The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05/21/1996 MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, May 21, 1996 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East Call to Order Roll Call Approval of Minutes a. April 15, 1996 Approval of Agenda Public Headngs a. Heather Ridge (Ariel Street and Highway 36) Land Use Plan Change (R-3M to BC-M) Zoning Map Change (R-3 to BC-M) Conditional Use Permit New Business a. North Glen Fourth Addition Revised Prelimina~ Plat b. Tax-Forfeited Properties c. Metropolitan Livable Communities Act - Housing Action Plan Visitor Presentations Commission Presentations a. Apd122 Council Meeting: Mr. Roberts b. May 13 Council Meeting: Ms. Edcson c. May 20 Council Meeting: Mr. Axdahl Staff Presentations a. Summer Tour b. Ramsey County Fair 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 clearly, 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. o 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. jw/pc~pcagd Revised: 01/95 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA APRIL, t5, 1996 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Axdahl called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Lester Axdahl Commissioner Bunny Brueggeman Commissioner Barbara Ericson Commissioner Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Jack Frost Commissioner Kevin Kittridge Commissioner Dave Kopesky Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner William Rossbach Commissioner Milo Thompson III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES IV. Present Present Present Present Present Absent Present Present Present Present Commissioner Fischer moved approval of the amended minutes of March 4, 1995, changing V. C. to read (page 7): 8. Plant 30 trees for screening between the playing fields and the homes on Knoll Circle. 9. The school shall prepare, for city approval, a turf management plan for the athletic fields. 10. Revise the grading and drainage plan for city approval to provide sedimentation control at the storm water discharge point before it dumps into the south wetland area. Ayes-all Ayes-all Commissioner Fischer seconded. Commissioner Frost seconded. The motion passed. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Fischer moved approval of the amended agenda, correcting 7.c to read Brueggeman, 7.d. to read Kopesky, and adding 8.b. Commercial Property Study. Commissioner Pearson seconded. The motion passed. NEW BUSINESS A. Ayes-all Rear Yard Setback Conditional Use Permit--Haessig (379 Ripley Avenue) Ken Roberts, associate planner, presented the staff report. Sharon Haessig was present and said they had no problems with the staff recommendation. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Associate Planner Land Use Plan Change, Rezoning, Conditional Use Permit and Design Review - Heather Ridge Ariel Street and Highway 36 May 14, 1996 INTRODUCTION Proposal Gary T. Mulcahy is proposing to develop the 4.3-acre parcel behind (east of) the Home Depot and Cub Foods with a seven-building office complex called Heather Ridge. Refer to the maps on pages 11-14 and the written explanation on pages 15 -17. The buildings would total 39,700 square feet. They would be one-story tall and have hip-roofs for a residential appearance. The exteriors would be brick and stucco. Mr. Mulcahy would build this development in two phases. The first phase would include Buildings One through Four. Refer to the site plan on page 14. The applicant is proposing a combination of office and service uses at Heather Ridge. Requests Mr. Mulcahy is requesting that the city council approve the following: A land use plan change from R-3(M), multiple dwelling residential (medium density) to BC(M), business commercial (modified). BC(M) allows offices, retail, restaurants and service businesses. 2. A rezoning from R-3, multiple dwelling residential to BC(M). 3. A conditional use permit (CUP) because the site is designated as an,.0utlot. The code requires a CUP to build on an outlot. 4. Site, architectural and landscape plans. BACKGROUND November 28, 1994: The city council approved a land use plan change to R-3(M) and rezoning to R-3 for the proposed property as part of the Maplewood Retail Addition (the development consisting of Cub Foods, Home Depot, Boston Market, Petsmart and Hollywood Video). January 9, 1995: The city council approved the final plat for the Maplewood Retail Addition. This approval designated the proposed parcel as an outlot. DISCUSSION Land Use Plan Change and Rezoning The city council should approve these requests. The benefits of this development outweigh the concerns. Benefits Aesthetics. Heather Ridge would be attractive. It would fit in with the multi-family developments across Ariel Street in design and appearance and would be buffered with landscaping. The council also could require additional landscaping along Ariel Street to further improve the appearance of the project from the housing across the street. The view of this office complex, with its residential-style brick and stucco buildings, would be more attractive than the view of the back sides of Home Depot and Cub Foods. Compatibility with commercial. Heather Ridge would be more compatible with the adjacent commercial development than would a multi-family residential development. This site is not a desirable residential location since it abuts the two large service/loading areas behind Home Depot and Cub Foods. A housing development on this site would likely be a lower- scale rental complex since it would be difficult to attract buyers for owner-occupied units. A desirable complex. It is unlikely that the city will receive a more compatible development for this site than Heather Ridge. Heather Ridge would make a good transition between the heavy commercial activity of the retail center and the apartments and town homes across Ariel Street. ^ transitional use such as this meets the intent of the land use plan and the zoning code. The land use plan and the zoning code both state that the BC(M) classification and zoning is intended to provide for the orderly transition between more intensive commercial uses and Iow or medium density residential areas. The proposed BC(M) land use and zoning would do this. It is true that multiple-dwelling housing on this site would be more compatible with the housing across Ariel Street from the standpoint of a similarity in development. The question is the degree of compatibility. Heather Ridge would also be compatible and would create a better transition in uses from the adjacent retail center to the housing in North St. Paul. Concern Traffic. The North St. Paul neighbors were primarily concerned with the potential for an increase in traffic. The applicant provided a traffic study by Benshoof and Associates, Inc. which gives a projection of the traffic that Heather Ridge would generate. This study showed that there would be 690 vehicle trips generated per day. I compared this to the traffic generation projections established by the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE). The ITE indicated that apartments on this site would generate 166 vehicle trips Per day (5.52 trips per unit per day times 30 units) and that town houses would generate 140 vehicle trips per day (5.40 trips per unit per day times 26 units). The proposed office project, therefore, would generate up to 550 more vehicle trips per day. This figure sounds high, especially compared to the estimated vehicle trip generations for apartments or town homes. The traffic study, however, concludes stating that "the two-way stop signs on Ariel Street at 11th Avenue would continue to be appropriate to control the projected volumes after Heather Ridge is completed and fully occupied." This study also states that "the proposed development would not significantly alter traffic conditions at the intersection of Ariel Street and the westbound Highway 36 exit ramp." The North St. Paul City Engineer, furthermore, did not express any concern over the estimated traffic volume. The traffic activity will be higher than it would for a housing development, however, the evening and weekend traffic would be very Iow, to possibly, none at all. Site Plan Considerations Gradin.q Mr. Pat Conrad, of the RamseyANashington Metro Watershed District, stated four concerns in his letter on page 18. The main problem is that some of the buildings would be too. close to the rear slope. Mr. Conrad explains that "when the district approved the grading of the entire site, this steep slope was allowed only with the condition that no water from the top of the hill be allowed to drain down the slope." The applicant must meet the watershed district's requirements for runoff control and ground disturbance control at the top of the slope. It is possible that Buildings One, Two and Six may have to be shifted to the east to provide enough distance from the slope for grading and building construction. If a suitable plan cannot be provided that maintains all required setbacks and parking lot dimensions, the applicant may have to reduce building sizes or apply for variances if they cannot meet all code requirements. LandscapinR The applicant should revise the landscape plan to move the trees proposed behind the buildings to the front. These trees would not benefit the retail neighbors to the west and there is no feasible place to plant them on the steep rear slope. The landscaping should be concentrated along the street frontage and in front of the buildings. Cul-de-sac The applicant has proposed to provide a cul-de-sac at the end of Ariel Street next to Highway 36. This was a requirement of the City of North St. Paul's city engineer and the Maplewood city engineer. The applicant should dedicate an easement for the part of this cul-de-sac that encroaches onto this site if the council approves this project. Conditional Use Permit The city council should approve this CUP if they approve the proposed land use plan change rezoning. A CUP is only required because this site is designated as an outlot on the plat. It was designated as such because there was no specific plan for development at the time of the platting in 1994. The review at that time was focused on the adjacent retail development. 3 Conclusion The benefits of this project outweigh the concern about traffic impact. It is always hard, if not seemingly impossible, to please everyone with any development proposal. Heather Ridge, would make a good transitional use between the retail center and the housing to the east. The complex would also be designed with residential compatibility in mind. Staff recommends approval based on these benefits. It has not been shown that the estimated traffic generation levels would be excessive for the local streets and the neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution on page 19 approving a land use plan change from R-3(M), multiple dwelling residential (medium density) to BC(M), business commercial (modified). Approval is based on the following reasons: 1. It would be consistent with the comprehensive plan's goals and policies. The BC(M) land use classification would be a better transition than the R-3(M) classification between the heavier-commercial BC (business commercial) classification to the west and the multiple-dwellings to the east. 3. The BC(M) classification would be compatible with the adjacent commercial development to the east. Adoption of the resolution on page 20 approving the zone change from R-3, multiple dwelling residential to BC(M), business commercial (modified). Approval is based on the findings required by code in addition to the following reasons: BC(M) zoning would be a better transition than R-3 zoning between the heavier- commercial BC (business commercial) zoning to the west and the multiple-dwellings to the east. 2. BC(M) zoning would be compatible with the adjacent commercial development to the east. Co Adopt the resolution on page 21-22 approving a cOnditional use permit for construction on a parcel designated as an outlot. Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to the following conditions: 1.' All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. 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 become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Do Approve the site plan (date-stamped May 10, 1996) and the building elevations and landscape plans (date-stamped March 18, 1996) for the Heather Ridge development, based on the findings required by the code. The developer shall do the following: 1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2. Complete the following before the city issues a building permit: a. Provide a revised landscape plan to staff for approval moving the trees proposed east of the buildings to the Ariel Street frontage. b. Provide a street easement to the city engineer for the proposed cul-de-sac in the southeast corner of the site. The exact description of this easement is subject to the city engineer's approval. c. Submit a grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plan to the city engineer for approval. The erosion control plan shall be consistent with the Ramsey Soil and Water Conservation District Erosion Control Handbook. The grading, drainage and erosion control plans shall also be subject to the approval of the Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District. d. Any minor site plan changes resulting from the review of the grading plan shall be subject to staff approval. Any major site plan changes shall be subject to the approval of the community design review board or the city council if a variance is needed. e. Provide another trash enclosure at the north end of the parking lot. The location of this shall be subject to staff approval. The design of the trash enclosures shall be submitted to staff for approval. The trash enclosures shall be brick to match the buildings and have closeable gates. f. Provide a lawn-irrigation plan showing the location of sprinkler heads. g. Provide a certificate of survey. h. Pay the City of Maplewood $5,487.25 to share in the cost of that part the Ariel Street construction next to Outlot A lying north of 9th Avenue. Complete the following before occupying the first building of Phase I: a. Restore and sod damaged boulevards. b. Install a handicap-parking sign for each handicap~parking space and building addresses. c. Screen any roof-mounted equipment visible from streets or adjacent property. 5 d. Install the in-ground sprinkler system. The parking lot shall have continuous concrete curbing. This also applies to the north edge of the Phase I parking lot which must be curbed (code requirement). The applicant. shall also provide a looped drive aisle or a turnaround for each drive aisle at the northerly termination of the Phase I parking lot. If any required work is not done at the completion of each building, the city may allow temporary occupancy if' a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. b. The city receives 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 may postpone this escrow requirement for a particular building if work is in progress on a subsequent building, or subsequent buildings, in this project. This approval does not include the signs. The applicant shall submit a comprehensive sign plan for this complex. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed owners of the 32 properties within 350 feet of the proposed site. Of the 13 replies, four were in favor and 9 objected. In Favor There would be less noise in the evening and weekends due to less traffic; probably better looking than apartments; less people roaming the area; they would be here on business. I do not object, but would hope a lot more planting of trees, shrubs would accompany these office buildings in their landscaping..(Sengoz, 2033 9th Avenue E.) Should not result in too much additional traffic. As part of the Cub Store approval, Maplewood promised to put in a stop at Ariel and 11th. Where is it? (Becker, 2037 9th Avenue E.) Opposed 1. I am concerned about the traffic on Ariel Street. There is so much more traffic on 11th Avenue from Cub Foods. How will we and the apartment people get out onto 11th Avenue if we have more business traffic to deal with? Also, I face Ariel and I really miss looking at the trees that they took away. We don't have any birds or rabbits anymore because there is no where for them to hide. Please consider planting some trees for the birds, and to make things look much nicer. Thanks for reading. (Cusick, 2437 Crestwood Drive) 2. I object with the construction of the business park. I feel more business development in the area is too much! (McMaster, 2 Williams Wood) 3. The view from my home of a parking lot is not pleasant. An area of townhomes would be a setting comparable to our area. When two communities border each other, some consideration should be given to what is adjacent to an established neighborhood. (Moris, 2047 9th Avenue E.) 4. I miss the trees and don't want more business in there! (2049 9th Aven~ue E.) 5. There is already too much traffic in this area. With' the new shopping center, you cannot hardly get off of Ariel as it is. I don't feel this is a place for concentrating any more businesses. There are empty places in several of the strip malls near here and with the coming of summer the street becomes a playground for the neighborhood children. Plus I was under the impression that the big trees on that property were suppose to be left in tact. Not replaced with blacktop. Enough already!!! How about a little green space! We don't need buildings on every square inch of property. Let them build it next to Maplewood Community Center for maybe across the street from there. Better yet, tell Mr. Mulcahy to build across from his house!l! (Murphy, 2041 9th Avenue E.) 6. Not! This was zoned for housing units. I do not think Adel Avenue would provide good business access. We have #s of children and adults walking on this street with heavy traffic. and I worry about traffic fatalities with the tremendous increase in traffic in this area. It appears to be that the City of Maplewood is more interested in the tax levies than the quality of life for its residents. (Nissila, 2035 9th Avenue E.) Current access to 11th Avenue from Ariel is already seeing increased vehicle volumes (Cub Foods and Home Depot) to the point of making access difficult. There is only one access to this area of apartments and town houses. In my opinion, a semi-four should be required for further vehicle volumes on Ariel which would be case if these office buildings were approved for rezoning. If a semi-four were installed, my objections to the project would disappear. 0Nentworth, 2045 9th Avenue E.) It may devalue my property as this will be directly across the street. (Sticha, 2441 Crestwood Drive) You will do what you want to anyway! You already built the center so why not more business. Family homes don't seem important anymore. (Vatne, recently moved from 2039 9th Avenue E.) 8 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 4.3 acres Existing land use: undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USES North: A storm water holding pond, 11th Avenue and a future 31-unit town house complex. South: Highway 36. West: Home Depot and Cub Foods. East: Ariel Street, Cedar Heights Apartments and Crestwood Townhomes. PLANNING Land Use Plan designation: R-3(M) Zoning: R-3 Ordinance Requirements Section 36-437(7) requires a CUP to build on an outlot. Section 25-70 requires that the community design review board (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 is 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 aesthetical of good composition, materials, textures and colors. Land Use Plan Change - Criteria to Approve The land use plan does not list any specific findings to amend the land use plan maps. The plan lists developmental goals and policies, however. The intent of these are to create harmonious neighborhoods that are aesthetic, orderly and minimize conflicts between adjacent land uses. Rezoning - Criteria to Approve Section 36-485 of the zoning ordinance requires that the city council determine four findings to approve a rezoning. Refer to these findings listed in the resolution on page 20. Conditional Use Permit- Criteria to Approve Sections 36-442(a) and 36-439(b) require that the city council determine specific findings to grant a CUP. Refer to these findings listed in the resolution on pages 21-22. p:secl l~heather4 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Land Use Plan Map 3. Property Line/Zoning Map 4. Site Plan 5. Applicant's Land Use Plan Justification 6. Applicant's Rezoning Justification 7. Letter from Pat Conrad dated April 10, 1996 8. Land Use Plan Change Resolution 9. Rezoning Resolution 10. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 11. Site and grading plans date-stamped May 10, 1996 (separate attachment) 12. Building and landscape plans date-stamped March 18, 1996 (separate attachment) l0 [/GHTS RD, D / u KOHLMA~ ROAD ~ C I. SuuMr'r CT 2. COU~EW CIR. 3. DULUTH CT, 4. LYDIA SI'. ::5 AVE, LARK co. DEMON'r BROOKS COUNTY :D~EHILL RD. CT RA~SEY COUNq~' COURT KOHL.MAN Attachment WHITE BgAR LA ,D WOODLYNN AVE. GALL V~EW AVl. NORTH AVE. ROSEWOOD AVE. AVE:. RA~SE'Y COUNTY NURSING NOME AND FAIR GROUNDS LOCATION MAP Attachment 2 interchange arterial interchange V&clnaia Haights minlor arterial I mai~r C011aCI0r M-1 major ~RO. D : . c_plle_g.t or ,=nnnqnnnnn~I ---, _ BC ~ . - .I '~ ;I -- -- .'~'~- -- major coll e c'ro~r"~ -- R-3 DS major collecl M-1 '," M-1 LBC rte.'iai ~. . Highway 36 nge t HAZELWOOD ' NEIGHBORHOOD LAND USE PLAN [ · ' 12 Attachment 3 ' ~gC '~',- - ""~'/" ...... . .... !/ :aaDENTAL,...., OFFICE ~nnnnnnn'iT'n~ , ~ pP~ BOSTON MARKET : .; ~ I ~ ' VIDEO~ -- . . ~ [= ~f~ ~ ~.03~ O~ PETSMART ~ [~~ ~ DENTAL OFFICE NDER CONSTRI AVL ~ ROAD rlON ELEVENTH AVENUE "WOo; D APARTMENTS Pg. PROPERTY LINE I ZONING MAP ~ PROPOSED HEATHER RIDGE SITE 13 PROPOSED BC(M) ZONING N Attachment 4 CUB FOODS EL IHOLDING'[ POND '~, AVENUE HOME DEPOT HIGHWAY SITE PLAN PROPOSED HEATHER RIDGE OFFICE PARK pg. 14 N Attachment 5 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Supporting Statements for Application: Intended use of the Property It is proposed to use the property to construct a campus style office building development. The proposal includes seven buildings totalling 39,709 square feet of gross floor space. The buildings will be single story wood frame structures with hip roofs and brick and stucco exteriors resulting in a .high quality residential style architectural design. The site will have a well developed landscaping plan. Justification for Comprehensive Plan Amendment It is our recommendation that the comprehensive plan be amended from medium density residential to commercial use to allow the construction of the proposed office campus. The commercial land use will result in a better transition from the high use retail west of this site to the high density residential to the east. Other advantages for this proposed use include reduced night time and weekend traffic, higher tax base than townhome land uses, and higher quality architecture and landscaping resulting in a much improqed curb appeal compared to typical multi-family developments. It is our recommendation that the proposed office use represents the highest and best use of the land in this location. The developer intends to retain long-term ownership of the development which will result in a higher .quality of development from construction through the operation of this 'site. The developer does not intend to request subsidies or incentives from the City to implement the proposed development. Impact on Utilities We have compared the proposed land use to that which would be permitted by the current land use and zoning plans. The proposed land use would have a reduced impact on sanitary sewer and water systems. Included with this submittal is a map showing the location of the proposed development within the City and-a photocopy of the Hazelwood Neighborhood Land Use Plan from 'the City's adopted comprehensive plan showing this site as R-3(M) land use. 15 REZONIN~ ~mpact of Re-Zoninq on Public Welfar,-~ Traffic: The proposed use would result in a higher total traffic count than would result from a townhouse development. However, that traffic would have concentrations during the morning and afternoon peak with the balance of the traffic being spread, more or less, uniformly throughout the business day. It is anticipated that traffic generation from this site would be extremely light during evenings and weekends. Based on our review of the Site Traffic Impact Report prepared for the Maplewood Retail Development, it is our opinion that the traffic generated by this site will have negligible impacts on llth Avenue and White Bear Avenue. Safety and Fire: The proposed land use would have lower risk due to fire hazard than residential land uses since the buildings will have sprinkler -systems with adequate fire hydrants located within the site. The buildings will be adequately spaced to allow good access around the buildings. Light and Open Space: The site design provides generous separations between the various buildings. The site features a well landscaped site which will promote open space. The buildings will all be single story with hip roofs which will provide adequate light. Due to the increased separation between buildings, there will be windows on all sides of all of the buildings to further enhance interior light. Avoiding Over-Crowding: The site has increased separation between the various buildings. Also, most of the buildings are set-back a considerable distance from Ariel Street. The buildings are further separated significantly from the existing buildings within the Maplewood Retail Development by both, horizontal separation exceeding feet, and a vertical separation in which this site is set approximately 20 feet above the retail center. This design will result in a general feeling of openness and space. Conserving Property Values: This development will conserve property values by virtue of its high quality site design, landscaping and architectural design of the buildings. Property values will be further enhanced because the developer intends to retain ownership of the property which 16 will result in higher quality initial construction and improved long term site and building maintenance. In our opinion, the proposed rezoning will enhance the values of the adjacent properties. Impacts o~ the Character of the Neiqhborhood: The neighborhood includes a high density retail development to the west, Highway 36 to the south and high density residential to the east. A stormwater pond is located to the north. The proposed project provides a high quality and appropriate transition use between the high density retail development to the west and the high density residential development to the east. ImDac~ of Re-Zonin~ on Municipal F~ci~ities: The existing municipal facilities including streets, sanitary sewers, watermains, schools and parks are adequate to support the proposed re-zoning. Streets include Ariel Street on the east which will provide direct access to the site. STH 36 is a principal arterial through Maplewood. There is an off-ramp from STH 36 to Ariel Street which will provide access, llth Avenue is a collector street and White Bear Avenue is a minor arterial. All of these streets will provide excellent access to the site and will allow traffic to function well. Sewer and watermains are adequate to provide service for this development.' The sanitary sewer and watermains in Ariel Street are facilities of the City of North Saint Paul. We have had conversations with North Saint Paul's staff in which they have indicated their willingness to provide service to this development through these facilities. The proposed land use would place less demand on the sewer and water facilities than the existing townhouse zoning. There would be no impact on schools from the proposed office development. In fact, this would result in an increase tax base with a reduction of demand on the schools and park system as compared to the townhome zoning. A copy of a portion of the City Zoning Map showing the area is enclosed. ,.. 17 Ramsey-Washington Metro Attachment 7 District t902 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 (612) 777-3665 April 10th, 1996 Tom Ekstrand Maplewood Community Development City of Maplewood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 fax (612) 777-6307 Re: Heather Ridge Dear Mr. Ekstrand, Thank you for submitting the preliminary plans for the above referenced project. The District has some serious concerns regarding this development. Our formost concern is for the stability of the slope on the west side of the site. When the District approved the grading of the entire site, this steep slope was allowed only with the condition that no water from on top of the hill be allowed to drain down the slope. The plans for Heather Ridge show several of the buildings being built right into the side of the slope with the rooftop drainage going down the slope. The District's permit will require that the plans be revised so that no water is directed onto the slope. The District also required that no overflow of water could go down the slope. The proposed plans need to be modified slightly to ensure that the parking lot overtops into the street instead of down the slope. A small berm must be constructed just to the noah of the northern entrance drive. Another concern related to the buildings in the side of the slope is that the soil on the slope will be exposed during construction. The District's permit will require that the soil on the slope be covered at all times during construction. The District is also concerned about the stockpiling of soil that will occur when the building foundations are excavated. Stock piles should not be allowed adjacent to the slope. Please contact me at 777-3665 if you have any questyions regarding this matter. Thank You, District Technician 18 LAND USE PLAN CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Gary T. Mulcahy applied for a change to the city's land use plan from R-3(M), multiple dwelling residential (medium density) to BC(M), business commercial (modified). WHEREAS, this change applies to the property located on the northwest corner of Highway 36 and Adel Street. The legal description is: OUTLOT A, MAPLEWOOD RETAIL ADDITION WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. On May 21, 1996, 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 ,1996, 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. It would be consistent with the comprehensive plan's goals and policies. 2. The BC(M) land use classification would be a better transition than the R-3(M) classification between the heavier-commercial BC (business commercial) classification to the west and the multiple-dwellings to the east. 3. The BC(M) classification would be compatible with the adjacent commercial development to the east, ,.. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on ,1996. ZONING MAP CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Gary T. Mulcahy applied for a change in the zoning map from R-3, multiple dwelling residential to BC(M), business commercial (modified). WHEREAS, this change applies to the property at the northwest comer of Highway 36 and Ariel Street. The legal description is: OUTLOT A, MAPLEWOOD RETAIL ADDITION WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. On May 21, 1996, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve the change. On __, 1996, 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. 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. 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. BC(M) zoning would be a better transition than R-3 zoning between the heavier- commercial BC (business commercial) zoning to the west and the multiple dwellings to · the east. 6. BC(M) zoning would be compatible with the adjacent commercial development to the east. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on _,1996 20 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Gary T. Mulcahy applied for a conditional use permit to construct an office development on property designated as an outlot. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at the northwest corner of Highway 36 and Ariel Street. The legal description is: OUTLOT A, MAPLEWOOD RETAIL ADDITION WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On May 21, 1996, the planning commission recommended that the city council this permit. The city cOuncil held a public hearing on ,1996. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described conditional use permit, because: 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. 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 run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 23. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. 10. The use meets the minimum size and frontage requirements provided for in the ordinance. 11. The use has the requisite public improvements. 12. The permitted density under this code has not been transferred to another parcel and is, therefore, sufficient to accommodate the proposed construction. 13. The outlot is not to be used for permanent common open space. 14. The proposed construction can overcome or accommodate topographical problems and · peculiar site characteristics. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on m, 1996. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: PROJECT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Preliminary Plat Castle Avenue, east of .White Bear Avenue North Glen Fourth Addition May 1, 1996 INTRODUCTION Project Description Mr. Marlo Cocchiarella, representing Maplewood Development, Inc., is proposing to develop lots for four homes. The project's name is North Glen Fourth Addition. This plat would be on a 2.22- acre site south of Castle Avenue, east of White Bear Avenue. (See the maps on pages 7-9.) Requests To develop this site, Mr. Cocchiarella is requesting that.the city approve: 1. A preliminary plat for four lots. (See the proposed preliminary plat on page 9.) 2. Increased front setbacks for the houses on Lots 1-4. The developer is showing front setbacks on the proposed grading plan (page 10) of 50 feet for these lots. BACKGROUND On September 24, 1990, the city council made several approvals for the North Glen Third Addition. These included approving the concurrent annexation/detachment, the vacation of Ariel Street north of Cope Avenue and the preliminary plat. On November 15, 1990, the council approved the North Glen Third Addition final plat. This plat created seven lots for houses and three outlots for future development on ~Castle Avenue. On March 25, 1996, the council denied a zoning map change (to R-1S) and a preliminary plat for five house lots for this site. DISCUSSION Open Space and Parks The Maplewood Open Space Committee called this property Site 131. They ranked this site 49th out of the 66 they rated and second out of the four they rated in this neighborhood. Maplewood has not included this site in its park or open space acquisition plans. Some neighbors prefer to keep this property for open space or a park. The city would have to buy this property to keep it as open space. Another concern of some neighbors was the amount of park land available in the area. They feel there is a need for additional park land. Preliminary Plat Density and Lot Size As proposed, the lot sizes would range from 20,432 square feet to 27,900 square feet with an average lot size of 24,503 square feet. The average lot size is larger than many lots on Cope Avenue and Ariel Street. These range in size from 10,125-19,600 square feet. The city code requires at least 10,000 square feet above a drainage easement and 75 feet of width in the R-1 (single-dwelling residential) zone. All of the proposed lots meet or exceed these standards. Sanitary Sewer and Water To serve this property, the developer is proposing to extend the sanitary sewer and water from Ariel Court to the site. (See the utility plan on page 11.) He is proposing to have the sanitary sewer and water in a common trench and easement between the houses on Ariel Court. North Saint Paul wants the developer to loop the water main from Ariel Court north to Castle Avenue east to Seventh Street. If North Saint Paul requires this loop, the developer also will need to extend the water main to the west to serve the lots in Maplewood. The proposed sanitary sewer would be in an easement in the rear yards of the home sites. This sewer would connect to the North Saint Paul sewer in Ariel Court. Maplewood should require the developer to have the utility plans approved by the North Saint Paul City Engineer before the Maplewood City Engineer approves them. Increased Front Setbacka The proposed grading plan (page 10) shows front setbacks of 50 feet for the houses on Lots 1-4. They are proposing the increased setbacks because of the highway and the depth of the lots. Moving the houses back from Castle Avenue will allow the houses to be farther from the highway. These proposed setbacks would meet the city's standards for larger front yards. This is because the proposed house sites would not affect the drainage or the privacy of the adjacent homes. These lots range from 216 to 319 feet deep. RECOMMENDATIONS Ao Approve the North Glen Fourth Addition preliminary plat (received by the city on April 22, 1996). 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: : a. 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. c. Pay the city for the cost of any traffic-control and street-identification signs. d. Provide all necessary easements. 2 The developer shall complete all grading for public improvements and overall site drainage. The city engineer shall include in the developer's agreement any grading that the developer or contractor has not completed before final plat approval. Have the city engineer approve final construction and engineering plans. These plans shall include: grading, utility, drainage, erosion control, tree, and street plans. The plans shall meet the following conditions: a. The erosion control plans shall be consistent with the city code. b. The grading plan shall: (1) Include proposed building pad elevation and contour information for each home. (2) Show sedimentation basins as required by the watershed board. (3) Show housing styles that reduce the grading on sites where the developer can save large trees. c. Provide a tree plan for the city engineer's approval before grading or final plat approval. This plan shall show where the developer will remove, save or replace large trees. This plan also must show the size, species and location of any trees that the developer will plant as replacement trees. All trees that the developer will plant shall be at least 2 1/2 inches in diameter. There shall be no tree removal beyond the approved grading and tree limits. d. The city engineer shall not approve the utility plans until after the North Saint Paul Engineer approves the plans. 4. Change the plat as follows: a. Add drainage and utility easements as required by the city engineer. b. Show drainage and utility easements along all property lines on the final plat. These easements shall be ten feet wide along the front and rear property lines and five feet wide along the side property lines. 5.* Provide all easements required by the city engineer. These shall include any drainage easements for the off-site drainage areas that this project would affect. 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. Bo *The developer must complete these conditions before the city issues a grading permit or approves the final plat. Approve front setbacks of 50 feet for Lots 1-4, North Glen Fourth Addition. CITIZEN COMMENTS We asked the nearby property owners for their opinion of the original North Glen Fourth Addition proposal (with five lots). We sent surveys to the property owners within 350 feet of the site. Out of 39 properties, we received 18 replies. 13 were for the requests, 3 were against, 1 had comments and 1 had no comment. Those for the requests had the following comments: 1. It will help the value and development of my area. (Anderson - 1965 Cope Avenue) 2. I am for this as long as Cope Avenue is not opened and made s through street from White Bear Avenue. (Hofacker - 1974 Cope Avenue) 3. Single-family homes on lots beats anything else you could put there. (Backer - 1986 Cope Avenue) 4. If the homes are comparable to the surrounding homes. (Hurt - 1994 Cope Avenue) 5. We do not want apartments going in or a warehouse! I am concerned about the developer though, as he caused us in the cul-de-sac to have liens on our homes. If it is for houses, we are for it. (Smith - 2284 Adel Court) I would rather have private homes than apartments or businesses in that area. (Kiffe - 2290 Adel Court) 7. I would rather see homes located there than commercial property. (McLeod - 2284 Jennifer Lane) 8. I would like to see single-family homes on this piece of property instead of a business or apartments. (Plan - 2303 7th Street) 9. We would rather see residential than commercial. (Coldwell - 2315 7th Street) 10. I would rather see it as residential rather than commercial/business. (l'~ellquist - 2321 7th Street) 11. It would be compatible with the homes to the south and east. The only alternative is more M-1 land. (Hillcrest Development - Minneapolis) Those against the requests had the following comments: This would displace a lot of wildlife we have living in the area. We like the open field. A park would be nice - there are a lot of children in the area. (Maiwurm - 1968 Cope Avenue) We already lost s home to the City of North Saint Paul and we do not want it to happen to our new neighbors. We chose our new home because of all the woods behind us and we enjoy the wildlife and birds. The property should be left alone, the woods left intact, so we can continue to enjoy Mother Nature. There is too much development as it is and houses are being built too close together. Young families with children need space to grow, to learn about nature and to share it with their children. Do not take that from them. (Henderson - 2283 Ariel Court) We would like to see a natural barrier between the houses here and the highway. Sell it to the county and leave the property as a natural open space area. If this Marlo is the same guy that developed our properties here, be careful. We all had liens placed on our properties because he failed to pay for curb and gutter work that was done. Because of this, some of us had trouble refinancing. If I had not done the leg work myself with the attorneys, I would not have been able to refinance and get a better interest rate. The lot also looks like a very Iow place to build on. How is this going to effect our properties? If they level everything before they build, what happens to ali the nice trees and shrubbery? All of us here would like to see it left a natural area. (Kaup - 2289 Ariel Court) We also received the following comments: We are OK with the project if you can get the occupants of the yellow house (in North Saint Paul) to clean it up. If not, we would let prospective buyers know about the problems that may make them think twice about living there. What will happen to the drainage ravine behind our property? It is the drainage for the area in question - will the contractor fill it in? (Swanson - 2296 Ariel Court) 5 REFERENCE SITE DESCRIPTION Gross Area: Proposed Density: Existing land use: 2.25 acres 1.78 homes per acre Undeveloped SURROUNDING LAND USES North: East: South: West: Highway 36 north of Castle Avenue Single dwellings in North Saint Paul Water tower and single dwellings Undeveloped property that the city has planned and zoned M-1 (light manufacturing) PLANNING The existing R-1 (single dwellings) land use designation is for Iow density residential land uses like single dwellings. TREES There is a mix of trees on the site. These range from scrub shrubs and trees to large oak trees. Most of the large trees are in North Saint Paul. The city should require a tree plan before the developer grades the site. 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 Distdct recommends that the developer get specific soils data before developing the site. p:sec11/nglen4-2.mem Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Une/Zoning Map 3. Proposed North Glen Fourth Addition Preliminary Plat 4. Proposed Grading and Drainage Plan 5. Proposed Utility Plan 6. Project Plans (separate attachment) 6 Attachment 1 DEMONT z z LARK AVE. _,, O' 1700' 340~ AVE. ,~, AVE. ROSEWOOD AVE. N. ALD :~ CH A,R£",,~ ~ AVE. $. SCA RAMSE¥ COUN~rY ~~s,~c, ,~o~,~ ^'~.~ NORTH SAINT C~D~,CH HOLL~'AY GOLF COURSE RIPLE'Y AVE. KINGSTON pmtC£ AVE. l LOCATION MAP MC. KNIGHT LN LARPENTEUR N Attachment 2 HE HOME DEPOT ............. , .,~G.WAV 3e D RI-V~ ....... . _~i.~ ~ ~-'..~_;~ CASTLE AVENUE ................'* - ~1937 WATER Z 16~.l& ROAD 13 (sz) lo i5 SITE PROPERTY LINE 8 ! ZONING MAP N Attachment 3 T'flqCAL ELM1'. DLrTA~L EXIRTINO IIGAL O~SCRI~TION - PARCEL A Alii) B ~ ~ ~ ~,~T~'=~'--' ~-: :T~-~..F~,.,, ~OIEO ~GAL NSC~T~ - PARCEL A LOT A~ A~A TAD~ATWN - PANGIL A A~ EXISTING LEGAL HSCRNITION · LOTS I- 4 PROPOiEO LEGAL NSCRIPTIOfl - LOTI I - 4 LOT ANO AREA TABULATION - LOTS I -4 II F PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT N Attachment 4 V~l APR 2'Z ~' ,...,,,., ,.,,,,,.,. ,~, llAPLEWOOD DEVELOPMENT PnlUilltAnY GRADING · DIIAMAM PLAN I~l) Mi-~O) ~M..~d-mll ~T£: F£BRUAR'Y. 1996 $.la.I. PROJECT NO. 61302-1~)0 ,~HE:ET 2 CF 3 SHEETS GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN 10 Attachment 5 L - '~'~' · "'""~"' '~ MAPLEWOOD DEVELO PRELIMINARY UTILJ'TY PI.AN L UTILITY PLAN ll TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager James Ericson, Planning Intern Tax-Forfeited Properties April 29, 1996 INTRODUCTION City staff is recommending that Maplewood acquire use deeds for three tax-forfeited properties. The first property is behind the house at 2508 Keller Parkway, the second fronts Stillwater Road south of Silver Ridge Apartments, and the third is on the southeast corner of Minnehaha Avenue and Carlton Street. (See the maps on pages 3 through 9.) If the city does not apply for a use deed, the county will try to sell each of these properties. A use deed would cost the city about $24 for each property, plus lost assessments. BACKGROUND On August 31, 1995, the former owners of these properties forfeited them because they did not pay the real estate taxes. DISCUSSION Site One Site one is a land-locked, .47 acre lot covered primarily by wetland. The director of public works said that the city should acquire this property for ponding and drainage purposes. If the city does not acquire this lot, the county would try to sell it. It is 137 feet wide by 150 feet deep (20,550 square feet). The adjacent property owner to the west on K,,.eller Parkway might be interested in purchasing this parcel to increase back yard area. Acquiring this lot has a disadvantagc the city would not collect $786.42 in assessments against the lot. Site Two Site two is a 2.32 acre rectangular parcel with an eastern diagonal defined by Stillwater Road, on which the parcel fronts. Maplewood has zoned this site R-1 (Single dwellings). The director of public works said that the city should acquire Parcel Two for drainage and ponding. If the city does not acquire this property, the county would try to sell it. This parcel is a buildable lot; It is 101,059 square feet in area, almost half of which is covered by a drainage easement at the rear of the property. More than one acre would be available for a single- family home. Acquiring this lot has a disadvantage--the city would not collect $19,421.81 in assessments against this lot. Site Three The third site identified by the director of public works for acquisition is three adjacent lots fronting Minnehaha Avenue between Carlton Street and Ferndale Street. This area is covered almost in its entirety by Iow ground and wetlands. The city would use it for drainage and ponding purposes. If the city does not acquire this property, the county would try to sell it. The total area of the · three lots is 82,245 square feet, almost all of which is Iow ground and wetland. Acquiring this lot has a disadvantage---the city would not collect $2,389.32 in assessments against this lot. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Adopt the resolution on page 10. This resolution requests that the county convey Site One to the city for drainage and ponding purposes. B. Adopt the resolution on page 11. This resolution requests that the county convey Site Two to the city for drainage and ponding purposes. C. Adopt the resolution on page 12. This resolution requests that the county convey Site Three to the city for drainage and ponding purposes. p:sec11/usedeed1.mem Attachments: 1. Location Maps 2. Land Use Maps 3. Property Line/Zoning Maps 4. Resolution--Site One 5. Resolution--Site Two 6. Resolution--Site Three 7. Property Line/Zoning Map = site Three 8. Resolution--Site One 9. ResolltionmSite Two 10. Resolution Attachment 1 Gervie Lake PLAZA ALVARADO DR BELLECR£ST DR DEACN1LLE DR MERIDIAN DR t~J PALM CT. AVE.' Kohfmon COUNTY CT. AVl~ KOHLMAN ROAD GERvAtS CT. ~'~ LOCATION MAP SITE NUMBER ONE BE REVISED 10/29/93 1/19/95 7-20-95 4-29-96 County Roi. Little Canada Vadnais Heights 694 pri~:cil:)al arterial Attachment 2 interchange minor collector minor collector Ave. Rd. C R-3(M)? OS collector Gervais Highway 36 4 Attachment 3 2514 ~) ~ ' 2508 = 2500 ' I tt , 16 CONNOR 882 m ti'~iiodd-m m m m ~NE / 2.1 I, OPEN SPACE II IO ~) ('~ 3 DEMONT,~ ~n ~ ZONING SITE NUMBER ONE SITE 5 I0.00 MAP N SITE TWO z BRAND .L LA. AVE ST. z i,4iN N E HAHA Attachment 4 &l ~1~t HAWTHORNE AVE :$TER AVE BRA~D AVE. E. 7th ST. SITE THREE CONWAY · ..,.J ['--'~ 20g LOCATION SITE NUMBERS TWO AND THREE / 6 Attachment 5 · REVISED 10/19/94 Site Two BC(I BC R-3(M) M.1 M-2 terchange CEM ivy Ave. R-2 ~ R-3(H) 'land Ave. Rd. ~ BC ) Harvester Ave. Site Three ,Minnehaha Ave. LBC ~ve. erchange 1-94 SITE NUMBERS TWO AND THREE Attachment 6 ~ III , "~ (~.~,~-'~ . II! ~,~ ~ A -~ SILVER RIDGE ., -.~ . . . ,, ~c ~-~ ' ~ ' ' ~ ~.m~:':':'" .:.:..:..- ~~:k<:::: ~: ~ :~: ~ ~: ~1:::::: :~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / I . __ .,::~::::::,~ ................ ~ ............................... . ' ~o .~ ,' ::::%:T:::: ::::::::::::::::::::::: ..... ':::;:.:.:~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: T.~~ ~::. ........ - ~~ ~ .............. · . ........................... ~ ................................ ~, 2338 : ~ ............. . :???????[:~?[[[[[[[[[[[::~ ~[. ~ -) ' ~ :~:~::::..' .: ::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::.' ~. / ~ , ~ 834 ~_' ............ ::::::::::::::::::::::: ........................... Dy' ...................... ...... ...... ~= 830-- I x ;~// ~~ ' ,~ _ ,o /' ~l~ ~t® ~ m I ~',~ '1_ '.1 - '~ - ,~ j J- -~ - ~ ~~.' i .~ '- __ ~,, : ~ ~ , _ ~'-, I ~ I ./., ~'~-.~ PROPERTY LINE / ZONING MAP SITE NUMBER TWO N 8 Attachment 7 ~'~ 6o CEMETERY 2546 2550 SITE NUMBER THREE N SITE Attachment RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION FOR CONVEYANCE OF A TAX-FORFEITED PARCEL WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood has decided that the city needs the following-described tax-forfeited land for drainage and ponding purposes: N 150 FT OF S 1198 92/100 FT OF E 137 FT MOL OF W417 FT MEASURED DUE E AND W OF PART OF PART OF SW 1/4 OF NW 1/4 E OF KELLER PKWY IN SEC 9 TN 29 RN 22 (PIN # 09-29-22-23-0011-9). WHEREAS, the wetland on the property makes development of the site difficult. WHEREAS, the lot is land-locked, further limiting development potential. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the city council authorizes the Director of Community Development to apply for a use deed for said tax-forfeited land for drainage and ponding. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,1996. 3.0 Attachment RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION FOR CONVEYANCE OF A TAX-FORFEITED PARCEL WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood has decided that the city needs the following-described tax-forfeited land for drainage and ponding purposes: LOT 4 OF AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 77 ST. PAUL, MINN. EX W 256 FT; SUBJ TO ROAD & ESMTS (PIN # 25-29-22-33-0072-3). WHEREAS, Maplewood needs more open space in this part of this city. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the city council authorizes the Director of Community Development to apply for a use deed for said tax-forfeited land for drainage, ponding and open space. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,1996. 11 Attachment 10 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION FOR CONVEYANCE OF A TAX-FORFEITED PARCEL WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood has decided that the city needs the following-described tax-forfeited land for drainage and ponding purposes: LOTS I THRU 3, BLOCK 1 OF MINTY ACRES, SUBJ TO ESMTS (PIN #s 36-29-22-12-0002-5, 36-29-22-12-0003-8, & 36-29-22-12-0004-1 ). WHEREAS, the wetland on these properties makes development of the site difficult. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the city council authorizes the Director of Community Development to apply for a use deed for said tax-forfeited land for drainage, ponding and open space. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,1996. 12 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Livable Communities Act - Housing Action Plan May 15, 1996 INTRODUCTION As a city participating in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act, the Metropolitan Council requires Maplewood to adopt a Housing Action Plan. This action plan is to show how the city will meet the housing goals and benchmarks that Maplewood negotiated with the Metropolitan Council. BACKGROUND On November 13, 1995, the Maplewood City Council adopted a resolution to participate in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act. On December 18, 1995, the city council adopted the housing goals agreement and benchmarks for Maplewood. The city council adopted these with the understanding that the city will make its best efforts to meet or exceed the established housing benchmarks. DISCUSSION As I noted above, the action plan is to show how Maplewood will try to meet or exceed the affordable housing benchmarks for the city. The attached plan has the housing goals, policies and activities for the next 15 years in Maplewood. It also has a section on the housing programs and activities in the city, including who is responsible for each and funding possibilities for each activity. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the 1996 Maplewood Housing Action Plan. krlp:miscell/Ica.wpd Attachment: 1996 Housing Action Plan LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT 1996 MAPLEWOOD HOUSING ACTION PLAN Introduction On November 13, 1995, the Maplewood City Council adopted a resolution to participate in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act. This act requires the participating communities to adopt housing agreements and to set an action plan for housing activities. The purpose of this action plan is to list the key elements that affect housing in Maplewood. These include city housing goals and policies, the period of the action plan, a discussion of the activities that the city will use to carry out the goals and policies, and the authority and delivery mechanisms for the housing programs in Maplewood. A major focus of the Livable Communities Act is to promote the development and preservation of affordable and life-cycle housing throughout the metropolitan area. The Metropolitan Council considers affordable housing to be housing that costs no more than 30 percent of a family's income. In 1996, an owner-occupied housing unit could cost up to $115,000 for the Metropolitan Council to consider it affordable. For rental properties to be affordable in 1996, they could have a maximum rent of $638 per month. Timeframe This action plan covers housing activities in Maplewood for the next year through the year 2010. These include housing policies and actions by the city, other government agencies and, to a smaller degree, private market forces. The city expects to review and update specific housing issues on an as-needed basis and the whole action plan at least once every five years. 2 Housing Goals, Policies and Activities GENERAL HOUSING GOALS Maplewood supports the following general housing goals: - Having a balanced housing supply, with housing available for people at all income levels. The accommodation of all racial and ethnic groups in the purchase, sale, rental and location of housing in the city. A variety of housing types for ownership and rental for people in all stages of the life- cycle. A community of well-maintained housing and neighborhoods, including ownership and rental housing. Housing development that respects the natural environment of the city while stdving to meet the need for a variety of housing types and costs. The availability of a full range of services and facilities for its residents, and the improvement of access to and linkage between housing and employment. Adding to and preserving the affordable housing in the city. Maplewood will make its best effort, given market conditions and resource availability, to maintain a city-housing index within the benchmark ranges for affordability, life-cycle and density. Specifically, the city will strive to meet the following housing benchmarks: - At least 69 percent of ownership and 35 percent of the rental housing as affordable. - At least 29 percent of the housing as units other than single-famil._y detached. - An owner/renter housing mix of 76 percent owner occupied and 24 percent occupied by renters. - Have single-family detached houses with a density of 2 units per acre and multifamily housing with an average density of at least 10 units per acre. HOUSING AFFORDABILITY Housing costs continue to rise throughout the region because of a variety of reasons. These include increasing land and construction costs, utilities and taxes; declines in government aid programs; and, indirectly, land use regulations. These cost increases greatly affect Iow-and moderate-income households. Changes in mortgage interest rates also affect the affordability of housing. 3 The Metropolitan Council set a goal that at least 69 percent of the ownership housing and at least 35 percent of the rental housing in Maplewood should be affordable. As of 1995, the city was exceeding both minimum benchmarks. The city will continue to try to meet or exceed these goals with the following policies and activities: The city, through its Housing and Redevelopment Authority, will explore all avenues for financing affordable housing, including: - Use of tax-exempt and tax-increment financing. Programs, including grants, loans and federal tax credits, for housing assistance, development and rehabilitation. The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency has the following programs: Minnesota Mortgage Program Homeownership Assistance Fund Purchase Plus Program Partnership for Affordable Housing Entry Cost Homeownership Program (ECHO) Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program New Construction Tax Credit Mortgage/Builders Loans Low and Moderate Income Rental Program Deferred Loan Program Revolving Loan Program Groat Minnesota Fix-Up Fund Mortgage Revenue Bonds Mortgage Credit Certificates (MCC's) - Programs available through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. These include: Section 8 Rental Vouchers and Certificates Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME) Section 202 - eldedy Section 811 - handicapped Programs available through the Metropolitan Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Community Development Block Grants and other programs through Ramsey County. Maplewood already participates in several of the above-listed programs with the other government agencies and with developers. The city will promote energy efficient improvements in all types of housing units to help keep them affordable. Maplewood will provide information and, when available, financial help for both owner-occupied and rental units. 4 HOUSING DIVERSITY Most of the housing in Maplewood is single-family homes. The city will continue to work toward having a wider variety of housing types with the following general policy: Promote a variety of housing types, costs and ownership options throughout Maplewood. These are to meet the life-cycle needs of all income levels, those with special needs and nontraditional households. The city also adopts the following housing diversity policies and activities: Maplewood will continue to provide dispersed locations for a diversity of housing styles, types and price ranges through its land use plan. The city will make efforts to plan and provide for the housing and service needs of the elderly and disabled. Maplewood will encourage development of housing and services that meet the needs of nontraditional households. The city will regularly review and, as necessary, change its zoning and subdivision regulations, building codes, design standards and approval process. This is to assure that these regulations and standards are flexible enough to allow a variety of housing options and to help lessen the cost of residential development and redevelopment. Such issues and regulations that Maplewood will review include: - The amount of undeveloped or underused land that the city has planned or zoned for medium or high density residential development. - Planned unit development (PUD), mixed-use and cluster development ordinances that include residential density bonuses. - The flexibility to use zero lot line development. - Minimum unit size or floor areas. - Garage and off-street parking requirements (especially for seniors). - The use of private streets in developments. - Minimum right-of-way, pavement widths and standards for streets. - Allowing accessory or mother/father-in-law apartments. NEIGHBORHOOD QUALITY It is important to assure that the efforts to provide life-cycle housing are accomplished so that it is as compatible as practical with the character of existing neighborhoods and so it respects the environment. It also is important to prevent housing in older neighborhoods from deteriorating. Much of the housing in older neighborhoods was built before Maplewood became a village. As such, it was built when building codes were not in place. There also are deteriorating housing units scattered throughout the city. In the future, these units may become less attractive to home buyers, thus depreciating housing values. To address these concerns, the city adopts the following policies: · Plan and design new housing to: - Protect existing housing, natural features, and neighborhood identity and quality. - Assure there are adequate utilities and community facilities. Maintain or strengthen the character of established neighborhoods and assure that all housing units are safe, sanitary, secure and free from blight. Maplewood also adopts the following neighborhood quality policies and activities: The city will work to protect the integrity and long-term viability of residential neighborhoods and reduce potential negative effects of commercial or industrial land uses through zoning, site plan review and code enforcement. Maplewood will require and enforce high design and maintenance standards for multifamily residential development. Design standards will include provisions about building massing, architectural design, off-street parking ratios and location, access, traffic impacts, landscaping, fencing or screening, and trash handling. · The city will allow affordable housing in any location suitable for residential uses. Maplewood will assure that development respects the natural environment to the maximum practical extent. The city will continue to use its shoreland, floodplain and environmental protection ordinances to assure protection of lakes, streams, ponds, wetlands, steep slopes and woodlots. Maplewood will continue to encourage the maintenance of its housing through its housing maintenance codes. The city's truth-in-housing program also should encourage housing maintenance. The city, through its Housing and Redevelopment Authority, will participate in programs to help property owners with home maintenance and improvements through loans and, if available, grants. 6 4. Housing Authority and Providers Action Explore all options for financing affordable housing Continue to provide rent assistance to needy households Provide information and assistance to encourage energy efficiency improvements Provide dispersed locations for variety of housing types, styles, prices Review and update codes that affect housing Provide for the housing and sen/ice needs of the elderly and disabled Provide housing and services to meet the needs of non-traditional households Protect integrity of, and prevent deterioration in, exis~ng neighborhoods Encourage high design and maintenance standards for multi- family housing Responsibility HRA, Dir of CD HRA, Dir of CD, CC HR.A, Dir of CD PC, CC PC, CC, HRA Dir of CD HRA, PC, CC HRA, CC PC, Dir of CD, HRA PC, CC, Dir of CD, CDRB Timin.q Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Fundin.q CDBG, TIF, EFB, MHFA, other local, state, and federal programs Section 8 Program, other state and federal programs State and federal programs None None State and federal programs State and federal programs None None Coordinate with Land Use Plan, Metro HRA Metro HRA Metro HRA Land Use Plan Land Use Plan Metro HRA, Land Use Plan Land Use Plan Land Use Plan 7 Action Assure that new development is compatible with, and sensitive to, the environment Continue to review and enforce housing maintenance code Participate in rehabilitation, and grant programs Develop programs to help first-time home buyers Responsibility Timin!:l Fundin.q PC, CC, Ongoing None Dir of CD HRA, Dir of CD Ongoing HRA, Dir of CD Ongoing HRA, CC Ongoing GF CDBG. State of Minnesota GF Coordinate with Land Use Plan, RW, SC, DNR, Metro HRA, Ramsey County MHFA, Metro HRA ABBREVIATIONS: HRA = Maplewood Housing and Redevelopment Authority PC = Planning Commission CC = City Council Dir of CD = Director of Community Development CDBG = Community Development Block Grant Funds (federal) TIF = Tax increment financing EBF -- Essential bond financing GF = General fund MHFA = Minnesota Housing Finance Agency METRO HRA = Metropolitan Housing and Redevelopment Authority RW = Ramsey Washington Watershed District SC = Soil Conservation Distdct DNR = Minnesota Department of Natural Resources CE = Army Corps of Engineers CDRB = Community Design Review Board