HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/07/1994MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
November 7, 1994
7:00 P.M.
City Hall Council Chambers
1830 East County Road B
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes: October 17, 1994
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Presentations: Sherry Allenspach and Roger Anitzberger
6. Public Hearings
a. 7:00 p.m., Comprehensive Plan Change and Rezoning: Maplewood
Townhouses (11th Ave. & Ariel St.)
b. 7:45 p.m., Maplewood Retail Addition
Land Use Plan Change
Zoning Map Change
Conditional Use Permit
Street Vacations
Sale of City Property
Preliminary Plat
7. Visitor Presentations
8. Commission Presentations
a. October 24 Council Meeting: Commissioner Rossbach
b. November 14 Council Meeting: Commissioner Fischer
9. Staff Presentations
10. Adjournment
WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
This outline has been prepared to help you understand the public meeting process.
The review of an item usually takes the following form:
The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed and
ask for the staff report on the subject.
Staff presents their report on the matter.
The Commission will then ask City staff questions about the proposal.
The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who
wishes to comment on the proposal.
This is the time for the public to make comments or ask questions about the
proposal. Please step up to the podium, speak dearly, first giving your name
and address and then your comments.
After everyone in the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments,
the chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting.
The Commission will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are
allowed.
The Commission will then make its recommendation or decision.
All decisions by the Planning Commission are recommendations to the City
Council. The City Council makes the final decision.
kd/misc\pcagd
Revised: 6-18-93
MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
October ] 7, ! 994
7 P.M.
City Hall Council Chambers
1830 East County Road B
II.
Call to Order
Chairperson Axdahl called the meeting to order at 7 p.m.
Roll Call
Comm~smoner Lestcr Axdahl
Comm~smoner Lorraine Fischer
Comm~smoner Jack Frost
Commlsmoner Kevin Kittridge
Commlsmoner Dave Kopesky
Commmmoner Mary Martin
Commlsmoner Gary Pearson
Commissioner
Commlsmoner
ComlTllSSloner
Commlsmoner
William Rossbach
Todd Sandell
Marvin Sigmundik
Milo Thompson
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
IV.
A. September 19, 1994
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Commissioner Fischer moved to move approval of the minutes of October 3, 1994, to
Item 7.c. on the agenda.
Commissioner Pearson seconded Ayes--all
The motion passed.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Ken Roberts, Associate Planner, stated the developer of the proposed Maplewood Retail
project would like to be heard under visitor presentations even though this item was not
scheduled as a public hearing.
Commissioner Fischer moved approval of the agenda with the addition of Maplewood
Retail project under Item 6. as submitted.
Commissioner Martin seconded Ayes--all
Planning Commission
Minutes of 10-17-94
-2-
The motion passed.
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. Conditional Use Permit Revision: Aladdin's Castle (Mall)
Ken Roberts, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Tom Schutz, district
manager for Namco Cybertainment, was present to answer questions.
Commissioner Frost moved the Planning Commission recommend:
Approval of the resolution which revises the conditional use permit for an amusement
business at the Maplewood Mall. The revision allows the business to expand.
Approval is based on the findings required by the Code and subject to the following
conditions:
The construction shall be in the area shown on the store location map that the
City stamped September 29, 1994. The Director of Community Development
may approve minor changes.
The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of
Council approval or the permit shall end. The Council may extend this deadline
for one year.
o
The City Council shall review this permit in one year if the expansion has not
been finished. If the expansion is finished within one year, future reviews shall
be waived.
Commissioner Rossbach seconded
Ayes--all
The motion passed.
B. Conditional Use Permit Revision: 2280 Maplewood Drive (Menards)
Ken Roberts, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and answered questions
from the Commission. Commissioner Frost questioned Ken Haider, Director of
Public Works, about the condition of the frontage road near Menards. Deb Forbes,
1071 East County Road B, gave some background information on the Menards' fence
and answered questions from the Commission. Commissioner Rossbach suggested
removal of the lower southwest comer of the parking lot and replacing it with sod
Planning Commission
Minutes of 10-17-94
-3-
and some evergreens. Kathy Dupree, co-owner of 1071 East County Road B, asked if
a fence would be included and commented on the number of trees that would be
removed in this area as part of a future sewer project.
Commissioner Rossbach moved the Planning Commission recommend approval of
the resolution revising the conditional use permit for the Menards outdoor storage
yard as follows:
1. Adherence to the site plan, dated March 15, 1988, unless a change is approved
by the City's Community Design Review Board.
Materials in the storage yard shall be no more than 20% visible from the
residential lots to the south. This may limit stacking heights or require a higher
fence height.
3. Hours of operation in the storage yard shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.
An additiona! ibm' feet of solid screening material shall be added to the existing
screening fence behind 1115 and 1101 East County Road B. No material on the
storage rack adjacent to the fence can extend above the 14-foot fence.
A row of eight-foot-tall evergreen trees shall be planted six feet on center on the
rear property at 1101 East County Road B before June 1, 1989. The property
owner at 1101 East County Road B shall be responsible for the maintenance of
the trees. Menards shall provide a cash escrow or letter of credit for the
installation of the trees before the store may open. No storage material can
extend above the 14-foot fence.
6. An exterior public address system shall not be allowed.
7. All lighting in the storage yard that is not needed for site security shall be turned
offafter business hours.
8. The City Council shall review this permit again in one year.
9. No more than 2½ feet of the 17½-foot rack shall be visible from the rear of the
homes that are at street level on County Road B.
10. Menards shall be responsible for the safety of the neighbors in regard to the
materials stored over the height of the fence.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 10-17-94
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Menards shall install a six- to eight-foot high privacy fence to screen the
residential lots west of the existing ten-foot fence from vehicle headlights.
Plowed snow shall be stored away from the southern and eastern property lines
to avoid nmoff problems on residential property.
The fence along the east property line shall be extended approximately 110 feet
to the north, to the point where the property jogs to the east.
No storage shall occur outside the fenced area.
All applicable conditions shall be complied with by May 1, 1989.
The 10-foot high fence along the west side of the storage area shall be raised to
14 feet.
17. Sanitation facilities be provided by Menards for the workmen.
18. Menards shall:
a. Remove the asphalt from the area south of the extension of the southern
east/west nmning fence and have sod planted within this area.
b. Remove the existing curb cuts to the frontage road which service that
section of parking lot and landscape this area.
c. Plant a sufficient number of evergreen-type trees in this area to provide a
year-round screen for the residents at 1071 East County Road B.
do
Install a vehicle-barrier in the northern location which is just south of the
existing entrance to Menards storage yard. The design and location of the
barrier and the landscaping shall be subject to the City Engineer's approval.
Menards shall install these barriers by December 26, 1994.
eo
The Community Design Review Board shall review and give
recommendation on any planting or landscaping work that will be done in
this area. This landscaping work shall be completed by June 1, 1995,
subject to City Engineer's approval.
Commissioner Pearson seconded Ayes--all
Planning Commission
Minutes of 10-17-94
-5-
The motion passed.
Ken Roberts, Associate Planner, noted that this would be on the City Council Agenda
on November 14, 1994.
C. Preliminary Plat: Highwood 4th Addition
Ken Roberts, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and answered questions
from the Commission. Amie Esterbrooks, representing Gonyea Company, stated they
had read the staff report, would comply with the recommendations, and then
answered questions from the Commission. Commissioner Rossbach stated that he did
have a problem with homes near the William's Brothers pipeline.
Commissioner Martin moved the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
Highwood Fourth Addition preliminary plat (received by the City of September 26,
1994). Before the City Council approves a trmal plat, a developer shall complete the
following conditions:
Sign an agreement with the City that guarantees that the developer or contractor
will:
a. Complete all grading for the site drainage and the pond, complete all public
improvements, and meet all City requirements.
b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits.
c. Pay the City for the cost of traffic-control and street identification signs.
d.* Provide all easements required by the City Engineer.
Install permanent signs around the edge of the wetland buffer easements.
These signs shall mark the edge of the easements and shall state there shall
be non mowing, vegetation cutting, filling, or dumping.
f. Install survey monuments along the wetland boundary.
g. Remove any debris, junk or fill from the wetlands and site.
Have the City Engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These
plans shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, and tree plans.
The plans shall meet the following conditions:
Planning Commission
Minutes of 10-17-94
-6-
a. The erosion control plan shall be consistent with the Ramsey Soil and
Water Conservation District Erosion and Sediment Control handbook.
b. The grading plan shall:
(1) Include proposed building pad elevation and contour information for
each home site.
(2) Include contour information for the land that the construction will
disturb.
(3)
Include berming and an oil containment system near the pipelines.
Grading shall be done to cause any oil leaking from the pipeline to
flow to the oil containment system.
c. The tree plan shall show the following:
(1) Where the developer will remove, save, or replace large trees.
(2) The size, species, and location of trees that the developer will plant as
replacement trees.
There shall be no tree removal east of the pipeline.
Record covenants or deed restrictions with the final plat that do the following:
(a) Require the contractors to build the houses at the minimum front yard
setback from Sterling Street.
(b) State the pipeline's location.
Show the wetland boundaries on the final plat as approved by the Watershed
District.
Move the drainage easement east so that all the lots have at least 10,000 square
feet outside the drainage easement.
Give the City wetland easements over the wetlands. The easements shall cover
the wetlands and any land within twenty feet surrounding a wetland. These
easements shall prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling, or dumping
within twenty feet of the wetland or within the wetland itself. The purpose of
Planning Commission
Minutes of 10-17-94
-7-
this easement is to protect the water quality of the wetlands from homeowners'
fertilizer and to protect the wetland habitat from residential encroachment.
The City must have signed construction contracts for Sterling Street before the
City approved the final plat.
If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the City may waive
any conditions that do not apply to the final plat.
*The developer must complete these conditions before the City issues a grading
permit or approves the final plat.
Commissioner Frost seconded
Ayes--Axdahl, Fischer, Frost, Kopesky,
Martin, Sandell, Pearson, Sigmundik,
Thompson
Nays--Rossbach
The motion passed.
Ken Roberts, Associate Planner, noted that this item will be on the City Council agenda on
November 14, 1994.
VI. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
Marc Krueger, an attorney representing the group interested in developing the Maplewood
Retail addition, stated that they had brought along a group of planners and architects to
make a presentation. This project would be located at the northeast comer of Highway 36
and White Bear Avenue. Alan Kretman, a landscape architect working for RLK Associates,
explained what they would be requesting from the City. RLK Associates is the planning
firm that put the site plan together. John Dietrich, also of RLK Associates, gave additional
details of the site development. Ron Krank, KKE Architects, described some of the
architectural details and materials involved and then answered questions from the
Commission. Commissioner Axdahl stated that this item is scheduled for a public hearing
on November 7, 1994.
Vii. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS
Commissioner Axdahl reported on the October 10 City Council meeting.
Planning Commission
Minutes of 10-17-94
-8-
Ao
Representative for the October 24 Council Meeting: Commissioner Rossbach said he
would attend this meeting.
Bo
Representative for the November 14 Council Meeting: There was a conflict as to
which commissioner is scheduled to attend this meeting. Ken Roberts, Associate
Planner, will check the schedule and clarify it for the next meeting.
C. Approval of Minutes: October 3, 1994
Commissioner Fischer moved approval of the minutes of October 3, 1994, as
submitted.
Commissioner Frost seconded
Ayes--Axdahl, Fischer, Frost, Kopesky,
Pearson, Rossbach, Sandell, Sigmundik,
Abstentions--Martin, Thompson
The motion passed.
Commissioner Fischer moved the Planning Commission reconsider the Mapleleaf
Estates preliminary plat.
Commissioner Kopesky seconded Ayes--all
The motion passed.
Commissioner Rossbach moved the Planning Commission recommend the following
clarification of their approval of the Mapleleaf Estates preliminary plat. Item E. of the
motion, on page 5 of the minutes, shall be clarified as follows: Item E. shall read:
"Approve the following parts of the Mapleleaf Estates preliminary plat (received by
the City on July 26, 1994): Block 1; Block 2, Lots 1-17; Block 3; Block 4, Lots 1-3,
and Block 5, Lots 2-8, hereafter referred to as Phase I." Item E., 1., a., page 5, shall
read: "Complete all grading for drainage, complete all public improvements and meet
all city requirements for Phase I." Item E., 1., g. on page 6 shall be deleted in its
entirety. Item E., 2., page 6, shall read: "The developer shall complete all grading for
public improvements and overall site drainage for Phase I. Item E., 4., e., on page 7 of
the minutes, shall be deleted in its entirety.
Commissioner Fischer seconded
Ayes--Axdahl, Fischer, Frost, Kopesky,
Pearson, Rossbach, Sandell, Sigmundik
Planning Commission
Minutes of 10-17-94
-9-
IX.
XI.
Abstentions--Martin, Thompson (not present
for voting at previous meeting)
The motion passed.
STAFF PRESENTATIONS
Ken Roberts, Associate Planner, discussed the City Council agenda of Monday, October
24, 1994.
ADdOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:28 p.m.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
PROJECT:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
DATE:
City Manager
Thomas Ekstrand, Associate Planner
Comprehensive Plan Change and Rezoning
Maplewood Townhouses
Northwest Comer of 1 lth Avenue and Ariel Street
Shelter Corporation
November 1, 1994
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ................................................................... 2
Project Description ........................................................ 2
Requests ................................................................ 2
BACKGROUND ..................................................................... 2
DISCUSSION ....................................................................... 3
Comprehensive Plan Change and Rezoning ...................................... 3
Density ................................................................. 3
Traffic ................................................................. 3
Noise ................................................................... 4
Opposition to Rental Dwellings ............................................... 4
Crime Increase ............................................................ 5
RECOMMENDATION ................................................................ 5
CITIZENS' COMMENTS .............................................................. 6
REFERENCE INFORMATION ......................................................... 8
SITE DESCRIPTION ...................................................... 8
SURROUNDING LAND USES .............................................. 8
PLANNING ............................................................. 8
PUBLIC SAFETY ......................................................... 9
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
The Sheker Corporation is proposing to build 31 rental town houses at the northwest comer of
Eleventh Avenue and Ariel Street. (See the maps on pages 10 and 13 and the site plan on page
15.) There would be 16 two-bedroom and 15 three-bedroom units. (See the "Project Description"
in the narrative on page 18.)
Requests
The Shelter Corporation is requesting the following:
A change in the City's land use plan from LBC (limited Business Commercial) to R-3H
(high-density multiple dwellings) along the 1 lth Avenue frontage. The City is already
planning the north part of the site for R-3H. (See the existing and proposed maps on pages
11 and 12 and the written statement on page 18.)
2. A rezoning from F (farm residential) to R-3 (multiple dwellings). (See the existing and
proposed maps on pages 13 and 14 and the written statement on pages 19-21 .)
The developer will apply for the site and building design approval if the City approves the land
use plan and zoning changes.
BACKGROUND
On January 7, 1991, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the land use plan and
zoning on this property. This heating was pan of a City-wide zoning and land use study. The
Commission recommended that the City Council change the LBC designation on 1 lth Avenue to
R-3(H). The Commission gave the following reasons:
An R-3M or R-3H classification will generally produce less traffic than an office use,
especially since the Council reduced the'maximum densities allowed for multiple dwellings.
This is important because of the growing traffic congestion at the intersection of 1 lth and
White Bear Avenues.
Multiple dwellings may help the City meet regional housing goals. The City could
particularly use modest-cost housing, such as town houses, small apartment buildings and
double dwellings.
3. Multiple dwellings are a practical use for Hillcrest Development (the property owner).
Multiple dwellings were recently built on the south side of 1 lth Avenue in North St. Paul.
4. The change would be consistent with the goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan.
5. The R-3(I-I) classification would allow the property to develop as one project. This would
allow the City more flexibility in requiting designs that protect the homes on Ariel Street.
On January 28, 1991, the City Council tabled the land use plan change until the City finished
updating the comprehensive plan.
DISCUSSION
Comprehensive Plan Change and Rezoning
Thc City does not require specific findings to change the land usc plan. A land use plan change,
however, should be consistent with the goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan. (See the
housing policies on pages 8-9.) The proposed development is consistent with these. The four
findings for approval of a rezoning are in the resolution on page 44. The proposed rezoning
meets these findings.
Residents suggested that this property be used for open space, a small golf course, a park, single
dwellings or owner-occupied town houses. The City's Open Space Committee ranked this site 53
out of 67 sites. The City is not planning to buy this site for open space or park. The City
Attorney had advised me that the City cannot deny a zoning change because the units are rental
versus owner-occupied The only other option is to change the land use plan to single dwellings.
However, the City has been planning the north part of this site for high density multiple
dwellings since the City adopted its original land use plan in 1972. A multiple-dwelling
development on the south part of the site would be a logical extension of this classification.
Density
Several neighbors thought that the density would be too high. The land use plan and zoning
allow the developer to build town houses or apartments. Because the developer is proposing
town houses, there would be fewer units per acre than if the developer proposed apartments. For
this three-acre site, the R-3H classification allows a maximum density of 9.5 to 14.3 units per
acre, depending on the type of unit. Apartment units generally produce fewer people per unit
than town house units, so the City allows more apartment units per acre than town house units
per acre. As an example, a developer could build 43 apartment units on this site or 31 town
house units. Because there are fewer town house units per acre, town houses create less building
mass and density than apartments.
Traffic
Traffic on Ariel Street is an important concern of the neighbors. Eleventh Avenue has more than
enough capacity to handle the traffic from this development. The City planned 1 lth Avenue as a
3
major collector street. The City Engineer told me that 1 lth Avenue is designed to carry about
15,000 vehicle trips each day. The 1993 traffic counts show that 1 lth Avenue is carrying 8,300
vehicles each day. The proposed town houses would increase the traffic on 1 lth Avenue by 254
trips or a total of 8,554 vehicle trips per day. This is an insignificant increase. Eleventh Avenue
could carry almost twice the traffic it now carries.
The developer had a traffic study for this project. The study included the traffic from the town
houses and the proposed retail development to the south. The study made the following findings:
- Traffic impacts from the town houses would not be significant.
There would be acceptable service levels at the intersection of Ariel Street and 1 lth Avenue.
The existing stop sign would be adequate to control traffic. The intersection would not need
traffic lights.
All driveways should be on Ariel Street. Minimizing the driveways on 1 lth Avenue would
result in safer driving conditions, a higher level of service on 1 lth Avenue and would ensure
that 1 lth Avenue operates efficiently as a collector street.
(See the traffic study starting on page 22.)
The land use plan change would reduce the potential traffic from this site. The traffic engineer
told me that the present LBC (limited business commercial) land use classification would
generate significantly more traffic than town houses.
Noise
Several neighbors said that the area was already too noisy. One party stated that it was especially
bad around the holidays. The traffic from this development would not significantly change the
noise levels on 1 lth Avenue. This development would only increase the traffic from about 8,300
vehicles a day to 8,554 or a 3% increase.
In 1991, the staffdid sound tests on the north side of 1 lth Avenue at the thirty-foot setback. The
sound tests just met the State's regulations. As the north and south sides of 1 lth Avenue develop,
traffic and sound levels may increase and exceed State standards. The developer may have to
provide more setback or sound screening for the town houses from 1 lth Avenue. Particularly if
the proposed retail center to the south develops. The City should consider this when the
developer applies for plan approval.
Opposition to Rental Dwellings
The owners of five surrounding properties were opposed to rental dwellings. These owners
thought there were enough rental units in the area. The City Attorney has advised me that the
City cannot deny a land use change because there may be too many of a type of business or
because the dwellings are for rent versus owner-occupied. The City must leave those decisions to
the free market system. The developer has had a market study done. The study shows that there
is a shortage of two and three bedroom rental units for families.
Some neighbors said that this proposal would lower the market value of their homes. The County
Assessor's Office told me that there is no indication that this town house development would
decrease market values. The developer believes that their project will increase property values in
the neighborhood. They state that they would hire an appraiser to verify this if the City requests
it. (See page 20)
Crime Increase
Some neighbors were concerned that the proposed town homes would bring an increase of crime
into the area. The City's Director of Public Safety, Ken Collins, told me that with more people,
the potential for crime increases. He said that this was true with single dwellings as well. Chief
Collins said that rental units did not mean that there would likely be more crime than owner-
occupied units.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the resolution on page 43. This resolution changes the land use plan on the north side
of Ariel Street, west of 1 lth Avenue. The change is from LBC (limited business
commercial) to R-3H (high-density multiple dwellings). This change is based on the
following reasons:
a. It would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's goals and policies.
b. It would be consistent with the property planned for R-3H to the north.
The present LBC (limited business commercial) land use classification would generate
significantly more traffic than town houses.
Adopt the resolution on page 44. This resolution changes the zoning on the northwest
comer of Ariel Street and 1 lth Avenue from F (farm residential) to R-3 (multiple
dwellings). This change is based on the findings required by Code.
5
CITIZENS' COMMENTS
I surveyed owners of the 30 surrounding properties within 350 feet of this site. Of the 17 replies,
four were in favor and 13 objected.
In Favor
I am in favor of this change to the multiple dwelling town house plan. (Kelt, 2444 White
Bear Avenue)
It could be nice to have some new neighbors. (Jones, 2453 Crestwood Drive, North St.
Paul)
Opposed
If these are to be owner occupied units I question the market for same, given the length of
time it takes to sell units in Crestwood. I AM NOT in favor of any more rental property in
this immediate area. (Hildebrandt, 2443 Crestwood Drive, North St. Paul)
The area has enough rental units as is. That comer area is not large enough for that type of
project. Make it a small park or leave it alone. We will all fight this proposal! (Ebensperger,
2510 Ariel Street, North St. Paul)
3. I object because of the added traffic and the age of the added people with a retirement
housing on the other side of the street. (Roubik, 2040 13th Avenue, North St. Paul)
4. There should be single family homes or a par-three golf course here instead. 0Vlalsom, 2466
Ariel Street, North St. Paul)
I object because of overcrowding, noise and traffic congestion in such a small area. Develop
with self-owned houses or self-owned one-level town houses. (Kamrath, 2499 Ariel Street,
North St. Paul)
The density of the living units are about three times too much. You probable should develop
German Street to draw off some traffic from Ariel. Your zoning map is ridiculous. No one
has lots the size you show in Maplewood here anyway. (Landsom, 2035 Flanders Road,
North St. Paul)
There are about three times as many units as the size of the site should allow. The number
of the units should be reduced 50%. German Street should be developed as an additional
exit. Your maps are obsolete. (Anderson, 2047 Flanders Road, North St. Paul)
Too many people on a small and too busy comer. The maps are old. (Femow, 2500 White
Bear Avenue, Maplewood)
9. See the letters on pages 36 to 42 from the following persons:
Jeanne McPhee and Germain Smith, 2492 Ariel Street, North St. Paul
Gary J. Beuthling, 2480 Ariel Street, North St. Paul
Louis J. and Patricia Kamrath, 2499 Ariel Street, Maplewood
Dorothy J. Lillmars, 2038 Flanders Road, North St. Paul
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 3 acres
Existing land use:
REFERENCE INFORMATION
Undeveloped
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: A house and County open space
South: 1 lth Avenue and undeveloped land planned for LBC (limited business commercial) and
R-l(single dwellings). The City is considering a rezoning of this land to BC (business
commercial) and R-3 (multiple dwellings).
West: Undeveloped property planned for LBC and R-3H
East: Houses
PLANNING
Comprehensive Plan Policies
The land use plan has eleven general land use goals. Of these, three apply to this proposal. They
are: minimize land planned for streets, minimize conflicts between land uses and provide many
housing types.
The land use plan also has several general development and residential development policies that
relate to this project. They are:
· Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative
economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments.
Include a variety of housing types for all types of residents, regardless of age, ethnic, racial,
cultural or socioeconomic background. A diversity of housing types should include
apartments, town houses, manufactured homes, single-family housing, public-assisted housing
and low- and moderate-income housing, and rental and owner-occupied housing.
· Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate
buffering and separation.
Promote a variety of housing types, costs and ownership options throughout the City. These
are to meet the life-cycle needs of all income levels, those with special needs and
nontraditional households.
· The City will continue to provide dispersed locations for a diversity of housing styles, types
and price ranges through its land use plan.
PUBLIC SAFETY
The Fire Marshal recommends that the applicant install on-site fire hydrants and stop signs at
Ariel Street.
p:sec I 1 ~townhom¢.mem
Allat;hments:
1. Location Map
2. ~ Land U~e Plan Map
3. Proposed Land Use Plan Map
5. ProperS' Linc/Zoning Map~Proposcd
6. Si~ Plan
7. Front Elevation
g. Side and Rear Elevation
9. C~,~:~;~hemive Plan Change Statement
10. Rczoning Stat~n~nt
11. Traffic Study
12. L~tter from J~Rn¢ McPhce and Germain Smilh
13. Letter from Gary Bcuthling
14. L~r fyom Louis J. and Paui¢ia Kamrath
15. Leuer from Dorothy J. Liilmats
16. Land Use Plan Change R~solution
17. Zoning Map Change Resolution
LOCATION MAP
10
Attachment 2
I
~ :
mlnlo r arterial
I,
' ~'~:--.~. c
interchange
Vadnai$ Heights ,
major collector /.; ~
IIIIIIIIII,
M-1
P
principal arterial 694
interchange
CO
major collector
iM-1
! M-' 1 ,LBC
!al
High,way; ,36
III
cha~nge
EXISTING
LAND USE PLAN
Attachment 3
interchange
Vadnai$ Heights
or arterial
CO
major collector ·
principal arterial 694
interchange
major colleclor ;'. ;'
mmmmmm
I.
·
mmmmmmmm?,:m ........
.~m BC I
~mJ
--~) ',)m~,
M-1
P
OS
:OS
Immmmmmam·
"i ~ ) M-: 1 ,LBC
inter~:hahge
jT,..p I I e_c_t o r
PROPOSED
LAND USE PLAN
12
Attachment 4
I
E. DGEHILL
AVE.
DENTAL CUNIC
RAINBOW FOODS
FEET
PFIOPCOED ::
O~ /.t./e
II
9'
'~240~
20
18
2486
1TH AVENUE --
PROPERTY LINEEx~2. / ZONING MAP
Attachment 5
·
!
EDGEHILL
II
CON NOR B AVE.
\
PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP
Attachment 6
-- OCF~
13th AVE.
FLANDERS RD.
11th AVENUE
SITE PLAN
15
N
~ ~,~ At.t. achment. 8
17
ILl
0
Z
Public Purpose Statement
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application
Dear Maplewood City Council/Staff:
Attachment 9
The following is a brief description of Shelter Corporation's proposed Maplewood Townhouse
project located on the Northeast comer ofthe intersection of Ariel and 1 lth streets. In addition
to the project description, is a brief public purpose statement addressing a number of reasons why
this project would meet specific needs of the City of Maplewood.
Project description:
Maplewood Townhouses is a proposed 33 unit townhouse project consisting of 17 2BR/1 bath
and 16 3BR/2 bath units. Site amenities include on-site management office, common laundry
facility, children's tot lot and ample on-site parking. Each townhouse has individual front entry.
Each unit will have its own attached garage entry. Unit amenities include a spacious 981 sq. ft
and 1226 sq. ff floor plan that provide extra storage, individual patio/decks with privacy fences.
Each unit will also be equipped with its own gas operated hot water heater and forced air furnace.
The kitchens will include a full amenity of stove, hood vent, 16 sq. ff refrigerator, garbage
disposal, dish washer and extensive counter space.
With the recent completion of the new affordable senior cottages built by Morgin and the senior
cottages located in North St. Paul, Shelter has identified a tremendous need for a similar property
but targeted to family in the City of Maplewood For further statistics documenting the demand
for affordable family housing, please refer to the attached market survey completed in February of
this year by Shenehon Company. Along with this identified demand, the current legislation lead
by legislator Orfield has been pushing for more first, second and third tier suburbs to provide
affordable quality clean housing for individuals of moderate incomes. This is an opportunity for
the City of Maplewood to be proactive and increase this type of affordable housing in their
community.
The site location, Northeast comer of Ariel and 1 lth streets is a perfect politically correct location
with the designated Ramsey county open space to the north and already up and exiting
commercial facilities to the west. Also, the city, in the early stages of development, will have
ample opportunity to dictate what exactly will be built on this site along with the physical
attractiveness of the project. Another advantage of Shelter's purposed project is that it would
actually be a down zoning of the current comprehensive zoning plan, which would help address
neighbor's concerns with regards to traffic issues.
Shelter Corporation, unable to detail all of the benefits of its proposed townhouse project within
this short summary, would like to request an informal meeting with any city staff/council
members, in order to provide a better understanding of what Shelter is proposing.
18
Attachment 10
PUBLIC PURPOSE STATEMENT REZONING APP~~'I~NF-
Dear Mapl~wood,
project descrimion UI.~I~ '"~k,.':7~ "'~u Li 1._~1~,~
Maplewood Townhouses is a proposed 33 unit townhouse project consisting of 17 2BR/1 bath
and 16 3BR/2 bath units. Site amenities include on-site management office, common laundry
facility, children's tot lot and ample on-site parking. Each townhouse has individual front entry.
Each unit will have its own attached garage entry. Unit amenities include
or 1226 sq. f. floor plan that provides extra storage, individual patio/decks with privacy fences.
Each unit will also be equipped with its own gas operated hot water heater and forced air furnace.
The kitchens will include a full amenity package of stove, hood vent, 16 sq. ff. refrigerator,
garbage disposal, dish washer and ex~ensive counter space.
public Purpose:
The public welfare of the community will benefit from the development of the proposed projec~ in
a number of ways.
1. Reducing traffic congestion.
By granting the requested down zone for the proposed project from its current
comprehensive plan of light industrial to high-density residential the City
would eliminate the possibility of development of a strip mall or gas station type
facility from being built in place ofMaplewood Townhomes. Traffic congestion
would be far less with a townhouse project than with a gas station facility due to
the reduced average trips of residents cars from those of customers cars. Increased
traffic relating to the townhomes would occur at acceptable hours rather than early
morning and late evening hours the neighborhood would experience from a gas
station or convenience store.
2. Improving safety from fire and other dangers.
The current site is undeveloped land that contains an enormous amount of prairie
grass and brush especially the Ramsey County designated open space that lies
adjacent to the site along its northern boundary. By developing this site into a
townhouse rental community, the developer would be eliminating an unsupervised
fire hazard, especially when considering that the project will be equipped with
individual fire extinguishers and meet or exceed aH local and state fire codes.
Other dangers that would be resolved by the development would be the elimination
of wooded open space in which disruptive juvenile activity can take place. By the
development of the proposed project, the site would be supervised by an
employee of Shelter Corporation.
19
Providing adequate light and open space.
Pursuant to the local city of Maplewood and State of Minnesota building codes the
proposed project will have ample on-site light provided by 25 foot high light
poles using shoebox style high pressure sodium lamp and is controlled by
photocell. The fixtures are to be provided with cutofflens to control light and site
perimeter. It has been Shelter's experience most recently, with regards to its
newest development, Andrew's Pointe Townhouses, that this system provides
ample lighting and in some cases has reduced the overall crime rate in and
around its specific neighborhood.
The open space will be more than adequate by following in building and site
design. The addition of a on-site tot lot which will provide tenants with a specific
recreational facility. In addition, Ramsey County has designated an open space
adjacent to the sites northern boundary. This open space designation restricts
development in and around this area and will provide an enormous amount of
open space for this local community.
Avoiding overcrowding.
In general, by granting the zoning request, the city would be down grading the
zoning designation in its comprehensive zoning plan. The would greatly attribute
to any overcrowding that may occur with a strip mall or convenience store facility.
In addition the unit design, with its excess storage capacity and additional storage
in the attached garages, will address any tenant storage needs. The additional open
space designation as referenced in question 3 above will further contribute to any
overcrowding issues or concerns that the city may have.
Conserving property values.
This issue has typically arisen with regards to neighbors cone, ems whenever a
new development is contemplated. As the land is designated for development
rather than open space, the neighbors concerns must ultimately be addressed.
The current development cost on a per unit basis for the proposed development is
approximately $67,000/unit. Due to the proposed aesthetics of the development,
Shelter strongly believes that this development would greatly appreciate the
property values in the surrounding community. If Shelter proceeds to move X~
forward through the rezoning process, Shelter would, upon request by the City,
commission an appraiser to verify the above referenced statement.
2O
The proposed zoning change will not injure or detract from the neighboring
property due to the fact that the proposed request would actually be a down
zoning from what has been established in the current comprehensive zoning
plan. As stated above, the request would actually be less dense than what
was intended for its initial use.
The townhouse style development with its attached garages and individual
entries would give the property a neighbor feel that's consistent with the current
surrounding facilities.
The site currently has ample capacity for all utility and SAC/WAC that will be
needed for the proposed development. For additional services that will be
provided with relatively close proximity to the proposed development, please
reference the following:
Amenity Name Address
Distance fi'om proposed
Grocery Store
Drug Store
Church
Hospital
Health Clinic
Bank
Post Office
Clothing Store
Library
Day Care Center
Elementary School
Secondary School
Rainbow Foods
Walgreens
Mplwd Covenant
St. Johns
Mplwd Surgery
Norwest
North St. Paul
Fashion Bug
Ramsey Cty Public
New Horizon
Beaver Lake Elem.
Hill Murry High
White Bear Ave
White Bear Ave
White Bear Ave
1575 Beam Ave
1655 Beam Ave
2945 White Bear
2523 7th Ave E
White Bear Ave
1460 Skillman Ave
2251 VanDyke St.
1010 Sterling St. N
2625 Larpenteur Ave
2/10 miles
2/10 miles
3/10 miles
3/10 miles
3/10 miles
4/10 miles
2/10 miles
2/10 miles
1.5 miles
7/10 miles
1.5 miles
2 miles
NOTE:
Shelter has attempted to address all of these concerns in a short statement as
requested by this application. However, Shelter believes that addressing all of
these issues is imperative to a successful development. Shelter is organizing an
informal meeting with the local neighborhood and would welcome any
participation from the City staff or council.
Attachment ll
MAPLEWOOD TOWNHOUSE PROJECT
SITE TRAFFIC IMPACT REPORT
Prepared for Shelter Corporation
900 Second Avenue South
Suite 880
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Prepared by Biko Associates, Inc.
2501 Dupom Avenue North
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55411
October 1994
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ................................................... 1
Zoning and Adjacent Land Use ................... ~ .................... 1
Previous Traff~c Study ............................................. 1
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ......................................... 3
Existing Background Traffic and 1996 Background Traffic Forecasts ............... 3
Trip Generation 5
Trip Distribution ...................................... , .......... 5
PM Peak Hour and Daily Traffic Assignments .............................. 5
Intersection Capacity Analysis and Traffic Operations Analysis .................. 10
CONCLUSIONS ................................................... 12
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Site Plan ..................................................... 2
2. 1994 and 1996 No Development Two-Way Daily Traffic Forecasts ............... 4
3. 1994 and 1996 No Development PM Peak Hour Turning Movements ............. 7
4. 1995 Forecast PM Peak Hour Turning MOvements for Build MTP and Build MTP
and Proposed Retail Development ..................................... 8
5. 1996 Build MTP and Build MTP and the Retail Development Two-Way
Daily Traffic Volumes ............................................ 9
LIST OF TABLES
1. Trip Generation for Proposed Townhouse Development ...................... 5
2. Intersection Capacity Analysis Results ................................ 10
INTRODUCTION
This report documents analyses conducted to identify the extent of traffic impacts that would occur with
implementation of a proposed residential development in the City of Maplewood, Minnesota. The
development (the Maplewood Townhouse Project) is proposed by the Shelter Corporation to include 31
townhouses on approximately 3 acres of land. The development site is located in the northwest quadrant
of the intersection formed by 1 lth Avenue and Ariel Street. The site plan for the development is
illustrated on Figure 1. As shown, the site's access drives would be located on Ariel Street.
While the development site is located in the City of Maplewood, it is immediately adjacent to the City
of North St. Paul. Existing residences that from on Ariel Street are located in North St. Paul, and would
be directly east of the proposed development. As part of the study process, city engineers from both
Maplewood and North St. Paul were contacted for input in the study.
ZONING AND ADJACENT LAND USE
The proposed development site is currently zoned Farm/Residential, and allowed uses are agricultural and
single family residential. The site is identified in the Maplewood Comprehensive Plan for business/light
industry and high density residential. As mentioned, the development is proposed to consist of 31
townhouses. Therefore, a rezoning and a Comprehensive Plan amendment are being sought by the
developer.
The development site is bordered to the north and east by single family residences along Ariel Street.
A 215,500 square foot retail center has been proposed for the northeast quadrant of the intersection
formed by TH 36/White Bear Avenue. The retail center site is south of the proposed townhouse
development site and extends to the southwest quadrant of the 1 lth Avenue/Ariel Street intersection.
PREVIOUS TRAFFIC STUDY
A traffic impact study for the proposed retail development (Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.) was
submitted to Ramsey County and the City of Maplewood in September, 1994. The traffic study analyzed
1996 traffic impacts, representing conditions forecast to occur one year after the opening of the retail
development. The traffic study focused on four intersections along White Bear Avenue, which are under
county jurisdiction, and one intersection along 1 lth Avenue immediately east of the 1 lth Avenue/White
Bear Avenue intersection.
The study showed that traffic generated by the retail development, when added to 1996, forecast
background traffic, will generally not affect intersection operations. Existing (1994) intersection levels
of service (LOS) without the retail development were found to be above average at LOS B and C. The
analysis showed that those same levels of service would occur in 1996 with implementation of the retail
development.
The analysis also discussed the potential for stacking problems at the intersections of White Bear Avenue
and the TH 36 North and South Ramps. Stacking problems occur when the space provided for vehicles
queued at a red light is not long enough to meet demand. Further analysis indicated that the stacking
problems could be resolved by adjusting the traffic signals along White Bear Avenue.
Maplewood Townhouse Project
Site Traffic Impact Report
Shelter Corporation
Biko Associates, Inc.
Page 1
RAMSEY COUNTY
OPEN SP/~_.,E
Biko
[~ Ass,
Inc.
13th AVE.
11th AVENUE
Associams
$11*lter C~rl~ratl~
North Figure 1
Site Plan
No Scale
25
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
MAPLEWOOD TOWNHOUSE TRAFFIC STUDY APPROACH
The study approach followed the standard traffic impact analysis methodology. This methodology
includes background traffic forecasting and trip generation, trip distribution, traffic assignment, and
intersection capacity and traffic operations analyses.
Year 1996 background traffic forecasts were prepared by assuming a 1 percent annual growth rate for
traffic currently using streets in the study area. This growth rate was identified by Barton-Aschman
Associates in the traffic study for the retail development and is supported by field studies conducted on
other projects in the Maplewood area.
Trip generation for the townhouse development was calculated based on data provided by the Institute
of Transportation Engineers in Trip Generation, Fifth Edition; 1991. Weekday trip distribution was
estimated based on the geographic distribution of employment centers in the Twin Cities region. Traffic
assignments to the street system were based on the shortest travel time and distance between the
residential development and the employment centers.
Because of the potential for the combined traffic volumes from the proposed residential and retail
developments to negatively impact the system of streets and intersections, this traffic study addressed
1996 conditions with both projects in place. This was accomplished by analyzing the following
development scenarios:
· 1994 Existing Condition
· 1996 No Development
· 1996 Build Maplewood Townhouse Project (MTP)
· 1996 Build MTP and the Retail Development
The traffic study was based on the assumption that the Maplewood Townhouse Project would be
developed and in place before the retail development.
EXISTING BACKGROUND TRAFFIC AND
1996 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC FORECASTS
Figure 2 shows two-way daily traffic volumes in the study area for 1994. These are shown for Ariel
Street, 1 lth Avenue, and McKaight Road. The 1994 volumes were forecasted from 1993, unadjusted
counts taken by Mn/DOT and the City of North St. Paul. Figure 2 also shows the 1996, two-way daily
traffic forecasts for the No Development condition. These were forecasted based on the 1994 volumes
and a I percent annual growth rate.
Maplewood Townhouse Project
Site Traffic Impact Report
Shelter Corporation
Biko Associates, Inc.
Page 3
26
OOf~T
'~S lO.nV
OZ9
00/.61
'PIt ~qfl!U)l=lhI
O00~T
Of 9
27
OOIO~
TRIP GENERATION
Table 1 presents average trip generation for the average weekday. As shown, the proposed residential
development will generate 254 daily trips. Twenty-one (21) trips will take place during the AM peak
hour, and 29 trips will take place during the PM peak hour.
TABLE 1
TRIP GENERATION FOR PROPOSED TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT
AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips
Land Use Variable Daily Trips In Out Total In Out Total
Townhouse 31 Dwelling Units 254 4 17 21 19 10 29
[ ~glneers;
Biko Associates, Inc.; October 1994.
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Trip distribution for the project is presented below:
7 percent to/from the north on Ariel Street
15 percent to/from the east on 1 lth Avenue
2 percent to/from the south on Ariel Street
75 percent to/from the west on 1 lth Avenue
PM PEAK HOUR AND DALLY TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENTS
PM peak hour traffic assignments for the four development scenarios described earlier are illustrated on
Figures 3 and 4. These traffic assignments, which are presented as turning movements, were made to
two intersections, l lth Avenue/Ariel Street and l lth Avenue/McKnight Road. These are the two
intersections that the Cities of Maplewood and North St. Paul identified for analysis in this report.
The PM peak hour was selected as the time period for analysis because it represents the busiest period
of the day for traffic. PM peak hour traffic largely consists of commuters and is defined as the 60 minute
period between 4:30 and 6:00 PM when traffic volumes are at their highest.
Figure 3 shows intersection turning movements for the existing condition. These turning movements
were counted by Biko Associates, Inc. during field studies conducted on Wednesday, October 19 and
Thursday, October 20, 1994. Also shown on Figure 3 are PM peak hour turning movement forecasts
for the 1996 No Development condition. Under this condition, neither the residential nor the retail
development have been implemented in 1996. The 1996 turning movement forecasts were calculated by
Maplewood Townhouse Project
Site Traffic Impact Report
Shelter Corporation
Biko Associates, Inc.
Page $
28
applying the 1 percent annual growth rate to the 1994 turning movements that were observed during the
field studies.
Figure 4 shows turning movements for the 1996 Build Maplewood Townhouse Project (MTP). These
were derived by adding assigned traffic from the proposed residential project to the 1996 No
Development, turning movement forecasts.
Turning movements are also shown on Figure 4 for the 1996 Build MTP and the Retail Development
condition. These turning movements represem full build-out of both the proposed residential and retail
developments. Turning movements for the retail development were based on information from the traffic
study that was prepared by Barton-Aschman Associates. That study indicated that 20 percent of the daily
trips to/from the retail development would use 1 lth Avenue east of the retail site.
Figure 5 illustrates 1996 two-way daily traffic volumes forecast to occur under the 1996 Build
Maplewood Townhouse Project condition and the 1996 Build MTP and the Retail Development condition.
Maplewood Townhouse Project
Site Traffic Impact Report
Shelter Corporation
Biko Associates, Inc.
Page 6
o;
· ~$ la.nV
30
31
O00'~T
0~9
OOT'O:
'P~I
O09'gI
'{$ la.U¥
059
O08'OZ
32
INTERSECTION CAPACITY AND
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSES
Intersection Capacity
Current traffic control at the intersection of 1 lth Avenue and Ariel Street is a STOP sign. Traffic on
Ariel Street is stopped to allow 1 lth Avenue traffic to pass through the intersection. The intersection of
1 lth Avenue and McKnight Road is controlled by a traffic signal. Exclusive left-turn lanes have been
constructed on the north and south legs of the intersection, and the traffic signal currently operates on
a maximum 140-second, vehicle-actuated signal cycle.
Analysis was conducted in this study to determine how the current traffic controls would work under the
various development scenarios. The analysis evaluated intersection level of service (LOS), which is a
measure of the average stop delay vehicles experience at either STOP signs or traffic signals. LOS A
represents the shortest delay, and LOS F represents extremely long delays and congestion. LOS A, B,
C, and D are acceptable, LOS E is tolerable, and LOS F is unacceptable.
As shown in Table 2, existing and forecast LOS at the two intersections is no lower than LOS D. The
intersection levels of service shown in Table 2 are based on results of the Highway Capacity Manual's
computerized intersection capacity analyses for unsignalized and signalized intersections. Computer print
outs from the analysis are provided in an Appendix to this report.
TABLE 2
INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS RESULTS (LEVEL OF SERVICE)
1996 Build
1996 Build Townhouse Project
1996 No Townhouse and Retail
INTERSECTION 1994 Existing Development Project Development
WB Lefts A WB Lefts A WB Lefts A WB Lefts A
EB Lefts A EB Lefts A EB Lefts A EB Lefts A
NB Lefts D NB Lefts D NB Lefts D NB Lefts D
1 lth Avenue/Ariel NB Thrus ¢ NB Thrus C NB Thrus C NB Thrus D
Street NB Rights A NB Rights A NB Rights A NB Rights A
SB Lefts C SB Lefts D SB Lefts D SB Lefts D
SB Thrus C SB Thrus C SB Thrus C SB Thrus D
SB Rights A SB Rights A SB Rights A SB Rights A
11 th Avenue/MeKnight
Road B B B B
Source: Biko Associates, Inc.; October 1994.
Maplewood Townhouse Project
Site Traffic Impact Report
Shelter Corporation
Biko Associates, Inc.
Page 10
33
Traffic Operations
As shown on the site plan, Figure 1, the proposed project's two driveways would be located on Ariel
Street. City of Maplewood standards require minimum 20-foot spacing between driveways on local
(residential) streets. The centerline to centerline distance between the two driveways on the site plan is
shown to be approximately 135 feet apart, and, therefore, within City guidelines.
The City has asked that this study analyze the impacts of locating the two driveways on 1 lth Avenue.
This alternative driveway location would result in higher levels of service for the northbound and
southbound turning movements at the 1 lth Avenue/Ariel Street intersection, than those shown in Table
2. The improvements in level of service would occur because the volume of vehicles at the intersection
would be reduced.
However, level of service on 1 lth Avenue and safety could possibly be negatively affected by this
alternative driveway location. Collector streets like 1 Ith Avenue have higher permitted speeds than
residential streets and are designed to carry more traffic than residential streets. Because of these factors
collector streets should not have as many driveways as residential streets.
If the proposed project's two access drives were to be located on 1 lth Avenue, the most easterly drive
should be spaced a minimum of 120 feet (centerline to centerline) west of the 1 lth Avenue/Ariel Street
intersection. The most westerly of the two driveways should be spaced a minimum of 120 feet (centerline
to centerline) west of the first drive. Additionally, the easterly drive should be designed for inbound
movements, with outbound movements taking place at the westerly drive.
Thc 120-foot distance may seem excessive compared to the City of Maplewood's 30-foot minimum
spacing specification. However, this distance provides adequate spacing so that eastbound vehicles
turning left onto Ariel Street would not interfere with those turning left to enter the site.
Maplewood Townhouse Project
Site Traffic Impact Report
Shelter Corporation
Biko Associates, Inc.
Page 11
34
CONCLUSIONS
Analysis results showed that traffic impacts resulting from the proposed Maplewood Townhouse Project
will not be significant. Generating only 254 trips on the average weekday, 21 trips during the AM peak
hour, and 29 trips during the PM peak hour, traffic from the site will be an insignificant addition to the
background traffic.
Based on input from the Cities of Maplewood and North St. Paul, two intersections were analyzed in this
study; 1 lth Avenue/Ariel Street and 1 lth Avenue/McKnight Road. The intersection capacity analysis
showed that acceptable levels of service (LOS no lower than D) would occur at both of these intersections
under each of four development conditions that were analyzed in this report. The four development
conditions are listed below:
1994 Existing Condition
1996 No Development
1996 Build Maplewood Townhouse Project (MTP)
1996 Build MTP and the proposed retail development at the intersection of TH 36/White Bear
Avenue
As shown by the results in Table 2, the STOP sign at the 1 lth Avenue/Ariel Street intersection would
continue to efficiently control traffic in 1996 with implementation of the Maplewood Townhouse Project.
The analysis also showed that the STOP sign will continue to function efficiemly when traffic from the
proposed retail development is added to traffic that would be generated by the townhouse development.
The analysis showed that the traffic signal at the intersection of 1 lth Avenue/Mci(night Road will operate
at acceptable LOS B in 1996 with the townhouse development in place. Furthermore, LOS B operations
would occur at this intersection with the addition of traffic from the proposed retail development.
The overall opinion of the analysis is that the Maplewood Townhouse Project driveways should be located
on Ariel Street, as shown on the site plan. Minimizing the number of driveways on 1 lth Avenue will
result in safer driving conditions, a higher level of service on 1 lth Avenue, and will ensure that 1 lth
Avenue operates efficiently as a collector street.
The analysis did show, however, that the proposed project's driveways could be located on 1 lth Avenue.
If the driveways were to be located on 1 lth Avenue, the following recommendations should be followed'
Minimum 120-foot spacing (centerline to centerline) between the easterly driveway and the
intersection of 1 lth Avenue/Ariel Street.
Minimum 120-foot spacing (centerline to centerline) between the easterly driveway and the westerly
driveway.
Design the easterly driveway for inbound turns to the Maplewood Townhouse Project.
Design the westerly driveway for outbound turns from the Maplewood Townhouse Project.
Maplewood Townhouse Project
Site Traffic Impact Report
Shelter Corporation
Biko Associates, Inc.
Page 12
35
Attachment 12
Maplewood City Council
City Hall Building
1830'East County Road B
Maplewood, MN 5510g
North St. Paul City Council
2526 East Seventh Avenue
North St. Paul, MN 5510g
Dear Council Members:
As residents at 2492 Ariel, we strongly object to the proposed
building of the Shelter Corporation on the northwest corner of
Ariel and Eleventh Street. We protest this proposal for the following
reasons.
1) The property on the northwest corner of Ariel & Eleventh is
NOT zoned for apartment buildings. It is zoned for light industrial/
condos and that is what I believe it should remain zoned for. We do
NOT believe the zoning restrictions should be lifted or shifted
to accomodate Shelter Corporation.
2) The number of units, {33 two and three bedroom units) and therefore
the number of people Shelter is proposing for these apartments is
totally unacceptable.
a) Ariel Street is NOT able to handle the amount of increased
in traffic. As a border road, Ariel is not a polished, well-kept
road. As residents who both drives Ariel every day, we had no probler
with the current conditions or the current traffic. To increase
traffic with possibly 60 more vehicles, however, is outrageous.
b} Maplewood and North St. Paul already have the problem of
noise polution in this section. Shelter's proposal would
increase that problem by 130-150 people.
36
3) There is a significant water drainage problem in this section of
Maplewood/North St. Paul. The fact that the acreage on the northwest
corner of Ariel and Eleventh is low serves as a reminder that we need
areas for water run-off.
4} There is life existing there already. That piece of property
is home to much wildlife: deer, fawn, fox, racoon, rabbits,
pheasants, geese, wild flowers, blooming shrubs, etc. As residents,
we enjoy the life already that exists there.
There ARE areas that should not be developed. Those areas should
stand as a testament to our need for nature. We do not believe all
development is "bad"~ we do believe development should be held
accountable for principles higher than increasing revenues or
convenience.
5) There is no need for another apartment building. For 12 of the
last 14 years, I lived in apartment buildings in the inner city and
in the suburbs. There is NOT a shortage of living spaces.
For those reasons, we do not believe the northwest corner of Ariel
and Eleventh should be rezoned for Shelter Corporation.
Please vote to maintain the present restrictions.
Si ncerely,
Jeanne McPhee and Germaine Smith
2492 Ari el
North St. Paul
37
Attachment 13
August 31, 1994
City of Maplewood
1830 E County Road B
Maplewood MN 55109
Attn:
Re:
Thomas Ekstrand
Project: Maplewood T.H. (Section: 11)
My name is Gary Beuthling, I have owned and lived at 2480 Ariel St..
North for 6 years. I am very concerned that the proposal Shelter
Corporation's 33 unit townhouse development project could be
disastrous for the surrounding residents and community.
Traffic on llth Avenue is already very, very busy. Many cars cut
through Ariel St. from the over-abundance of shopping and apartment
building$in the area. There have been many accidents to Ariel St.
and 11th Avenue, one of which I know of caused a death.The addition
of 66 plus cars in and out of Ariel would be a serious mess.
Currently, the noise levels from llth Avenue and White Bear Ave. are
already intolerable. According to the site plan layout, the
townhouse entrance and exit would be directly in front of my house.
Headlights would shine through my front windows every night.
It is very clear that the addition of multiple dwelling housing
across Ariel would reduce the current market value of the surrounding
homes considerably and make it more difficult to sell. The existing
homes in front of the proposal site have a value of $100,000 -
$200,000. I have worked hard for this home. I don't feel I should
sacrifice my home's value and the neighborhood's environment for the
financial gain of a developer who has no other interest than to
profit from the developing the project.
There are already far too many low income dwellings within a 6 block
radius, including apartment buildings, townhomes and cottage
development.
My home was featured on Channel 4's Dimension Report. on crime several
years ago. Crime in the area is on the rise. I believe more
congested housing would attract, more crime.
I would be more receptive to middle to upper bracket homes with lots
similar in size to the existing ones on North Ariel. This would
still allow most of the land intact and not be so congested. I would
also be in favor of leaving the land natural or adding wetland and
wildlife habitat.. I would be more than happy to pay additional taxes
to develop a park or wildlife at'ea. The destruction of the current
natural wildlife habitat would be a tragedy.
38
Attachment 14
39
Attachment 15
TO: Mr. Thomas Ekstrand
RE: Neighborhood Survey Letter of 8-23-94
I attended the informational meeting put on bY the Shelter Corporation
and I object to the proposed use of this property.
1. Rental property of the proposed type would lower our property values
2. Unattractive'structures and too many
3. Traffic routed in and out on Ariel would cause much congestion and
backup to get onto llth - it is hard to turn east from the north now
4-way stop would not be enough in the a.m. and p.m.
4. Noise levels in this neighborhood are extremely high now'
5. This area would become overly saturated,'this proposal
6. I OBJECT TO ANY PROJECT THAT WOULD ENTER & EXIT ON ARIEL
I would not object to:
1. Owned townhomes, but fewer than the rental proposed project
2. Senior townhomes similar to those east of Ariel on llth, but fewer
than the proposed
3. Recreational uses
4. Senior citizens home/Daycare facility
I think an overall plan should be developed with the vacant property east
of White Bear Avenue and north and south of llth. This would provide for
better community balance.
Sincerely,
Dorothy J. Lillmars
cc: City of North St. Paul
Engr. Dept.
42
Attachment 16
LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Shelter Corporation applied for a change to the City's land use plan from
LBC (limited business commercial) to R-3H (high-density multiple dwellings ).
WHEREAS, this change applies to the north side of 1 lth Avenue, west of Ariel Street. The
legal description is:
The East 347 feet of the NE 1/4 of SE 1/4 of NW 1/4 in Section 11, Township 29, Range 22,
except the North 278.94 feet, thereof.
WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows:
1. On November 7, 1994, the Planning Commission held a public hearing. The City staff
published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding
property owners. The Planning Commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to
speak and present written statements. The Planning Commission recommended that the
City Council the land use plan change.
2. On _~. 1994, the City Council discussed the land use plan change. They
considered reports and recommendations from the Planning Commission and City staff
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the above-described
change for the following reasons:
a. It would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's goals and policies.
b. It would be consistent with the property planned for R-3H to the north.
c. The present LBC (limited business commercial) land use classification would generate
significantly more traffic than town houses.
The Maplewood City Council approve this resolution on
,1994.
43
Attachment 17
ZONING MAP CHANGE RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Shelter Corporation applied for a change in the zoning map from F (farm
residential) to R-3 (multiple dwelling residemial).
WHEREAS, this change applies to the northwest comer of Ariel Street and Eleventh Avenue.
The legal description is:
The East 370 feet of the NE 1/4 of SE 1/4 of NW 1/4 in Section 11, Township 29, Range 22,
except the North 278.94 feet, thereof.
WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows:
1. On November 7, 1994, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council
approve the change.
2. On ,1994, the City Council held a public heating. The City staff published
a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners.
The Council gave everyone at the hearing an opportunity to speak and present written
statemems. The Council also considered reports and recommendations from the City staff
and Planning Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the above-described
change in the zoning map for the following reasons:
1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code.
2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring
property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property
adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded.
3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community,
where applicable, and the public welfare.
4. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and
economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers,
police and fire protection and schools.
The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on
,1994.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
City Manager
Ken Roberts, Associate Planner
Maplewood Retail Addition
White Bear Avenue, Highway 36, Ariel Street and 1 lth Avenue
November 3, 1994
The Planning Commission should review the land use and zoning map changes, conditional use
permit, street vacations, sale of City property and preliminary plat. The Community Design
Review Board should review the reduction in parking stalls, the parking stall size variance and
the site, building and landscape plans.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
City Manager
Ken Roberts, Associate Planner
Maplewood Retail Addition
White Bear Avenue, Highway 36, Ariel Street and 1 lth Avenue
November 3, 1994
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .............................................................. 2
Project Description ................................................. 2
Requests ......................................................... 2
DISCUSSION ................................................................ 3
Open Space ...................................................... 3
Land Use Plan and Zoning Changes ................................... 3
Traffic ........................................................... 3
Other Retail Development in the Area .................................. 5
Conditional Use Permit for the Garden Center ............................ 5
Street Vacations ................................................... 5
Sale of City Property ................................................ 6
Parking Stall Width Variance ......................................... 6
Reduction in Required Parking Stalls ................................... 6
Design ........................................................... 7
Building Materials ............................................... 7
Landscape Plan ................................................ 7
Grading and Trees ............................................... 8
RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................... 8
CITIZEN COMMENTS ......................................................... 16
REFERENCE ............................................................... 17
HISTORY ....................................................... 17
SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................... 17
SURROUNDING LAND USES ....................................... 17
LEGAL .......................................................... 18
PLANNING ...................................................... 18
SOILS .......................................................... 18
ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS ...................................... 18
DEVELOPMENT POLICIES ......................................... 19
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Marc Kruger has applied to redevelop the land that is between White Bear Avenue and Ariel
Street, and between 1 lth Avenue and Highway 36. The proposal is for 27.5 acres of commercial
and 6.6 acres of multiple dwellings for a total of 34.1 acres. The project's name is Maplewood
Retail Addition. (See the location and property line maps on pages 22 and 25.) To build this
project, the developer is proposing to buy 28 homes, one business and about 13 acres of vacant
land.
Thc commercial part of thc project would have five separate stores: an 89,244-square-foot
grocery store (with a 13,020-square-foot expansion area), a 102,160-square-foot home-care store
with an outdoor garden center, a 3,000-square-foot Boston Chicken restaurant, a 7,000-square-
foot video store and a 25,785-square-foot pet supply store. There would be 1,271 parking spaces
and room for another 86 parking spaces. (See the site plan on page 29.) The developer would add
turn lanes and install a traffic signal on White Bear Avenue at the project access drive.
Requests
To develop this project, Mr. Kruger is requesting that the City do the following:
Change the City's land use plan map. This change would be from R-1 (single dwellings),
LBC (limited business commercial) and NC (neighborhood commercial) to BC (business
commercial) and R-3M (multiple dwellings-medium density). (See the land use maps on
pages 23 and 24.)
Change the City's zoning map. This change would be from F (farm residential), R-1 (single
dwellings) and NC (neighborhood commercial) to BC (business commercial) and R-3
(multiple dwellings). (See the zoning maps on pages 25 and 26.)
3. Approve a conditional use permit (CUP) for the garden center's outdoor storage, sales and
display.
4. Vacate the streets within the site. (See the map on page 27.)
5. Deed City property to the developer. (See the map on page 27.)
6. Approve a preliminary plat for five commercial lots and one outlot. (See the propgsed plat on
page 28.)
7. Approve a variance for 9.5-foot-wide parking stalls. The City Code requires 1 O-foot-wide
parking stalls.
2
8. Allow fewer parking spaces than required by the City Code.
9. Approve site, building and landscape plans.
DISCUSSION
Open Space
Many neighbors prefer to keep this property for open space or a park. The City would have to
buy all or part of this property to keep it as open space. The City has no plans to buy this land for
open space or park. In 1992, the Maplewood Open Space Committee rated sites for the City to
consider buying. The Committee ranked the comer of Ariel Street and 1 lth Avenue 38 of 67
sites and 6 out of 12 sites in that neighborhood. The Committee did not recommend that the City
purchase this site with the open space bond issue proceeds.
Land Use Plan and Zoning Changes
The City does not have specific findings for changing the land use plan. Any changes, however,
should be consistent with the policies in the City's comprehensive plan. I have listed the
appropriate polices on pages 19 and 20. The developer's proposal meets these policies. There are
four City requirements for rezoning. These are in the resolution on page 69. This proposal would
meet the rezoning criteria if the developer makes all the required traffic improvements. (See the
traffic section below.)
The developer's plans show 6.6-acres (Outlot A) for future multiple dwellings. The developer
has asked the City to plan this area for R-3M (medium density residences). This designation is
for a variety of housing types with a density of 6-9.5 units per gross acre. The 6.6-acre Outlot A
could have up to 63 housing units. Multiple dwellings on Outlot A would be consistent with City
policies. One of these policies is to have changes in types of land uses occur so that similar uses
front on the same street. The multiple dwellings on Outlot A would be between the proposed
commercial area and the town houses and apartments in North Saint Paul. Town houses are
proposed on the north side of 1 lth Avenue.
Traffic
Some neighbors were concerned that this development would create too much traffic.
Specifically, they were concerned about the 1 lth Avenue intersections with White Bear Avenue
and with Ariel Street. White Bear Avenue is five lanes and 1 lth Avenue is four lanes with a
median at the White Bear Avenue intersection. Maplewood has designated White Bear Avenue
as a major arterial and 1 lth Avenue as a major collector street. The County and the City have
designed major arterial streets to carry high volumes oftraffc. Collector streets are designed to
do several things. These include carrying traffic between the arterial system and the local system,
3
moving traffic between major subdivisions, business centers and the like, and providing direct
access to abutting properties.
The developer had a traffic consultant prepare a traffic study of the proposed development. (See
the report starting on page 30.) The study made the following findings:
- Sufficient vehicular capacity is available along White Bear Avenue and 1 lth Avenue to
accommodate the traffic generated by this development.
The leR-tum movements from the 1 lth Avenue access drive onto 1 lth Avenue will operate
at a poor level of service (level E). (The traffic consultant told me that a service level ore is
common for retail developments. They recommend changes when the service level drops to
level F. He did not recommend prohibiting lei~ tums from the site. This would only add
traffic to the other intersections.)
A traffic signal at the White Bear Avenue access drive would function efficiently for site
access. There would be ample capacity to accommodate the projected retail development
traffic at a satisfactory level of service.
During the weekday rush hour, there would be no loss of service at the White Bear
Avenue/1 lth Avenue intersection, the north Highway 36 ramps or the south Highway 36
ramps.
During the Saturday peak period, the intersection of White Bear Avenue/Highway 36 south
ramps will drop from a good to an acceptable level of service (level B to level C). However,
the other intersections will remain at their current service levels.
- The consultant recommended the following off-site improvements:
1. Add a channelized southbound lei't-turn lane at the access intersection on White Bear
Avenue. Some road widening may be required to accommodate the median width.
2. Add an exclusive northbound right-turn lane on White Bear Avenue at the main site
entrance.
Dan Soler, the County Traffic Engineer, is studying the impact of this center on White Bear
Avenue traffic. The County wants to know the effect of adding the proposed traffic signal at the
White Bear Avenue entrance. Mr. Soler told me that he does not yet have all the information he
needs to analyze the impacts of this proposal. As such, he cannot yet make any recommendations
about traffic impacts from the proposed development. He hopes to have final recommendations
about the traffic and streets by November 7, 1994. We are making recommendations with the
assumption that Mr. Soler's recommendations will be ready by the Planning Commission
meeting. If not, we will recommend that the Commission table all action on this project until
those recommendations are ready.
4
Other Retail Development in the Area
Several neighbors wrote there is enough commercial development in the area and there is no
need for additional retail. There is Rainbow Foods grocery store and a shopping center across
White Bear Avenue to the north and west of the site. There also is commercial development
including a Target Store to the east of the site in North Saint Paul. The City Attorney has advised
staffthat the City cannot deny a change to the comprehensive plan or to the zoning map because
of the number of similar uses in the area. The courts have said that cities cannot make market
judgments. Cities must base their decisions on land use criteria. Cities must allow the market to
decide how much and what type of retail development the area will support.
Conditional Use Permit for the Garden Center
The developer is proposing an outside garden center next to the home improvement store.
Section 36-151 (b)(4) of the City Code requires a conditional use permit (CUP) for the exterior
storage, display, sale or distribution of goods or materials in the BC (business commercial)
zoning district. Section 36-442(a) of the City Code gives nine standards for approving a CUP. I
have listed them in the resolution on pages 70-71. The garden center would meet these
standards.
The garden center woul'd be inconspicuous. The plans show a screening wall around and a green
house over part of the garden center. The wall and greenhouse would screen most of the storage
area.
Street Vacations
The developer is requesting that the City vacate the following rights-of-way in the site:
1. Gervais Avenue, between White Bear Avenue and Ariel Street
2. Castle Avenue, between Gervais Avenue and Highway 36
I have shown these rights-of-way on the map on page 27. State law states that a city cannot
vacate a street unless it is in the public interest. There is no public interest in keeping these
streets and fights-of-way. The developer would use the whole site (including the existing streets)
for the development. The proposed development would include private driveways from White
Bear and 1 lth Avenues for site access.
Castle Avenue between Gervais Avenue and Highway 36 is part of the Highway 36 right-of-
way. The developer is working with the Minnesota Department of Transportation about vacating
this right-of-way. The buildings would meet all City building setback requirements without the
vacation of the right-of-way. A comer of the parking lot in the northwest comer of Lot 2 would
be too close to the right-of-way. Without the vacation, the developer would have to move the
parking lot back to fifteen feet from the right-of-way.
Sale of City Property
Maplewood owns a 30-foot-wide strip of land within the project site. This land runs from the
east end of the Gervais Avenue pavement to Ariel Street. (See the map on page 27.) The City
land is 597 feet long with a total area of 17,910 square feet (.41 acres). The platting of the Castle
Acres subdivision in 1931 created this property. Maplewood received this property a.qer the
owners forfeited it for taxes. The City intended to use this land to extend Gervais Avenue to
Ariel Street. With the proposed development, the City would not need this land for a street. The
developer wants the City to deed this strip to them so that they can use it in the project.
The City Attorney told me that the developer needs to have an appraisal done of this property to
decide its value. Based on the appraisal, the City would have to negotiate with the developer on a
price for the land.
Parking Stall Width Variance
The developer is requesting 9.5-foot-wide parking spaces. The City Code requires 1 O-foot-wide
parking spaces for customers and 9-foot-wide spaces for employees. The developer would need a
variance for 9.5-foot-wide stalls. (See the letter on page 51 that explains the reasons for the
variance.)
The City should deny this variance. State law requires that to approve a variance, the City must
find a unique hardship to the property and that the variance would meet the intent of the Code.
Neither of these conditions would be met with this variance. The intent of the Code is to reduce
dents in cars from people opening their car doors too far. Particularly with a grocery store and
home care center, people will be opening their car doors wide to put large packages into their
cars. The letter on page 51 mentions other cities that allow narrower parking stalls. Other cities
standards may be an argument for changing the Code, but not for approving a variance. A
variance is for a specific property because of a unique hardship. If the Council wants to change
the Code, they should initiate a Code change. The other reasons given in the letter do not address
the reason for a parking stall width variance.
Reduction in Required Parking Stalls
There are not enough parking spaces to meet the Code requirement. The developer's parking
calculations do not include the garden center. In the past, the City has included garden centers in
calculating the minimum number of required parking spaces. While garden centers are seasonal,
they are still retail sales and display areas that attract customers with cars. Including the garden
center, the Code requires 1,318 parking spaces. The site plan shows 1,272 spaces, with 86 spaces
in reserve. Therefore, they are 46 paved spaces short. If the City denies the parking stall width
variance, they will lose more spaces.
The City Code allows the Council to approve fewer than the required number of spaces. The
Council has done so for other shopping centers, such as Maplewood East Shopping Center. The
6
Council approved fewer spots because all the stores share parking spaces. The Watershed Board
staff recommended that the City phase the parking until there is a proven need. This would keep
more green space to allow infiltration of storm water. The City should allow the proposed
parking spaces if the developer shows the required number of spaces in reserve.
Design
Building Materials
This site is a gateway into Maplewood from Highway 36. If built, this center would create the
first impression of Maplewood for many people. The City should require a high level of design
and materials in this project. The design and materials should be at least as good as the
surrounding businesses. There is a mix of building materials near this site. They include brick
with wood accents on the dental office building, rockface block on the Mapleridge Center and
precast concrete with stone accents on the church.
The grocery store would have rockface block walls with a smooth accent band. The front
elevation shows a stucco-like material on the entry canopy. The store front area would have
concrete columns, clear aluminum and glass. The walls on the Home Care Center would be
rockface block with several accent bands. As with the grocery store, the proposed plans show
stucco-like canopies over the front door areas. The plans do not give any color information for
either building.
Boston Chicken is the proposed restaurant on the northwest comer of the site. The developer
submitted typical building elevations for this restaurant. These plans, however, do not show the
type and color of building materials for Boston Chicken. Revised plans should be submitted to
the City showing building materials and colors that coordinate with those of the Grocery Store
and Home Care Store.
The City should require brick on all the buildings in the development to help make them
compatible with the dental office. The Community Design Review Board (CDRB) should
approve the amount and type of brick and the building colors and materials. There should be a
coordinated plan and design for all the buildings in the center. The designers and architects
should design the buildings, site and signs in a way that makes a consistent theme throughout the
project while allowing for individual tenant design needs. The CDRB could reduce the amount
of brick where they decide that the design does not need brick.
Landscape Plan
The Watershed District staff had several suggestions for the landscape plan. (See their memo
starting on page 54.) These suggestions incorporate the recommendations of the Phalen Chain of
Lakes Watershed Project report. A goal of the Chain of Lakes report is to enhance wildlife
habitat and encourage the infiltration of storm water, rather than piping it to lakes and wetlands.
7
Fran Kiesling, the Maplewood Environmental Intern, had several comments about the proposed
plans. (See her memos on pages 57 and 59.) It is her opinion that the developer could change the
proposed plans to work better with the proposed site conditions and to meet some of the
recommendations of the Phalen Chain of Lakes project. She notes the developer should use plant
and tree species that are more native to Minnesota. Native species bought locally will have a
better chance to survive temperature and moisture extremes and local insects and diseases than
those brought in from other parts of the country. Fran made several suggestions for plant types in
her memo.
Grading and Trees
The developer plans to grade most of the commercial site. The large amount of grading would
require the removal of all the trees in the grading area. The proposed multiple-family area on the
east side of the site would have little grading now. There would be a storm water pond on the
north end and some grading of the slope between the commercial area and the multiple-family
area. Many existing trees in the future multiple-dwelling area would stay for now.
The City Code requires at least 341 trees on the site when the developer is finished (10 trees per
acre). The developer is proposing to plant 176 trees. The developer should determine the number
of existing large trees that he will leave and make sure there would be at least 341 new trees or
existing large trees on the site.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Adopt the resolution on page 65. This resolution changes the land use plan from LBC
(limited business commercial), R-1 (single dwellings) and NC (neighborhood commercial) to
BC (business commercial) and R-3M (medium density multiple dwellings). This change is
for the following reasons:
1. The developer is proposing to develop this site for commercial uses.
2. With the traffic improvements proposed, the streets will have sufficient vehicular
capacity to handle the traffic from this development.
3. The proposed commercial development would be compatible with the nearby land uses
on White Bear and 1 lth Avenues.
4. The proposed commercial development would be more compatible with traffic and
conditions on White Bear and 1 lth Avenues than the existing homes.
5. The proposed R-3M classification would be compatible with the existing multiple
dwellings east of Ariel Street.
6. The existing property owners are in favor.
Adopt the resolution on page 66. This resolution changes the zoning map from R-1 (single
dwellings) and NC (neighborhood commercial) to BC (business commercial) and R-3
(multiple dwellings) for the reasons required by Code.
Approve the resolution on page 70. This resolution approves a conditional use permit (CLIP)
for outdoor storage, sales and display for a garden center. This permit is based on the
findings required by Code and shall be subject to the following conditions:
1. All construction shall follow the site plan that the City stamped October 19, 1994. The
Director of Community Development may approve minor changes.
2. The store shall use the outside storage and display within one year of the Council's
approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year.
3. The City Council shall review this permit in one year.
Adopt the resolution on page 72. This resolution vacates the street rights-of-way in the
project site (Gervais Avenue east of White Bear Avenue and Castle Avenue from Gervais
Avenue south to Highway 36.) The City should vacate these street right-of-ways because:
1. It is in the public interest.
2. The proposed development will provide its own access to White Bear and 1 lth Avenues.
3. The adjacent properties have street access.
The developer shall record the resolution with the final plat. The City shall not release the
resolution until the City has approved the final plat.
E. Adopt the resolution on page 74. This resolution authorizes the sale of the 30-foot-wide strip
of land owned by the City between Gervais Avenue and Ariel Street.
Approve the Maplewood Retail Addition preliminary plat (received by the City on October
19, 1994). Before the City Council approves the final plat, a developer shall complete the
following conditions:
1. Sign an agreement with the City that guarantees that the developer or contractor will:
Complete all grading for overall site drainage, complete all public improvements
and meet all City requirements.
b.* Place temporary orange safety fencing and signs at the grading limits.
Co
Install a traffic signal system, channelized southbound left-turn lane and exclusive
northbound fight-mm lane on White Bear Avenue at the White Bear Avenue
entrance and any other improvements required by the County. This may require
widening White Bear Avenue. The City and County Engineers must approve these
improvements before the developer has them installed. These signals must be
operating before the City issues the first certificate of occupancy for the project.
2.* Have the City Engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans
shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, sidewalk and parking lot
plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions:
The erosion control plan shall be consistent with the Ramsey Soil and Water
Conservation District Erosion and Sediment Control handbook.
The grading plan shall include sedimentation basins and storm water pond capacity
as required by the Watershed Board.
c. The drainage plan shall do the following:
Show the size and capacity of the pipes, storage and sedimentation basins.
These shall be consistent with Maplewood and Watershed District storm water
management plans. A registered engineer shall prepare this plan.
(2) Where the grading allows, design the medians so they collect storm water for
infiltration.
(3)
Route rooftop drainage into infiltration devices, such as trenches, swales or
pits, near the buildings. These devices shall be designed to minimize direct
discharge into the storm water system. The developer shall connect the
infiltration devices to the storm water system to control the storm water from
large storm events.
(4) Design catch basins to accommodate infiltration of storm water runoff into the
ground, as required by the City Engineer.
The design of the proposed storm water pond shall be approved by the City
Engineer and the Watershed District. The pond shall be designed, shaped and graded
to lessen its artificial appearance. This shall include varying the shape and grade of
the side slopes and providing for emergent vegetation and open water. If the slopes
are steeper than ten horizontal to one vertical, the developer shall fence the pond
with a five-foot-high green vinyl-clad chain link fence. The developer shall
landscape the area around the pond and shall show this landscaping on the
landscaping plan.
I0
The tree plan shall show the size, species and location of any trees that the developer
will plant as replacement trees or existing large trees to be preserved. There shall be
at least 341 trees on the commercial and residential sites when the project is done
(with the trees that the developer will plant and with the large trees that they will
save.).
3. Show the following changes on the final plat:
a. A drainage easement for the storm water pond in Outlot A.
b. Provide at least a twenty-foot setback between the southerly truck turnaround area
and the property line.
4.* Provide all easements required by the City Engineer.
5. Record easements or agreements for ingress, egress and utilities with the final plat. The
City staff must approve these before the developer records them.
6. Deed to the County the property required by the City for additional right-of-way for
White Bear Avenue.
If the developer decides to final plat part of the preliminary plat, the City may waive any
conditions that do not apply to the final plat.
*The developer must complete these conditions before the City issues a grading permit or
approves the final plat.
G. Deny the parking stall width variance for the following reasons:
1. There is no unique hardship to the property that justifies a variance.
2. 9.5-foot-wide stalls would not meet the intent of the ordinance.
Approve a reduction in the required number of parking stalls, provided that the total number
of paved and reserve parking spaces at least equals the number of spaces required by the City
Code.
Approve the design plans received on October 19, 1994 for the Maplewood Retail Addition
(including the grocery store, home care store and Boston Chicken restaurant). Approval is
based on the findings required by the Code and subject to the developer doing the
following:
1. Submit a revised site plan to the Community Design Review Board (CDRB) for
approval. This plan shall show the following changes:
Widen the east-west median strips to at least ten feet. Replace the median in Lot 2
with two medians placed three to four aisles apart.
The parking lot north of the pet supply store shall have a fffieen-foot setback from
the west property line. If the State does not vacate the Castle Avenue right-of-way
next to this parking lot, the developer shall change the parking lot design to meet
the fifteen-foot-setback requirement.
Revise the parking lot design if the Council does not approve the parking stall
width variance. There shall be enough proposed and reserve parking stalls to meet
the Code requirement.
d. Show an eight-foot-wide asphalt trail along the south lot line. The trail shall run
from Ariel Street to the drive at the southwest comer of the home store.
eo
Combine the small parking lot islands into larger islands and green areas. This
shall include dropping some of the small islands at the end of the rows of parking
and making other islands larger.
Submit revised building elevations to the CDRB for approval. These plans shall show
the following:
a. The colors and materials for each building in the project.
b. The designs for each building.
Brick on at least 50 percent of the north and west elevations of the grocery store,
on at least 50 percent of the west and south elevations of the home care store and
on 50 percent of all elevations of the three freestanding buildings. The colors and
styles of all wall and facade materials for all buildings in the project shall be the
same. The CDRB may reduce the amount of brick if they determine that the
quality of building design does not warrant the use of brick.
d. The roof-equipment screening and trash and compactor enclosures.
Submit a revised landscape plan to the CDRB for approval. This plan shall show the
following:
a. Native grasses, shrubs, trees and flowering plants on the large slope to the east
and south of the grocery and home care stores.
Types of grasses, shrubs, trees and flowering plants that are native to Minnesota
and that require minimal management. (See the memo on page 57.)
12
4,
c. Plant species that are more tolerant of parking lot conditions (including limited
space, compacted soils, higher temperatures and drier conditions) in the parking
lot islands and near the edges of the parking lots.
d. Plant species and materials that are tolerant of moist conditions around the storm
water pond and in the storm water collection areas.
e. The use of more understory and shrub materials to provide a mix of planting
sizes and heights.
f. Document the number of large trees (as defined by City Code) that will remain on
the site after the contractor has finished the grading. There shall be at least 341
trees on the site when the project is done (with those that the developer will plant
and with the large trees that they will save.).
g All coniferous (pine, spruce) trees shall be at least eight feet tall.
h. Consolidate the small islands at the ends of the parking aisles into larger planting
islands. This shall include dropping some of the small islands and making other
islands larger.
i. Cluster plants together to provide better wildlife habitat areas and to increase the
chance of survival of the plant materials.
Complete the following before the City issues a building permit:
a. Submit a certificate of survey for all new construction.
b. Have the City Engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These
plans shall include: grading, utility, drainage, storm water, erosion control, tree,
sidewalk and parking lot plans.
c. Record all required easements, including any wetland buffer zones.
d. Pay the City of North St. Paul for the use of 1 lth Avenue.
Complete the following before occupying the buildings:
a. Set new property irons with the final plat.
b. Completely restore and establish vegetative ground cover on all boulevards to the
curb.
1.3
Install reflector[zed stop signs at all exits and where the site driveways intersect, a
handicap-parking sign for each handicap-parking space and an address on each
building.
Screen all roof-mounted equipment visible from streets or adjacent property, as
code requires. These screens shall be a color and design that are compatible with
the building. The screening design and method shall be subject to CDRB
approval.
Construct trash dumpster and compactor enclosures as City Code requires. Ail
enclosures must match the building elevation in design, material and color and
shall have 1 O0 percent opaque gates. The final design of the enclosures shall be
subject to CDRB approval.
f
Install an in-ground sprinkler system for all landscaped areas, except on the
slopes to the east and south of the grocery and home care stores and those areas
intended to be unmaintained. Sprinklers must not spray on a public sidewalk.
g. Install on-site fire hydrants subject to the Fire Marshal's requirements.
Stripe al! parking areas, and all bituminous areas shall have continuous concrete
curb and gutter. The City Engineer shall approve the curb and gutter design.
Install site security and parking lot lighting. The contractor shall install this
lighting so it does not glare onto adjacent properties or onto public streets. In
addition, the lighting shall not be directly visible from the adjacent residential
areas. The lighting shall not exceed one foot-candle at the east property line.
Provide proof that the required cross easements that allow access between all the
lots in the project have been recorded with the County.
ko
Install a traffic signal system, channelized southbound left-mm lane and exclusive
northbound right-turn lane on White Bear Avenue at the White Bear Avenue
entrance and any other improvements required by the County. This may require
widening White Bear Avenue. The City Engineer and County must approve these
improvements before the developer has them installed.
1. Properly seal any abandoned wells on the site that are not already sealed.
6. If any required work is not done, the City may allow temporary occupancy if:
The City decides that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or
welfare.
14
The City receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required
work. The amount shall be 150% of the cost of the unfinished work.
The City receives an agreement that will allow the City to complete any
unfinished work.
This approval does not include the signs. The developer shall apply to the City for a
comprehensive sign plan approval for the center. This shall include business
identification, pylon, directional and traffic signs.
This approval does not include the area north of the grocery store shown as "future
expansion area."
This approval does not include the video or pet supply stores. The developer shall
apply to the CDRB for approval of each of these buildings.
10. All work shall follow the approved plans with the required changes. The Director of
Community Development may approve minor changes.
11. The developer or applicant shall repeat the design review in two years if the City has
not issued a building permit for this project.
Appeals
Anyone may appeal the Board's decision to the City Council. An appellant must notiOj someone
in the Community Development Department within fifteen days after the Board's meeting.
15
CITIZEN COMMENTS
We asked the nearby property owners for their opinion of these requests. We sent surveys to the
property owners within 350 feet of the perimeter of the site. (This did not include the 30
properties in the project area.) Out ofg0 properties, we received 33 replies. Nine were for the
requests, 21 were against, and three had no comment. We also received a petition in favor of the
this project from the owners that the developer will buy out. (See the petition on page 61 .)
Those for the requests had the following comments:
1. We would only ask that median cuts occur directly across from our driveway exiting our
property onto 11th Street. (Maplewood Dental - 2480 White Bear Avenue)
2. It would increase revenue for our community and provide more employment opportunities.
It would draw more people to our area as well. (Redeeming Love Church - 2425 White Bear
Avenue)
Since the mall went in the traffic is terrible on White Bear Avenue---it would bring more
traffic in. (Perron- 1971 Gervais Avenue)
4. I love to shop. I would object to the proposal if our taxes increased because of it. (Rehberg
- 1922 Castle Avenue)
5. Absolutely yestI have owned my property for 33 years and I would be delighted to see
some development go ahead instead of just sitting there idle--the taxes have become a real
problem to me. (Humphrey - Winona, Minnesota)
6. It would be nice to have another grocery store in the area as well as other businesses. I don't
want anybody to have to sell their homes or be in any way pressed or inconvenienced to do
anything that they don't want to do during the development. (Kaup - 2289 Ariel Court)
7. 1 lth and White Bear Avenue and Highway 36 shouldn't be single-family housing.
(Hillcrest Development - Minneapolis)
8. We can't "stand in the way" of progress, complete your project. (Jones - 2453 Crestwood
Drive)
Those against the requests had the following comments:
Because of the number and length of comments against, I have summarized them below.
1. We do not need more retail in the area.
2. Traffic concernsttoo much in the area (congestion) and safety concerns.
3. There is too much rental housing property in the area (in North Saint Paul).
4. It would be destructive to the environment and cause a loss to wildlife habitat.
5. It would cause a decrease in property values.
6. There would be an increase in noise.
7. See the letters on pages 62, 63 and 64 for additional comments.
REFERENCE
HISTORY
On February 13, 1984, the City Council approved a land use plan and zoning map change for the
property at 1915 Castle Avenue (Forest Products). The land use plan change was from RL
(residential low density) to LSC (limited service commercial). The zoning map change was from
BC (business commercial) to NC (neighborhood commercial).
On October 23, 1989, the City Council denied a request to change the land use plan. The change
was from LSC (limited service commercial) to SC (service commercial). This was for the
property on the southeast comer of White Bear and 1 lth Avenues. Amoco Oil wanted to build a
convenience store with gas pumps and a car wash. The Council also tabled a zoning map change
for this site.
SITE DESCRIPTION
Area: 34. l acres
Existing land uses: about 13 undeveloped acres, 28 homes and one business (Forest Products)
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North:
West:
South:
East:
Dental office, undeveloped land and proposed town houses across 1 lth Avenue
Church and Northwestern Bell building across White Bear Avenue
Highway 36
Town houses and apartments across Ariel Street in North Saint Paul
17
LEGAL
For street vacations, Chapter 412.851 of Minnesota State law states that "No such vacation shall
be made unless it appears in the interest of the public to do so ..."
PLANNING
The R-1 (single dwellings) land use designation is for low density residential land uses like
single dwellings. The NC (neighborhood commercial) land use designation is for businesses that
are compatible with adjacent residential neighborhoods. The BC (business and commercial) land
use designation is for general commercial development including a variety of commercial uses.
The City may permit high-intensity uses, such as fast-food restaurants, subject to specific
performance guidelines. The R-3M (multiple dwellings - medium density) land use designation
is for a variety of multiple dwellings.
SOILS
The Ramsey Soil and Water Conservation District informed us that the soils on this site are
suitable for development if the developer controls the erosion. The District recommends that the
developer get specific soils data before developing the site.
ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS
Section 36-442(a) states that the City Council may grant a CUP if based on nine findings for
approval. (See the findings on pages 70 and 71.)
State law requires that the City Council make the following findings before they approve a
variance:
Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the
property under consideration.
2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance.
"Undue hardship" as used in granting a variance means the property in question cannot be put to
a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The plight of the
landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not created by the landowner, and the
variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations
alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the
terms of the ordinance.
18
Section 25-70 of the City Code requires that the CDRB make the following findings to approve
plans:
That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to
neighboring, existing or proposed developments and traffic is such that it will not impair the
desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably
interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments;
and that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion.
That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character
of the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and
attractive development contemplated by this article and the City's comprehensive municipal
plan.
That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable
environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of
good composition, materials, textures and colors.
DEVELOPMENT POLICIES
The land use plan has eleven overall land use goals. Of these, four apply to the commercial part
of this proposal. They are: provide for orderly development, promote economic development that
will expand the property, tax base, increase jobs and provide desirable services, minimize land
planned for streets, and minimize conflicts between land uses. The land use plan also has several
general development policies that relate to the commercial part of this project. They are:
The City will not approve new development without providing for adequate public facilities
and services, such as streets, utilities, drainage, parks and open space.
Safe and adequate access will be provided for all properties.
Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative
economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments.
- Whenever possible, changes in types of land uses should occur so that similar uses from on the
same street or at borders of areas separated by major man-made or natural barriers.
- The City requires drainage and erosion control plans with new developments. Such plans shall
not increase the rate of runoff and shall prevent erosion.
- The City supports the improvement, replacement or redevelopment of substandard or
incompatible development.
19
- The City coordinates its planning with neighboring communities.
- The City applies its development policies and ordinances consistently and uniformly.
There are several commercial and industrial development policies from the plan that the City
should consider with this development. They are:
- Group compatible businesses in suitable areas.
Provide attractive surroundings in which to shop and work.
Require adequate off-street loading facilities.
Promote the joint use of parking areas, drives and trash containers.
Require commercial and industrial developers to make all necessary improvements to ensure
compatibility with surrounding residential uses.
Require adequate screening or buffering of new or expanded commercial areas from any
adjacent existing or planned residential development.
Plan land uses and streets to route nonresidential traffic around residential neighborhoods.
Of the eleven general land use goals in the comprehensive plan, three apply to the residential
part of this proposal. They are: minimize land planned for streets, minimize conflicts between
land uses and provide many housing types. The land use plan also has several general
development and residential development policies that relate to the housing part of this project.
They are:
Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses should not create a negative
economic, social or physical impact on adjoining developments.
Whenever possible, changes in types of land uses should occur so that similar uses front on the
same street or at borders of areas separated by major man-made or natural barriers.
Include a variety of housing types for all types of residents, regardless of age, ethnic, racial,
cultural or socioeconomic background. A diversity of housing types should include
apartments, town houses, manufactured homes, single-family housing, public-assisted housing
and Iow- to moderate-income housing, and rental and owner-occupied housing.
Protect neighborhoods from encroachment or intrusion of incompatible land uses by adequate
buffering and separation.
2O
The housing plan also has policies about housing diversity and quality that the City should
consider with this development. They are:
Promote a variety of housing types, costs and ownership options throughout the City. These
are to meet the life-cycle needs of all income levels, those with special needs and
nontraditional households.
The City will continue to provide dispersed locations for a diversity of housing styles, types
and price ranges through its land use plan.
The City's long-term stability of its tax base depends upon its ability to attract and keep residents
of all ages. To do so, the City must insure that a diverse mix of housing styles is available in
each stage of the life cycle of housing needs.
p:secl 1/retail.morn
Allacluncn~:
1. Location Map
land Use Plan Map (Existing)
3. Land Usc Plan Map (Proposed)
4. Property Line/Zoning Map (Exis~g)
Property Line/zoning Map (Proposed)
6. Propc~y Linc Map (~acations)
7. Proposed Preliminary Plat
8. Proposed Site Plan
9. Barton-Aschman Traffic Study
10. R~viscd Trip Generation Volumes Memo
11. Letter about thc PartY, lng Stall Width Variance
12. 10-13-94 memo from Ramscy-Washington Watershed Di~'ict
13. 10-21-94 memo from Fran Kiesling
14. 11-1-94 memo from Fran Kiesling
15. Petition from the owners thc developer will buy out
16. 9-18-94 letter from McPhce and Smith
17. 9-21-94 stalemcn! from ~
18.9-23-94 let~r from Cad Keller, Jr. (Keller Properties)
19. Land Use Plan Change Resolution
20. Zoning Map Change Resolution
21. Outdoor Storage Conditional Usc Penni! Resolution
22. SU'cct Vacation Rcanlution
23. Resolution Authorizin~ the Sale of City Property
24. Project Plans (separate attachmcm)
21
Attachment 1
NORTH SAINT
GOODRICH
Attachment 2
Co.~!Rcl. D ,. ;
major collector I~
M-1
~OS
BC(M)
R-3
P
iI1
major COIluclor
· alii Hill
.... M-1 '.; : ........ M-1 LBC
OS~
collec;tor
-- R-_3(H)
I
1
mai0i'..erterial ~ 7;"~'~:-'"'~'-' I Highway 36 i-' ,nte'rcha ge
· , ~i~'~"~ ' --~ ~ · .... _ ~ -"' __~,, ; I
'~ ~ _o BC: BU>SlNESS COMMERCIAL
R-1 = SII~GLE DW~=LLINGS ~' M-1 = LIGHT MANUFACTURING
R-3(H) = MULTIPLE DWELLINGS ~ OS = OPEN SPACE
NC = NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL -." C = CHURCH
E .c'
LBC = LIMITED BUSINESS COMMERCIAL ~ P = PARK
23
Attachment 3
M-1
major Collector
mmmmmmmmm
M-1
major colleclor ~
mm're'rellim
BC(M)
, R-3(M
P
.+
mini
tm.~
CO
major collector
mmmmm
OS
P
"
LBC
M- 1
R-3(H) = MULTIPLE DWELLINGS
Highway 36
LBC = LIMITED BUSINESS COMMEI~IAL
NC = NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
"BC
m .R.-_3(H)
R-3(M)
ntercnange
BC = BUSINESS COMMERCIAL
M-1 = LIGHT MANUFACTURING
OS = OPEN SPACE
-.='C = CHURCH
~: P = PARK
LAND USE MAP
(PROPOSED)
24
Attachment 4
· ,' ~ , '
V i. , ! I I Ii I · = !u~; ·
'- ' ' Z
..... .~,..,,,h ~ (.-,) . - -~ -- "J - ? '
...... -i~ . ,.,, i
~.' ;~- ~......
~ ' '. % · -,..,, -
~,~ , , ~'~ ..,,..-..
'~ i ,~ . iii ..... /--- _ , ,k · ,....
· { ;, ,.- · .i i ' · (,~) · \
.
~ ' · II · . ,, 'zo -
· ' : ~ ............... ~ -- ' ....... '"' NTH "
--...~.' , .. ,,.. (") ~ . . .,...
REDEEMING LOVE OHUI~;H 2&44' .~._~
J~i / ..,* :~ ~-~-~t~:, 1~.~ !'S,-~-k:l' -~"~ ,o iI._.~.;:-.,:~:~ ....
/jj o~' ~- .~.~ .~-;~', ..... ~m ' ,I- : ~' I ~"' i ~- J ' :i I / L J. I'~''''-- "'
-· - o';'. ' · ~ :--'~-~-~--- -I :~--~ CAST/E iVE! JE .... L" j ' ........... .........
"- ,* ..'"' ·, ~' ~,,:,, ;., '.-
,,...~.,..
~". /.J'l'l'l'l~~'~-~~" J I-I
~,,I,'"' ," ~~-~_'~.--.[~'~ LBO = LIMITED BUSINESS COMMERC!A_L
PROPERTY LINE ! ZONING MAP
(EXISTING)
25
&.,,_ l: U,I
~ ~'-~ I'1 ~"
i~ ~ ~~ 2500 .-- m 2499[
~ ~:,~ ~ Ii ~ '
' : Iil '.
7 '2462 r'.) ~ ,.,,,.
~ ' "' ~' 2456
REDEEMING LOVE CHU~H' 2444
,34-- BC ~ R3
~ 2425 428
. 1971
GERVAIS G~.VA~S --
a ~94 1932
. NW BELL 2382
1890 237, ~ B C
LBC ,i. , ~ ~ ~
t~GHWAY 36 :ASTLE AVl
I
I . H..t;, ' :ASTLE AVENUE~ ~'""'~ '
Attachment 5
2466
,EVENTH
HIGHWAY 36
~h&.ik, ....
F = FARM RESIDENTIAL
' /.,,.:,,I,i.,.I &~,,i,, l;'-r,~:,,
.. R1 = SINGLE DWELLIN.G.S~
,::~::.%~~, ~ ~-,,.. :.:.
... ~= BUSINESS COMMERCIAL.
Mi' LIGHT MANUFACTURING
LBC = LIMITED BUSINESS COMMERCIAL
PROPERTY LINE ! ZONING MAP
(PROPOSED)
26
N
Attachment 6
!
I
.I
I
I,
I
ELEVENTH
-- RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION ~ o~...
(,0 (~)
GERVAIS AVENUE VACATION
o4!
I
CITY-OWNED LAND
~; (z~ : (,;,~
'CASTLE AVENUE VACATION
(-)
loo ; (~? t
.,,,~_~ '~ ................ : .... .~_- -._-
..................... VIKING
I *""'""' ""'"'°"'~.',,,~' ' Tnu ; ,~,-,.,o~,~--"'"' '""" HIGHWAy 36, .-~,.;''36
· ~.~.4'~' ~2 -.
la.~! I ': [" I ,' I · I,, ~ ' fAO ' I I¥0 --
Z
27
Attachment 7
GERVAIS AVENUE
PROPOSED VACATIONS
NOT FOR C
I{
PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PL
28
Attachment 8
OPENINGS
PUT MEDIANS HERE
-\,. [}-'-MO,VE PROPOSED PROPERTY tINE
OUTLOT A
NOT FO
29
Attachment 9
SITE TRAFFIC IMPACT REPORT
Maplewood Retail Development
NE Quadrant of THB6 and White Bear Avenue
Maplewood, MN
September 2, 1994
Submitted to:
RLK Associates, Inc.
Submitted By:
BJ~qTON-ASCHM~ ASSOCIATES~ INC,
30
LIST OF FIGURES
~e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Site Location Map
Project Area Map
Existing Conditions
Existin~ Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (1994)
Proposed Site Plan
Site Trip Distribution
P.M. Peak Hour Site Generated Traffic
Saturday Peak Hour Site Generated Traffic
Post-Development Peak Hour Tr=t~c Volumes
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1
2
3
Proposed Development Trip Generation
Signalized Intersection Performance
Maximum Queue Lengths
3]
INTRODUCTION
A local developer is consideri~ a retail development consistin~ of a 89,000 square foot
warehouse supermarket, a 110,000 square foot builrlln_~ products store, two fast-food
restaurants (with drive-through) of 3,000 square feet each, a high turnover-type restaurant
of 8,000 square feet, and an associated retail development of 7,500 square .feet.
Located in the City of Maplewood, the site is bounded by White Bear Avenue, 11th Avenue,
and TH $6. Primary access to the center is proposed on White Bear Avenue with secondary
access alon~ llth Avenue.
Barton. Aschman was retained to conduct a preliminary tr$~c study to determine the impact
of the tr~t~ic generated by the proposed retail development on the street system in the
vicinity of the site and feasibility of access. The site location is shown on Figure 1. The
project area is shown on Figure 2.
EXlSTn G TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
Traffic signals are currently located on White Bear Avenue at County Road C, llth Avenue,
and at the TH 36 ramp intersections. These signals are all a part of an interconnected
tr~t~c signal system on White Bear Avenue, m~int~ined by Ramsey County.
Manual turning movement counts were conducted during the weekday P.M. and Saturday
peak hours on August 11 and August 13, 1994, respectively, at the intersections of White
Bear Avenue at llth Avenue, White Bear Avenue at the north TH 36 ramp intersection, and
White Bear Avenue at the south TH 36 ramp intersection. These counts were used as a
basis for the traffic impact ~lysis of the retail development currently bein~ proposed by
Ryan Construction Company. Existing traffic and geometric conditions are shown on
Figure 3. Existing peak hour turning movement volumes are shown on Figure 4. The
proposed site plan is shown on Figure 5.
IMPACTED INTERSECTIONS
In consultation with county staff, five critical intersections were determined to be impacted
by the proposed retail center traffic. The impacted intersections are listed below. For study
purposes, it was assumed that the intersection of the White Bear Avenue at the new site
entrance would be a full-movement, signalized intersection and be added to the County's
interconnected system:
2.
3.
4.
5.
White Bear Avenue at llth Avenue .
White Bear Avenue at North TH 36 Ramp
White Bear Avenue at South TH 86 Ramp
White Bear Avenue at Primary Site Entrance/Exit (signalized)
llth Avenue at Secondary Site EntranceYExist (unsi~malized)
TRAFFIC GENERATION
The number of vehicle trips which will be generated by the proposed retail center were
estimated using trip generation rates published by the Institute of Tr~ns0ortation Enrineers
CITE) Trip Generation, fifth edition, 1991. Trip generation for the proposed retail center is
specified in Table 1. Previous studies of similar centers indicate that depending on the
development type, 13 to 50 percent of people visiting a retail center during the P.M. peak
hour are combi~i~_v the stop at the center with the trip from work (pass-by trips) and/or have
multiple destinations (shared trips) at the center. For the purposes of this study, pass-by
trip rates were assumed to vary from 15 to 40 percent depending on the use, and shared
trips were assumed to compose 20 percent of all trs_ffic visit,_'~_~ the center.
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
The directions of approach and departure for pass-by trips were determined based upon
existing traffic characteristics. The resulting distribution is 75 percent of pass-by trips off of
White Bear Avenue and 25 percent off of llth Avenue.
The directional distribution of new trips was estimated by establishing a preliminary market
area for the anchor stores. The market area was outlined based upon the locations and sizes
of competing developments, natural physical boundaries, and existing roadway network
characteristics including locations of traffic control devices.
Once the market area was established, a Gravity Model was prepared following ~
Cooperative Hi~hwa_v Research Pro,am Re_port 187 guidelines. The Gravity Model is based
on l~cations and density of households in the market area and the relative travel times to
and from the site location. As such, the number of trips from any one "zone" in the market
area is directly related to the density of households in the zone and inversely related to the
travel time.
The site location is well served by a number of local arterial streets. Access from the north
across 1-694 will be along White Bear Avenue, Mcknight Avenue, and Century Avenue. To
the south across TH 36, the primary roadways serving the site will be White Bear Avenue,
Mclmlght Avenue, English Avenue, and Hazelwood. Access to the east and west will be
along 11th Avenue.
The resulting distribution of new trips is as follows:
·
·
·
·
·
·
25 percent to/from the north on White Bear Avenue
2 percent to/from the west on llth Avenue
20 percent to/from the east on llth Avenue
7 percent to/from the west on TH 36
5 percent to/from the east on TH 36
41 percent to/from the south on White Bear Avenue
Site trip distribution is shown on Figure 6.
33
PROJECTED VOLUMES
The 1996 peak hour back~round volumes were estimated by factorin~ the 1994 counts by a
~rowth factor of one percent per year. This growth factor was based on comparisons of
traffic surveys conducted by Barton-Aschrnan in 1988.
The 1996 peak hour post-development volumes were determined by combi,~in~ the site-
generated new and pass-by trips with the 1996 background volumes in accordance w~h the
directional distribution outlined above. P.M. peak hour site-generated traffic volumes are
shown on Figure 7. Saturday peak hour site-generated traffic volumes are shown on
Figure 8. Post-development peak hour traffic volumes for both weekday and Saturday peak
hours are shown on Figure 9.
CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The traffic counts conducted at the intersections of White Bear Avenue at 11th Avenue and
White Bear Avenue at the TH 36 ramp intersections were utilized with the projected traffic
volumes to calculate traffic operational level of service (LOS) and capacity with and without
the proposed development.
The LOS of an intersection is measured in terms of average stop delay of a vehicle and is
designated by a letter A through F, with A representing the shortest delay.
The LOS for each impacted intersection was calculated for the peak hour conditions utilizing
the observed peak hour factor obtained from the tr~t~lc counts along with the existing signal
phasing and progression capabilities along White Bear Avenue. The ~n~lysis followed
standard procedures outlined in the 1985 Hi_~hway Capacity Manual.
The analysis of the proposed development's traffic generation indicates that sufficient
vehicular capacity is available along White Bear Avenue and 11th Avenue to accommodate
the traffic generated by the development. Existing 1994, background 1996, and post-
development 1996 signalized intersection LOS for the weekday P.M. and Saturday peak
hours is contained in Table 2. In addition, the unsignalized intersection LOS at the llth
Avenue site driveway was evaluated and it was determined that the critical egress left-turn
movement will operated at a LOS E.
QUEUE LENGTH ANALYSIS
A comparison was made of the maximum observed peak hour queue lengths for each
intersection with the available storage capacity. The maximum queue lengths were obtained
from the signalized intersection capacity analysis and is based upon the cycle length and
estimated arrival rates. Table 3 contains a listing of the expected maximum queue lengths
by movement for each intersection and time period under analysis. The results show that at
occasionally during the peak hour the available storage may be exceeded by the traffic
demand. In particular, the southbound through movement at the north TH 36 ramps may
spill back into the Gervais Avenue intersection south of 1 lth Avenue. The northbound left-
turn from White Bear onto westbound TH 36 at the north ramp's intersection also exceeds
available supply both currently and in the post-development condition. At the south ramp's
intersection, the northbound through movement occasionally exceeds the available storage
34
through the Cope Avenue intersection. This analysis is conservative in that it does not
account for reductions in queue len&,th due to progressive si&,nal timing. Adjustments to the
mystem timi_n_~ pl~n~ could in all likelihood avoid potential que-~n_~ problems.
CONCLUSIONS
· A traffic si/hal installation on Wh/te Bear Avenue, at the new site entrance will
function efficiently for site access with ample capacity to accommodate the projected
retail development traffic at a satisfactory LOS (C or better).
· 'A It is expected that no chan~e in LOS will occur at the Wh/te Bear Avenue
intersections with llth Avenue, north TH 36 ramps, and south TH 36 ramps with the
proposed development.
· The intersection of White Bear Avenue/TH 36 south ramps will chan~e from LOS B to
LOS C during the Saturday peak period. However, the other intersections under
study will remain at their ctuwent LOS.
· The following off-site improvements are recommended:
·" - -- -:- ;ite
'~e southbound left-turn lane only need be channelized. Some road widening
may be required to accommodate the median width.
2. An exclusive northbound right-turn lane at the main site entrance.
l1032.mn~
35
Twin City Metro Area
lvliI~e$ota
!
!
!
/
?
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IIIASHBIB'TON
I
CAII~ER
NENI~EPIN
I
I
I
I_
BAKOTA
1
/
!
I
MAPLEWOOD RETAIL CENTER
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
SITE LOCATION MAP
BAflTON-A~,CHMAN A~BBC)CIATB~. IN~.
111 Th#d 4,vi S, SuRe 350 M#'mllt~)~. MN ~.5401
Parsons Transportation Group
Figure I
39
MAPLEWOOD RETAIL CENTER
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
PROJECT AREA MAP
Figure 2
40
,4IL "- 9300
~" 11TH AVE
PROPOSED
SITE
LOCATION
48300
TH 36
MAPLEWOOD RETAIL CENTER
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
LEGEND
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
~ LEFT TURN LANE
~ THROUGH LANE
~ RIGHT TURN LANE
'~ THROUGH AND RIGHT TURN LANE
999 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT)
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
111 Tn~O Ave S., Su'te ~0 M,nneOpOhS,
Parsons Transportation Group
41
Figure 3
11TH AVE
PROPOSED
SITE
LOCATION
TH 36
LEGEND
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
sgg P.M. PEAK HOUR (4.30 - 5.30 P.M.)
999 SATURDAY PEAK HOUR (12,00 ' 1,00 P.M.)
MAPLEWOOD RETAIL CENTER
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
111 '[~rO Ave S. $~te .~50 bl,nneo[,ohs. MN 554~1
Parsons Transportation Group
EXISTING PEAK HOUR
TRAFFIC VOLUMES (1994)
Figure 4
42
MAPLEWOOD RETAIL CENTER
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
Parsons Transportation Group
Figure 5
43
MAPLEWOOD REI'AIL CENTER
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
111 ~,fc A~e $. $~te 5~)0 M~nneop~h$. Itt,
Parsons Transportation Group
44
¢nw .4yE ~'--',25%'-->
..~--'20%'--"~
PROPOSED
SITE
LOCA T1 ON
.~.=. 5%.==~
TH 36
LEGEND
~RAFF,C
~ PASS'BY TRIPS
~ .~w T.~PS
SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION
Figure 6
l
11TH AVE $'- 8~ ~¢2
PROPOSED
SITE
LOCATION
TH 36
LEGEND
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
NEW TRIPS
PASS-BY TRIPS
TOTAL TRIPS (NEW AND PASS-BY)
NOTE.
VOLUMES IN PARENTHESIS REPRESENT
REDUCTIONS FOR PASS-BY TRAFFIC.
MAPLE:WOOD RETAIL CENTER
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
Barton-Aschman Associates. Inc.
111 Third Ave S, Su,te 550 bhnneopoh$. MN 5~)401
Parsons Transportation Group
45
P.M. PEAK HOUR
SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC
Figure 7
~-- 30 0 30
b~. 93 83 !'1(=
~.- 254 83 33~
11TH AVE
PROPOSED
SITE
LOCATION
TH 36
29 t2'1
MAPLEWOOD RETAIL CENT_E_R
TRAFFIC IMDAc~T-STUDY
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
!11 Tmra Av~ c~ ~,t*: 5,'-,:. M~r,.,eopC.~. Mt. 5545:
Parsons Trlnsportation Group
LEGEND
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
999 NEW TRIPS
999 PASS-BY TRIPS
TOTAL TRIPS (NEW AND PASS-BY)
NOTE,
VOLUMES IN PARENTHESIS REPRESENT
REDUCTIONS FOR PASS-BY TRAFFIC.
SATURDAY PEAK HOUR
SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC
Figure 8
46
108 173
'~tr
155 1'76
229 33?
11TH AVE
92 443
2 66 ~'
366 405
102 127
PROPOSED
SITE
LOCAT]ON
I ~,,,
--- _~. / %~ TH 36
m ~-~ egg P.M. PEAK HOUR (4,30-5,30 P.M.)
99~ SATURDAY PEAK HOUR {12,00-1,00 P.M)
MAPLEWOOD RETAIL CENTER
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.
~'I 1~,,~ A*r ': :,wte ~0 M~nneopG.5 MN
Parsons Tr-nsportation Group
47
POST-DEVELOPMENT PEAK HOUR
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Figure 9
~ 3SOCIATES LTD.
Attachment 10
922 Mainstreet
Hopkins, Mn.
55343
(612) 933-0972
fax: (612) 933-1153 J
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
October 14, 1994
Trip Cremation Volumes
A comparison of trip generation volumes has been made between, a.) the proposed development
land uses used on the "Site Traffic Impact Report", and, b.) the revised land uses currently being
considered. Th~ land us~ assumption and trip generation volumes of each somario are shown in
the attached two tables. The first table is Table 1 of the #Site Traffic Impact Report~. The traffic
analysis oftbe traffic study was based on thc trip generation numbers of Table 1. The second table
shows the trip generation oftbe revised dev¢lopment plan (as of October 13, 1994).
The revised development plan shows reductions in trip generation volumes as follows:
· 10.3% less on a typical weekday
· 7.2% less during the a.m. peak hour
· 3.1% less during the p.m. peak hour
· 3.6% less during the Saturday peak hour
During no time period did the revised development plan show increased trip generation volumes
when compared to the original development plan.
R can be concluded from this comparison that the conclusions and mx~x~ndatious of the "Site
Traffic Impact Report" would not be changed as a result of the revised development plan.
Similarly, the revised developme~ plans should not alter the Indirect Source Permit Apphcation.
· Civil Engineering ,Transportation · Infrastructure Redevelopment
· Landscape Architecture · Construction Management 48
lei"__
5O
E,:_"T-2E:-Ig'_~4 15:04 FF'IZIH F'Lt:: A'._--;'-_-,[I,_- lATE':., .LTD .... TO Attachment l 1
51
0CT*--~:~:-1994 1~: 04 Ft:tOH I:;tLl; A,_R'_--,O,E IATE::... LTD.... TO
Attachment 12
Ramsey-Washington Metro
1902 East COunty Road B
Maplewood, MN S$109
(612).777-3665
Ken Haider
Ken Roberts
City of Maplewood
FROM: Cliff Aichinger, Administrator
Mark Kroger & Associates - Maplewood Retail Proposal on White Bear
Avenue between Hwy. 36 and Gervais Avenue
The Watershed District staff and Sherri Buss, Coordinator of the Phalen Chain of Lakes
Watershed Project, have reviewed this proposal and have a number of comments.
The primary Watershed District comment relates to the runoff and discharge from the
project. Our primary concern is that the area was planned for residential development and
is now proposed as commercial. The discharge from the site would have to be limited to
the residential runoff co-efficient. The sedimentation and storage basin provided in the
northeast corner of the site is intended, as explained by the project engineer, to provide for
the detention of runoff. We need to see the computations for the design of this pond prior
to granting approval of the project.
The other Watershed District concerns would relate to construction site erosion and
sediment control. Since this site would require substantial grading, the District would
require at least one temporary sediment basin to contain runoff prior to stabilization of the
site. The proposer will be required to submit an erosion and sediment control plan
consistent with the Ramsey County Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook.
We also reviewed this project against the recommendations included within the Phalen
Chain of Lakes Watershed Project report. This report includes a number of
recommendations for existing and future development relating to enhancing habitat and
encouraging infiltration of stormwater. This project presents a good opportunity to
incorporate features to infiltrate stormwater runoff rather than pipe all runoff and discharge
it to other surface waters. The other recommendation of the report is to minimize paved
surface parking areas. We would encourage the city to consider phasing the development
of parking and keeping some green space until it is demonstrated the parking is absolutely
required for the proposed commercial establishments. In review of the plans we made a
number of notations on the plan sheets regarding the project. I will summarize these
comments in the numbered items below:
The median areas along access road should be graded lower than the parking areas to
act as collection areas for storm water. The parking areas would have to be graded to
direct to these areas. A catch basin could be provided within the green areas and
raised above the normal ground elevation. This would allow for some storage of
small storm events and access to the stormwater system during larger events. The
potential design for this type of a facility could be provided at a future time.
54
The small islands at the ends of parking isles are very ineffective at providing green
space and suitable environments for trees. We would recommend that a number of
these islands be consolidated to provide larger green areas and opportunities for
dividing the larger expanse of open asphalt within the development. These could be
considered for future parking if the need is demonstrated.
Route rooftop drainage to infiltration devices, trenches, or pits adjacent to the
buildings rather than routing to stormsewer inlets. The rooftops of these buildings
are large impervious surfaces and will result in a substantial amount of runoff in peak
storm events. These flat topped areas are generally outer to several controlled
overflow points at which they could be directed to some infiltration basins. Since this
is clean runoff, there should be no concern for potential groundwater contaminants.
These infiltration areas would be connected to the stormsewer system for large storm
events.
The large slope on the east side of the project area should be planted in native grasses
and oaks. This would be an attempt to restore the type of native plant materials that
existed in the area prior to development and should thrive in this area and be low
maintenance. I would strongly encourage the planting of trees and vegetation that
would not require active management, mowing, or fertilizing.
The sedimentation and storage basin provided at the northeast comer of the site
should be shaped and graded in such way to try to reduce its manmade appearance.
Some varying shape of the side slopes and steepness of the slope to the south of the
pond could go a long way to making the pond .appear more natural. The pond should
also be shaped to provide for emergent vegetatmn as well as open water.
The sidewalk indicated along the access drive between the two large commercial
buildings should be eliminated in favor of additional green area and potential
infiltration area for the parking lots.
Thegreen areas along the access drive should be enlarged to provide for additional
green space to allow for some native plantings and infiltration beds. These larger
areas would also provide more space for tree root systems. We encourage the use of
native plant materials; e.g., wild flowers, grasses and native trees to assure some
chance of success of this vegetation and reduce maintenance needs. We recommend
that the small islands provided, along the ends of the parking aisles for both
commercial buildings, be enlarged to encompass four additional parking spaces,as an
interim measure, until the need for additional parking is shown. These larger green
areas would provide more space for tree survival and for shrub layer plant materials.
The area on the southwest comer of site adjacent to the Highway 36 exit should be an
enlarged open space and green area until the need for that parking is illustrated.
Many of the plant species shown on the planting schedule are not native plants and
several do not survive well in confined growing areas and elevated temperatures (due
to the asphalt parking lots). The plant species list shown be reviewed by a landscape
ecologist to identify species that are more likely to survive and those that would
provide better survival rates in this type of habitat.
The District would like to encourage the Maplewood Design Review Board to consider the
comments of the Phalen Watershed Steering Committee and its recommendations in the
report. Sherri Buss and I would be glad to meet with the Design Review Board and
illustrate some of the concepts that we are proposing.
5S
We feel that this is a unique opportunity to incorporate some of these recommendations into
a new project and then monitor how well they function. Of particular concern is the need to
reduce stormwater runoff and increase water quality. We feel these factors are key and
speak to the need to begin to incorporate infiltration areas into these intense commercial
developments. I hope the city will see this as an opportunity to test these concepts and try
to work with this developer to implement these ideas and monitor their success. I believe
we can incorporate some of these ideas without additional cost to the developer.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this significant development. If you have
any questions regarding my comments, please feel free to give me a call.
56
Attachment 13
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
PROJECT:
DATE:
Ken Roberts, Associate Planner
Fran Kiesling, Intern
Landscaping Plan
Maplewood Retail Addition
October 21, 1994
The proposed changes in the planting plan come from two sources. First, are the
physical site conditions that originate from the proposed design for the commercial space (with
its accompanying areas of impervious surfaces.) These physical conditions create a set of
stresses to which the vegetation must respond or die. Generally, impervious surfaces, such as
asphalt and concrete, create drought-like conditions and elevated temperatures for any vegetation
planted within its boundaries or adjacent to its edges. The second source of the proposed
changes is the fact that the Phalen Project Steering Committee would like to apply its
recommendations to a development site. One such recommendation that applies to this project is
to use native species in plantings, wherever possible; that is, to plant trees and shrubs that have
historically evolved in this area of Minnesota. Having responded over time to this area's climatic
conditions, native species are thought to be better able to withstand the extremes of temperature
and rainfall and to survive local insect and disease pests. Further, many landscape ecologists
think that it is better to obtain local species from area nurseries because the genetic
characteristics of local plant materials are better suited to survive local conditions than are plants
obtained from nurseries in other states. Plants from other climates may not be hardy in the
southern part of Minnesota. Another Phalen Project recommendation applicable here is the
desire to protect vegetation resources by planting them in ways that are ecologically sound, thus
prolonging their lives. A relevant example in this design would be to plant trees and shrubs in
clusters rather than leaving them isolated in asphalt islands. Clustering has proven to increase
the chances that urban trees will survive. The temperatures are lower and individual specimens
have improved access to water and nutrients. A second example would be to use vegetation in
such a way as to create what landscape ecologists call an understory, or shrub layer. A stand of
vegetation would exist between the grass and full-grown trees. An understory layer enhances
wildlife habitat and is visually pleasing.
Therefore, some general comments on trees, shrubs, and herbaceous materials that can
survive the design conditions (depending of course on where they are located on the site), and are
generally available, locally or regionally, are in order. From the perspective of native species
and area climatic conditions, our area is too far south to support most species of pine. People
like to see pines in the landscape, but many that are commonly used in landscape plantings
experience significant stress from Minnesota extremes in moisture and temperature and die in a
relatively short time. Most of the junipers listed will perform acceptably. And, Pinus resinosa,
the Norway or Red Pine often does well in the southern portions of Minnesota because it is
drought tolerant.
Several species of maple would perform well in southern Minnesota. The Norway Maple
is a commonly used urban tree, but it is not particularly tolerant of moisture or drought excesses.
57
Acer saccarinum, Silver Maple, is native, available, and is both moisture and drought tolerant.
Similarly, Populus deltoides, Cottonwood, is native and tolerant of both moisture and drought
stresses. Sugar Maple, Acer saccamm, is native to this area of Minnesota and is available. It is
not drought tolerant and will not survive being planted where its roots experience compaction, so
it will not perform well in parking lots nor immediately adjacent to them. However, it can be
planted on the grassy level spots. Acer mbrum, the Red Maple, is not known to be tolerant of
drought conditions and will not do well if it is isolated or surrounded by dry conditions. Acer
negundo, Boxelder, is an underappreciated native tree. It is spectacularly tolerant of wide-
ranging conditions. When planted with care and properly maintained, it can look quite attractive.
Several species of oak are native to this area and are available. Species such as bur oak,
northern pin oak, and red oak are all drought tolerant, offer fall color and interesting visual
texture, and would perform well on those site locations that are hillsides. However, they do not
perform well in parking lots because they do not respond well to compaction around their roots.
Basswood, Aspen, Cottonwood, Weeping Willow, and River Birch perform well in moister
areas. River Birch is also drought tolerant, but White Birch is susceptible to insect predation and
thus does not perform well here. The Common Hackberry and the Green Ash tree are commonly
used urban trees. Both are drought as well as moisture tolerant and both perform well around
impervious surfaces. Populus alba, the White Poplar, is present in the area and is both moisture
and drought tolerant. Robinia pseudoacacia, the Black Locust, is native to this area and is
tolerant of drought conditions. These trees offer a microcosm of southern Minnesota forests and
would add variety to the visual landscape.
. Small trees and native shrubs can be used to create a shrub understory that grows under
the canopy trees. Examples of such vegetation are Malus sp., especially Malus 'Red Splendor'
and Malus 'Prairie Fire', crab apple trees. In addition to these colorful trees, other effective
shrub selections would be Red-Osier and Grey Twig Dogwood (Comus), members of the Alder
family (Alnus sp.), Rhus glabra or Smooth Sumac, Elderberry (Sambucus), Current (Ribes), and
Rosa arkansana or Wild Prairie Rose. Many members of the Viburnum family are native to
Minnesota and can be successfully used in the same locations that Acer ginnala (Amur Maple) is
currently used. The Amur Maple is very versatile, but is not native. To many landscape
ecologists this tree is approaching the level of an invasive species. Chokecherry, Service- or
Juneberry, and American Red Raspberry are examples of tolerant, colorful native shrubs that also
supply food for birds.
Numerous native grasses and herbaceous plants are available that complement each of the
woody species described in this brief report. Examples of these species have been made
available to the landscape architects working on this retail addition.
The most effective stewards for the maintenance of local, native species are the residents
who live in that place. No one else is in as good a position to preserve biodiversity and to
maintain local plant and animal communities. These recommendations for the use of native
species benefit the landscape by extending area ecosystems, yet require a minimum of effort to
implement.
58
Attachment 14
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Geoff Olson
Fran Kieslin~
Further Recommendations on the Maplewood Retail Addition
11-01-94
After thinking more about the parking lot planting design concerns, I have the following
comments to offer:
For the absolute health of the trees (that is, to maximize their opportunities to
remain healthy and survive over time), clustering (as described in my comments
of to you of 10-25-94) is the planting method that would be employed. The
rationale is that clustering creates the most favorable microclimate for the
vegetation. Planted in organically shaped groups, the species planted would
have more nutrients, more infiltration of water (especially where the area was
slightly depressed rather than being bermed), lowered ambient temperatures,
and improved wind protection.
This commercial enterprise can play a role in the enhancement of Maplewood's
urban forest through improvement of habitat. Specifically, clustering, the use of
a shrub layer to provide the vertical structure needed by wildlife (most particularly
birds), and the use of native species are three strategies that, if used, can
connect the proposed commercial property to the other neighborhoods around it.
Further, the suggested changes to the planting design are attempts to be
responsive to the recommendations of the Phalen Chain of Lakes Watershed
Comprehensive Natural Resources Plan (April 1994):
Goal 4 states, in part, that a connected system of "green corridors" should be
developed that link wetlands, creeks, lakes, parks, and natural areas of the
watershed to protect natural resources and to improve the health and diversity of
those natural resources.
Realistically, this is a commercial property design, but within the limits imposed
by such a design, even a commercial property can be planted in such a way that
larger ecosystem functioning is improved.
Goal 5: outlines the need for restoration and expansion of the urban forest
cover and the need to diversify plant communities, in part, to enhance energy
59
conservation and to increase the natural biological diversity throughout the
watershed.
If one of the goals of the original design was to reduce the "urban heat island
effect" and improve overall energy conservation on the site, then the trees need
to be planted in a more linear shape as opposed to a more circular shape
because the straighter shapes will provide maximum shade and the greatest
amount of temperature reduction. But, a cluster or grouped planting does not
have to be round or even have an "amoeba" shape (although the landscape
ecology literature points out that circular is better than linear, if the goal is
increasing wildlife habitat).
In this design the idea of clustering the trees and shrubs can be achieved using an
oblong or elliptical shape, E[.g.Y.J.d.~[ that the width is sufficient. Specifically, the planting
area should be as wide as space allows, and 10 - 15 feet in width is the minimum
effective range. Effective plantings in this area could take one of two routes. A double
row of native trees with a three to four foot shrub layer growing underneath the trees
could be planted. Native flood plain species are effectively used in this type of design,
especially if these areas will be slightly depressed in order to catch more storm water
runoff. Ash, hackberry, and basswood are species that would do well in such a
planting. Alternatively, aspen can be cluster planted on the space. Think about how
trees grow in the wild. They do not grow 20 feet apart, in a row. They grow in groups
or clusters precisely because their biological welfare is enhanced.
Using either of these approaches, natural biological diversity can be maximized while
simultaneously reducing the ambient temperature problems in the parking lot.
I stand by my species recommendations. In fact, the latest landscape ecology
thinking is to not plant such species as Norway maple (Acer platanoides) and
Amur maple (Acer ginnala) because they are not native and are becoming
invasive. Their seed is dispersed into natural areas where they often out-
compete native species for space and nutrients.
Lastly, Goal 6 of the Phalen Project's comprehensive resources plan highlights
the need to "increase citizen understanding of the effects that management of
individual yards, public and private lands, streets, and infrastructure have on
natural resource quality." By combining project goals with those of the
developer, the Maplewood Retail Addition can demonstrate to citizens that
commercial property can display diverse natural resources used in ecologically
sound ways as well as land areas more traditionally thought of as places that
protect natural resources, such as parks.
6O
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Attachment
October 25, 1994
Michael McGuire, City Manager
Geoff Olson, Community Development Director
City of Maplewood, Minnesota
The Undersigned Residents
MAPLEWOOD RETAIL DEVELOPMENT
NORTHEAST CORNER - HIGHWAY 36 & WHITE BEAR AVENUE
We, the undersigned residents and property owners in Maplewood, want to urge you to favorably
consider and approve the retail development proposal before you for the site bounded by
Highway 36, White Bear Avenue, Eleventh Avenue and Ariel Street.
We have entered into a purchase agreement with the redeveloper. As this'purchase agreement
has a defined timeframe within which the redeveloper must receive all approvals and close on the
purchase of our property, we ask that you proceed as quickly as possible in your review and
acceptance of the redevelopment plan.
61
Attachment 16
September 18, 1994
TO: Kenneth Roberts
Planner, City of Maplewood
FROM: Germaine Smith
Jeanne McPhee
RE: Maplewood Retail Addition Project
We have great concerns regarding the building on the property on the
southwest corner of Ariel & Eleveth Streets, the Maplewood Retail
Addition.
Our concerns are the same as we stated in our objection to the
proposal to build on the northwest corner of Ariel & Eleventh.
1. Safety is the Number one issue. Increased traffic & need for
security need to be addressed.
2. Under no circumstances should both parcels of land (northwest
and southwest corners of Ariel & Eleventh Street) be developed
at the same time. Presently your office has proposals for both
sites. The confusion, the unsafe conditions during construction,
the unsafe congestion of new vehicles in this area, and the resulting
frustration would be disasterous if the City of Maplewood approves
both sites at the same time.
As homeowners, ~ prefer development on the area between Highway 36
and Eleventh Street.
Jeanne McPhee
Germaine Smith
62
To: Kenneth Roberts 9-21-94
Attachment 1 7
I would like to see both the north side of llth between White Bear Ave.
and Ariel and the south side to Hwy 36 coordinated into an overall plan.
I would like to see some single family homes and owned townhomes with
some type of paths and park type buffer between themAany commercial
development.
The site plan attached seems too overwhelming and enviromentally unsound.
The noise and pollution levels in this area should be studied along with
the traffic patterns.
Although I have a heavily wooded lot that borders llth, I cannot use my
deck on th~ rear of my hous~ because of the high noise levels. Noise poi!uric.'
should be a concern.
I am not against progress and realize that some of this area will be
commercial ...... but, please see that it is a well thought out plan .....
this does not look like the one.
63
KELLER PROPERTIES. INC.
Attachment 18
SINCE 1936
1895 EAST COUNTY ROAD E. ST. PAUL. MN 55110
(612) 777-0120 FAX (612) 777-6426
September 23, 1994
Community Development Department
City of Maplewood
1830 East County Road B
Maplewood, MN 55109
I am writing to express Crestwood Townhomes' concerns over
the proposed development between White Bear Avenue and Ariel
Street between Highway 36 and llth Street. The Homeowners
Association is concerned about several issues:
1. There is concern over the increased traffic that would
occur on Ariel and llth Street. Both of these streets are
very busy and quite dangerous already. If the development
were to occur, Crestwood would very much like to see these
safety issues fully addressed.
2. Secondly, the aesthetics of the multifamily homes that
would be closest to the Crestwood Development is very
important. The Association feels this is important to
preserving property values. Crestwood will need to have
input into the plans pertaining to landscaping and drive
entrances.
3. Accessing streets during rush hour traffic is a problem
both at llth and Ariel and Crestwood Drive and llth. The
homeowners association would like to see the frontage road
(Castle Drive) to Hwy 36 connect with Hwy 36 and / or White
Bear Avenue.
4. It would have to be absolutely necessary for the zoning
of the land along Ariel to be only residential / multifamily
and not commercial.
Overall, Crestwood is not in favor of the proposed
development. The above issues are very important should you
decide to approve the development. If you have any
questions about Crestwood's concerns, please call me at
777-0120.
Sincerely, , /
Carl F. Keller, Jr.
Property Manager
64
Realtors · Commercial Sales · Property Management & Development * Syndication
Attachment 19
LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Marc Kruger applied for a change to the City's land use plan. This change is
from LBC (limited business commercial), R-1 (single dwellings) and NC (neighborhood
commercial) to BC (business commercial) and R-3M (medium density multiple dwellings).
WHEREAS, this change applies to the property between White Bear Avenue and Ariel Street
between Highway 36 and 1 lth Avenue in Section 11, Township 29, Range 22.
WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows:
On November 7, 1994, the Planning Commission held a public hearing. The City staff
published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding
property owners. The Planning Commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak
and present written statements. The Planning Commission recommended that the City
Council the land use plan change.
2. On November 28, 1994, the City Council discussed the land use plan change. They
considered reports and recommendations from the Planning Commission and City staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the above-described
change for the following reasons:
1. The developer is proposing to develop this site for commercial uses.
With the traffic improvements proposed, the streets will have sufficient vehicular capacity
to handle the traffic from this development.
The proposed commercial development would be compatible with the nearby land uses on
White Bear and 1 lth Avenues.
The proposed commercial development would be more compatible with traffic and
conditions on White Bear and 1 lth Avenues than the existing homes.
The proposed R-3M classification would be compatible with the existing multiple dwellings
east of Ariel Street.
6. The existing property owners are in favor.
The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on
, 1994.
65
Attachment 20
RESOLUTION: ZONING MAP CHANGE
WHEREAS, Marc Kruger, representing RLK Associates, applied for a change in the zoning
map from F (farm residential), R-1 (single dwellings) and NC (neighborhood commercial) to BC
(business commercial) and R-3 (multiple dwellings).
WHEREAS, this change applies to the property between White Bear Avenue and Ariel Street
between Highway 36 and 11th Avenue in Section 11, Township 29, Range 22. The legal
descriptions are:
The South 1/8 of the North 8/10 of the Somhwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest
1/4 of Section 11, Township 29, Range 22, except the East 287.98 thereof', subject to White
Bear Avenue, and
That part of the South 1/7 of the North 7/10 of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter
of the Northwest Quarter of Section 11, Township 29, Range 22, lying Easterly of White Bear
Avenue, according to the United States Government Survey thereof, except the Easterly
287.98 feet thereof and subject to the right of the State of Minnesota in the Westerly .03 acres
more or less thereof, and
All that part of the South 1/6 of the North 6/10 lying East of White Bear Avenue of the
Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 11, Township 21, Range
22, and
That part of the South 1/3 of the North 3/10 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 11, Township 29, Range 22 Easterly of White Bear Avenue, and
South 1/10 of North 4/10 of that part of the Southwest 1/4 of Southeast 1/4 of Northwest 1/4
Easterly of White Bear Avenue in Section 11, Township 29, Kange 22, and
All that part of the South 1/5 of the North 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 11, Township 29, Range 22, lying East of the center line of White
Bear Avenue; excepting therefrom the said portion thereof taken for White Bear Avenue, and
The East 1/2 of the North 1/10 and the East 1/2 of the South 1/2 of the North 1/5 of the
Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 11, Township 29, Range
22; AND North 1/5 of West 1/2 of Southwest 1/4 of Southeast 1/4 of Northwest 1/4 Section
11, Township 29, Range 22, excepting that part lying west of White Bear Avenue, and except
the North 12.5 feet, and
The West 77.98 feet of the East 287.98 feet of the South 1/4 of the North 4/5 of the Southwest
1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 11, Township 29, Range 22; AND
that part of the South 1/5 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of
66
Section 11, Township 29, Range 22, lying Easterly original White Bear Avenue, except the
Westerly 300 feet thereof, and except the East 210 feet thereof; subject to the rights of the
public in highway (Eighth Avenue) over the Southerly 33 thereof, and
The West 300 feet of the North 3/4 of the South 1/5 lying East of White Bear Avenue, except
road commonly known as Eighth Avenue NW, of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of
the Northwest 1/4 of Section 11, Township 29, Range 22, and
The West 85 feet of the East 210 feet of the South 4/10 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast
1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 11, Township 29, Range 22, and
The East 210 feet, except the West 85 feet thereof, of the following: The South 1/7 of the
North 7/10 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4, Easterly of White
Bear Avenue, Section 11, Township 29, Range 22 West; AND the North 3/4 of the South 1/5
of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4, Section 11, Township 29,
Range 22 West lying easterly of original White Bear Avenue, excepting the Westerly 300 feet
thereof, AND the East 287.98 feet of the South 1/8 of the North 8/10 of the Southwest 1/4 of
the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 11, Township 29, Range 22, and
The Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 11, Township 29,
Range 22, and
The North 100 feet of Lot 1; the North 100 feet of Lot 2; all in Castle Acres, and
Lot I except the North 100 feet thereof, Lot 2 except the North 100 feet thereof, all in Castle
Acres, and
Lots 3, 4 and 5, Castle Acres, and
Lot 6, except the North 264 feet, Castle Acres, and
The North two hundred sixty-four (N.264) feet of Lot six (6), Castle Acres, according to the
plat thereof filed of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles within and for said County,
and
Lot 7 except the North 310 feet thereof, Castle Acres, and
The North 310 feet of Lot 7, Castle Acres, and
The South 1/2 of Lot 8, Castle Acres, and
The North one-half (N. 1/2) of Lot Eight (8), Castle Acres, according to the plat thereof filed
or record in the office of the Registrar of Titles within and for said County, and
{57
The South Three Hundred Ninety-four (S.394) feet of Lot Nine (9), Castle Acres, according to
the plat thereof filed of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles within and for said
County, and
Lot 10 except the Northerly 100 feet thereof, Castle Acres, and
Lot 11 except the Easterly 50 feet thereof, Castle Acres, and
The Northerly 100 feet of Lot 10; the Easterly 50 feet of Lot 11; all in Castle Acres, and
Lot Twelve (12), Castle Acres, according to the plat thereof flied for record in the office of the
Registrar of Titles within and for said County, and
Lot 13, Castle Acres, and
Lot 14, Castle Acres, and
All that part of the two following-described tracts: Tract 1. Lot 15 except the East 125 feet;
Tract 2. Lot 16 except the East 125 feet; which lies Northeasterly of the following-described
line: Beginning at a point on the north line of said Lot 15, distant 290 feet West of the
Northeast comer of the said Lot, thence running Southeasterly to a point on the East line of the
second above-described tract, distant 50 feet South of the Northeast comer thereof and there
terminating; all in Castle Acres, and
The East 125 feet of Lots 15 and 16, Castle Acres, subject to that portion, if any, acquired by
the State of Minnesota for Highway purposes, and
WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows:
1. On November 7, 1994, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council
the change.
2. On November 28, 1994, the City Council held a public hearing. The City staff published a
notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The
Council gave everyone at the hearing an opportunity to speak and present written
statements. The Council also considered reports and recommendations from the City staff
and Planning Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the above-described
change in the zoning map for the following reasons:
1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code.
68
2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring
property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent
to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded.
3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community,
where applicable, and the public welfare.
4. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and
economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police
and fire protection and schools.
The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on
,1994.
69
Attachment 21
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Marc Kruger, Esq., applied for a conditional use permit to have exterior storage,
display, sale or distribution of goods or materials in the BC (business commercial) zoning
district.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to the garden center of the home care store in the Maplewood
Retail Addition on White Bear Avenue between Highway 36 and 1 lth Avenue. The legal
description is:
Lot 2, Block One, Maplewood Retail Addition.
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
1. On November 7, 1994, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council
this permit.
2. On November 28, 1994, the City Council held a public heating. The City staff published a
notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The Council gave
everyone at the heating a chance to speak and present written statements. The Council also
considered reports and recommendations of the City staff and Planning Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the above-described
conditional use permit, because:
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.
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 mn-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.
70
7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services.
8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic
features into the development design.
9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects.
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. All construction shall follow the site plan that the City stamped October 19, 1994. The
Director of Community Development may approve minor changes.
2. The store shall use the outside storage and display within one year of the Council's
approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year.
3. The City Council shall review this permit in one year.
The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on
,1994.
Attachment 22
VACATION RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Marc Kruger, representing RLK Associates, applied for the vacation of the
following described streets:
1. That part of Gervais Avenue between the east right-of-way line of White Bear Avenue and
the west right-of-way line of Ariel Street in Section 11, Township 29, Range 22.
2. Castle Avenue south from Gervais Avenue to the Highway 36 right-of-way in Section l 1,
Township 29, Range 22.
WHEREAS, the history of these vacations is as follows:
1. On November 7, 1994, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council
these vacations.
On November 28, 1994, the City Council held a public heating. The City staff.published a
notice in the Maplewood Review and sent a notice to the abutting property owners. The
Council gave everyone at the heating a chance to speak and present written statements. The
Council also considered reports and recommendations from the City staff and Planning
Commission.
WHEREAS, after the City approves this vacation, public interest in the property will go to the
following abutting properties:
1. Lots 1-11 of Castle Acres
2. 1937 Gervais Avenue East
The West 77.98 feet of the East 287.98 feet of the South 1/4 of the North 4/5 of the
Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 11, Township 29, Range
22; AND that part of the South 1/5 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 11, Township 29, Range 22, lying Easterly original White Bear
Avenue, except the Westerly 300 feet thereof, and except the East 210 feet thereof; subject
to the tights of the public in highway (Eighth Avenue) over the Southerly 33 thereof.
3. NE Comer of WBA and Gervais
The West 300 feet of the North 3/4 of the South 1/5 lying East of White Bear Avenue,
except road commonly known as Eighth Avenue NW, of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast
1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 11, Township 29, Range 22.
72
4. 1945 Gervais Avenue East
The West 85 feet of the East 210 feet of the South 4/10 of the Southwest 1/4 of the
Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 11, Township 29, Range 22.
5. 1955 Gervais Avenue East
The East 210 feet, except the West 85 feet thereof, of the following: The South 1/7 of the
North 7/10 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4, Easterly of
White Bear Avenue, Section 11, Township 29, Range 22 West; AND the North 3/4 of the
South 1/5 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4, Section 11,
Township 29, Range 22 West lying easterly of original White Bear Avenue, excepting the
Westerly 300 feet thereof; AND the East 287.98 feet of the South 1/8 of the North 8/10 of
the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 11, Township 29,
Range 22.
6. 1971 Gervais Avenue East
The Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 11, Township 29,
Range 22.
7. The north 30 feet of Block One, Dearborn Park
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the above-described
vacations for the following reasons:
1. It is in the public interest.
2. The proposed development will provide its own access to White Bear and 1 lth Avenues.
3. The adjacent properties have street access.
The developer shall record the resolution with the final plat. The City shall not release the
resolution until the City has approved the final plat.
The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on
,1994.
73
Attachment 23
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF CITY PROPERTY
WHEREAS, Marc Kruger, representing RLK Associates, requested that the City Council
declare some property in Maplewood owned by the City as excess and authorize it for sale.
WHEREAS, the legal description of this property is the north 30 feet of Block One, Dearborn
Park in Section 11, Township 29, Range 22. (PIN 11-29-22-31-0018)
WHEREAS, the history of this request is as follows:
1. On November 7, 1994, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council
declare this property as excess and authorize it for sale.
2. On November 28, 1994, the City Council considered this request. The City staff published a
notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the abutting property owners. The
Council gave everyone at the meeting a chance to speak and present written statements. The
Council also considered reports and recommendations from the City staff and Planning
Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council declare the above-described
property as excess property and authorize it's sale.
The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on
,1994.
74