be able to enjoy each day with the ability to achieve maximum 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 the services needed or utilized. With a wide range of services available and specifically catered to every individual, the needs of residents will consistently be met. Independent Living The Independent Living option is designed for independent senior adults who desire limited services, but 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 utilize 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, recreatioual 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 balconies 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 laundIy machines 7900 Xerxes Avenue South . Suite 1300 . Bloomington, MN 55431 . 952:'838-2400 (P) . 952-838-2401 (F) . www.hartfordarocom 16 Options available at additional cost . Additional health, nursing and personal care services . Additional honsekeeping . Additional meals and guest meals . Available guest suite for family and friends . Meal tray service . Beanty 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 desigued 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 individnal 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 OptWns 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 comprehensive level of care for its longer term residents, together with an option for a place to stay or recover following a hospital stay or short-term medical need for Independent or Assisted residents. Planned services in the Care Suites will include: . Three 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) . www.hartfordarn.com 17 . Personal laundry services . 24 hour 5:1 dedicated staffratio 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 needed . 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 staff"mg and licenses required for this type of facility. As an example, Hartford's Regent at Bumsville 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) . WWW.hartfordaro.com 18 Attachment 6 Page 1 of3 Enl!ineerinl! Plan Review # 2 PROJECT: Regent at Maplewood Development PROJECT NO: 06-19 REVIEWED BY: Jon Jarosch, StatTEngineer DATE: Jnly 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 pIan set. Please include updated Maplewood Rainwater Garden detail, standard plate #116. This detail can be found on the City of Map Ie 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 proj ect. 2. Please include updated City of Maplewood Plates No. 350A-350E for details on sediment and erosion control measures. 19 Page 2 00 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 I. 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. A11 other areas ofthe 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 00 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: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Lexus Parking Lot Expansion 1245 County Road D August 22, 2007 INTRODUCTION The Ryan Companies is requesting approval of plans to enlarge the parking lot of the recently completed Lexus Service Center located at 1245 County Road D. The proposed parking lot would be located between the new Lexus building and the new Maplewood Market Place retail center to the south. This parking lot would be for additional parking space only. There is no building proposed. Refer to the attached plans and narrative. The proposed parking lot is a permitted use since it would only be used as a parking lot for customer cars and inventory parking. If it were a "sales lot," it would require a conditional use permit for that activity. DISCUSSION The proposed parking lot meets all of the city's criteria and requirements for setbacks, site lighting, parking lot dimensions and curbing. Staff's only concern is that the applicant should expand on the landscaping in the following ways: . The steep slope on the side of County Road D is very weedy. The applicant is proposing to leave this as a "no disturb" area. Staff does not object to this slope being a natural area and not mowed, however, this slope is simply weeds. If it is to be a natural, unmowed area, staff feels it should be replanted with prairie grasses or an acceptable, sustainable type of grass that has a seed mix that has grasses and not weeds. . The top of this slope along the street edge should be kept up and maintained. Staff feels that this boulevard should be planted with a continued row of trees like those the Lexus Service Center has at the top of the hill along County Road D. This would also provide a nice balance with the boulevard trees across the street. . The river-rock edges along the entrance drive should be planted with trees to enhance this driveway into the Lexus Service Center site. Engineer's Comments Erin Laberee, the assistant city engineer, reviewed this proposal and has the following comments related to drainage and stormwater treatment: . Drainage from this site was planned for when the Lamettry Pond was designed and constructed. Lamettry Pond will provide rate control for this site. It is a requirement of the watershed and the city that 1" of runoff be infiltrated for the impervious area on the site. No infiltration is currently being proposed. The engineer shall revise the drainage plan to account for 1" of infiltration. . Drainage calculations shall be provided to the city showing the infiltration requirement is met. . The invert of the proposed 18" storm sewer shall connect into the existing manhole at or above 888.12 to match flow lines. RECOMMENDATION Approve the plans date-stamped July 27, 2007 for the expansion of the parking lot for the Lexus Auto Service Building located at 1245 County Road D. Approval is subject to the applicant complying with the following conditions: 1. Repeating this review if construction on the proposed parking lot has not begun within two years of this approval. 2. Submittal of a revised landscaping plan for staff approval prior to obtaining a permit which includes the following: . The weeds on the steep slope on the side of County Road D shall be removed and this slope replanted with prairie grasses or an acceptable, sustainable type of grass. The seed mix shall be subject to the approval of the city's naturalist. The applicant shall sod and keep the boulevard mowed along the County Road D frontage, though, the slope with a sustainable grass may be unmowed. . The top of this slope along the street edge shall be planted with a row of trees like those the Lexus Service Center has at the top of the hill along County Road D. These trees shall be placed at the same spacing from the Lexus Service Center site to the driveway entrance to the proposed parking lot. . The river-rock edges along the entrance drive should be planted with trees placed at 30 feet on center to enhance this driveway into the Lexus Service Center site. 3. Before getting a permit to build this parking lot, the applicant must provide staff with cash escrow to guarantee the installation of landscaping and other site elements. The amount of this escrow shall be 1 % times the cost of doing this work. 4. Compliance with the requirements in the city's engineering report by Erin Laberee dated August 13, 2007. 5. The parking lot shall have continuous concrete curbing and be striped according to the site plan. p:sec4\Lexus Parking Lot Expansion 807 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Address Map 3. Site/Landscaping Plan 4. Applicant's Narrative dated July 27,2007 5. Engineering Report dated August 13, 2007 6. Plans date-stamped August 13, 2007 (separate attachment) 2 .', GIR COUNTY RD D CIR 41 . . D o 0, LEXUS ,~ ~- SERVICE /~ PROPOSED LEXUS jPARKING LOT EXPANSION / RETAIL CENTER -----.J u ';:,"1.:,,'., ;-'.'l.,.III'.1\[.." ]::I , 6 tfJ c1tJ ~ ~ ~ ~ J] [:::.:J .~ },,~,1 0 COUNTY ROAD D "",=> o " LOCATION MAP SUMMIT CT J , , ~ \..I COUNTY ROAD D 3~ ~~\)CIR ~"" '" vO~ ~ <:> '" en '" ~ ~ COUNTY RD D CIR o D DIJ 1240 Attachnient2 CJ '.""" '''''''Wi ./ "'LEXUS . c"'SERVICE CENTER PROPOSED LEXUS PARKING LOT EXPANSION 1248 ~~"',qll.. {---____ C~"''''' 8~Way -'---_<- 1:~ ~75 ) ~!J 1252 3001 Gulden's Roadhouse 2999 ADDRESS MAP D . , <lioll'H z -= " !' ~ !!Jl :! " ~ ag ;I:1 0 " I 0 ~ d~ = ~ '" = ~:;; ! t;~ w "{ ...0 8" ~ I" .0," ~f;] ~ , :<~~ ! u , ! ~H ! ,"'w ;:.J;:;': Q 11:;: ~::)~ "0 D-lZ Z ! 1::>( ;:;"';;;: I ! 0 "'Xc( ~~~ ~ mil , ~~:E 00 , At chment 3 t e~ ~ i!: ,,;: ! ~ IJ j ~ i ~ " hd I'. ~ "'-1 .{i~~ i~~"!i ~iH~ ~';'rlliJ ~ ~ !~.; fUn ~~'ii:L ! ~ ; , i :l " ~ ~"' .. T"'" ~ j! ~ ~..J H 9J II ;:! : ~ '< t1 ~ I'l ~~ ~ il I '" ~ ~ ~: : ilj'i III ~ ~ ~ I;"l~ ~~ ~~~ Ii :; ~ ;Ii ~ if~~~ ~ i~ ~...S~~ ~: ~"~'3~~~ ~ -~ ~~~-"'..... ~ i'l Sl ~m~*!~\'Il:l g liI~ 8~);!~1iIi!'~ ~ ~ ~ !"'l!':li6 i1'~~ " =I::'i ':"'8.'1;;1.. "- S ~ wow clw"l ~ i~ ~1'ili''''O'iflil'' <g I ~i!'~j!'~,,~ 15 ":H;gili'!l~ ~ wlg!l! 1l;!\'s l2'::!(!:l ! I!: !;IIi;: i i!! ;!!!!l:; @ Ol~!:i~~~~S~1:l~ ri ~~n~~~'<;~~~ " ""'1""1' ,. ..,...., 5~ B~~~ ~1~3" ~ d~ll!:;~~weS2 zill J5l'l~~~~l!..g~e 'l: iH"-~~~I'i~I:;~~ l>Jfi-~~~"-:';~g~ ii!::l ~ ~~';;ili"'I:lU!;1 i!":? ~w~~a~lhd\i: ~ ;1~2~~I~g~~x Q ~;;::~~jZ wz:~n ij ~ !:!H~ ~:;~~:::.. ~ ~~H:~; ~~~g~~ u~~ ~~~~ ~:;g~ I~..~a~:?~~i,:~. ~":"~ . . . ... 'I" . ---eoCCt ' ; . . -- ----~- -------------------- ------ ------ ---.....JJ:QtJ _____~__ ____ _____ ~ -~1f"'"a',., ____ _ _____ ~---___2!~~~. ______ ~ ____-!Lv.ts ______ ---------------.. -- iJ ~I---_-j , - - ~-f _ ---I C--9 j: I: 1 . I, i ij i I I I, f . j , ! ! IL"; I ! ! \- j. - If- --,-r+-,cn ' . I . t, j I , ! I ..-("'\\"\\' ~ \ \ \ \..-\ r-P--,"-", _ J ' I ,-..r--, 'I i ' i i I; , Ii, , ' z <C ..J Q. C) Z - Q. <C o U> C z <C ..J - W I- - U> Attachment 4 RYAN COMPANIES US, INC. m uth Tenth Street, Suite 300 ~ fE @ fE 0 fJJ fE i} ""poli" MN 554032012 II 612-492-4000 tel JUL 272007 ~ 612-492-3000 fax '--' ~YAN@ WWW.RYANCOMPAN1ES.COM BUILDING LASTING RELATJONSHIPS By DESIGN REVIEW FOR NEW COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT- NARRATIVE SITE: LEXUS OF MAPLEWOOD PARKING TROUT LAND LOT 2 BLK 1 NEAR INTERSECTION OF CR D AND HWY 61 MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA As requested in the Filing Requirements for New Commercial Developments document, I am requesting approval for construction of a new paved parking lot on behalf of Bloomer Properties, LLC. The parking lot will be for the use of, and adjacent to, the Lexus of Maplewood Auto Dealership and Service Center. The primary use of this lot will be parking for vehicle inventory storage. The intent of the lots will not be for customer display, but rather as a place to stage vehicles that have been sold or are waiting for service. All customer vehicle display will remain on the east side of Highway 61 at the Lexus of Maplewood Sales Center. According to the city code, we believe parking as a primary use is allowed on this site. Lot 2, Block 1 of the Troutland Development is currently zoned M-l, Light Manufacturing District. Section 44-636 of the City Code lists the permitted uses of/and zoned M-l, the first of which allows "any use listed as a permitted use in a BC (business commercial) district". Section 44- 5111ists the permitted uses of land zoned BC. Item number 9 allows parking as a principle use. Ryan's Civil engineering staff has reviewed the application requirements to proceed with the additional parking lot design. Due to the unique nature of the project the following items have been excluded from the application: Exterior Elevations - There is no building planned for the 10t. Recent Certificate of Survey - The site has been mass graded to the proposed elevations in the approved plans of Lot 1 Block 1 Troutland, we have attached the plat information, Tree replacement / inventory plan - The site has been mass graded and currently there are no existing trees on site, a proposed landscaping pIan for the site has been attached. During the initial planning of the development we assumed Lot 2 to be 95% impervious and designed runoff from the lot to tie into the overall storm sewer layout. At this time the site is approximately 66% impervious, which will present less runoffthan originally planned, We have attached the approved HydroCAD model from 4-8-05 to illustrate the rainfall runoff quantities. Storm sewer has been sized by the use of the rational method; attached please find the 1>.7 I ,...~...~~ Pnrl"~~l~ n A"-"- R.n1 rOM Pnr~l?~~O ('I A"-"- R.n, ,,~"- (,I>., r"'FN"F Rd?All? I'] IIC-"NSF r:r.rl~lb\~'" ('.GrI511473 rr.r:,'in';?7, rHlrAr.n II IlrFf4"-F r.roMlU on IlrFN"-F '';11;;7 WA IlrFN"-F RVANrllloMKI( July 27, 2007 Page 2 spreadsheet addressing the pipe sizing for a 10 year event. We will be submitting a copy of this information to the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District for their approval and will keep the city informed of any comments or changes. Please review the prepared documents for the request of this project. If you have any questions, please contact Julie Halvorson, Ryan Companies US, Inc. at 612-492-4627, on behalf of Bloomer Properties, LLC. l:\PR01-NEW\] 500\1577-000 LEXUS OF MAPLEWOOD NEW SERVICE FACILITY\PCOS\LOT 2\TO CITY OF MAPLEWOOD_ NARRATIVE.DOC fA Attachment 5 Enldneerinl! Plan Review PROJECT: Lexus Parking Lot Expansion PROJECT NO: 07-16 REVIEWED BY: Erin Laberee DATE: August 13th, 2007 Lexus is proposing to expand their parking lot to the north. The developer and/or the engineer shall address the following comments. Drainage & Treatment 1. Drainage from this site was planned for when the Lamettry Pond was designed and constructed. Lamettry Pond will provide rate control for this site. It is a requirement of the watershed's and the city that 1" of runoff be infiltrated for the impervious area on the site. No infiltration is currently being proposed. The engineer shall revise the drainage plan to account for 1" of infiltration. 2. Drainage calculations shall be provided to the city showing the infiltration requirement is met. 3. The invert of the proposed 18" storm sewer shall connect into the existing manhole at or above 888.12 to match flow lines.